The antipersonnel operation is meant to obtain an information by hiring an informant as their asset, though this relationship does not stay at this official concept. The information also flows from the intelligence to their asset as well.
The spy can manipulate an action of the target organization by sending an intel to them. For example, if holding an asset at the major position of another government, the spy can manipulate their political decision by controlling an information or sending a faked one.
As a matter of fact, the operation can be extended further from here. If their asset is critical to the political decision in a targeted government, the intelligence organization directly control the final decision. This outcome is more than just acquiring an information.
Furthermore, their target is not necessarily a government and they actually hire many assets at the economic entity and terrorist organization.
Especially, the terrorist asset has been common for a long time, which is an extension of the operation supporting an anti-government movement in many foreign countries. In the end, they become terrorist groups and the spy has their assets originally inside the organization. Adding to this, the intelligence organization has penetrated into their target terrorist groups to hire some of their members as a spy.
Once the intelligence acquires an asset in the terrorist organization, they can capture a terrorist activity, which is quite useful to prevent another attack. The same function can be replaced by the undercover agent penetrated into a targeted organization, though this endangers a life of this agent always. In this sense, it is better to acquire an asset than to infiltrate a spy into the opponent, implying the undercover is always a secondary option to take.
The spy can proceed their operation to disorganize the terrorist group through their asset. For example, they can escalate an internal conflict by delivering a faked information.
However, there is a considerable issue on this asset operation, which is an ignorance of the terror attack planned by their asset. They should ignore its coming, especially when its success pushes up a ranking of their asset amongst the terrorist group. In that case, the terror act has been conducted as an ignorant consent.
This outlook has been abused more than you assume that the spy has caused a terrorist attack for their sake. It is a little complicated how the CIA sabotage the politics in this way, but you can easily picture that North Korea has conducted many terrors for their sake. It is known fact that the terrorist attack is also created by established governments like this.
In some other cases, the terrorist attack has triggered by the intelligence organization without any order from their government. It is common that the spy exceeds their authority, including a sabotage sometimes classified as a terrorist attack. In the most of this case, the attack has been conducted by the terrorist of their asset, not by the intelligence officer.
The intelligence is related to two types of attack, one of which is planned by the terrorist of their asset and the other is designed by the intelligence organization. In either way, there have been many attacks which can be prevented but not.
FFF 