World . The Soviet Union, as is known, was not militarily defeated and the different theories of international relations, specifically, the one defined as "Realist", have not been able to find satisfaction in the various attempts to validate their own assumptions, notwithstanding a re-reading backwards of history when it had already been lived and written.
The Soviet Union, as is known, was not militarily defeated and the different theories of international relations, specifically, the one defined as "Realist", have not been able to find satisfaction in the various attempts to validate their own assumptions, notwithstanding a re-reading backwards of history when it had already been lived and written.
In 1991, with the publication of an academic text by Barry Buzan (1) , the same concept of "security" is enlarged and up-dated, making that which was in use during the Cold War obsolete.
Maintaining the figure of the "State", as principal actor of the international relations, which operates in a system of "mature anarchy" (2) (a system in which criteria on the part of the State is developed, which consolidates its own identity and legitimacy and recognizes that of other States), the author moves the central point of reference of the concept of security itself: the frontiers designated by ethnic and cultural groups no longer coincide with those of the nation-State, one must speak of human collectivities.
Therefore, the security of these human collectivities can be threatened by any and specific factors in five particular sectors and they are military, political, economic, social and environmental. Recently brought to six by the addition of religion (3) . These elements make-up the concept of security in the broadest sense of the word; not operating separately, they are united by a network of relations which are seen as strictly inter-dependent.
In this context, the process of "securitization" of a State (or a society), in which are consolidated vis-à-vis the threat and/or the enemy, a concrete reply must be given to those which I define as the five questions of Pyrrho (4) :
1) who/what must be protected?
2) From whom/, when it must be protected?
3) Why/how must it be protected?
4) Who provides for the security?
5) What methods/approaches must be used to provide for the Security?
To give an answer that will allow us to link the concept of "security" to that of "energy security" , it is necessary to identify and define the type of "State" which is called to provide for the "security" of its citizens.
According to the theories developed by Robert Cooper (5) , the States – considering their condition, economic, intellectual basis and foreign relations evolution – are classified in "pre-modern", "modern" and "post-modern".
Europe started operating as a "post-modern state" in 1989. "The ‘post-modern’ State is self-defined through its own policy of security which comes through political choice. (…) In this form of State the ‘individuals’ have won and the foreign policy is the continuation of the domestic preoccupations beyond the national frontiers. The individual consumption substitutes collective glory as a dominant theme of the national life. The war must be avoided: the acquisition of territories by force is an interest" (6) .
Such images of "post-modern" State is very near that of "market-state" defined by Philip Bobbitt (7) .
Characteristics of the "market-state" are that it depends on the system of the market of the international capital and on the economic success. Its objective is to maximize the opportunities of the members who compose its own society. It appears, therefore, clear how the economic policy of a Country ("post-modern state" or "market-state") has a very strong impact on the political and social sectors. For the simple fact that the economy (and the modus vivendi) of the major part of these Countries – which belong to this band defined ("post-modern state" and "market-state") – depend on the importation of energy resources, such as oil and natural gas, the nexus between national security and energy security appears obvious.
We can now reply to the five questions of Pyrrho, basing ourselves more on the substance than the form:
1) Our society and our way of life must be protected;
2) The enemy must no longer be identified in an individual, in a State or in a non-State actor. The concept necessitates an expansion to the point of englobing the definition of situation as a particular threat;
3) The achievements of an entire social body (roots, culture, and progress) have to be protected. The State provides for the regulating, defining and supply of means of defence;
4) The Sovereign State, given the authority that the juridical order has conferred on it, must provide for the security in the ambit of the entirety of the responsibilities and of the expertise demanded by the System;
5) Prevention being one of the approaches and methods adopted by the States and, therefore, of the respective apparatuses of security, it is evident that the Intelligence must assume a primary role.
As Thomas L. Freidman maintains, "Energy resources represent the most important geo-strategic and geo-economic challenger of our time" (8) , to the point that, right in this period, defined "post-post Cold War", "the oil axis" (9) On the use of the term ‘Axis of Oil’, see also Flynt Leverett and Pierre Noel, "The New Axis of Oil", The National Interest. No. 84, 2006, pgs. 62-70. where, according to the authors, "The term ‘axis of oil’ describes a shifting coalition of both energy exporting and energy importing States centres in ongoing Sino-Russian Collaboration".) (Russia, Venezuela and Iran) "are more important than terrorism itself" (10) .


