The 'Red Jihad': How far-left and jihadist extremism are merging

 For nearly a quarter century, Western counterterrorism was built around the jihadist threat. That focus was understandable. September 11 changed the world, and the rise of al-Qaeda and ISIS forced the United States and its allies to build intelligence, law enforcement, and military systems capable of stopping large-scale attacks.

At the recent international conference on political terrorism, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that the threat environment has changed. Rubio argued that the West developed a dangerous blind spot toward far-Left terrorism. Bessent stated that “old ideological boundaries are now giving way to new operational alliances,” especially between international Marxism and radical Islamic movements that may not share the same ultimate vision but do share the same immediate enemy: free and self-governing societies.

That convergence is what I call the “Red Jihad.”

The Red Jihad is not a single organization. It is a cross-ideological threat coalition made up of actors who may identify as Marxist, anarchist, Islamist, Satanist, neo-Nazi or something even more obscure. They do not need to agree on what should replace the West. They only need to agree that the existing Western social order should be destabilized and ultimately destroyed.

This is why our current debate over “nihilistic violent extremism” is so important.

The FBI describes nihilistic violent extremists as individuals who engage in criminal conduct in furtherance of political, social or religious goals that grow out of hatred for society and a desire to bring about its collapse through chaos, destruction and social instability. These actors are often young, highly networked online and involved in communities such as 764, the Order of Nine Angles, Maniacs Murder Cult and related ecosystems.

Some researchers insist that these networks have no real ideology. They say the violence is merely “violence for violence’s sake,” driven by misanthropy, online status, notoriety, or sadism.

In my opinion, that description is woefully incomplete.

Belonging, notoriety and social status may explain why an individual joins a network. They do not tell us what the network teaches, rewards or seeks to accomplish. A young person may enter ISIS seeking purpose or brotherhood, yet no serious analyst would conclude that ISIS therefore has no ideology. A recruit may join a revolutionary movement for excitement or identity, but that does not erase the movement’s larger goals.

The 'Red Jihad': How far-left and jihadist extremism are merging