Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with former counterterrorism operative Jeffrey James Higgins about narcoterrorism, a threat that sits between organized crime, insurgency and geopolitical conflict. Higgins argues that illicit drug networks are no longer merely criminal enterprises. They fund armed groups, corrupt institutions, hollow out communities and, in some cases, operate like shadow states. As synthetic opioids such as fentanyl spread and cartels acquire paramilitary capabilities, Singh and Higgins examine whether narcotics should be treated as a public health crisis, a law enforcement problem or a national security threat.

Drugs, terror and power

Higgins defines narcoterrorism as “the nexus between terrorism and illicit narcotics trafficking.” He says this connection once met skepticism inside parts of the US intelligence community, but his experience in Afghanistan after 2004 convinced him that the overlap was undeniable. Taliban-linked networks, drug traffickers and armed groups often shared routes, revenue streams and operational interests.

The logic is straightforward. Drugs generate enormous profits, and illegal organizations need money that cannot be raised openly. Afghanistan’s opium economy once supplied much of the world’s heroin, while groups such as the Taliban used narcotics revenue to sustain their political and military ambitions. Today, Higgins argues, fentanyl has transformed the landscape because it is cheaper, more potent and easier to produce than plant-based narcotics.

He breaks narcoterrorism into several types: cartels that use political violence to protect drug profits, ideological groups that use drug money to fund their goals, individuals who are both traffickers and terrorists, and broader partnerships between criminal and militant networks. Singh adds that states can also use narcotics as tools of destabilization, citing Pakistan’s alleged role in the Indian state of Punjab and the wider debate over China’s role in the fentanyl trade.

Fentanyl and unrestricted warfare

Much of the conversation turns to China. Higgins argues that Beijing benefits from the flow of fentanyl and related synthetic opioids into the United States, even when it takes limited steps to appear cooperative. In his view, China has the capacity to do far more to stop precursor chemicals and fentanyl analogues from leaving its territory.

Singh complicates the argument by placing it in historical context. He recalls Britain’s 19th-century use of Indian opium against China, which helped inaugurate China’s “century of humiliation.” Higgins accepts the historical parallel but argues that the present danger is part of a broader strategy. He links narcotics to cyberattacks, financial pressure and what he calls disintegration warfare — the effort to weaken a rival from within.

This results in not just overdose deaths, Higgins says, but institutional decay. Narcotics weaken public health, reduce productivity, increase enforcement costs and deepen mistrust in government. Unlike a dramatic terrorist attack, drug-driven destabilization unfolds slowly. This process, in Singh’s words, can “hollow out” entire communities.

Cartels as insurgents

Singh then turns to Mexico and Latin America, where drug cartels have evolved far beyond smuggling networks. Higgins argues that some cartels now resemble insurgent forces. They possess military-style weapons, armored vehicles, drones, mines and the capacity to challenge police and military forces directly.

Their violence is deliberately political. Beheadings, assassinations and bodies displayed in public are meant to intimidate judges, police, politicians and civilians. Higgins says the stability of Mexico is on a “knife’s edge,” weakened by corruption that has eaten into law enforcement, the judiciary and political life.

For Singh, this raises a deeper question about state power. A state must monopolize legitimate violence. When cartels control neighborhoods, extort businesses, corrupt officials and enforce their own rules, they become rival authorities. Higgins agrees, warning that narcoterrorists can “unravel the tapestry built over a long period of time.”

Public health or national security?

Singh presses Higgins on the argument made by some retired CIA officers that drugs are primarily a demand-side and public health problem. Higgins partly agrees. Addiction often reflects cultural malaise, despair and loss of agency. He supports community-based solutions, youth engagement and problem-oriented policing.

But he rejects the idea that narcoterrorism can be reduced to public health. Fentanyl and carfentanyl are different from marijuana or other recreational drugs, he argues, because their potency makes them uniquely lethal. Additionally, many traffickers are not merely selling narcotics; they are committing assassinations, hijackings and acts of political violence.

Shadow states and justice

The conversation ends with criminal justice. Higgins argues that the US over-incarcerates nonviolent offenders but under-incarcerates violent career criminals. Reform is necessary, he says, but so is incapacitation when individuals repeatedly commit violent crimes.

When the state fails to provide protection and justice, groups such as the Mafia, MS-13 or cartels step in. The danger of narcoterrorism is not just addiction or crime. It is the slow disintegration of lawful authority itself.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.