Alternate Timelines

What If The 9/11 Attacks Were Prevented?

• Alternate Timelines Team • 23 min read
Modern Political American Global
terrorism national security middle east intelligence foreign policy war on terror 2000s

Exploring how American foreign policy, domestic security, and global geopolitics might have developed if the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks had been thwarted by intelligence agencies.

The Actual History

On September 11, 2001, the United States experienced the deadliest terrorist attack in its history when 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airplanes and carried out suicide attacks against high-profile American targets.

The Attacks

The coordinated attacks unfolded as follows:

  • At 8:46 AM, American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City
  • At 9:03 AM, United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center
  • At 9:37 AM, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia
  • At 10:03 AM, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers attempted to regain control from the hijackers

The World Trade Center's Twin Towers collapsed within hours, with the South Tower falling at 9:59 AM and the North Tower at 10:28 AM. The attacks killed 2,977 people from 93 nations: 2,753 at the World Trade Center, 184 at the Pentagon, and 40 on Flight 93. The 19 terrorists also died.

Intelligence Failures

The 9/11 attacks represented a catastrophic intelligence failure. Multiple warning signs and pieces of intelligence had been collected by various agencies but were not effectively shared or acted upon:

  1. The Phoenix Memo: In July 2001, FBI agent Kenneth Williams sent a memo warning about suspicious individuals taking flight training in Arizona and suggested that al-Qaeda might be sending students to flight schools

  2. The Moussaoui Case: In August 2001, flight school student Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested on immigration charges after instructors became suspicious of his behavior. FBI agents were denied a warrant to search his computer

  3. CIA Intelligence: The CIA had tracked two of the future hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, to a terrorist meeting in Malaysia in 2000 but failed to place them on a watch list until late August 2001

  4. Presidential Daily Brief: On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US," which mentioned "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings"

  5. NSA Intercepts: On September 10, 2001, the National Security Agency intercepted messages saying "Tomorrow is zero hour" and "The match begins tomorrow," but these were not translated until September 12

The 9/11 Commission later identified numerous systemic issues, including barriers to information sharing between agencies, inadequate analysis of available intelligence, and a failure to appreciate the gravity of the threat posed by al-Qaeda.

Immediate Aftermath

The attacks triggered immediate and far-reaching changes:

  1. Military Response: Within a month, the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom, invading Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban regime that had harbored them

  2. Homeland Security: The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, representing the largest government reorganization since the Department of Defense was established in 1947

  3. Intelligence Reform: The intelligence community underwent significant restructuring, including the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Counterterrorism Center

  4. Aviation Security: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was formed, implementing comprehensive new security measures at airports nationwide

  5. Surveillance Expansion: The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in October 2001, dramatically expanded government surveillance powers

  6. Iraq War: In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, partly justified by now-discredited claims of connections between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda

Long-term Impact

The 9/11 attacks fundamentally altered American society and global politics:

  1. Global War on Terror: The attacks launched what became known as the "Global War on Terror," which expanded to multiple countries and continues in various forms today

  2. Military Deployments: U.S. troops remained in Afghanistan for 20 years until the withdrawal in 2021, making it America's longest war

  3. Civil Liberties: Enhanced security measures raised ongoing concerns about the balance between security and civil liberties

  4. Economic Costs: The direct economic impact of the attacks and subsequent wars has been estimated at several trillion dollars

  5. Cultural Impact: The attacks profoundly affected American culture, from increased Islamophobia to changes in how terrorism is portrayed in media and entertainment

  6. Geopolitical Realignment: The attacks and subsequent U.S. responses reshaped global alliances and conflicts, particularly in the Middle East

The events of September 11, 2001, thus stand as a pivotal moment in modern history, creating a clear demarcation between the pre-9/11 and post-9/11 worlds in terms of international relations, security policies, and American society.

The Point of Divergence

In this alternate timeline, the critical divergence occurs in mid-July 2001, when a series of intelligence breakthroughs and organizational changes lead to the prevention of the September 11 attacks.

