Tackling the Drivers of Terrorism

In the Unted Kingdom, thousands of Palestine Action protestors have been arrested and charged with supporting terrorism. After the dreadful 7 October terrorist attacks on Israel in 2023, that government responded with all-out violence against Gaza. As these examples illustrate, counterterrorism policies are often repressive or violent. The problem with such approaches is that they fail to address underlying causes of terrorism, treating the symptoms rather than the problem itself. As I detail in my book Terrorism: A New Introduction, a more effective approach would examine why people turn to terrorism — and seek to remove those conditions. Experiences gained in the field of peacebuilding may lend inspiration to such an alternative path.

Although this may seem obvious, attempts to understand terrorism are often criticized as excusing or justifying it. Throughout history, governments have portrayed terrorism as irrational violence committed by fanatics and monsters, driven by hatred, and aiming at destruction for destruction’s sake. According to this discourse, there is no possibility for understanding or dialogue, making harsh security measures appear to be the only solution. In this view, attempts to understand terrorism are considered pointless.

This narrative has been useful for states because it diverts attention from the political grievances of those committing terrorism and from states’ own role in political violence. For example, portraying Hamas as irrational extremists obscured the broader context of occupation, repression, and ongoing conflict in Palestine.

Harsh measures, including “wars on terror,” have usually intensified violence instead of reducing it. Military campaigns and aggressive security policies have trapped states and armed groups in cycles of retaliation. Recognizing the ineffectiveness and counterproductivity of violent counterterrorism, some shifted their attention towards terrorism prevention. The taboo on discussing causes was partly lifted in the first decade of the new millennium as influential scholars developed what became known as “radicalization theory.”

However, this new focus on causes was selective. Early radicalization theory focused mainly on the beliefs and attitudes of individuals considered at risk of becoming terrorists. Political grievances and religious views were treated as warning signs rather than as responses to real political conditions. This depoliticized terrorism by ignoring the broader conflicts and injustices that often shape extremist violence.

The policies that emerged from this approach were often “pre-pressive,” targeting people before they committed crimes. Individuals were labelled dangerous because of political opinions, growing religious devotion, or social connections. Many faced surveillance, travel bans, frozen bank accounts, arrests, or even loss of citizenship, despite never engaging in violence. An English boy was referred to a deradicalization programme for wearing a “Free Palestine” button on his backpack. A Dutchman was arrested at a Turkish airport and told he appeared on a list of suspected terrorists, likely because he knew someone who had joined ISIS. Another had his passport revoked for retweeting jihadist messages. And during the 2026 football World Cup, officials and referees from several countries were denied entry to the US because they appeared on a No-Fly list, inclusion in which is often the result of mistaken identity or algorithmic imprecisions. Meanwhile, autocratic regimes abused counterterrorist legislation to criminalize and imprison members of their political opposition.

These are not just abuses or flaws in execution. The more fundamental issue is that defining someone as “radical” is deeply subjective. Throughout history, radicals also have been responsible for progressive change, including the abolition of slavery, the end of child labor, and the expansion of voting rights. Contemporary debates around groups such as Palestine Action or Antifa demonstrate how political and contested the label of ‘extremism’ can be.

Research has disproven the assumption that radical ideas automatically lead to terrorism. Most people with radical political beliefs never engage in violence, and people who do are not always ideologically motivated. Later radicalization research acknowledged that predicting who will become violent is impossible. It also showed that targeting law-abiding citizens with counterterrorism measures often creates resentment, alienation, and distrust of the state, particularly among Muslims and people of color, who have been disproportionately targeted. In some cases, these policies may even increase support for extremism.

A revised understanding of radicalization therefore emerged. Rather than defining radicalization as a process that starts with radical political or religious ideas, it described it as a process through which people come to accept violence as a legitimate means of achieving political goals. Importantly, this process takes place in interaction with political and social conditions. Terrorism was thus re-politicized as part of a broader conflict between state and non-state actors, both of whom may use violence.

However, these newer insights have largely been ignored by policymakers. Most counterterrorism policies remain focused on repression and “pre-pression.” This is unfortunate because understanding the drivers of terrorism is essential for reducing violence in the long term. In Terrorism: A New Introduction, I examine these drivers and explore ways to address them.

The primary drivers of terrorism are political. Terrorism is often used by militarily weaker groups to attract attention, challenge stronger opponents, or provoke reactions. States themselves also use terrorism to intimidate civilians. In fact, state terrorism has historically caused far more deaths than non-state terrorism. Understanding terrorism therefore requires understanding the political conflicts in which it occurs.

Studies of jihadist attackers in Europe, for example, have shown that many explicitly referred to political grievances, including Western military interventions in Muslim-majority countries and support for authoritarian regimes. These grievances alone do not automatically produce terrorism, but they help explain why some individuals become attracted to violent movements.

What are other drivers of terrorism? Religion often is less central than commonly assumed. Rather than causing terrorism, religion is frequently used to justify violence or mobilize supporters. The existence of far-right, far-left, misogynistic, and nihilistic terrorism demonstrates that extremist violence is not uniquely linked to religion.

Similarly, terrorism is not simply the result of mental illness. Most terrorists are psychologically normal, although many struggle with personal instability, trauma, family problems, or criminal backgrounds. They are often socially isolated individuals searching for belonging, meaning, or identity. Extremist groups can provide a sense of community and purpose, reinforced by conspiracy theories and narratives that divide the world into enemies and victims.

Socio-economic inequality can contribute to terrorism. Poverty alone does not cause political violence, but exclusion and unequal opportunities can create feelings of injustice that extremist groups exploit.

Personal relationships are another major factor. People often join extremist groups through friends, relatives, or local networks. Once involved, peer pressure and group dynamics strongly influence whether individuals engage in violence. Propaganda, online communities, and political rhetoric further encourage hostility by portraying opponents as threats or enemies.

Addressing these drivers requires moving beyond repressive responses. Since terrorism is closely linked to conflict, peacebuilding approaches are highly relevant. In fact, around 95% of deaths from terrorism occur in areas experiencing armed conflict. Although terrorism research and policy have rarely drawn on the field of peacebuilding, it can inspire an alternative approach.

Given that terrorism is political and part of conflict, political negotiation is an important step. Although many governments reject dialogue with terrorist groups, negotiations have successfully contributed to peace with the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines, and other groups.

Peacebuilding also seeks to reduce the underlying causes of violence, including injustice, inequality, oppression, and hateful rhetoric. Education that promotes critical thinking, nonviolence, and civic participation can help reduce support for extremism. Economic development and fairer global trade can create opportunities that offer alternatives to violence.

Equally important are freedom of speech and inclusive governance. Citizens who view the state as legitimate and who can express grievances peacefully are less likely to support violence. Finally, states themselves must avoid using terroristic methods, since state violence often fuels further radicalization.

A peacebuilding approach may appear idealistic, but it offers a more sustainable solution than repression and warfare, which frequently worsen conflict. Drawing on a wealth of historical and contemporary cases from around the world, Terrorism: A New Introduction explains why policies based on dialogue, justice, inclusion, and respect for human rights stand a far better chance of reducing terrorism and breaking cycles of violence.