One of the most significant shifts in modern national security is not taking place on the battlefield. It is unfolding through the growing convergence of hostile states, terrorist organizations and organized crime.
This shift is forcing governments to reconsider where organized crime ends and national security begins.
Israel Police carry out an operation targeting an extortion network in southern Israel
(Photo:Israel Police)
In recent years, several countries have uncovered attempts by hostile states and terrorist organizations to use local actors for intelligence gathering, logistical support and even the execution of hostile operations.
Increasingly, adversaries no longer need to infiltrate operatives or establish an entirely new infrastructure in every country where they seek to act. Instead, they can exploit criminal ecosystems that already exist.
Terrorism, espionage and organized crime were once treated as separate domains. Today, the boundaries between them are becoming increasingly blurred.
Organized crime groups are no longer merely profit-driven criminal enterprises. Under certain conditions, they can become operational, logistical and financial platforms capable of serving the strategic interests of hostile states and terrorist organizations.
From the adversary’s perspective, this is an efficient model. Rather than infiltrating operatives, crossing multiple borders and constructing networks from scratch, hostile actors can rely on existing criminal infrastructure.
That may include smuggling routes, money-laundering networks, forged documents, illicit arms trafficking, logistical capabilities and local facilitators motivated primarily by money rather than ideology.
Organized crime groups also stand to benefit. Access to funding, resources, technology, international supply chains and new operational opportunities can strengthen their capabilities and expand their influence.
What emerges is not necessarily an ideological alliance. It is a mutually beneficial relationship driven by converging interests.
This is no longer merely a law enforcement challenge.
Once a criminal organization becomes a potential platform for hostile-state activity, it ceases to be solely a police target and becomes a national security concern. Under these conditions, the traditional distinction between criminal investigations and national security threats is increasingly inadequate.
Liran SegalPhoto: CourtesyThe same smuggling routes, financial networks, logistical infrastructure and local facilitators may support organized crime today and hostile-state activity tomorrow.
This does not mean that every criminal organization acts on behalf of a hostile state. It does mean that criminal infrastructure can become a strategic asset for hostile actors. At a time when states increasingly seek indirect, deniable and low-cost methods of projecting power, this possibility can no longer be treated as a secondary concern.
The implications extend far beyond policing.
National intelligence assessments should systematically examine the points of convergence among organized crime, terrorism, hostile-state activity, financial crime and illicit logistical networks. These connections should be identified before they develop into operational threats.
National security assessments should also routinely evaluate how criminal infrastructure could be exploited by hostile actors, just as governments already assess terrorism, cyber threats and foreign influence operations.
Policymakers must also reconsider whether the traditional institutional boundaries separating law enforcement from national security remain adequate for the current threat environment.
As organized crime becomes part of the operational toolkit of hostile states, countries should consider establishing permanent national mechanisms dedicated to confronting this converging threat landscape.
The distinction between organized crime and national security is no longer operationally sufficient. As hostile states increasingly exploit criminal infrastructure as a strategic proxy, intelligence priorities, legal frameworks and national security doctrine must evolve accordingly.
The threat has evolved. Our doctrine must evolve with it.
- The author is an intelligence specialist, strategic risk adviser and lecturer specializing in intelligence, homeland security, privacy protection and executive risk management