The Left won’t stop looking for non-religious reasons for jihad. If you thought climate change led to the rise of ISIS, you’re wrong. It was inequality. At least that’s the latest theory from Thomas Piketty, acclaimed author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the Left’s favorite modern economic tome. Piketty’s argument goes something like this: Since the Middle East is the world’s most economically unequal region, a small elite keeps the large majority — “including women and refugees” — in a state of “semi-slavery.” He singles out the “oil monarchies,” including Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, for particular blame, and of course blames the West for propping up those regimes politically and militarily. Dramatic inequality thus sets the stage for revolution.

His solution? Western powers “should demonstrate that they are more concerned with the social development of the region than they are with their own financial interests and relationships with ruling families.” He wants to make sure that “Middle Eastern oil money funds ‘regional development,’ including far more education.”

No one denies that the Middle East is a fundamentally unjust place. Further, no one denies that it has suffered through recent crop failures and other economic disruptions due to severe drought. But do economic hardships and crop failures explain the rise of an apocalyptic jihadist movement that is populated by people from diverse economic backgrounds and often led by members of the Middle East elite? While climate factors and economic mismanagement are well-known contributors to instability, they do not explain the particular instability of jihad. If the conditions exist for Middle East revolutionary movements, why is jihad just as common as — if not more common than — a secular revolt?

Read the article “The Secular Left’s Religious Ignorance Harms Our National Security and Divides Our Nation” on nationalreview.com.