The latest narrative promoted through Arakan Army–aligned media, including the Global Arakan Network (GAN), should be examined as an information-operation tactic rather than accepted at face value. By repeatedly portraying Rohingya rebel groups as the central security threat, the AA attempts to shift attention away from allegations of its own abuses and create a broader perception that the Rohingya population itself represents a security problem.

The distinction between Rohingya civilians and Rohingya rebel groups is fundamental. The actions of an armed organization cannot legitimately be attributed to an entire civilian population. Yet AA-aligned messaging repeatedly connects Rohingya communities with infiltration, extremism and terrorism. This framing creates an environment in which ordinary Rohingya civilians can increasingly be treated as potential suspects because of their identity rather than their individual actions.

The timing of this messaging is particularly important. When allegations of AA abuses, forced displacement, arbitrary detention, extortion or violence against Rohingya civilians emerge, AA-aligned information channels frequently redirect attention toward alleged Rohingya infiltration and terrorism. The effect is to move public discussion away from the conduct of the Arakan Army and toward an externalized security threat. The “terrorist card” therefore functions as a narrative shield.

The strategy also has a wider regional dimension. By continuously portraying northern Arakan as a battlefield against alleged Rohingya threats, the AA can contribute to an atmosphere of insecurity along the Bangladesh–Myanmar border. Reports of Bangladeshi fishermen being detained or taken across the border by armed actors have already generated concern among coastal and border communities. Rather than allowing these incidents to be examined through evidence and proper investigation, competing narratives can turn every border incident into another source of confrontation and suspicion.

This creates a dangerous cycle. A new allegation is amplified through propaganda channels, public anxiety increases, pressure builds on Bangladesh, and the wider security environment becomes more unstable. Such an environment benefits armed actors seeking to portray themselves as indispensable security authorities while diverting attention from their own conduct.

The same narrative can also obscure the humanitarian reality facing Rohingya civilians. Human Rights Watch and other independent organizations have documented serious allegations concerning AA conduct in northern Arakan, including unlawful detention, torture, forced labor, displacement, destruction of property and killings. Allegations against Rohingya rebel groups cannot erase these documented concerns, nor can the existence of armed groups justify collective punishment of civilians.

The repeated use of the terrorism narrative should therefore be tracked as a deliberate information-operation pattern. Its potential purpose extends beyond defending the AA domestically. It can generate communal polarization, redirect international attention, increase pressure on Bangladesh, and create conditions in which regional instability becomes easier to sustain.

The objective for Bangladesh and international observers should be clear: separate civilians from armed actors, separate verified evidence from propaganda, and investigate every border incident independently. No armed organization should be allowed to use the existence of another armed group as a permanent justification for abuses against civilians or as a mechanism for shifting accountability.

The AA’s territorial ambitions cannot be separated from its information strategy. The “terrorist card” risks becoming a mechanism of narrative laundering blaming Rohingya rebel groups for instability while diverting scrutiny from AA brutality and simultaneously contributing to greater insecurity along Bangladesh’s frontier. Regional stability will ultimately depend on accountability, evidence-based investigation and protection of civilians not propaganda-driven blame shifting.