"Energy Security": evolution of a concept

In the same way as what happened with the concept of security also that of energy security has undergone and inevitable evolution, as it is no longer exclusively connected to the problems of energy provision and to their wide variations (11) .
In a context where the largest consumer Countries are struggling to liberalize and privatize definitively the national oil societies – more or less still participates of the State because of their strategic importance and the producer Countries are again nationalizing the resources present on their territories – the discussion extends beyond the national frontiers of the same consumer Countries, as is the case of the European Union.

"Ten Key Principles of Energy Security"

- Diversification of energy supply sources is the starting point for energy security.

- There is only one oil market.

- A "security margin"consisting of spare capacity, emergency stocks and redundancy in critical infrastucture is important.

- Replying on flexible markets and avoiding the temptation to micromanage them can facilitate speedy adjustment and minimize long term damage.

- Understand the importance of mutual interdependence among companies and governments at all levels.

- Foster relationships between suppliers and consumers in recognition of mutual interdependence.

- Create a proactive physical security framework that involves both producers and consumers.

- Provide good quality information to the public before, during and after a problem occurs.

- Invest regularly in technological change within the industry.

- Commit to research, development and innovation for longer-term energy balance and transitions.

Source: Daniel Yergin, "Energy Security and Markets". Energy and Security: Toward a New Foreign Policy Strategy, Jan H. Kalicki and David L. Goldwyn, eds. (Woodnow Wilson Press, co-publisher Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005).

Therefore, the same term of energy security (12) becomes an umbrella term which moves the question beyond the famous phrase of Winston Churchill "The security and the certainty of the provisions of crude oil lies exclusively in the diversification of these", with which energy security and national strategy were identified.
The new reality of "energy security" includes in its characteristic traits also the terrorist threat, the view of energy as an arm and as a target, the aspects that concern the security of the infrastructures, etc. With an end to validate our approach, and to support a logical line, we shall use now, as a case study, the American energy and foreign policy.
One of the largest post-modern/market-state Countries

the energy security like the United States of America literally made the thesis in which is strictly tied the national security.Much before the terrorist attacks of the 11th September, 2001, and of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the American Administration had identified constant threats to its own national security. The National Intelligence Council, in three studies published in 1997-2000 and 2004 (13) , constantly individuated the following preoccupations as threats to the American security: 1) the emergence of new world powers (China and India, and we shall add Russia and Brazil - so-called BRIC - modern-states starved for energy); 2) the demographic growth which came about for 96% in developing Countries (pre-modern and modern states, many of which are energy producers or are located in regions which are geopolitically and strategically important); 3) the energy resources that are extracted in (pre-modern and modern states; 4) new conflicts and terrorism. These four preoccupations are also confirmed by the two editions of the US National Security Strategy of 2002 and 2006.

"Energy Security: An Umbrella Term"

The "Frontier": a widened front

This reference to the American policy allows us, at this point, to individuate and define the third element of this analysis, which is, precisely, the concept of "frontier", a term which is no longer destined to define only physical territorial limits of the post-modern/market-state because the dependence and the threats that, possibly, this will be forced to face are found, notoriously, beyond the national borders.
With the sudden increase of prices of the energy resources (with a clear reflection on that of certain agricultural products for food use utilized now to produce the so-called clean energy) due, not only to the demand increase by the emerging Countries (14) , but also to the actions of groups of investors, speculators (and criminal), the world will depend always more on new forms of energy supply which comes from areas where security systems are still being defined.
In areas like the Caspian Sea and West Africa, where oil and natural gas is extracted, the threat to the security is represented not only by terrorist and criminal activities, civil wars, acts of piracy, but also by environmental disasters (15) .
From a national point of view, three years from the declared conclusion of the Iraq war, certain members of the American Establishment are admitting the tie between the invasion and the importance of the sources of fossil energy present in Iraq.
"Even if it is politically awkward, the war in Iraq is for the oil!" Alan Greenspan has recently declared, after which statement, he was invited to better "clarify" the sense of his affirmation (16) .
The discussion overlapping the four American "preoccupations" brings us also to Africa, where Washington, in a race against time and against China, which is always increasingly interested in the African oil, has made ready a plan of 500 million dollars, with the objective of erasing Islamic terrorist cells (connected to the A Qaeda) of West Africa.
The plan, which provides for the constitution of an American command (AFRICOM) – in a Country that is not yet indicated – as well as fighting the terrorism, must ensure stability in the local Countries (in particular, Nigeria) and guarantee continuity of the operations of production of primary energy sources (17) . This explains, in part, the American request to the Countries adherent to the OPEC, to increase the production (18) and the interest of foreign oil societies that the Iraqi Parliament approve, as soon as possible, the law on the exploitation of the energy resources, with the definition of the quotas to be entrusted on a contractual basis (19) .
The energy problem, where "the energy is the key factor of the national security of the United States" (20) , is in the agenda of the electoral campaign of the American presidential candidates, John McCain and Barrack Obama.
But the "frontier" expands further is we analyze the evolution of an international organization, such as NATO. Between 1991 and 1999, the Organization worked to redefine its own mission following the disappearance of the Soviet communist threat.
During the humanitarian intervention brought to Kosovo, the Alliance, celebrating its fifty years of existence, formulated the "New Strategic Concept" signed by all the allies on the 24th April, 1999, in Washington.
In particular, there are two articles which let us glimpse how the "threat" is no longer identified in the figure of a specific enemy or Country, but in situations of crisis which can provoke damage to the economy of the constituent Alliance Countries:

