Introduction

Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, 9/11 remains an active component of the information environment rather than solely a historical event. Russian-, Iranian-, and other adversary-aligned voices continue to reinterpret the attacks and the subsequent War on Terror to advance contemporary narratives about U.S. interventionism, hypocrisy, intelligence failures, and declining global power. These narratives connect the legacy of 9/11 to current issues including Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, terrorism designations, sanctions, and U.S. military activity.

This brief examines how U.S. adversaries are talking about 9/11 and the key themes shaping those narratives, as well as what their continued use of 9/11 means for narrative intelligence and open-source intelligence (OSINT). Analysis indicates that adversaries are primarily using 9/11 not to dispute the significance of the attacks themselves, but to reinterpret their aftermath and challenge the legitimacy of subsequent U.S. foreign and security policy. For narrative intelligence and OSINT, this demonstrates the importance of tracking how historical events and existing grievances are repackaged and connected to emerging geopolitical developments.

Key Findings 

1. Adversaries use 9/11 less to dispute the attacks themselves than to delegitimize the security order that followed.

Russian- and Iranian-aligned narratives largely shift attention away from the perpetrators or events of 9/11 and toward the subsequent U.S. response. By linking Afghanistan, Iraq, sanctions, regime change, and continued U.S. military presence into a single post-9/11 trajectory, these narratives recast the anniversary as evidence that counterterrorism became a mechanism for sustaining American power rather than a discrete response to al-Qaeda.

2. Adversaries use 9/11 to portray U.S. counterterrorism policy as hypocritical and claim her allies and partner nations have lost  trust in the U.S. 

Messaging contrasts the post-9/11 campaign against al-Qaeda with later U.S. relationships and terrorism designations, while conspiracy narratives and references to intelligence failures encourage distrust of U.S. institutions and security claims.

3. For narrative intelligence and OSINT, 9/11 demonstrates how historical events can be repurposed for contemporary influence.

 Analysts should track how established narratives migrate across actors, platforms, conflicts, and time rather than evaluating individual posts or claims in isolation.

Distorting the Legacy of 9/11

The War on Terror as a pretext for militarism.

One of the strongest narratives portrays the U.S. response to 9/11 as less about counterterrorism than expanding American military and political influence. Russian- and Iranian-aligned voices connect the attacks to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Iran to argue that Washington exploited terrorism to justify military deployments, regime change, sanctions, and intervention across the Middle East. Some messaging goes further by accusing the United States and its allies of subsequently supporting extremist organizations when those groups advanced Western geopolitical objectives.

EdgeWatch: Questions the strategic rationale behind U.S. military intervention following 9/11.

A September 2026 INTEL-DROP article frames the U.S. response to 9/11 as extending beyond counterterrorism, linking the attacks to the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The article argues that the invasion of Iraq produced broader regional consequences, particularly by strengthening Iranian influence, reinforcing a wider adversarial narrative that Washington used the post-9/11 security environment to pursue military intervention and geopolitical objectives.

Eroding credibility on counterterrorism. 

A related narrative argues that the United States selectively defines terrorism according to its strategic interests. Adversary-aligned commentators contrast the post-9/11 campaign against al-Qaeda with contemporary U.S. relationships and policies involving former or alleged extremist actors in Syria and terrorism designations applied to other organizations. The underlying message is that Washington does not consistently oppose terrorism but instead uses the designation to delegitimize adversaries and legitimize partners.

EdgeWatch narrative item portrays U.S. and Israeli counterterrorism policy as hypocritical.

The DotCom News opinion piece advances the claim that the United States and Israel selectively apply the label of terrorism based on their strategic interests. It argues that Iran is condemned for supporting armed groups while the United States and Israel have supported or cooperated with other militant actors. This narrative is significant because it appropriates U.S. counterterrorism language to portray Washington and its allies as perpetrators rather than opponents of terrorism. This reversal undermines the legitimacy of post-9/11 security policy and provides adversarial actors with a framework that can appeal to audiences already skeptical of Western military intervention.

X post sourced from EdgeWatch: It contrasts U.S. policy toward Syria with its stated opposition to terrorism.

This X post contrasts the rise of Syria’s new leadership with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s announcement that the United States rescinded Syria’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. By describing the development as “Al-Qaeda takes over Syria” alongside the removal of the designation, the post portrays U.S. policy as contradictory. The narrative gained notable traction, receiving approximately 55,600 views, 2,800 likes, and 819 reposts, demonstrating its ability to reach audiences beyond the original account. The post was amplified by Anya Parampil, a journalist associated with Geopolitics & Empire, who regularly publishes commentary critical of U.S. foreign policy. This amplification is significant because it places the Syria decision within a broader, recurring narrative that portrays U.S. counterterrorism designations as politically selective rather than consistently tied to terrorist activity.

EdgeWatch-sourced X post: Lavrov reframes the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s remarks amplify an adversarial narrative that the United States used 9/11 and counterterrorism to justify wider geopolitical objectives. Lavrov claims Washington had opportunities to eliminate Osama bin Laden earlier but instead maintained its military presence in Afghanistan for nearly two decades. The claim was subsequently amplified by Afghanistan International English, extending an official Russian narrative into a broader regional information environment. This repetition demonstrates how Russian officials continue to reinterpret the post-9/11 War on Terror as evidence of U.S. strategic opportunism, reinforcing a durable narrative that can be reactivated around contemporary U.S. military actions.

Distrust of U.S. institutions and the official 9/11 narrative. 