The Phoenix Memo Breakthrough

The first key divergence point centers on the "Phoenix Memo," written by FBI agent Kenneth Williams on July 10, 2001. In our timeline, this memo—which warned about suspicious individuals taking flight training and suggested a possible connection to al-Qaeda—was largely overlooked within the FBI bureaucracy.

In this alternate timeline:

  1. Enhanced Distribution: The Phoenix Memo receives wider distribution within the FBI and is specifically flagged for counterterrorism specialists

  2. Cross-Agency Sharing: A newly implemented information-sharing protocol ensures that the memo is also sent to relevant CIA counterterrorism units

  3. Pattern Recognition: An intelligence analyst at FBI Headquarters connects the Phoenix Memo's concerns with other recent intelligence about potential aviation-related terrorist plots

The Moussaoui Investigation

The second critical divergence involves Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested on immigration charges on August 16, 2001, after instructors at a Minnesota flight school reported suspicious behavior. In our timeline, FBI agents were denied a warrant to search his laptop and other belongings.

In this alternate timeline:

  1. FISA Warrant Approved: Armed with the context from the Phoenix Memo and other intelligence, FBI agents successfully obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to search Moussaoui's possessions in late August

  2. Critical Discovery: The search reveals connections to al-Qaeda operatives and details about flight training that suggest an imminent plot involving commercial aircraft

  3. Expanded Investigation: This discovery triggers an urgent nationwide investigation focused on flight schools and recent flight school graduates with potential terrorist connections

Watchlist Activation

The third divergence involves two of the future hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who had been tracked by the CIA at an al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia in 2000 but were not placed on a watchlist until late August 2001.

In this alternate timeline:

  1. Earlier Watchlisting: Following the Phoenix Memo and Moussaoui discoveries, the CIA reviews all recent intelligence on potential al-Qaeda operatives in the United States

  2. Identification and Surveillance: Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar are identified as being in the country, placed under surveillance, and connected to other future hijackers

  3. Coordinated Action: By early September, law enforcement has identified several cells of the plot and begins planning coordinated arrests

The Disruption

By September 5, 2001, in this alternate timeline:

  1. Arrests Begin: FBI agents arrest Moussaoui and several other plotters in coordinated raids across multiple states

  2. Plot Exposed: Interrogations and seized materials reveal the full scope of the plot, including the intended targets and approximate timing

  3. Final Arrests: The remaining members of the plot, including Mohamed Atta and other lead hijackers, are arrested on September 8-9, 2001

  4. Public Announcement: On September 10, 2001, the FBI and Department of Justice hold a press conference announcing that they have disrupted a major terrorist plot that would have involved the hijacking of commercial aircraft to be used as weapons against prominent targets in New York and Washington, D.C.

The morning of September 11, 2001, dawns without incident. American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 175 and 93 depart and arrive safely at their intended destinations. The World Trade Center towers remain standing, the Pentagon undamaged, and 2,977 lives that would have been lost are saved.

This successful prevention of the attacks represents a major intelligence and law enforcement victory, but it also sets the United States and the world on a dramatically different path than the one we experienced in our timeline.

Immediate Aftermath

Public and Political Reaction (September-December 2001)

The announcement of the foiled plot generates significant but fundamentally different reactions compared to the actual attacks:

  1. Media Coverage: The thwarted plot receives extensive media coverage, with detailed reporting on how close the terrorists came to executing their plan. However, without the visceral imagery and emotional impact of actual attacks, the public response is more measured.

  2. Political Response: President Bush's administration receives praise for the successful counterterrorism operation. The President addresses the nation, declaring the plot disruption "a victory in what will be a long struggle against terrorist threats to our nation."

  3. Intelligence Community Recognition: The FBI, CIA, and other agencies involved in uncovering the plot receive public commendation, temporarily improving their standing after previous criticism for failures like the 1998 embassy bombings.

