The Fusion–Fission Approach: A New Theoretical Framework for Explaining Regional Security

 

 

Prof. Dr. Firuz Demir Yaşamış

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

This article proposes two ideal-typical modes of security production —fusion (integrative) and fission (fragmentative)— as a new conceptual framework for analyzing regional security. The central argument is that regional disorder should not always be interpreted as a result of incapacity, failure, or external intervention; rather, for some actors, managed disorder constitutes a deliberate and sustainable mode of security production. While fusion-oriented strategies seek to generate security through regional integration, institutionalization, and cooperation, fission-oriented strategies aim to maintain security by preventing surrounding actors from achieving political cohesion, institutional capacity, and collective agency. The article demonstrates the explanatory power of this distinction through an analysis of Turkey–Israel relations, arguing that persistent tensions between the two states stem not from conjunctural factors or leadership choices, but from a structural divergence in how security is produced. Finally, the study suggests that the fusion–fission framework is not region-specific and can be applied to other regional security settings.

Keywords: Regional security, security production, fusion, fission, Turkey–Israel relations

 

INTRODUCTION

The literature on regional security has largely explained chronic instability in the Middle East through state capacity deficits, external intervention, or ideological conflicts. While these approaches offer valuable insights, they remain insufficient in explaining why certain actors do not perceive instability as a “problem” to be resolved, but rather adopt it as a deliberate strategy for producing security. In particular, the question of why states operating within the same regional security environment develop fundamentally incompatible security understandings has received limited attention.

This article proposes two ideal-typical modes of security production —fusion and fission— as an alternative framework for analyzing regional security. Fusion refers to the production of security through regional integration, institutionalization, and cooperation, whereas fission denotes a mode of security production based on the fragmentation, dispersion, and institutional weakness of surrounding actors. This distinction departs from existing approaches by shifting the analytical focus away from what states seek to achieve and toward how security is produced.

The article argues that the “fusion–fission” framework makes three main contributions to political science and international relations scholarship. First, it introduces a paradigmatic shift by conceptualizing regional instability not as a failure or deficiency, but as a structural and intentional security choice. Second, it offers a generalizable conceptual tool capable of explaining why actors within the same regional context fail to develop lasting strategic alignment. Third, by emphasizing modes of security production, the framework provides not only explanatory but also predictive analytical leverage.

The theoretical framework is illustrated through the case of Turkey–Israel relations. The article contends that tensions between the two countries are not conjunctural or leader-specific, but stem from a structural divergence in how security is produced. While Turkey approaches regional security through an integrative (fusion-oriented) logic, Israel relies on a fragmentative (fission-oriented) strategy, resulting in a persistent strategic incompatibility. Throughout the article, fusion and fission are used interchangeably with integrative and fragmentative security production.

The article proceeds as follows. The first section outlines the conceptual and theoretical foundations of the fusion–fission framework. The second section situates the approach in relation to existing literature. The third section examines the empirical manifestations of fusion–fission differentiation through the Turkey–Israel case. The final section assesses the framework’s generalizability and its contribution to political science.

CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: FUSION AND FISSION

This study proposes fusion and fission as two ideal-typical modes of security production for the analysis of regional security. These ideal types are not intended as direct descriptions of empirical reality, but as analytical tools designed to capture the underlying logics through which states produce regional security. Accordingly, fusion and fission focus not on actors’ intentions, but on the processes and architectures of security production.

Fusion: Integrative Security Production

Fusion denotes a security understanding in which stability is generated through regional integration, institutionalization, and cooperation. Within this approach, stability is defined not by the absence of threats, but by mutual interdependence and predictability among actors. For fusion-oriented states, strong and institutionalized neighboring states are not perceived as security threats, but as elements that enhance the sustainability of regional order. (Buzan ve Waever, 2003).

In the fusion logic, security is produced through the preservation of regional integrity, the strengthening of state capacity, the development of multilateral diplomatic and economic mechanisms, and the establishment of shared security platforms. Consequently, fusion conceptualizes security not as a zero-sum competition, but as a collective good that can be jointly produced. Instability is viewed as undesirable, as fragmentation generates unpredictability, spillover risks, and long-term costs.

The core assumption of the fusion approach is that durable security can only emerge within an integrated regional order. As such, fusion strategies prioritize medium- and long-term structural stability over short-term tactical gains.

Fission: Security Production through Fragmentation

Fission, by contrast, refers to a mode of security production in which security is achieved through the fragmentation, dispersion, and institutional weakness of surrounding actors. In this approach, stability is not associated with regional integration, but with the inability of rival or potentially threatening actors to develop centralized capacity.

Within the fission logic, security is produced by ensuring that neighboring states remain politically and institutionally weak, that cohesive regional actors do not emerge, that asymmetric military and technological superiority is maintained, and that crises remain manageable but unresolved. In this framework, instability is not a failure but a controllable security instrument. (Walt, 1987).

