Tag: middle-east

Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?

The September 11th attacks shocked the world, but the question of why they happened — and whether they could have been prevented — has complex answers. While it’s easy to reduce the tragedy to “terrorists hate America,” the reality is far more nuanced. U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East played a major role in creating the conditions of al-Qaeda’s attacks.

Osama bin Laden didn’t randomly choose the U.S. as a target. His motivations were explicitly tied to American actions in the Middle East such as:

U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia: After the Gulf War (1990-1991), the U.S. stationed forces in the kingdom that hosts Islam’s two holiest sites. Bin Laden called this “the greatest of calamities” and used it to rally followers.

Support for Israel: U.S. financial and military support for Israel, especially during the Palestinian intifadas, was repeatedly cited in al-Qaeda statements.

Sanctions and bombings in Iraq: The 1990s saw widespread suffering from U.S.-led sanctions and military actions, which bin Laden highlighted as crimes against Muslims.

Backing authoritarian regimes: Support for rulers in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere fed narratives of Western oppression.

Bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa called for expelling U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia. His 1998 fatwa, issued jointly with other jihadist leaders went further: it authorized attacks on Americans, including civilians, citing U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, sanctions and bombings in Iraq, and support for Israel.

Even after 9/11, he framed the attacks as a defensive retaliation against decades of U.S. policies harming Muslims.

Even American authorities and politicians recognized that foreign policy mattered.

The 9/11 Commission Report (2004): Directly linked al-Qaeda’s motivations to U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Middle East policies.

CIA analysts and intelligence officers repeatedly stated that bin Laden’s grievances were policy-driven, not about “hating American freedom.”

Political leaders such as Bill Clinton admitted troop presence enraged bin Laden, and even George W. Bush acknowledged the strategic challenge of stationing forces in Saudi Arabia.

Now, the question is “Could it have been prevented?” Experts highlight several ways different choices might have reduced the risk such as…

Moving U.S. forces out of Saudi Arabia sooner could have removed the most symbolic grievance. Reducing heavy-handed interventions, rethinking support for authoritarian regimes, and avoiding civilian harm could have undermined the al-Qaeda narrative.

Agencies had multiple warnings that something was going to happen but failed to connect the dots. Better sharing might have stopped the plot.

Targeting the financial and communications networks of extremist groups early could have reduced recruitment. And investments in education and development could have made al-Qaeda’s message less appealing to potential recruits.

Even small adjustments in U.S. policy and intelligence could have drastically lowered the likelihood of the attacks.

9/11 wasn’t simply an attack on American freedoms, it was a violent response to decades of U.S. actions in the Middle East. Understanding these connections isn’t about excusing terrorism; it’s about recognizing how foreign policy decisions have real-world consequences. By studying history, we can see how better choices might prevent future tragedies.

TL/DR: 9/11 wasn’t random. Al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. in response to American policies in the Middle East: troops in Saudi Arabia, support for Israel, sanctions and bombings in Iraq, and backing authoritarian regimes. Bin Laden’s fatwas explicitly cited these grievances. U.S. officials later acknowledged the connection. Better foreign policy, intelligent coordination, and limiting extremist networks might have prevented the attacks

Trump’s Iran War Talk Is Bush’s Iraq Invasion All Over Again

Donald Trump is at it again—saber-rattling about going to war with Iran. In recent speeches, he’s said things like, “We’re gonna have to hit Iran hard” and warned that Iran is “begging” for war. It’s the kind of talk that grabs headlines, fires up his base, and echoes the kind of imperial chest-beating that led us into Iraq in 2003.

If this feels familiar, it’s because we’ve seen this movie before. Trump is playing the same tired role George W. Bush did: the tough-talking cowboy standing up to the “axis of evil,” ready to bomb another country under the banner of “freedom” and “security.” But behind the performance lies the same playbook of distraction, destruction, and empire.

In the early 2000s, the Bush administration spent months building a case for invading Iraq—claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was connected to terrorism, and posed an existential threat to the U.S. None of it held up. But it didn’t matter. The invasion went forward, and the Middle East has been on fire ever since.

Now, with Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza drawing worldwide condemnation, the U.S. political class is eager to shift the narrative. And Iran—a longtime enemy and convenient scapegoat—is the perfect target. Trump’s recent comments aren’t just random bluster; they’re part of a larger strategy to re-center American power and to justify further U.S. entanglement in the region.

Bush lied about WMDs. Trump talks about Iranian “proxies.” Same trick, different jargon.

Yes, Iran supports armed groups in the region—so do we. The U.S. backs Israel’s military campaign with billions of dollars and weapons. Calling Iran the aggressor while ignoring our own role is imperial hypocrisy at its finest.

Just like Bush made Saddam into a caricature of evil to justify regime change, Trump is doing the same with Iran’s leadership. He paints them as irrational monsters, despite the fact that most of their actions have been responses to U.S. sanctions, assassinations, and Israeli airstrikes.

When presidents talk war, it’s rarely about what they say it is. For Bush, Iraq was about oil, military contracts, and reshaping the Middle East in America’s image. For Trump, war talk with Iran is a distraction from his legal problems, a way to appear “tough”, and a means of keeping the U.S. permanently tied to Israel’s military agenda.

Just like in 2003, the corporate media amplifies the danger without challenging the narrative. And just like then, liberals wring their hands but refuse to name the deeper problem: American imperialism and its bipartisan addiction to war.

Let’s not forget what war with Iran would mean. Iran isn’t Iraq. It’s bigger, more organized, and has powerful allies. A war would be catastrophic—not just for Iranians, but for the entire region. It would mean more dead civilians, more displaced families, more anti-American hatred, and another generation traumatized by endless war.

We’ve already seen what U.S. regime-change efforts do: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Each time, we’re told it’ll be quick, clean, and necessary. Each time, it ends in chaos.

Trump’s talk about war with Iran isn’t just dangerous—it’s a rerun of a bloody imperialist strategy that never ended. It’s Bush in 4K, with the same script and higher stakes.

If we want peace, we have to reject this cycle. That means opposing war no matter who’s selling it—Trump, Biden, or anyone else. And it means finally confronting the empire that keeps dragging us—and the world—into ruin.