  4. Public Awareness: The American public becomes more aware of al-Qaeda and international terrorism, but without the trauma and fear generated by successful attacks. The reaction is more intellectual than emotional.

  5. International Relations: Allied nations express relief and congratulations, strengthening counterterrorism cooperation. Countries with suspected ties to al-Qaeda face diplomatic pressure but not the immediate threat of military action.

Policy Developments (2001-2002)

Without the catalyst of actual attacks, policy changes develop along different lines:

  1. Intelligence Reform: The successful prevention becomes a case study in effective intelligence work, leading to more modest reforms focused on enhancing existing systems rather than wholesale reorganization:

    • Information sharing protocols between agencies are formalized and expanded
    • Additional resources are allocated to counterterrorism units
    • Foreign language capabilities, particularly in Arabic, receive increased funding

  2. Aviation Security: Security measures at airports are enhanced, but without the urgency and scope seen in our timeline:

    • More thorough screening of passengers on watchlists
    • Reinforced cockpit doors are gradually implemented
    • Air marshals program is expanded, but not to the extent seen in our timeline

  3. Legislative Changes: Without the emotional impact of the attacks, legislation expanding government powers develops more slowly and with greater debate:

    • A more limited version of surveillance authorization is proposed, facing significant civil liberties scrutiny
    • The concept of a Department of Homeland Security is discussed but not immediately implemented
    • Congressional hearings focus on how to build on the successful prevention rather than investigating a catastrophic failure

  4. Military Posture: Military options against al-Qaeda and the Taliban are developed but not immediately executed:

    • Increased special operations presence in the region
    • Enhanced intelligence gathering in Afghanistan
    • Diplomatic pressure on the Taliban to surrender al-Qaeda leadership
    • Contingency plans for limited strikes rather than full-scale invasion

Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan (2001-2002)

The disruption of the plot significantly impacts al-Qaeda and its relationship with the Taliban:

  1. Al-Qaeda Leadership: Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders remain in Afghanistan but face increased scrutiny and pressure:

    • Their operational security becomes more stringent
    • Communications become more limited, reducing their ability to coordinate globally
    • Planning for alternative attacks begins, but with greater caution

  2. Taliban Relationship: The Taliban regime faces a difficult position:

    • International pressure to surrender al-Qaeda leadership intensifies
    • Internal debates emerge about the wisdom of continuing to harbor the group
    • Diplomatic isolation increases, but without the immediate threat of invasion

  3. Terrorist Network: The broader al-Qaeda network experiences disruption:

    • Cells in the United States face increased surveillance and arrests
    • European allies enhance their counterterrorism operations
    • Financial networks supporting terrorism come under greater scrutiny

Public Consciousness and Culture

Without the trauma of the attacks, American society develops along a different trajectory:

  1. National Mood: The sense of vulnerability increases, but without the profound shock and unity that followed the actual attacks:

    • Terrorism becomes a more prominent concern, but one of many national priorities
    • Partisan politics continues largely unabated, without the brief period of national unity seen after 9/11

  2. Cultural Impact: The foiled plot enters the cultural consciousness, but with less transformative impact:

    • Books and documentaries about the plot and its prevention appear
    • Popular entertainment continues to reflect pre-9/11 sensibilities longer
    • The World Trade Center remains a symbol of American economic power rather than tragedy

  3. Muslim Americans: Without the backlash that followed the actual attacks, Muslim Americans face less immediate discrimination:

    • Some increased scrutiny occurs, but without the spike in hate crimes seen in our timeline
    • The conversation about Islam in America develops differently, with more focus on Muslims as partners in counterterrorism

By the end of 2001, this alternate America finds itself more aware of terrorism as a threat but proceeding on a fundamentally different course than the one that followed the actual September 11 attacks—more cautious and deliberative, less traumatized and reactive, yet still grappling with the implications of a world where such attacks are possible.