• Art. 20: "(…) Ethnic and religious rivalry , territorial disputes, inadequate or failed attempts of reform, abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of the States can lead to local or also regional instability. The resulting tensions could lead to crises which affect the Euro-Atlantic stability."
• Art. 24: "(...) Any armed attack on the territory of the Allies, coming from whatever part, would be covered by Articles 5 and 6 of the Washington Treaty. Nevertheless, the security of the Alliance must also take the global context into account. The security interests of the Alliance can be subject to other risks of a vaster nature, including acts of terrorism, sabotage and organized crime, or also to the interruption of flows of vital resources. The unrestrained movement of a great number of people, particularly, as a consequence of armed conflict, could also pose problems to the security and stability of the Alliance" (21) .
The ongoing debate concerning the possibility of an Atlantic Alliance involvement in operations of "energy security" (22) ) has found further impetus in the war against terror.
For Gal Luft, Executive Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security of Washington, "(…) the new context of (NATO) security means that the interventions in the oil producer Countries, the naval activities along the strategic straits and the operations of anti-terrorism against the petro-jihadists who want to block the world economy by interrupting our energy supplies are all almost certain. Not one of the problems that the world energy system has to tackle is transitory, and the challenge determined by the energy security can only grow with time. In the years ahead, as Senator Richard Lugar, President of the Foreign Relations Commission of the US Senate, declared on the eve of the Riga Summit, "the most probably source of armed conflict in the European theatre and in the surrounding regions, will be the scarcity and the speculation on energy products".
This very priority of the energy security in the NATO context of security, made Barry Busan write that "although the terrorist threat is important, on the part of the American Administration, the ·global war on terrorism· has been elevated to a strategic ·manifesto· to substitute the long-gone enemy of the Soviet communismö (23) . It is very easy to recognize NATO’s constant preoccupation over the energy security since 1999 until today.
In two NATO Summits the energy has been seen both as a weapon and as a target to be protected.
During the Riga Summit of NATO (2006)
• The American Senator, Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proposed the possibility of invoking Art.5 of the Atlantic Pact in the case where the energy resources of a Member Country are threatened with force thus equating this threat to a real military attack (24) .
• Jamie Shea, Director of NATO Policy Planning, suggested the creation by the Atlantic Council, of a Unit for the analyses of Intelligence and the energy security. According to Shea: "a similar Unit has already been formed and, with success. It is concerned with terrorism, but its mandate could very well be extended to include a specific task relative to the Intelligence on energy security. The information gathered by the allies, partners, oil societies, and by various Governments would then be managed by a Special Committee with the specific task of facilitating the flow and the utilization by the different organizations concerned with energy security" (25) .
In a geopolitical view of broad range, the NATO is involved in a series of partnerships with both the consumer and producer Countries of energy:
• "Partnership for Peace", with the Countries of East and Central Europe;
• "Istanbul Cooperation Initiative", with the Countries of the Middle-East;
• "Mediterranean Dialogue" with the Countries of the Mediterranean shores;
• not to speak of the varied common participation with Australia, Japan (these two Countries, in the future, could be a formal part of the Alliance, in this could be seen a new policy of containment regarding China) New Zealand and Korea (26) .
More recently, at the NATO Summit of Bucharest (2008), the energy-geopolitical was reaffirmed with the strongest support given by the United States to Georgia and the Ukraine (27) , which had made request to enter the Alliance.
Entrance which has one again been postponed for a series of geo-political reasons, among which the internal secessionist drives and the threat of Russia, the Country from where the gas ducts and pipelines start which pass through the two applicant Nations and which are very important for Central and West Europe from the geo-strategic viewpoint.
The joint declaration of the heads of Government who had participated in the Bucharest Summit is of great importance because once more the extremely strong tie "energy security" and "intelligence" is reasserted with a policy value.
The role of NATO for the "Energy Security", according to the declaration, should, consequently, express itself in the following fields:
1. "fusion and sharing of the knowledge and secret information";
2. "plan stability";
3. "promote the cooperation both international and for each single region";
4. "give support to a consequent management";
5. "assure the protection of the critical structures of energy production" (28) .
We can affirm, therefore, that the "New Strategic Concept", which will come into being in 2009, in occasion of the celebration of the sixty years of the Atlantic Alliance, will maintain and expand the putting into practice the two concepts of "Energy Security" and "Intelligence".
The main problem that the allies will have to face is that of ‘who will be ready and who will not’ to assume assignments, and to carry them ahead with competence, therefore, giving rise to the hierarchies delegated to the management of the "Energy Security Policy"


