In the struggle against the Islamic State (IS aka Da’esh), much is being made of ‘radicalisation’. Recently, radicalisation was seen as a selling job or brainwashing done over the Internet by IS recruiters who sought to draw on a variety of grievances while presenting an idealised version of what jihad could mean. And some converts were self-radicalised, that is committing to the cause without the help of a recruiter. The reasons for turning to this pernicious form of violent extremism based on a perverted and wrongful interpretation of Islam are as complicated or as simple as the spectrum of converts. Disillusionment, deprivation whether of dignity or a productive role in society, naiveté in romanticising life with IS, exclusion and simply seeking adventure or something different — as well as the appeal of sex to those forbidden or unable to indulge — are among these factors. Hence, from Minneapolis to Mollenbeck to Manchester, young Muslim men and women have been seduced and inducted into IS. Because of this radicalisation, many in the West and particularly in the United States still see Pakistan as the ‘most dangerous’ country in the world. The argument is straightforward. Given all the insurgencies and radical fundamentalist Islamist groups that are waging war (NOT jihad!) against the government and non-believers, and an army that may be increasingly infiltrated by radicals, at some stage, Pakistani nuclear weapons are at risk to being stolen or even provided to these violent organisations. That Pakistan has a better safety record with its nuclear weapons than other, larger states and a highly effective system of protecting them, this nightmare scenario is simply that. But perceptions and fears often form reality. And as long as assassins such as Mumtaz Qadri, the murderer of the former governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, are treated heroically by more than a slice of Pakistani society, fears about Pakistan’s future in the West and America are understandable. Of course, Pakistan does have a safety net of sorts. And one only to be used in extremis. It is the army. While respectful of democracy and unwilling to take over government, in a genuine crisis, the army could have no alternative. The costs would be huge. Imagine the reactions in Washington. But the costs of inaction would be far greater. That said, radicalism is by no means limited merely to Islamists. What is ironic is that this coin of radicalism has another, surprisingly, invisible side. This unseen other half of a different version of radicalism is attracting millions of Americans without them or anyone else realising it. And the leaders of this Americanised form of jihad turn out to be three candidates seeking the nomination of their respective parties for president. Jihad Don, Ted and Bernie are the recruiters. Each in his own way is drawing on the fear, anger and resentment felt by millions of Americans towards their lives and their government. Equally ironic, Messers Trump and Cruz have called for bombing the sh*t or carpet-bombing IS out of existence to end this Jihadist threat. Yet, these two and Senator Sanders are using many of the same techniques to attract followers as does IS. Their platforms share many common themes. The average American is losing out to the top one percent. Workers’ pay is declining while the rich get richer. Mexico, China and other foreign countries are stealing American jobs, as are illegal immigrants from south of the border. Worse, all Muslims should be banned from entering this country unless fully vetted, a process likely to take time. Muslim communities inside the US should be closely monitored for possible terrorist plots. And, at least on the Republican side, torture is fair game because since IS uses it and does worse things, that permits America to respond accordingly irrespective of the law, morality and our values. Tens of millions of Americans so far have voted for these three in the campaign. Fear about future livelihoods and those of their children; fear over becoming the victims of terrorists; and anger over a broken government in Washington that is incapable of addressing these fundamental needs are powerful motivators. In essence, as IS recruits have become or were radicalised by their surroundings and despair, so too have many Americans become radicalised in a different sense against their government, and the so-called establishment that refuses to respond to basic needs. Messers Cruz, Sanders and Trump would recoil at the notion of their radicalising constituents. Yet, the vitriol and threatening tone of the campaigns and implications of violence — from ‘riots’ if one of the candidates was not selected to threatening phone calls to convention delegates — are growing. Of course, conventions such as 1968 in Chicago have been filled with rage, violence and rioting. But the conventions in 2016, if not appropriately handled, could become even more disruptive in both political and physical impact. Radicalism and extremism are not new to America. This was how our Revolution started in 1775. Throughout our history, radicalism and extremism were always present politically and socially from the protests and marches that got women the vote to banning alcohol in 1920. And these three candidates all represent forms of radicalism and extremism in many of their views, from calling NATO obsolete to proposing return to the gold system and eliminating the IRS and breaking up the banks too big to fail. Americans will resent even distant association with radicals and terrorists under the Black Flag of the IS or its archenemy al-Qaeda. Yet, parallels exist. Perhaps if we understood the linkages between these two highly diverse forms of radicalism, that knowledge would be vital in defeating one — IS — and relieving the fears and worries of the other. That understanding may be too difficult to achieve in a zero sum political environment in which you are either with us or against us. No alternative course seems feasible. Hence, radicalism and extremism on both fronts persist and could actually elect a president. IS are you watching? The writer is UPI’s Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist and serves as Senior Advisor at the Atlantic Council and at Business Executives for National Security and chairs two private companies. His latest book is A Handful of Bullets: How the Murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand Still Menaces the Peace