Long-term Impact

U.S. Foreign Policy Evolution (2002-2008)

Without the catalyzing effect of the 9/11 attacks, American foreign policy develops along significantly different lines during the Bush administration:

  1. Afghanistan Approach: Rather than a full-scale invasion, the U.S. pursues a more limited strategy in Afghanistan:

    • Continued diplomatic pressure on the Taliban to surrender bin Laden and al-Qaeda leadership
    • Targeted special operations missions against al-Qaeda compounds
    • Increased CIA presence and support for anti-Taliban forces
    • By 2003-2004, this likely evolves into a more substantial but still limited military campaign, focused specifically on counterterrorism rather than nation-building

  2. Iraq Policy: Without 9/11 as a backdrop, the push for war with Iraq follows a different trajectory:

    • The Bush administration still views Saddam Hussein as a threat but lacks the post-9/11 security environment to build broad support for invasion
    • WMD concerns remain central to policy discussions, but face more rigorous scrutiny without the heightened fear of terrorism
    • Military action against Iraq either doesn't occur or takes a more limited form, perhaps similar to the 1998 bombing campaign, focused on suspected WMD sites
    • Containment policy likely continues, with sanctions and no-fly zones remaining in place

  3. Counterterrorism Strategy: A more measured counterterrorism approach emerges:

    • Intelligence and law enforcement remain the primary tools rather than military force
    • International cooperation emphasizes police actions and intelligence sharing
    • The concept of a "Global War on Terror" never emerges as a defining framework
    • Counterterrorism remains important but as one priority among many, not the organizing principle of foreign policy

  4. International Relations: U.S. relationships with allies and international institutions develop differently:

    • Transatlantic tensions over Iraq either don't materialize or are less severe
    • The United Nations remains a more central forum for security discussions
    • International law and established norms of state behavior face less pressure from exceptional security measures
    • The U.S. maintains greater "soft power" and moral authority without controversial detention and interrogation programs

Domestic Security and Civil Liberties (2002-2020)

The balance between security and civil liberties evolves along a different path:

  1. Intelligence Community: The intelligence community undergoes more evolutionary than revolutionary change:

    • Reforms focus on improving existing structures rather than creating new agencies
    • The Director of National Intelligence position might eventually be created, but with less urgency and potentially different authorities
    • Resources shift toward counterterrorism but without the massive reallocation seen in our timeline
    • Privacy concerns receive greater weight in policy discussions without the emotional impact of 9/11

  2. Surveillance Powers: Government surveillance capabilities expand more gradually and with greater oversight:

    • No PATRIOT Act as we know it; instead, more targeted legislation with stronger sunset provisions
    • FISA court reforms emphasize judicial review rather than expedited approvals
    • Metadata collection programs develop more slowly and with stricter limitations
    • The Snowden revelations, if they occur at all, generate even greater controversy without the post-9/11 security justification

  3. Homeland Security: The security apparatus evolves differently:

    • The Department of Homeland Security might eventually be created, but later and in a more limited form
    • TSA-style airport security measures are implemented more gradually and perhaps less comprehensively
    • Border security receives attention but without the same emphasis on terrorism prevention
    • Critical infrastructure protection develops with more focus on natural disasters and cyber threats than terrorism

  4. Civil Liberties Climate: The legal and cultural environment for civil liberties remains stronger:

    • Muslim Americans face less profiling and surveillance
    • Immigration policy debates focus less on security concerns
    • Courts show greater skepticism toward executive power claims in national security cases
    • Civil liberties organizations maintain greater influence in policy debates

Global Terrorism and Middle East Development (2002-2020)

The trajectory of terrorist groups and Middle Eastern politics takes a different course:

  1. Al-Qaeda Evolution: Without the propaganda victory and recruiting tool of successful attacks, al-Qaeda develops differently:

    • The group remains dangerous but achieves less global prominence
    • Leadership remains focused in Afghanistan/Pakistan region longer
    • Eventually attempts other spectacular attacks, but faces a more prepared intelligence community
    • Likely fragments earlier into regional affiliates without the unifying narrative of having struck the U.S. homeland

