My practice is in the fields of nephrology and internal medicine, although I have always been a “student” of human behavior. There have been perverse acts committed by human beings throughout the history of humankind with no reticence in our modern-day world. Why? Is there a nature vs. nurture “equation” underlying hideous behavior and activities?

Considering the abhorrent activities witnessed by the world of Hamas, Hezbollah, and, relatively recently, ISIS, some degree of understanding may ensue by delving into the “neuroscience” of radicalization and terrorism. In fact, heinous crimes such as the murders committed by illegal aliens in the United States (and those at the hands of non-illegal American citizens) may all share biological foundations. Furthermore, as intimated in the title of this article and supported by multiple studies, dictators may also join the ranks of these dregs of global society in the context of sociopathic behavior. Recent up-to-date research elaborates neural pathways as well as possible learned characteristics unique to this group of individuals, continuing the age-old contention of nature vs. nurture as foundations for human behavior.

Two integral terms in this discussion include the following:

• Radicalization: Ryan Hunter, author and previous FBI intelligence analyst, in a Perspective piece in 2011, referred to the influence driving Islamic terrorists as “…the process by which individuals come to believe their engagement in or facilitation of non-state violence to achieve social and political change is necessary and justified…”¹

• Political Extremism: Professor Peter Neumann from King’s College (London) describes this term in his 2009 book entitled Old and New Terrorism as
  “Political ideologies and methods that opposes a society’s core values and principles and show disregard to the life, liberty, and human rights of others…[and support the murder of ordinary people to advance their extremist ideological objectives].²

Nature Variable: Our brains are much more complex than any technology, including Artificial Intelligence-powered tools. A growing body of literature now focuses on the circuitry between the prefrontal cortex (located at the very front of the brain) and the limbic system (located at nearly the bottom of the brain). Anatomically, the prefrontal cortex is divided into three parts: lateral sides (right and left), medial (midline), and orbitofrontal (behind the eyes) (Figure 1). The limbic system includes the olfactory bulb, hippocampus, hypothalamus, basal ganglia, cingulate gyrus, and amygdala (Figure 2).

Figure 1

Figure 2

The circuitry and one-way connections between the amygdala of the limbic system (associated with emotional processing, including anxiety, fear, conditioning, and aggression) and the orbitofrontal cortex of the prefrontal cortex appear to be key in the study of the behavior of terrorists. It is conjectured that both “Bottom-Up” and “Top-Down” neuronal processes coexist: the “Bottom-Up” paradigm involves an overactive aggression triggering mechanism (Amygdala -> Orbitofrontal cortex pathway), whereas an opposing one-way “Top-Down” paradigm (Orbitofrontal cortex -> Amygdala pathway)  involves a countering tempering and regulation of the aggression.

As a result, a “dysfunctional” and “imbalanced” circuitry exists that may explain the underlying impulsive aggression of terrorists and other criminals. A series of sentinel experiments were conducted in 2019 in Barcelona on highly radicalized Pakistani men (particularly those supporting al-Qaeda, violence against the West, and armed jihad) utilizing the ultra-high technology functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) (recording in real-time which areas of the brain are active during specific tasks).

A total of 38 subjects were studied during questioning of their willingness to fight and die for their sacred and non-sacred values. In regard to their willingness to fight and die for their sacred values, there was deactivation of a network in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex – a location associated with deliberative reasoning and cost-benefit analysis. Conversely, there was increased activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex – a location associated with subjective valuations.³

Research has been underway for close to fifteen years studying the possibilities of genetic or chemical bases for criminal and terroristic behavior. The “low-activity” variant of the Monoamine Oxidase A gene (MAOA-L), particularly in individuals with a childhood history of abuse, appears to be associated with a higher risk for impulsivity, aggression, and violence.⁴ This genetic variant results in decreased production of the MAO A enzyme, leading to increased levels of neurotransmitters in the brain, such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine, which may negatively affect control of impulses and regulation of emotions. Furthermore, the lay press coined the term “the Warrior gene” to apply to this variant due to its association with aggressive and risk-taking behavior.

Nurture Variable: Psychosocial Components: Prior to and during radicalization, there is clearly a process of socialization among terrorists in the forming of a “collective identity.” Typically, there is a “leader” who is charismatic and manipulates common characteristics and behavioral features among his “followers,” such as resentments, grief, and dissatisfactions. Ultimately, the trainees are guided to an “external society” in which they are indoctrinated to believe that the cause of life’s frustrations (such as the West) must be the target of attacks. This socialization is parallel to that experienced by street gangs in the US and Central/South America, involved in urban street crime.

Other ingredients include mass media, possible genetic predispositions, and the stage of maturation of the brain. The mean age of the September 11, 2001, terrorists was 24 years (similar to that of a mean of 27 years among 125 members of the Islamic State (Sunni Jihadist militant group) charged by the US Department of Justice in 2015).⁵ Multiple studies corroborate the above with the mean age of terrorists in the mid-20s, although the leaders are marginally older at age 27.⁶ The prevailing thought among many researchers is that as the brain matures there is “fine tuning” of sorts among neuronal pathways and between regions of the brain discussed above (such as a decrease in one-way firing of neurons from the amygdala to the orbitofrontal portion of the prefrontal cortex and an increase in firing of the opposite pathways from the prefrontal cortex to the amygdala). Hence, a decrease in risk-taking, criminal activity, and radicalized behavior may be a by-product of this “maturation” of the brain.

