The Role of Pre-Diplomatic Provocations in Deterrence and Negotiation

Strategic Signaling in the DPRK’s Missile Calculus: Analyzing the Role of Pre-Diplomatic Provocations in Deterrence and Negotiation

Abstract

This paper analyzes the strategic deployment of military provocations by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), focusing specifically on the reported test-firing of cruise missiles immediately preceding a high-level U.S. presidential visit to the Republic of Korea (ROK) in October 2025. Drawing upon international relations theories of strategic signaling and coercive diplomacy, this study argues that these timed ballistic events are not solely related to military capability enhancement but function primarily as calculated political tools. By maximizing global attention and shaping the diplomatic agenda before negotiations begin, Pyongyang seeks to disrupt U.S.-ROK alliance cohesion, increase its leverage, and reinforce its status as a necessary, nuclear-capable interlocutor. The 2025 cruise missile test serves as a critical case study illustrating the DPRK’s sophisticated use of the security dilemma to achieve strategic, non-military objectives.

1. Introduction: The DPRK’s Diplomatic Playbook

The security landscape of the Korean Peninsula is characterized by a persistent cycle of provocation, condemnation, and fragile dialogue. Since the establishment of its nuclear and missile programs, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has refined a strategy of utilizing military tests as central components of its diplomatic calculus. These tests are frequently timed to coincide with significant international events, US-ROK joint military exercises, or, most critically, high-level diplomatic visits involving the U.S. President.

The reported cruise missile test conducted by Pyongyang in late October 2025, precisely ahead of a planned visit by the U.S. President [identified as Trump in the source snippet] to Seoul, exemplifies this pattern of strategic timing. While the test carries intrinsic military value by advancing the DPRK’s tactical capabilities, its timing suggests a primary objective rooted in signaling and agenda-setting within the complex geopolitical dynamics of Northeast Asia.

This paper investigates the strategic rationale behind this specific pre-diplomatic provocation. We posit that the firing of cruise missiles ahead of a major summit is a form of calculated coercive diplomacy aimed at three principal audiences: the United States (to demand attention), the Republic of Korea (to test resolve and create alliance friction), and the domestic DPRK regime (to reinforce the image of strong leadership).

2. Theoretical Framework: Strategic Signaling and Coercive Diplomacy

To understand the DPRK’s actions, two core concepts from International Relations theory are essential: Strategic Signaling and Coercive Diplomacy.

2.1. Strategic Signaling in Non-Verbal Communication

Strategic signaling theory posits that states use costly actions—actions that carry inherent risk of military or economic retaliation—to convey credible information about their capabilities, intentions, and resolve to rivals (Jervis, 1970). In the context of the DPRK, missile launches serve as “costly signals.” A verbal threat might be dismissed as cheap talk, but the physical act of launching a missile, which expends resources and risks international condemnation, credibly signals several things:

Capability: It demonstrates technical progress and the lethality of its arsenal.
Resolve (Commitment): It confirms the regime’s unwavering commitment to maintaining its WMD program despite international pressure and sanctions.
Risk Tolerance: By provoking major powers, the DPRK signals a high tolerance for risk and a willingness to escalate, thereby raising the perceived cost of confrontation for its adversaries.

The choice of cruise missiles in the 2025 scenario is also highly strategic. Cruise missiles, generally low-flying and highly maneuverable, present a difficult target for existing missile defenses and are often categorized separately from ballistic missiles by the UN Security Council, allowing the DPRK a degree of ‘escalatory space’—a provocation strong enough to elicit a response but potentially below the threshold that would trigger immediate, severe military retaliation.

2.2. Coercive Diplomacy and Agenda Setting

Coercive diplomacy involves the use of threats or limited force to persuade an opponent to stop an action or undo a completed action (George, 1991). The DPRK utilizes repeated missile tests as a form of “compellence,” demanding that the U.S. re-engage in dialogue on Pyongyang’s terms.

The timing of the 2025 test fits perfectly into the coercive playbook:

Maximizing Salience: Timing the launch immediately before a major summit ensures the provocation dominates the agenda, making it impossible for the U.S. President and ROK counterpart to ignore the North Korean security threat during their talks.
Negotiation Leverage: The missile test serves as a “demand signal,” setting the tone for the upcoming talks by establishing a baseline position of strength. Pyongyang signals that any future concessions must be made to a fully capable nuclear/missile state.

3. Case Study Analysis: The October 2025 Cruise Missile Test

The reported test-firing of cruise missiles ahead of the 2025 U.S. presidential visit to Seoul must be analyzed based on its specific timing and weapon type, rather than just its military efficacy.

3.1. The Critical Timing Window

U.S. presidential visits to the ROK are politically charged events designed to affirm the enduring strength of the mutual defense treaty and coordinate deterrence strategy against the DPRK. By conducting a test just hours or days before such a visit, the DPRK achieves maximum disruptive effect:

Undermining the Alliance Narrative: The provocation disrupts the carefully constructed narrative of seamless alliance cooperation and deterrence success. It forces the U.S. and ROK to spend diplomatic capital responding to the immediate crisis rather than focusing on shared economic or strategic goals.
Forcing a Reactive Posture: The U.S. President is compelled to address the provocation publicly either upon arrival or during the joint statement. This gives Pyongyang a measure of control over the initial media narrative of the visit.
Domestic Pressure on Seoul: The ROK government, highly sensitive to North Korean military movements, faces immediate domestic political pressure regarding preparedness and the efficacy of its deterrence policies. This pressure can lead to internal divergence with the U.S. on whether to prioritize sanctions or engagement.
3.2. Strategic Choice of Weapon: Cruise Missiles

