The primary deterrence challenge in our region is to end Israel's campaign of lawless and inhumane violence. From a strategic perspective, this goal requires the use of power, which is the main driving force in international relations.
However, for actors who cannot employ force due to situational factors, the most rational approach to end the conflict before it escalates is to use deterrence and coercion strategies through the use of power capabilities. In this context, deterrence is the implementation of threats to dissuade an opposing party from taking a particular course of action. Stated simply, it is the act of persuading the adversary to refrain from acting against one's interests. The persuasion mechanism involves the transmission of signals to the opposing party.
In this context, Türkiye's intervention signal to Israel via the Peace Corps demonstrates the initial success of deterrence. Nevertheless, as deterrence must be sustained, it implies that further consideration must be given to issues related to credibility and reputation. State credibility, especially in light of the collapse of American values following the Israeli attacks, is poised to become one of the most crucial debates of the new era.
There are four distinct types and situations pertaining to deterrence. Immediate deterrence, the first type, targets a specific action taken by an adversary during a sudden crisis and can be used to prevent an attack on one's own territory. Second, general deterrence involves considering a potential attack within the context of the full spectrum of threats and challenges over a longer period, rather than just a short-term situation. Thirdly, direct deterrence aims to prevent attacks solely against the homeland, while extended deterrence aims to prevent an attack on the territory of another state. In today's world of great power rivalry, extended deterrence stands out as one of the most commonly cited topics in literature. Its focus on defending a specific ally in alliance politics or a relatively minor challenge aligns with ongoing discussions surrounding global order and geopolitical disintegration.
Regardless of the form of deterrence employed, specific signals are utilized to constrain the opponent's desired actions. These signals may be either explicit and expensive or partial and ambiguous. Explicit and expensive signals entail "sunk costs," which are immediately incurred upon signal deployment and cannot be retrieved, such as troop deployment, arms transfers and military demonstrations. These costly signals augment the legitimacy of a willingness to engage in combat if required. Sometimes there are signals that deliberately restrict the possibility of retreating, like “tying hands,” which emphasizes justice or threatening statements that are not necessarily costly.
Opting to adhere to the agreement seems like a better course of action, as pulling back after those statements would harm both domestic political and worldwide status. In certain circumstances, even if it is an expensive signal, it is tactical to remain ambiguous since the adversary may doubt its veracity. Leaving the target open-ended or relying on chance in strategy is generally regarded as having a positive impact on outcomes, as it makes it more difficult for the other party to obtain the correct information. Nevertheless, the crucial factor to consider is the actor's credibility and reputation to support the signal.
Israel's heavy bombardment of Gaza serves as a crisis and extended deterrence for Türkiye. Türkiye's primary objective is to deter an Israeli ground operation and bombing campaign. In this regard, Türkiye employed costly signals by heavily bombing terrorist camps in Syria and Iraq. In the event of continuing attacks on Gaza, Türkiye has put the Peace Corps on its agenda. The discourse on the Peace Force represents a costly commitment, both in terms of decisiveness and in terms of adhering to the issue. Retracting from this commitment would jeopardize its credibility in both domestic and regional politics, resulting in audience costs.
Despite some uncertainty following the peacekeeping declarations, Türkiye's stance on the issue remains steadfast. Although Türkiye's commitment to the peace force was previously questioned by Israel through a public threat, the recent "Great Palestine Rally," attended by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has sent a message of public support that could impact the credibility of such doubting actors.
Türkiye's peacekeeping dialogue may provoke Israel and lead to more attacks. Ankara has sent costly signals to halt the attacks, but Israel appears to be misinformed about Türkiye's stance. Türkiye's credibility will be tested in the future. Remaining ambiguous may be viewed as a strategic approach by some. However, following the peacekeeping announcements, the spotlight will be on Türkiye's reliability in making decisive and honest decisions. Ankara's credibility as an effective crisis deterrent seems formidable, particularly when considering its policies regarding Azerbaijan and Libya. In recent years, Türkiye has stood by its allies during times of crisis. It can provide its allies with both technological and military support, including sending drones to the battlefield or deploying troops when needed. The country demonstrates its unwavering commitment by indicating its readiness to engage in combat alongside its allies. Consequently, Türkiye has maintained a delicate equilibrium between dependability and stability.
Türkiye's successful deterrence policy supports various academic interests in the region. The globalization of social reactions and protests, particularly after the Israeli attacks and the questioning of American values have led to the exploration of alternative norms. The collapse of trust in American values creates opportunities for discussions on the values that will shape regional behavior rules in the future. While nations such as Russia, China and Iran are currently leveraging the opportunity structure, their membership in the regional status quo proves to be a hurdle toward acquiring social consent. Türkiye's ascension in this regard has not gone unnoticed by the United States, which seeks to use it to its advantage. Nevertheless, Ankara, a frequent critic of the global order, seeks to escalate its game-changing capacity to the strategic level. Its main obstacle is the degree of uncertainty surrounding the amount of domestic political and social support it possesses. The "Great Palestine Rally" helped clarify this uncertainty.
*Assistant professor at Joint War Institute, National Defense University of Türkiye
