The terrorist network has never made al-Zawahiri’s successor official, while Saif al-Adel continues to move in the shadows. In the new film for the 25th anniversary of September 11th, the son of Osama, declared dead by the United States in 2019, reappears. A choice that could reveal a lot about the transformation and internal difficulties of the organization.
Al-Qaeda it has a boss who doesn’t make proclamations, a manager who doesn’t show himself and a dead man who continues to be talked about. It is within this triangle that we must try to read the latest propaganda operation of the organization founded by Osama bin Laden. Because the most interesting fact of the new film released on the occasion of the twenty-five years since 9/11 is not what it tells openly, but what it carefully avoids clarifying. For four years the top of the organization has been shrouded in ambiguity. Ayman al-Zawahiri was eliminated by the United States in Kabul in 2022, but al-Qaeda he never publicly formalized his death or officially announced who received his inheritance. As Small Wars Journal writes, international assessments have long converged on Saif al-AdelEgyptian jihad veteran and historical figure of the organization. He is considered the de facto leader, yet there is no formal proclamation. Al-Adel does not appear. He doesn’t give speeches in front of the cameras. Even its geographical position remains uncertain, with reconstructions over the years placing it mainly between Iran and Afghanistan. It is precisely while the alleged leader remains invisible that As-Sahab Mediathe propaganda apparatus of al-Qaedaputs another man back in front of the cameras: Hamza bin Laden. A man who, according to Washingtonis expected to be dead as of 2019. The son of Osama appears three times in the 52-minute production created to commemorate 9/11. He is shown with a white turban and a weapon next to him, in a setting that inevitably recalls the iconography built for decades around his father. The material could of course come from the archives. It therefore does not constitute proof that Hamza is still alive. But it is the way in which it is used that raises questions. In jihadist productions the religious formulas associated with names have a precise meaning. When Osama bin Laden is remembered, the narrator uses the blessing intended for the dead. When the discussion concerns Saif al-Adel instead, an invocation reserved for a living person is pronounced. With Hamza neither one nor the other happens. His name remains suspended. If it were an intentional choice, it would allow al-Qaeda to obtain a very particular result: not formally denying the American version of his death and, at the same time, avoiding confirming it to its supporters.
Then there is a coincidence that makes the operation even more interesting
It would not be the first time in recent months that the organization’s propaganda recovers the voice of Hamza. His figure seems to have come in handy just as the problem of succession continues to remain publicly unresolved. To understand why we need to look at what al-Qaeda has become today. The organization led by Osama bin Laden had a recognizable center. The founder simultaneously exercised political, religious and operational authority. He collected money, decided strategies, maintained relationships with the various components and personally embodied the international brand of the terrorist network. That model has been progressively dismantled. Counter-terrorism operations have eliminated a significant part of the old leadership, while regional joints have gained autonomy. Today, various branches are able to finance themselves, recruit men and develop military campaigns based on local conditions without waiting for daily operational instructions from a central command.
How can a decentralized network be prevented from reducing itself to a collection of independent organizations?
The answer could be contained in the new video. Saif al-Adel offers the doctrine. Hamza bin Laden offers his surname. The first does not appear physically, but its elaborations constitute one of the cornerstones of the film. Propaganda recovers its interpretation of September 11 and other major attacks against American targets to construct a long-term narrative. In the reading attributed to al-Adel, the 2001 attacks should have provoked an American reaction capable of dragging Washington into long, expensive and politically exhausting wars. The withdrawal from Afghanistan and other subsequent events are also reinterpreted from this propaganda perspective. The footage also serves to recapture an earlier threat of new attacks against the United States. Hamza serves a completely different function. He is not used primarily as a strategist, but as a figure capable of mobilizing. In his speeches he talks about a war against Islam, calls for the spread of jihad and recalls the ideological tradition developed by Abdullah Azzam during the Afghan war against the Soviet Union. It is the union of the two components that is significant. On the one hand, an experienced commander who can exert influence without exposing himself. On the other, the son of the man who continues to represent the most recognizable symbol in the history of al-Qaeda. Formalizing Saif al-Adel as emir could instead open up problems that are difficult to control. In fact, the structure of the organization provides for bay’ahthe personal oath of allegiance to the leadership. A proclamation would force the various affiliates to choose whether to recognize the new leader and, consequently, the degree of subordination they intend to maintain towards the center. Leaving the issue undefined avoids confrontation. There is also another vulnerability: the historical relationship between al-Adel and theIran. The stay of the jihadist leader in the Islamic Republic was used by the Islamic State to question the credibility of al-Qaedaconsidering the profound ideological contrast between the Iranian Shiite regime and Salafist jihadism.
Hamza does not have the same problem
There is no need to appoint him as head, entrust him with a territory or obtain the oath of branches. Its weight comes exclusively from lineage. And that’s probably why his eventual death doesn’t negate its usefulness. For al-Qaeda, time represents a further threat. The militants who are now twenty years old have no direct memory of the attacks New York And Washington. Osama bin Laden for them it belongs to a history known through recordings, old sermons and material disseminated online. Propaganda must therefore transfer that symbolic heritage to a new generation and the son allows a bridge to be built. In the film, the transition from Osama’s words to Hamza’s images contributes to transforming the founder’s story into a sort of dynastic continuity. The implicit message is that men can be eliminated, while the cause must survive. From this point of view, asking only whether Hamza bin Laden is alive risks losing the most important meaning of the operation. Washington claims he was killed in 2019, and the new footage does not contain enough evidence to overturn that conclusion. The most interesting question instead concerns al-Qaeda’s decision to suddenly bring him back onto the scene and above all to deliberately leave his status unresolved. Behind that face could hide the organisation’s response to its own structural weakness. No longer being able to count on a leader capable of concentrating the authority possessed by Osama, al-Qaeda seems to distribute the functions: strategy to Saif al-Adel, operational autonomy to the branches and symbolic heritage to the family bin Laden. The 9/11 anniversary footage could therefore be read not as evidence of Hamza’s return, but as an indication of how al-Qaeda intends to survive. The founder’s son becomes useful precisely because he remains suspended between past and present, between announced death and the absence of unequivocal jihadist confirmation. A perfect ghost for an organization that has learned to turn uncertainty into a propaganda tool.
