Is the specter of 9/11 rising again?

Seoul—United States President Donald Trump has once again shaken the global order—this time through a direct military strike on some targets in Iran: nuclear facilities that produce enriched uranium. The bunker-buster assault, launched under Trump’s direction, marked a rare instance of a direct US attack on Iranian soil. Although the immediate result was a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, the strategic and ethical implications of the strike are far more disturbing than they first appeared.

Following the US strike, Iran launched only minimal retaliatory attacks before agreeing to what amounts to a ceasefire of near surrender. Israel, too, accepted this halt in hostilities. On the surface, it might appear that American power forced a pause in the conflict. But beneath that silence lies a storm: in Iran, anger and humiliation are growing—particularly among the youth—who might view this sequence of events not as fair but as public submission to Western aggression.

That sentiment raises a chilling historical parallel: the 9/11 attacks in 2001. At the time, many Americans saw the attacks as inexplicable acts of evil. However, later analyses revealed that the roots of such extremism lay in decades of unilateral, arrogant, and often violent US interventions in the Middle East. The young people in the Arab world or Islamic nations radicalized during those years saw the US not as a beacon of freedom but as a hubristic superpower trampling their sovereignty. The fear now is that Trump’s latest strike may sow the seeds of yet another 9/11-style backlash—this time from another generation filled with rage and defiance.

The UN Security Council did not approve the military strike, nor was there any consensus among US allies. There is no clear evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat requiring a preemptive US strike. In short, the action violated fundamental principles of international law—specifically, the prohibition against unilateral use of force without UN Security Council authorization or a clear case of self-defense. Even more concerning is the fact that Trump’s strike appeared to align with Israel’s aggressive posture toward Iran.

This is not an isolated event. During his presidency, Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal. This bunker-buster strike is a continuation of that same unilateralist worldview—one that sees military power as the only real instrument of diplomacy.

But history tells us otherwise. Using overwhelming force does not end the conflict; it often fuels a long-term quagmire. In Iran, Trump’s strike will likely embolden hard-liners, marginalize moderates, and further incentivize the pursuit of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against future attacks.

The political timing of this strike also raises serious concerns. With US domestic politics, which are notably confused by tariff wars and immigration stuffiness, it is complicated to ignore the possibility that Trump’s military gambit is aimed less at global security and more at domestic political gain. If so, this would be a dangerous instance of military populism, where foreign policy is used not to protect peace but to win votes.

Meanwhile, the global consequences are unfolding rapidly. In the Islamic world, the US is once again being cast as a violent and unjust superpower. Online platforms, community forums and underground networks are buzzing with imagery and rhetoric framing the US as a tyranny. For young people in the region, especially those with few economic or political prospects, such narratives become fertile ground for radicalization.

The risk is real. Another 9/11 may not look like the last. It may take new forms—cyberattacks, sabotage, lone-wolf incidents—but the emotional logic will be the same: retaliation against perceived injustice. And once again, it will be ordinary civilians—American, Iranian, Israeli, and others—who will bear the cost.

See Also

SC innovation: High-Performance Courts

What, then, must be done? The international community cannot remain silent. The UN should clarify the strike’s illegality and reaffirm the UN Charter’s principles. Members of the powerful and advanced nations in Europe, Asia, and other areas must reclaim diplomatic space and call for a return to multilateral dialogue.

Finally, we must remember the human cost of these actions. Behind every military strike is a grieving family, a ruined home, a lost child. Trump’s strike may have ended one conflict phase, but has likely opened a longer, darker chapter in the Middle East. One that may take years, even decades, to close. In the end, history is rarely kind to those who confuse strength with wisdom. Trump’s reckless militarism and hopeless hubris may be remembered not for bringing victory but for calling fiasco—and for pulling the world one step closer to the very tragedies it seeks to prevent. The Korea Herald/Asia News Network