In the current context, marked by the convergence of geopolitical, technological, economic, and transnational threats, intelligence services—both state and non-state—operate in an environment that directly impacts the internal stability and security of nations. Globalization, digitalization, and the emergence of non-state actors have radically transformed the field of intelligence, demanding a profound review of structures, functions, and capabilities. In Argentina, the modernization of intelligence systems has become imperative to address challenges such as organized crime, terrorism, foreign interference, cognitive warfare, and the protection of critical infrastructure. The creation of an intelligence community, featuring decentralized bodies, allows for specialization and control; in this sense, robust institutional checks and balances are required to prevent abuses. In particular, the General Inspectorate should depend directly on the president to avoid the interference of spurious interests throughout the chain of command of the National Intelligence Service (SIN), because even the supreme leader must be subject to scrutiny. An effective agent must have an in-depth understanding of the environment in which they operate and be part of the social and professional landscape of the target in such a way that they go unnoticed in the community where they carry out their collection work. A valid example of this are the Russian spies who lived in Argentina with the purpose of collecting information on Vaca Muerta and the Brazilian who attempted to undertake an internship at the International Criminal Court. The intelligence analyst transforms the disparate data obtained by collection agents into intelligence products that reduce uncertainty and guide decisions through actionable risk assessments. The required competencies are very demanding, and training must be continuous. These include: methodological mastery (analytical techniques, bias control, probabilistic estimation); thematic expertise (politics, economy, energy, organized crime, terrorism, infrastructure, etc.); solid general culture and languages to read sources in the original; intellectual honesty, healthy skepticism, and the ability to review one's own thinking; counterfactual thinking and competing hypotheses; teamwork with disciplinary diversity; visual communication; and uncertainty management. The analyst 'writes for the decisor,' which implies clarity, brevity, an explicit central judgment, alternatives, and a level of confidence and risk management. To avoid the risk of analytical hubris, the use of the following tools is required: checklists against biases (confirmation, anchoring, recency); cross-audits and peer reviews; and lessons learned after successes and failures, with non-punitive consequences that foster learning. In summary, international models offer valuable lessons, but adaptation to the Latin American and Argentinean context requires profound institutional reforms, investment in technical capabilities, and a renewed commitment to ethics and transparency. The roadmap for modernization must be comprehensive, gradual, and participatory, incorporating the best international practices and adapting them to local realities.
