By Zachary Keck
Coercion is much tougher than deterrence but reducing objectives can make it work.
Security scholars have long recognized that compellence/coercion is more difficult to achieve than deterrence. (Although both deterrence and compellence require coercion, coercion is commonly used interchangeably with compellence. I will do so here.)
There are two, interrelated reasons for this. First, “deterrence aims to persuade the opponent not to initiate action” while “compellence aims to persuade the opponent to change his behavior.” In most cases in international politics, this means that deterrence demands that an adversary not acquire or attempt to acquire something new (more territory, a nuclear weapon), whereas coercion demands that the target state give up something it already possess (part of its territory, a uranium enrichment capability). Nations, like individuals, value what they already possess more than what they only aspire to. As a result, they are much more likely to be deterred than coerced.
Secondly, because of the different types of demands being made, coercion usually places the impetus for initial action on the coercer, whereas deterrence places the burden of first action on the target state. For example, to deter the Soviet Union from overrunning Western Europe, the U.S. only needed to threaten massive retaliation if the Red Army crossed the Fulda Gap. Unless the Red Army came storming into Western Europe, the U.S. wasn’t required to take any actual action against the Soviet Union.
By contrast, because coercion is demanding a state give up something, usually the coercer must take the initiative. This usually entails imposing some sort of discomfort on the target state backed by threats to increase this level of discomfort if its demands are not met. In addition, the coercer promises to end the pain it is imposing on the target state once its demands are met. For instance, in order to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, the U.S. and its allies have imposed increasingly harsh sanctions on Tehran and threatened possible military action in the future. Conversely, it has promised Iran that the sanctions will be lifted and military action won’t be taken if it accedes to Western demands.
Read the full story at The Diplomat