Psychopathology of Dictators:

There have been too many tyrants throughout history to the present. To name just a few:

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Nikita Khrushchev, Kim Jong Il (and currently his son, Kim Jong Un), Idi Amin, Omar Khadafi, Saddam Hussein, … we are all familiar with their names. The neurobiology underlying their atrocious activities is likely, as elaborated above, although our knowledge of these despots is solely based upon “informant reports” as none have submitted to direct psychological profiling (and of course, there are no brain scans or genetic data available). I personally came across two dictators during medical volunteer work in Africa in 1985:

1. Joseph Mobutu, president of Zaire, later named the Democratic Republic of Congo (Dutch Congo), self-proclaimed “Lord Mobutu” and many other grandiose titles, was responsible for the deaths of many opposition party politicians and multitudes of individual citizens.
2. Samuel Doe, president of Liberia, was responsible for utter disregard for human rights and numerous deaths, including the murder of his whole cabinet, which was filmed for the nightly Liberian news. He, himself, was then murdered by his heir and also broadcast on Liberian media.

The sociopathic and psychopathic personality traits and profiles these tyrants have in common are legion: manipulative, lack of remorse or guilt, impulsive, irresponsible, pathological lying, hyper or asexual, malignant narcissism, sadism, paranoia, grandiosity, and aberrant thinking. Furthermore, a common thread is early childhood trauma and abuse (typically by their fathers) or loss of their biological parents. In their formative years, many had experienced additional psychological abuse, poverty, and other adversities.

Opinion:

There are three major dictators with whom the United States is currently contending: Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and the Ayatollah Khamenei. Clearly, there are other tyrants controlling countries on this globe, such as the president of Myanmar (Min Aung Hlaing), the previously mentioned North Korean president Kim Jong Un, and the Sudanese regime, although for purposes of this piece, let us briefly review those in the current limelight. Peripherally, the modern-day lay dictators dress in 3-piece Italian suits, travel to Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum, and wish to display a “hip” persona (although they are, in reality, the opposite):

• Vladimir Putin: Lack of regret or remorse for the results of his decisions; autocrat, antisocial behavior – such as having his large Labrador Retriever enter the meeting between himself and previous Chancellor of German Angela Merkel knowing that she had a fear of dogs; poisoning, imprisoning, and ultimately murdering those in opposition to him such as recently with Alexei Navalny.
• Xi Jinping: Anti-social, cunning, detail-oriented, autocrat,  responsible for many abuses of human rights, no tolerance for dissent.
• Ayatollah Khamenei: This individual was himself jailed by the Shah numerous times and endured physical and psychological torture; with this background, he will likely not compromise with anyone or any government; he has no tolerance for dissent, and freely advocates for the oppression of dissent, including murder.

With this background, I wish to highlight some interconnections between themselves, their nations, and our interplay as Americans. A Russian member of Parliament recently labelled the relationship between Beijing/Moscow/Tehran as the Axis of Good (versus the Axis of Evil coined by President George W. Bush in 2002, referring to North Korea/Iran/Iraq). This hypocritical “Axis of Good” is commonly opposed to the US and the West, although these countries are also very much interested in their own individual gains and looking out for themselves. The phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend…” is not particularly true in their eyes (that is, in the metaphorical “quadrangle” interrelationships of the US-China-Russia-Iran the “enemy” of the US (China, Russia, Iran) is not necessarily the friend of each other, respectively).

• At a meeting in Beijing in 2023, Presidents Xi and Putin referred to each other as “old and dear friends,” building on their “no limits to our friendship” statement in 2022. In reality, China is much more interested in trade and economic issues with the US (notwithstanding the current tariffs) than in backing Russia.

• China does not provide significant military support to Russia (as does Iran). In fact, China has a GDP and population ten times the size of Russia, although they are both commonly opposed to the West. Their “relationship” is rife with contradictions and inaccuracies.

• Any negotiations between the US and Iran are fraught with complexities, as it is very well known that the Iranian government lies and hoodwinks as their “modus operandi.”

• The most common characteristics among the above rogue nations are the following: their leaders are tyrant dictators for life, there is no semblance of Democracy in their governments, dissent and “speech” are met with arrests, torture, sham trials, long jail sentences, and often death.

In conclusion:

I will posit that the weakness of these and all other dictatorships lies in their self-proclaimed strengths and commonalities. Most dictators are assassinated by their own people or are forced to flee their own countries. Furthermore, their ousting is often assisted by other countries (such as the US, partially enabling the Green Movement in Iran).

Communism and Theocracy ultimately do not have the strength of Democracies and ultimately implode due to the weight of their own frailty. The hypocritical “Axis of Good” will change complexion and inevitably falter in the context and through the prism of American “peace through strength.”

End Notes:

¹ Hunter R, Heinke D. 2011. “Perspective – Radicalization of Islamic Terrorists in the Western World”. Articles https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/perspective/perspective-radicalization-of-islamist-terrorists-in-the-western-world.

² Neumann, P.  2009  Old and New Terrorism  Polity. Oxford, England.

³ Hamid N, Pretus C.  2019. “The Neuroscience of Terrorism: How we convinced a group of radicals to let us scan their brains.”  The Conversation  https://theconversation.com/the-neuroscience-of-terrorism-how-we-convinced-a-group-of-radicals-to-let-us-scan-their-brains-114855.

⁴ Fergusson DM, Boden JM, Hornwood LJ, et al. 2011. “MAOA, abuse exposure and antisocial behavior: 30-year longitudinal study” Br J Psychiatry 198(6): 457-463.

⁵ Goldman A, Yang L, Sharma S,  Jan 22, 2015.  “The Islamic State’s Suspected Inroads in America.“ Washington Post  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/isis-suspects/.

⁶ Lowry Institute. “The Typology of Terror.” 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/isis-suspects/