America, Brace Yourself for Another 9/11-Style Attack

Persistent Warnings: From George Tenet to Christopher Wray

George Tenet took the helm as CIA director in May 1997 and remained in the position through the harrowing events of September 11th. Throughout his leadership, he consistently voiced concerns about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Before the devastating attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Tenet repeatedly testified, warning about the group’s threat to U.S. interests both at home and abroad. In a February 1999 statement, he unequivocally stated,

“There is no doubt whatsoever that Osama bin Laden is planning more attacks against us.”

Tenet postulated that al Qaeda’s follow-up attacks could be what he called “simultaneous” and “spectacular.” In private, the man was even more emphatic in his beliefs. He broke protocol by writing personal letters to President Bill Clinton about the severity of what we faced as a nation. He also voiced his apprehensions with President George W. Bush and National Security Adviser Rice several times in 2001.

Although the CIA and FBI could not pinpoint the specifics of the 9/11 plot, Tenet’s warnings unfortunately became a nighmarish reality. 

Fast-forward twenty-five years, and FBI Director Christopher Wray is again raising red flags. While his discussions within the Biden administration remain behind closed doors, his public testimonies couldn’t be clearer.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in December, Wray stated,

“When I sat here last year, I explained how we were already in a heightened threat environment.”

Following Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, “we’ve seen the threat from foreign terrorists rise to a whole other level,” he added. Wray has consistently emphasized the security gaps at the southern border of the United States, where thousands slip through undetected every week. This is a building danger impacting the citizens of our great nation on all levels. Unless controlled, disaster is all but inevitable.

High-Ranking Officials Sound Alarms on Terrorism

FBI Director Christopher Wray isn’t the only high-ranking official raising red flags. Since taking command of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in 2022, General Erik Kurilla has been vocal about the dangerous capabilities of terrorist groups in the Middle East and South Asia. He points to al Qaeda, ISIS, and especially ISIS-K, the ISIS affiliate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as serious threats. Meanwhile, Christine Abizaid, the outgoing director of the National Counterterrorism Center, recently highlighted “an elevated global threat environment” at a conference in Doha, adding weight to these urgent warnings.

Last week, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland told the House Judiciary Committee that the “threat level . . . has gone up enormously.”

While a full understanding of the threat landscape requires access to classified intel, the statements from FBI Director Wray and CENTCOM Commander Kurilla likely mirror the classified information they’re privy to and their agencies’ operations. Their warnings should be taken seriously. Sure, not every terrorism warning since 9/11 has panned out, but that doesn’t mean we can afford to ignore the alarms being sounded today. Historically, the intensity of terrorism warnings has often aligned with the actual risk. Plus, these alerts have sometimes spurred government actions that thwarted terrorist plots. Given the high stakes, it’s wiser to err on the side of caution.

The intentions and proven abilities of various terrorist groups, combined with the fact that numerous significant plots have been thwarted, lead to an undeniable conclusion: the United States is at a high risk of a terrorist attack in the near future.

Learning from History to Counter Current Threats

Over the past three decades, the U.S. has amassed a wealth of knowledge on combating terrorist threats, even those that are still emerging. President Joe Biden and his administration need to harness that expertise now. This means the intelligence community must deepen its understanding of the current threats, enforce actions to block terrorists from entering the country and apply pressure on terrorist organizations in their strongholds. Looking back, Clinton’s approach during the heightened terror threats of 1999 serves as an excellent blueprint. His proactive measures thwarted multiple attacks, including at least one on U.S. soil. The contrast between the success of these efforts and the failure to prevent 9/11 offers crucial lessons for today’s policymakers. It’s far better to act in advance than to respond after the fact.

Without access to classified intel, the most effective way to gauge the threat is by analyzing public congressional testimonies, successful terrorist attacks abroad, and foiled plots both in the U.S. and internationally. Clues about thwarted attempts in the U.S. have emerged since Congress extended Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This provision lets the government compel telecom and internet providers to hand over communications of foreigners outside the U.S. that pass through the country. By piecing together these elements, we can get a clearer picture of the threat landscape.

Proactive Measures for Today’s Policymakers

Since last fall, Wray has pinpointed three primary threats to the U.S. homeland: international terrorism, domestic terrorism, and state-sponsored terrorism. In March, he informed the House Intelligence Committee that the “number one category” of terrorist threats in the U.S. involved “lone actors or individuals operating in small cells using readily available weapons.” He emphasized the impact of Hamas’s October 7 attack, warning of “homegrown violent extremists” spurred by both Hamas’s actions and Israel’s response. The FBI is actively investigating many such individuals, though specific details remain limited.

Evaluating the international threat, Wray told the Senate Homeland Security Committee last October that Washington can’t “discount the possibility that Hamas or another foreign terrorist organization may . . . conduct attacks here” in the U.S. By April, he warned the House Appropriations Committee that “the potential for a coordinated attack here in the homeland” was becoming “increasingly concerning.”

Wray has also flagged Iran as a potential state sponsor of terrorism. In October, he informed the Senate Homeland Security Committee that Tehran is still scheming against high-ranking “current or former” U.S. officials in retaliation for the January 2020 assassination of senior Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani. Although Iranian plots have been foiled so far, there’s no assurance that future attempts will fail. A successful attack on a U.S. citizen, particularly on American soil, could spread fear and trigger a significant crisis between Tehran and Washington.

