🧵3/3 Foreign adversaries can exploit economic grievances, anti-war sentiment, and distrust of institutions through propaganda and influence operations. But they do not need to manufacture frustrations that already exist. Even if foreign interference disappeared tomorrow, even if Islamist organizations withdrew from these movements, unaffordable housing, economic insecurity, resentment toward wealthy elites, and declining institutional trust would remain. And as long as those grievances persist, movements promising revolutionary change may continue finding an audience. This is why blaming immigration, demonizing entire socialist movements, or invoking the Iranian Revolution cannot serve as a comprehensive response. Peaceful political dissent is not terrorism. Losing faith in capitalism does not automatically make someone an enemy of Western civilization. And understanding the motives behind radical movements does not require excusing political violence. As someone who believes in capitalism, individual liberty, and Western democracy, I believe genuine extremism and foreign interference must be confronted. But protecting democratic societies also requires addressing the conditions that weaken public confidence in them. That means making housing more affordable by expanding supply, removing barriers to employment and entrepreneurship, strengthening economic mobility, confronting corruption, and demanding greater transparency in government spending. Universities should encourage intellectual independence and the critical examination of competing ideologies rather than ideological conformity. Political leaders must demonstrate that meaningful change remains possible through democratic institutions. Capitalism cannot be defended merely by preaching its virtues. Ordinary people must have a realistic opportunity to experience them. We can learn from Iran without assuming history must repeat itself. We can expose extremist networks without treating entire political movements as terrorist organizations. And we can confront dangerous ideologies without dismissing every person drawn toward them as an enemy. The question Western leaders should be asking. If we genuinely want to preserve Western democracy, we must stop asking only WHO is radicalizing our youth and start asking WHY some young people are becoming receptive to radicalization in the first place. Because identifying an enemy and understanding what produces new recruits are two fundamentally different tasks. Our adversaries may exploit our failures, but only we can correct them. And until we address the underlying grievances, we risk fighting the same battle with every new generation, while congratulating ourselves for identifying an enemy whose growing appeal we never truly understood. Research references ● Ted Robert Gurr (1970), Why Men Rebel. Foundational research on relative deprivation and political violence. ● Arie W. Kruglanski and colleagues (2014), “The Psychology of Radicalization and Deradicalization: How Significance Quest Impacts Violent Extremism.” Research exploring the psychological search for significance in pathways toward extremism. ● Eurofound (2024), Becoming adults: Young people in a post-pandemic world. European research examining the challenges young people face in their transition to independent adulthood, including housing and economic insecurity.