  2. ISIS Emergence: The conditions that led to ISIS either don't materialize or develop differently:

    • Without the Iraq War creating a power vacuum and training ground for extremists, the precursors to ISIS have less opportunity to develop
    • If Syria still experiences civil war (which might be influenced by many factors beyond 9/11), jihadist elements have fewer experienced fighters and less established networks
    • A group like ISIS might still emerge in some form, but likely smaller and more regionally focused

  3. Middle East Politics: Regional dynamics evolve along different lines:

    • Iraq remains under Saddam Hussein's control longer, potentially until the Arab Spring or beyond
    • Iran's regional position develops differently without the removal of its primary adversary (Saddam) and with less anti-American sentiment to exploit
    • U.S.-Saudi relations maintain their pre-9/11 character, with less scrutiny of Saudi connections to extremism
    • The Arab Spring still likely occurs (driven by local factors), but U.S. responses are less colored by counterterrorism priorities

  4. Afghanistan's Fate: Afghanistan follows a different path:

    • The Taliban regime likely eventually falls, but through a more gradual process involving internal Afghan opposition and limited international support
    • Without a major U.S. occupation, the country's development follows a different trajectory, though still facing significant challenges
    • Regional powers like Pakistan, India, and Iran have greater influence in shaping outcomes
    • Opium production likely remains high but without the same intersection with U.S. military presence

American Politics and Society (2002-2020)

American political and social development proceeds along a markedly different path:

  1. Political Polarization: While polarization still increases due to other factors, it follows a different pattern:

    • National security remains a more traditional partisan issue rather than transforming into a central dividing line
    • The "rally around the flag" effect of 9/11 never occurs, nor does the subsequent disillusionment with the Iraq War
    • Culture war issues potentially emerge as more prominent earlier without security concerns dominating
    • Trust in government institutions erodes more slowly without the Iraq WMD controversy

  2. Military and Veterans: The military experiences a very different two decades:

    • No massive expansion of ground forces for Iraq and Afghanistan deployments
    • A generation of Americans doesn't experience combat at the same scale
    • Veterans' issues remain important but don't include the same volume of post-traumatic stress and combat injuries
    • Military culture evolves with more focus on specialized counterterrorism than counterinsurgency

  3. Economic Trajectory: Economic policies and priorities develop differently:

    • Defense spending increases but not to the same degree, potentially leaving more resources for domestic priorities
    • The trillions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan are either saved or allocated to other purposes
    • The 2008 financial crisis likely still occurs (driven by factors independent of 9/11), but government responses might differ without the experience of post-9/11 emergency measures
    • National debt grows more slowly without war expenditures

  4. National Identity: American self-conception and national narrative follow a different course:

    • The concept of America under attack and at war doesn't become a defining national experience
    • Patriotism expresses itself differently without the post-9/11 security focus
    • The narrative of American exceptionalism evolves without the "indispensable nation" fighting terrorism globally
    • Greater continuity with the post-Cold War 1990s sensibility persists longer

By 2020, this alternate America would be recognizable but distinctly different—shaped not by the trauma and consequences of terrorist attacks but by a more gradual evolution of security concerns balanced against other national priorities. The world would still face terrorism, regional conflicts, and great power competition, but without the organizing framework and emotional resonance of 9/11 and its aftermath.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Richard Clarke, Former National Counterterrorism Coordinator:

"Had we managed to connect the dots and prevent the 9/11 attacks, it would have represented the intelligence community's greatest success rather than its most catastrophic failure. The agencies involved would have gained tremendous credibility and resources, but in a more targeted way than the massive reorganization we saw after the actual attacks.

I believe we would still have taken action against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it would have been more surgical—likely a combination of special operations forces, CIA paramilitary teams, and air support for the Northern Alliance. Without the emotional drive for vengeance that followed the actual attacks, there would have been more emphasis on capturing bin Laden and key lieutenants rather than regime change.