Wray has also spotlighted a critical security vulnerability: the southern border. In December, he cautioned the Senate Judiciary Committee that foreign terrorists could exploit any entry point, including the southwest border. By March, he singled out a specific smuggling network with “ISIS ties that we are very concerned about.”

Kurilla has voiced similar concerns from CENTCOM. Last year, his forces carried out 475 ground operations and 45 airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria, resulting in nearly 1,000 fighters being killed or captured. In a statement from March, Kurilla confirmed that both ISIS and al Qaeda “remain committed to inflicting violence.” While U.S. forces have prevented ISIS from controlling large swaths of Iraq and Syria, the group still boasts at least 5,000 fighters, with recent attacks hitting their highest rate in years. Al Qaeda continues to operate out of Afghanistan and Yemen, maintaining its threat level.

He has particularly highlighted ISIS-K, the ISIS affiliate in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In March 2023 in an address to the Senate Armed Services Committee, he warned that the group could carry out an “operation against U.S. or Western interests abroad in under six months with little to no warning.”

His warning proved to be spot-on. Earlier this year, ISIS-K conducted the deadliest terror attack Iran had seen since the founding of the Islamic Republic, with two suicide bombers killing at least 95 people. The group struck again in March, taking another 145 lives in a concert hall attack in Moscow.

Former FBI and intelligence officials issued a major warning in a letter to Congress about the national security problems resulting from the border invasion. pic.twitter.com/7OmmwBoRPE

— 🦅 Eagle Wings 🦅 (@CRRJA5) February 11, 2024

General Michael Langley, leading U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), has also raised alarms. In March, during his Senate Armed Services Committee testimony, Langley emphasized that al Qaeda and ISIS are exploiting “underdeveloped, under-governed areas” across Africa. Recent military coups have provided more space for these violent extremist groups. In 2023 alone, his forces carried out 18 operations targeting terrorist organizations as part of a wider strategy. Experts widely acknowledge that al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates in Africa are gaining strength.

Recent trends validate these concerns, with an uptick in both successful and foiled attacks. The Global Terrorism Index recorded a 22 percent increase in terrorism-related deaths from 2022 to 2023. This year, significant ISIS-K attacks have occurred in Iran and Russia, and German intelligence thwarted planned attacks on the Cologne Cathedral and the Swedish parliament. In the U.S., thwarted plots include a 2022 scheme to assassinate former National Security Adviser John Bolton and an attempt to bring assassins across the southern border to kill former President George W. Bush. More recently, the FBI disrupted a plan to attack U.S. critical infrastructure, revealing the planner’s ties to a foreign terrorist organization.

Adding to the gravity, terrorist groups have issued explicit threats recently, many linked to the events of October 7. Al Qaeda has called on Muslims worldwide to commit violence in support of Hamas. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has urged attacks on commercial flights and targets in New York City. ISIS-K has encouraged lone-wolf attacks on Christians and Jews in the U.S., Europe, and Israel during Ramadan.

When terrorist groups make direct threats, Washington must take them seriously. Historically, adversaries often clearly state their intentions, much like bin Laden did before 9/11.

Recognizing terrorist threats involves understanding their motives, means, opportunities, and organizational capabilities. Resentment over U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, drone strikes, and recent conflicts in Gaza and Iran drive individuals to seek revenge. The availability of weapons and security weaknesses at the southern border provide opportunities for potential attackers. Despite ongoing efforts to dismantle terrorist networks, groups like ISIS and al Qaeda still possess the leadership and organizational structure to orchestrate attacks. As Wray remarked, “It didn’t take a big number of people on 9/11 to kill 3,000 people.”

High Stakes

Given the current stakes, the Biden administration must step up and take proactive measures to counter the terrorist threat. Drawing from Clinton’s playbook at the turn of the century, our intelligence and security community must plainly lay out the danger for policymakers and the public. Congress should hold unclassified hearings with the top brass from National Intelligence, the CIA, the FBI, and the National Counterterrorism Center to give their no-holds-barred views.

It’s time for the U.S. to dig through all previously collected intelligence on terrorism again. Going over old reports might reveal overlooked details—If you recall, in 2001, Tenet’s review exposed two future 9/11 hijackers with U.S. visas that had slipped through the cracks. Similar clues might be buried in those files today, so our intelligence agencies need to shake the trees and work closely with international counterterrorism allies.

One critical move is beefing up border security, especially at the southern border, to stop terrorists from slipping in. Biden’s recent executive order to restrict asylum processing is a start, but we need more robust actions to handle the overwhelmed border effectively.

When it comes to tackling overseas threats like ISIS-K, we might have to consider working with our enemies. As tough as it is to say, Washington should explore limited intelligence exchanges with the Taliban to target ISIS-K militants, leveraging their mutual hostility. Additionally, teaming up with Pakistan to neutralize ISIS-K threats is crucial.

These actions are tough, especially with an election on the horizon, but terrorists don’t care about our political timelines. For the last two decades, the military and intelligence communities have kept another 9/11 at bay. To keep this record, policymakers must take decisive steps to shield the homeland from the evolving terrorist threat.

—

Disclaimer: We at SOFREP utilize cutting-edge AI technology for image generation and as a research tool. Occasionally, it’s like handing a hyperactive chimpanzee the keys to your liquor cabinet. It is not always perfect; if a mistake is made, we own up to it and move forward. In a world where the news comes at us in tidal waves, it is an important tool to help us sift through the brass for any live rounds left in the pile. We endeavor to use it wisely and realize that no machine can replace the human spark of true understanding.