For fission-oriented actors, regional integration constitutes a potential security threat, as it enhances collective agency and erodes asymmetric advantages. Consequently, fission seeks to produce security not by constructing a centralized order, but by preventing alternative orders from taking shape.

Theoretical Significance of the Fusion–Fission Distinction

The fusion–fission distinction differs from existing approaches by shifting the analytical focus from what states want to how security is produced. In doing so, it moves beyond dichotomies such as status quo versus revisionist or strong versus weak states, placing modes of security production at the center of analysis. This framework explains why actors within the same regional security environment fail to develop lasting strategic alignment, as fusion and fission represent not merely different policy preferences, but incompatible visions of regional order. Such incompatibility cannot be easily resolved through leadership change or conjunctural rapprochement. Accordingly, the fusion–fission approach enables analysts to interpret persistent regional tensions as manifestations of structural opposition rather than temporary crises.

Fusion and Fission as Ideal Types

Finally, it should be emphasized that fusion and fission rarely appear in their pure forms in empirical reality. Most actors occupy positions along a spectrum and may employ elements of both logics at different times. However, the dominant mode of security production shapes an actor’s regional behavior and long-term strategic orientation. This study employs the fusion–fission distinction precisely as an ideal-typical analytical tool that renders these dominant tendencies visible. (Ayoob, 1995)

COMPARING THE FUSION–FISSION APPROACH WITH EXISTING LITERATURE

The fusion–fission approach both engages with and diverges from existing theoretical frameworks on regional security. This section situates the framework within the literature by highlighting its distinctive analytical contributions.

Comparison with Regional Security Complex Theory

Regional Security Complex Theory, developed by Buzan and Wæver, explains security dynamics through regionally clustered threat perceptions. While this approach successfully accounts for the regional organization of security interactions, it offers limited insight into how actors seek to structure regional order. Fusion–fission complements this gap by explaining why actors within the same security complex pursue incompatible security architectures and fail to establish durable regional orders.

Comparison with “Divide and Rule” and Balkanization

Approaches such as “divide and rule” and Balkanization conceptualize fragmentation as a tactical or historical outcome. The fusion–fission framework, by contrast, treats fragmentation not as an outcome but as a systematic and sustainable mode of security production. Fission thus represents a broader security architecture rather than a mere tactical strategy.

Comparison with the Status Quo–Revisionist Distinction

While the status quo–revisionist distinction focuses on actors’ goals regarding existing orders, fusion–fission focuses on how those orders are produced. A fusion-oriented actor may seek to preserve or transform the status quo through integration, whereas a fission-oriented actor may preserve it by sustaining fragmentation. The fusion–fission framework therefore repositions this classic dichotomy around modes of security production. (Acharya, 2001).

FUSION–FISSION DIFFERENTIATION IN TURKEY–ISRAEL RELATIONS

Turkey–Israel relations present a distinctive case for understanding regional security dynamics. Despite shared alliance ties and periods of cooperation, the relationship has failed to evolve into lasting strategic alignment. This article argues that this persistent tension stems from a structural divergence in security production.

Turkey’s Fusion-Oriented Regional Security Approach

Turkey’s regional security outlook emphasizes regional integrity, institutional cooperation, and functional state structures. From a fusion perspective, persistent crises generate uncertainty and spillover risks rather than security. Consequently, Turkey conceptualizes regional security as a collectively produced order rather than a zero-sum contest.

Israel’s Fission-Oriented Security Strategy

Israel’s security logic is structured around preventing the emergence of cohesive regional actors. Security is produced through fragmentation, crisis management, and the preservation of asymmetric military and technological superiority. Within this logic, instability is not inherently threatening but strategically advantageous if controlled.

Structural Incompatibility and Persistent Tension

The core tension between Turkey and Israel arises not from specific policy disputes but from incompatible security production logics. Fusion and fission represent structurally opposing visions of regional order, rendering lasting strategic alignment unlikely despite temporary normalization efforts.

CONCLUSION: GENERALIZABILITY AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL SCIENCE

This article has proposed fusion (integrative) and fission (fragmentative) as two ideal-typical modes of regional security production. The core argument is that regional disorder is not always a failure, but can constitute a deliberate and sustainable security strategy. The Turkey–Israel case demonstrates the explanatory power of this framework by revealing the structural roots of persistent tension.

The fusion–fission framework offers both explanatory and predictive analytical leverage and is applicable beyond the Middle East, including regions such as the Eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans, and the Caucasus. Ultimately, this study contributes not merely a new conceptual distinction, but a new analytical perspective—one that foregrounds how security is produced rather than solely what actors seek.

 

REFERENCES

 

Ayoob, M. (1995). The third world security predicament: State making, regional conflict, and the international system. Lynne Rienner.

Acharya, A. (2001). The quest for identity: International relations of Southeast Asia. Oxford University Press.

Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international security. Cambridge University Press.

Deutsch, K. W. (1957). Political community and the North Atlantic area. Princeton University Press.

Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Cornell University Press.