A smaller but significant collection of Russian-aligned and independent anti-Western commentators continues to amplify conspiracy narratives surrounding the attacks. Claims questioning the Pentagon attack or challenging U.S. descriptions of al-Qaeda figures are used to suggest that the official account of 9/11 is incomplete or deliberately deceptive. The strategic value extends beyond convincing audiences of a particular conspiracy: undermining confidence in the official account of 9/11 can also encourage skepticism toward subsequent U.S. intelligence assessments, counterterrorism claims, and military actions.

X post promotes conspiracy claims questioning the official account of the 9/11 Pentagon attack.

The X post claims that American Airlines Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon and uses archival news footage to suggest that a missile was responsible instead. By presenting unresolved “questions” as evidence against the official account, the post attempts to revive a longstanding 9/11 conspiracy narrative after 25 years. This messaging contributes to broader efforts to undermine trust in the U.S. government by portraying the accepted account of the attacks as incomplete or deliberately deceptive.

9/11 as evidence of American overreach and decline. 

Russian-aligned messaging particularly emphasizes the long-term strategic consequences of the U.S. response. The War on Terror is portrayed as producing costly wars, regional instability, and declining American credibility rather than greater security. This framing allows 9/11 to be incorporated into a broader Russian narrative that U.S. primacy is weakening and a multipolar international system is replacing American dominance.

Not all adversaries are using the anniversary in the same way. Iranian-aligned messaging directly connects 9/11 and the War on Terror to current U.S. policy toward Iran and Israel, while Russian-aligned narratives more heavily emphasize strategic failure, deception, and declining American power.

Iranian messaging invokes past U.S. intelligence failures to challenge American credibility.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warns against U.S. reliance on “fake intelligence” regarding the Strait of Hormuz, citing previous American intelligence failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. By invoking the intelligence used to justify post-9/11 military operations, the messaging connects current tensions with the legacy of the War on Terror. This framing portrays U.S. intelligence as unreliable and politically consequential, using past failures to undermine confidence in contemporary American security claims.

In contrast, Chinese messaging is more restrained, generally criticizing U.S. coercion and interventionism without prominently embracing 9/11 conspiracy narratives. 

EdgeWatch: Chinese messaging 

A China Focus article highlights Once Upon a Time in the Middle East, a Chinese film that portrays war through its disruption of ordinary life, family, and social stability. Rather than focusing directly on 9/11, the messaging reflects a broader Chinese narrative that associates U.S.-led military intervention with instability while presenting peace, coexistence, and development as alternatives to Western military power.

North Korean messaging similarly focuses on present-day U.S. military pressure rather than directly reinterpreting the attacks.

EdgeWatch sourced Telegram post on North Korean messaging. 

North Korean messaging rarely revisits the details of 9/11 directly, instead drawing on the broader post-9/11 security environment to justify its nuclear deterrent and resistance to U.S. pressure. Pyongyang portrays U.S. sanctions, human-rights criticism, and joint military exercises with South Korea and Japan as evidence of persistent threats to its sovereignty, while presenting nuclear weapons as an essential guarantee against foreign intervention and regime change. Unlike Russian or Iranian narratives that emphasize U.S. hypocrisy or alleged ulterior motives, North Korean messaging uses the legacy of the War on Terror primarily to legitimize military readiness, reject denuclearization, and argue that states cannot rely on U.S. security assurances.

What This Means for Narrative Intelligence and OSINT

The adversarial conversation surrounding 9/11 demonstrates that historical events remain active components of the modern information environment. Twenty-five years later, adversaries can reactivate the memory of 9/11 and connect it to Iran, Israel, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, sanctions, terrorism, or U.S. military deployments. The event therefore becomes a framework through which audiences are encouraged to interpret new U.S. actions.

This matters for narrative intelligence because influence campaigns do not necessarily depend on creating entirely new narratives. Existing grievances, conspiracy theories, historical controversies, and genuine policy failures can be repackaged around current events to reinforce broader perceptions of the United States as hypocritical, interventionist, deceptive, vulnerable, or declining. The dominant use of 9/11 observed is therefore less about commemorating the attacks than using their legacy to contest American legitimacy.

This also reinforces HPSCI's emphasis on professionalizing open-source intelligence collection and analysis. The Committee's 25-year review explicitly recommends strengthening OSINT capabilities as the Intelligence Community confronts a threat environment increasingly shaped by foreign influence and emerging technology. Effective OSINT collection should therefore look beyond isolated posts or false claims and identify how narratives migrate across actors, platforms, conflicts, and time.

The intelligence lesson of 9/11 was famously described as a “failure of imagination.” In 2026, that lesson extends into the information environment. Understanding adversaries requires monitoring not only the threats they develop, but also the narratives they construct around American vulnerabilities. As HPSCI warned in its review, the next strategic attack may not resemble September 11. Likewise, the information threats surrounding 9/11 no longer concern only al-Qaeda or terrorism: the event itself has become part of the narrative terrain on which state and non-state adversaries compete with the United States.

Conclusion

The continued use of 9/11 in adversarial messaging demonstrates the durability of major historical events within the information environment. The significance for intelligence analysts is not simply that false or hostile narratives persist, but that established narratives can be adapted to new geopolitical circumstances and used to shape how audiences interpret current U.S. actions. A narrative originating around Afghanistan or Iraq can later be applied to Syria, Iran, or another emerging conflict without requiring adversaries to construct a new influence framework.

For OSINT and narrative intelligence, this requires moving beyond monitoring individual claims toward identifying narrative continuity, adaptation, and migration. Analysts should track when historical narratives resurface, which actors amplify them, the contemporary events that trigger their reuse, and how they move across platforms and geopolitical issues. Twenty-five years after 9/11, the attacks illustrate why historical narratives should be treated as persistent indicators within the information environment rather than isolated reactions to anniversaries or commemorative events.