To prepare for the new front

Returning to the preoccupations of the United States, the 4th point mentions the threat of the new wars and of terrorism. As we shall see, both terms are strongly tied to each other.
Mary Kaldor, in one of her works "New and Old Wars: organized violence in a global era" (29) individuates as characteristic elements of the "New Wars", the new policy of the identity, the different methods of combat, the new economy of war
• The new question of the identity – both national and trans-national – entails a claim of power, also destructive, on the basis of simple labels, in contexts of the weakening of the sources of the legitimacy policy, at local and global levels (e.g. of the international bodies): a group claims a position of privilege over another one as bearer of ‘ethic purity’ or guarantor of the international order, champion of human rights, against the genocide violence, or representative of good over evil. Labels, exactly, which isolate single Countries creating contrasts functional to the control of the world geopolitics.
• The different methods of combat are, on the one side, ascribable to the techniques of the guerrilla warfare (and are the aggressions on the cities as experimented in the Balkans, questionably defined "civil wars"), on the other side, to the logic of the spectacular, also mediatic (the war in Iraq and the NATO war in the Serb-Montenegrin Federation and in Kosovo).
The new techniques of combat tend, in fact, to avoid direct clashes between regular armies, with the effect of having reversed, in the course of the 20th Century, the ratio between the military victim and the civilian victim: in W.W.I, eight to one, respectively, in W.W.II, a ratio of parity, in the modern war, one to eight.
• The new economy of war is decentralized (to the contrary of what happened in the traditional wars) and strongly depends on the external resources, comprised of illegal trafficking of arms, drugs, precious goods; it foresees, furthermore, the recourse to the embargo, with the effect of producing regression of social relations and annulment of the fundamental human rights such as health, education, besides life itself.
When elements of these "new wars" are analyzed, one notes that they come about within the State; they are civil wars, therefore, not wars between States. They are conducted and fought by regular forces, paramilitary groups, self-defence units (composed of volunteers who seek to defend their own territory), foreign mercenary and, lastly, foreign regular troops who are involved in the conflicts because they operate on behalf of the United Nations, the NATO, etc,.
Another important factor, however, is constituted by the economy of the war to the point that such states of conflict are defined as "cheap wars" (30) , not only from the viewpoint of the armaments utilized, but also as far as the availability of "man-power" is concerned, which participates in the same conflict with different motivations, a subject, in itself, very interesting and full of intrigue. In fact, if these wars/internal conflicts ("civil wars", "new wars") happen in an environment in which:
1. the Government is overthrown or collapses;
2. minority groups find themselves geographically isolated within a different ethnic group of greater dimensions;
3. the balance of political power moves from one group to another;
4. the economic resources of a Country change hands rapidly;
5. groups are asked to disband their own partisan armies (31) .
If we add to these five factors that:
• "most of the time, conflicts are caused by economic opportunities, rather than motives connected to fighting injustice" [(32) </I>];
• the Country hit by a civil war/new war produces energy resources, then we find ourselves in the face of conflicts that are defined as New Oil Wars.
The evolution of the concept of New Oil Wars, coined by Mary Kaldor, reproduces the steps of the concepts of new wars and old wars, but in this case, applying it to Countries that produce and live exclusively on the income derived from the energy production.
While in theold oil wars the strategic question, therefore, purely military and geopolitical, was the most important, since the super-powers could control – directly and/or indirectly – with the forces of arms, the territory of the producer State. With the New oil wars this is now more complicated.
In fact, we are facing conflicts which see State and non-State actors involved, both interested in the revenues derived from the sale and transport of the energy resources.
At first, these conflicts assume the form of old wars in which the actors are still the great powers; little by little, as the cycle of violence evolves, new groups, bringers of equally strong interests, enter the scene, so that the State completely loses the command of the monopoly of force: from here, the phase of the New oil wars (33) .