As for Iraq, I'm convinced that without 9/11, there would have been no Iraq War as we knew it. The Bush administration might have maintained pressure on Saddam Hussein, but the political conditions for a full-scale invasion and occupation simply wouldn't have existed. This alone would have profoundly altered the subsequent two decades of Middle Eastern history."

Dr. Jane Mayer, Investigative Journalist and Author:

"The prevention of 9/11 would have dramatically changed the legal and ethical boundaries of American counterterrorism. Without the fear and anger generated by watching thousands of Americans die on live television, there would have been far less public support for extreme measures like enhanced interrogation techniques, extraordinary rendition, or indefinite detention.

The legal framework that emerged after 9/11—from the PATRIOT Act to the AUMF's blank check for military force—required the shock of an unprecedented attack to overcome traditional civil liberties concerns. In an alternate timeline where the plot was foiled, we would have seen more traditional law enforcement approaches to terrorism prevail, with greater judicial oversight and international cooperation.

Perhaps most significantly, the concept of a 'war on terror' that normalized a permanent state of conflict would never have taken hold in the American legal and political system. This would have preserved important constraints on executive power that were eroded in the years following the actual attacks."

Dr. Vali Nasr, Middle East Scholar:

"The prevention of 9/11 would have fundamentally altered the trajectory of the Middle East. Without the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the regional power balance would have evolved very differently. Iran would not have gained the strategic advantage of having its two main regional enemies—the Taliban and Saddam Hussein—removed by the United States. Saudi Arabia would have faced less scrutiny for its connections to extremist ideology.

The conditions that led to the rise of ISIS—specifically the power vacuum in Iraq and the de-Baathification policy that left so many Sunnis marginalized—would never have materialized. While the region would still have experienced significant challenges and likely some version of the Arab Spring, the absence of large-scale American military interventions would have allowed more organic political developments, for better or worse.

I believe Islamist terrorism would have remained a security concern but would not have become the defining issue in Western relations with the Muslim world. This might have created space for more nuanced engagement with political Islam and reform movements across the region."

Dr. Francis Fukuyama, Political Scientist:

"The prevention of 9/11 would have preserved what I once called 'the end of history'—the post-Cold War sense that liberal democracy had emerged as the final form of human government—for at least a while longer. The 9/11 attacks and subsequent War on Terror shattered the complacent assumption that geopolitical challenges to the liberal order had ended with the Soviet Union's collapse.

Without 9/11, American foreign policy would likely have continued its gradual shift toward addressing China's rise rather than being diverted into counterterrorism and Middle Eastern conflicts for two decades. The resources—both financial and attentional—that were poured into Iraq and Afghanistan might have been directed toward infrastructure, research, education, and other investments needed to maintain American competitiveness.

The neoconservative vision of using American power to promote democracy would have had less opportunity to influence policy without the security crisis that 9/11 created. American soft power and moral authority would have remained stronger without the controversies over Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and enhanced interrogation, potentially giving the United States more influence in shaping global norms during China's rise."

Dr. Karen Greenberg, National Security Expert:

"The successful prevention of the 9/11 attacks would have reinforced a law enforcement approach to terrorism rather than a military one. The plotters would have been prosecuted in federal courts, likely receiving long sentences but with full due process protections. This would have strengthened the norm that terrorism is a crime to be handled through legal channels rather than an act of war requiring military response.

The prevention would have validated the Clinton-era approach to counterterrorism, which emphasized intelligence, law enforcement, and targeted operations rather than regime change or occupation. This approach had successfully prosecuted the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and disrupted the Millennium Plot in 1999.

Perhaps most importantly, American Muslim communities would have been seen as partners in security rather than objects of suspicion. The successful prevention would likely have involved cooperation from within these communities, reinforcing the idea that integration and engagement, not surveillance and suspicion, are the most effective counterterrorism tools."

Further Reading

Share this scenario:

Explore More Scenarios