For nearly a quarter of a century, the world has been told
that Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national, and his al-Qaeda accomplices
masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Yet the Trump administration now appears to be
drawing Iran into that narrative by suggesting that the Islamic Republic’s
hostility toward America is somehow a continuation of the war launched after
9/11.
Hegseth reportedly said that the United States has fought an
Islamic theocracy that “cheered on 9/11.” Such a sweeping assertion demands
evidence. Hostility toward the United States is not evidence of responsibility
for an attack carried out by al-Qaeda. Nor does opposition to American foreign
policy establish Iranian involvement in 9/11.
For those born after 9/11, a reminder of history is
important. The United States imposed sanctions on Iran soon after the 1979
Islamic Revolution and subsequently supported Iraq during its nearly eight-year
war against Iran. For decades, Washington maintained pressure on Tehran through
sanctions, diplomatic isolation and military deployments, while Israel
repeatedly targeted Iranian strategic installations and Iranian nuclear
scientists.
Iran
has therefore remained in Washington’s crosshairs for nearly half a century.
But transforming this long-running confrontation into an extension of the 9/11
war is an entirely different matter.
The timing is equally revealing. Trump has indicated that
the war with Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, could continue until the
November midterm elections and then “end immediately.” This inevitably raises
questions about the political utility of prolonged warfare.
The world should be extremely cautious about historical
revisionism. The 9/11 tragedy was used to launch America’s “war on terror,”
which lasted nearly two decades. Attempting now to rhetorically associate Iran
with that tragedy, without presenting credible evidence of Iranian
responsibility, risks turning history into a political instrument.
This is not merely an inaccurate narrative. It is a badly
concocted story that deserves scrutiny rather than applause.