Typology of conflicts made in this way can present itself in the form of secessionist struggles (cases of the Delta of Niger in Nigeria or of the South of Thailand) or of real and proper civil wars (Algeria, Colombia, Sudan and Iraq).
According to Michael Ross, the wealth gained from energy resources (oil wealth) can spark off armed conflicts in three ways:
1. causing economic instability which leads to political instability;
2. oil wealth often helps to maintain the insurgent forces;
3. oil wealth encourages separatism (34) .
In practical terms, if there should be terrorist attacks causing damage to the sources and/or to the systems of distribution of the energy resources, the terrorist group – taken in the entirety of its most varied claims of a religious, independence supporter, separatist, autonomist and/or political character – could reach the following strategic results:
• provoke serious economic damage to the Government of the Country against which it is fighting, in this way facilitating the attainment of the political objective;
• provoke serious damage also to the foreign Countries which have invested and which sustain the Government of the Country;
• being able to finance itself, both by reselling the energy resources procured and by threatening (by blackmail) to make further attacks with the objective of receiving money for investing in arms, training etc., of the components of the group to which it belongs.
The attacks could be made in several ways, by:
• exploding the pipelines;
• exploding oil wells or other infrastructures (oil well platforms);
• attacking oil tankers;
• attacking or threatening to attack maritime traffic in the "choke points";
• exploding the offices of the national or foreign oil companies;
• kidnapping and/or killing the personnel of the oil company (see recent cases in Nigeria and the terrorist activities of the MEND – Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta) (35) . The very character of these conflicts – internal, but undoubtedly, with international repercussions – distinguishable by the variety and type of the actors involved, especially when it concerns international terrorism, contributes to give a level of operability, without confines, to the policy of energy security because clearly lacking a front, the idea is of a real war which is waged on different fields and in the ambit of scenarios which are not strictly traditional, as Javier Blas confirms in an analysis recently appeared in the Financial Times: "in general, only a war can cause an increase of 10$ per barrel, in one week" (36) .
It is a war then that is played also on the perceptions as well as on real and proper conflicts and on threats, projections of production and consumption, but it is also a war that sees as participants, among others, those of the economy wars present in the new wars.
The incompatibility between the forces in conflict lies in the control of the energy resources: consequently, the United States has elaborated a programme, which is now becoming reality, product of the experience gained in the war on terror and which has led the Pentagon to invest more resources and energy in the civil-military cooperation with a completely new approach.
Having identified risk situations in 2006, the State Department began to offer American students study scholarships in the "critical languages" such as, Arabic, Bangla/Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi, Turkish, Urdu, and to add, in the course of 2007, Chinese, Korean, Persian and Russian (37) .
Needing an approach nearer to the study of "Conflict Resolution", the American Armed Forces adopted, in February, 2008, the new "Operation Manual FM 3-0". "According to the manual, the United States, in the course of the next three five-year periods must: face a complex era of uninterrupted conflict; sustain conflict outside of the national territory in Countries where the local Institutions are fragile and the environment of difficult and hostile; with their armed forces, operate in the presence of civilian populations; raise the level of importance of the same Stability Operations to the point of considering them equal in importance to the victory over the adversary/enemy". (38) . The particularity of this manual lies in the fact that the operations of construction and stabilization of the Nations are not only military, but also Intelligence, with the involvement of numerous Agencies and among them, even ONG.
This is because the counter-insurrection operations are won from within, since they are fought among the civil population and "to mould the civil-administrative structure is just as important for the success".
They are operations which have a prevalently internal character because the actors of the new wars move in a "small group" manner and at different levels.
The terrorist phenomenon operates both at a national and international level and the characteristic, if we wish to take Al Qaeda as an example, is not its structure, but the fascination it is able exerts on certain individuals/groups, through the messages it manages to diffuse.


