Mehmet Öğütçü: We Are Not Frogs in Warm Water — How Türkiye Can Resist Salami Tactics

Summary:

The erosion of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity is no longer a distant problem confined to far-off regions. From Cyprus and the Black Sea to Syria, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Aegean, and the Caucasus, power politics is increasingly replacing rules-based order. In this environment, Türkiye faces neither an existential panic nor the luxury of complacency. What it needs is clarity, preparedness, and unity.

In global politics, there is no guarantee that faits accomplis unfolding elsewhere will bypass our geography. Today, concepts such as international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity are being steadily worn down. In their place, openly or implicitly, the “law of the strong” is taking hold.

When discussing Türkiye, public debate often swings between two extremes. At one end is excessive self-confidence that dismisses risks; at the other is an anxiety-driven narrative that portrays the country as weaker than it truly is. Neither reflects reality. The current landscape calls for calm assessment and strategic readiness. Türkiye is neither so fragile that it should panic, nor so secure that it can afford indifference.

Türkiye remains one of the most capable states across a vast geography stretching from Germany to China, from Russia to Saudi Arabia. Its strength is not measured solely in military hardware. The real pillars are its state tradition, institutional memory, human capital, and its ability to recover during crises. These are assets that cannot be improvised overnight.

A New Regional Game: Quiet, Incremental, and Effective

It must be stated clearly: a new regional strategy with clearly defined objectives is being pursued — and so far, it has been delivering results. Backed by the United States, Israel has advanced this strategy quietly, step by step, dismantling proxy networks along the way.

Groups through which Iran exerted influence for years — notably Hamas and Hezbollah — have been severely weakened. Military strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure have raised the deterrence threshold. Now, a new phase appears to be underway, one that increasingly targets Iran’s internal balances.

Iraq has effectively evolved into a three-part structure. The Kurdish region has acquired many attributes of a state within a state: its own parliament, armed forces, government, education, and judiciary. In Syria, following regime change, fragmentation has deepened. The Kurdish-controlled north has been consolidated, with water and energy resources forming its structural backbone. Israel has established de facto control zones in southern Syria, creating a security belt extending close to Damascus, while expanding its influence among Druze communities and closely monitoring Alawite populations along the Mediterranean coast.

Taken together, this picture makes one reality unmistakably clear: among the main strategic obstacles to Israel’s regional ambitions — extending as far as the Horn of Africa — stands Türkiye.

A strong Türkiye in the Eastern Mediterranean and on the Syrian front is a natural brake on these plans. It is therefore unrealistic to deny that calculations aimed at weakening, marginalizing, or neutralizing Türkiye are being made. If such efforts succeed, the objective would be to link northern Iraq with northern Syria, extend that corridor toward Israel, further contain Iran, and ultimately create conditions conducive to an independent Kurdish state aligned with U.S. interests. Oil, natural gas, and the water resources of the Euphrates–Tigris basin are integral to this equation.

Türkiye cannot afford to ignore this. Deterrence not established today may have to be rebuilt tomorrow at a far higher cost.

The Danger of Complacency: How Major States Are Eroded

Türkiye’s strength should not be doubted — but neither should it lead to complacency. Major states rarely collapse overnight. More often, they are worn down gradually: through small steps, seemingly minor concessions, postponed decisions, and choices justified as “manageable for now.”

These warnings are not a language of fear; they are a call for preparedness.

In international relations, intentions are rarely declared openly; they are inferred from patterns of behavior. In this context, the fact that the United States never ratified the Lausanne Treaty within its domestic legal framework is not a trivial detail. Periodic debates in U.S. academic and strategic circles questioning Lausanne’s relevance, along with alternative maps circulating within Pentagon and CENTCOM environments, offer important clues about prevailing strategic thinking. These should not be read as provocations, but as material for sober analysis.

The real risk is not a sudden rupture, but a slow process of attrition. This is precisely what “salami tactics” entail: advancing incrementally, without triggering shock or resistance, slicing thinly and persistently. History repeatedly shows that great powers are weakened not by dramatic confrontations, but by cumulative concessions and deferred red lines.

In the longer term, visions of governance based on decentralized, quasi-state entities — with their own flags, parliaments, education systems, and armed forces — come into focus. Where such trajectories ultimately lead is open to debate, but it is evident that these ideas are circulating.

It is also highly questionable whether this path serves the long-term interests of Kurdish communities themselves. History teaches another lesson: once major powers achieve their objectives, they do not hesitate to discard actors who once served as instruments. There is no guarantee that the future will be different.

This is why the issue transcends foreign policy or security alone. It is fundamentally about internal cohesion.

Unity and Inclusion: Türkiye’s Real Strategic Advantage

What Türkiye needs is not greater harshness, but greater clarity. Strengthening internal solidarity while standing firm against developments that threaten national security and economic interests are not competing goals — they are complementary.

Türkiye’s greatest advantage lies in its capacity for inclusion. The more it enables all citizens — Kurds and Turks, Alevis and Sunnis, secular and religious groups, Laz, Syriac, and others — to feel equally part of the nation, the stronger it becomes. Internal peace, prosperity, and security must be shown to outweigh ethnic, sectarian, or ideological divisions.

Across countless international negotiations, the same pattern emerges: whenever Türkiye appeared internally fragmented, external appetites grew. Whenever a shared strategic mindset prevailed, external pressure eased. This is therefore not a matter of government versus opposition. It is a strategic threshold concerning Türkiye’s future.

Conclusion: Awareness Without Panic, Strength Without Arrogance

Türkiye has strength. But strength only gains meaning through vigilance, unity, and preparation. There is no reason for fear — and no justification for complacency.

We must remain aware of the game being played, without sacrificing internal peace and social cohesion. Let us ensure that no one mistakes Türkiye for a frog slowly boiling in warm water.

PA Turkey intends to inform Turkey watchers with diverse views and opinions. Articles on our website may not necessarily represent the view of our editorial board or count as endorsement.

Follow our English-language YouTube channel (REAL TURKEY):
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKpFJB4GFiNkhmpVZQ_d9Rg

Twitter: @AtillaEng
Facebook: Real Turkey Channel – https://www.facebook.com/realturkeychannel/