Conclusion

Once the approach to the present conflicts is overturned, it is necessary to create a new mapping of the possible threats. And it is in tracing out this "map of the conflict", or better still the New Oil Wars Mapping that the national and international context overlap, giving rise to a single threat to the security.
To analyze, interpret and understand the "map", the role of Intelligence becomes indispensable. It must know how to furnish adequate responses to three questions, which are basically ontological:
1. what is considered as reality?
2. what do we consider as reliable knowledge?
3. what can we do?
Only after having clarified that the reality de facto is a "conflict" and that a great quantity of information travels not only on the channels of open sources, but also through strictly financial circuits able to determine hidden flows and concentrations eventually finalized to fuel the conflict itself in favour of one side, as well as through international criminal organizations, terrorist cells/groups in the same area (national and international), then life can be given to an epistemological community able to reply to the third question, "what can we do?" in this way furnishing the political authorities with a comprehensive picture of the situation of crisis.
A multi-discipline community – experts and analysts in different matters, from international finance to sociology, from linguists to experts of energy resources – who compare the information coming from areas of the military, police, society, corporations etc., with that deducible from the open or closed sources.
The same division between Defence and Security – also this out-dated – should, conversely, suggest methods which are abreast of the times, giving more space to the man employed on the ground, who, irrespective of his rank, has the possibility, on the basis of his own quality and cultural/professional knowledge, to interact with the environment and, if necessary, "pass unobserved" within the structures/situations etc,. All with the objective of contributing to the national security.
An adaptation of this kind requires: a clear and unequivocal regulations framework of reference suited safeguarding the agent, as well as time and resources for the formation, training, organization, coordination and placement. It is not by chance that many Countries have decided to compensate for the structural shortcomings of the respective systems by externalizing functions of a delicate nature, delegating specific tasks to military companies and private security, which are certainly less tied, more flexible and adaptable to jobs of theatre operations on the ground in conflict zones (at low and high intensity), similar to those where the Italian Armed Forces already operate. In this context a new professional figure is emerging: that of the Human Security Worker, which, for its distinctive characteristics, could be perceived by the local actors (population, but also conflicting parts) as more neutral compared to the regular military forces of a Country or of a coalition, even though bearer of a UN or NATO
badge.
A context in which the "right to defend" and the "right to intervene" to protect the civil populations has, until now, allowed the intervention of third parties with "peace-maker", "peace-builder", "humanitarian mission" functions and others. Consequently, the "Human Security" theme (39) is becoming always stronger.
The Human Security Worker, result of the civil-military cooperation, should, therefore, have characteristics and requisites such as to liken him as much as possible to an operator of an ONG. Therefore, he would not be in uniform, but certainly trained in the use of arms. He should have a cultural store at university level, trained and prepared in specific questions of human security and International Humanitarian Law, similar to a Police or Carabineer official, who must enter into close contact with the population afflicted by the conflict, maintaining a low profile so as to arouse as little as possible resentment and reactions in the zone of operations assigned to him (job description). (40)
The front, however, is also internal, so the same approach must be utilized at national level, in which the borders between State Intelligence and Private Intelligence should fade. As Attorney General Michael Mukasey (41) has recently affirmed, the networks of the criminal organizations has already penetrated portions of the international energy market. In fact:
"The international criminal organizations: • have penetrated the energy sector and other strategic sectors of the economy. These organizations, together with their partners, control important sectors of the energy markets and strategic materials which are vital to the interests of the national security of the United States. Furthermore, such activities have a destabilizing effect in American geopolitical interests; • they furnish logistics support and more to the terrorist groups, Foreign Intelligence Services and foreign Countries; • they are responsible for the traffic in human beings and smuggling in the USA; • they exploit the USA and the international financial system to move illicit capital; • they use the "cyberspace" to strike citizens and American structures; • they manipulate "security exchanges" and are perpetrating specialized fraud; • they corrupt and try to corrupt Public Officials in the USA and abroad; • they use violence and threats of violence as the basis of their power". (42) From such statements it is not difficult to deduce that the increase in the price of oil of the last months could have originated also from conspicuous speculative processes (43) behind which criminal groups and regularly registered societies are hidden. The threats or attacks of terrorist groups, as for example, MEND in Nigeria, certainly cannot find room at any higher levels of the hierarchy of serious motivations adducible to explain the tensions of the markets!
For this, the globalized world and inter-dependents (market-States) run risks which are much higher than imaginable or even perceived, and it is up to the Intelligence Community, or better, to the new Intelligence (in its entirety, State and non-State) to make it possible to work on this front without frontiers!