While tests of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) grab more headlines due to their ability to threaten the U.S. mainland, the 2025 use of cruise missiles serves a more tactical and immediate political purpose (Pinkston, 2020):

Targeting ROK and US Assets: Cruise missiles are primarily designed to threaten ROK and U.S. forward-deployed forces in the region. The test reinforces the immediate vulnerability of Seoul and U.S. bases (such as Osan or Camp Humphreys), directly raising the stakes for the visiting U.S. delegation.
Plausible Deniability and Sanctions Management: As noted, cruise missile tests often receive less severe sanction responses compared to ICBM or nuclear tests. This allows Kim Jong Un to demonstrate forcefulness without crossing the highest red lines that might provoke overwhelming international retribution.

4. Implications for Deterrence and Alliance Cohesion

The DPRK’s strategic timing of provocations poses significant policy dilemmas for the U.S. and the ROK.

4.1. The Response Dilemma

The U.S. and ROK face a near-impossible response dilemma following such an event:

Overreaction: A severe military or diplomatic overreaction validates the DPRK’s strategy, suggesting that the provocation successfully dictated the agenda and forced a costly response.
Underreaction (Resignation): A muted response may be interpreted by Pyongyang as acceptance or normalization of its missile activities, eroding the credibility of deterrence.

The typical calibrated response—joint condemnation, limited military drills, and enhanced sanctions—often fails to break the cycle because Pyongyang views international condemnation as an acceptable cost for achieving strategic recognition and leverage (Woo, 2021).

4.2. Impact on U.S.-ROK Alliance Cohesion

While high-level provocations often lead to rhetorical solidification of the alliance, they simultaneously expose underlying tensions regarding long-term strategy. The ROK, which bears the brunt of immediate retaliation risk, often advocates for a dual-track strategy combining deterrence with sustainable engagement. The U.S., particularly under administrations focused on denuclearization, may prioritize pressure strategies. The 2025 missile test serves to exacerbate this tension:

The U.S. may push for stronger deterrence and sanctions.

The ROK may feel pressured to offer immediate humanitarian or economic incentives to de-escalate the newly heightened crisis, potentially leading to policy friction with Washington.

5. Conclusion

The North Korean test-firing of cruise missiles ahead of the 2025 U.S. presidential visit to South Korea is a powerful illustration of strategic signaling as a tool of statecraft. Pyongyang consistently utilizes the timing of its provocations to maximize

diplomatic impact, demonstrating that its missile program is as much a foreign policy instrument as it is a military one.

The 2025 event was designed to be a “pre-emptive strike” on the diplomatic table. By ensuring that the U.S. President and his ROK counterpart could not avoid discussing the DPRK’s military capabilities, Kim Jong Un successfully reinforced the narrative that the security issue must be addressed with urgency and on terms dictated by the DPRK’s asserted position of strength. Moving forward, policymakers must recognize and anticipate this pattern of strategic timing. Effective counter-strategies require coordinating a stable, long-term approach that resists the temptation to deviate from core deterrence principles based only on the shock value of a strategically timed provocation.

References (Illustrative)

George, A. L. (1991). Forceful Persuasion: Coercive Diplomacy as an Alternative to War. United States Institute of Peace Press.

Jervis, R. (1970). The Logic of Images in International Relations. Princeton University Press.

Pinkston, D. (2020). North Korea’s Cruise Missile Capabilities and Emerging Threats. Journal of Asian Security, 15(3), 45-68.

Woo, J. J. (2021). North Korea’s Strategic Calculations: Provocation, Negotiation, and the Logic of Survival. Asian Survey, 61(2), 290-312.

The Perilous Pause: An Examination of Ceasefire Erosion and Blame Attribution in the Israeli-Gaza Conflict (October 2025)

Abstract: This paper analyzes the rapid erosion of a three-week-old ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas in October 2025, culminating in renewed Israeli air strikes on Gaza City. Drawing upon contemporary reports, this study investigates the reciprocal accusations of ceasefire violations, particularly focusing on the role of conflicting narratives surrounding military engagements and the politically charged issue of returning hostage remains. It argues that deeply entrenched mistrust, coupled with ambiguous operational parameters and the profound emotional weight of humanitarian issues, created an inherently fragile peace, easily destabilized by mutual blame. The paper identifies the breakdown as a critical case study in the challenges of conflict resolution involving asymmetric actors and underscores the urgent need for robust verification mechanisms and clearer humanitarian protocols in future agreements.

Keywords: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gaza, ceasefire violation, Hamas, Benjamin Netanyahu, hostage remains, conflict resolution, blame attribution, international relations, humanitarian law.

1. Introduction

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of the most intractable geopolitical challenges of the 21st century, characterized by cycles of violence, fragile ceasefires, and entrenched political grievances. Following the devastating Hamas-led attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent “two years of war” that ravaged the Gaza Strip, a US-backed ceasefire agreement was implemented on October 10, 2025. This agreement sought to halt hostilities, facilitate the release of hostages for Palestinian detainees, and allow for a temporary de-escalation of military operations. However, within weeks, this precarious peace began to unravel, culminating in renewed Israeli military strikes on Gaza City on October 28, 2025.

This paper critically examines the factors contributing to the swift erosion of the October 2025 ceasefire. It leverages reports detailing the events of late October 2025 to analyze the mechanics of blame attribution employed by both Israeli and Hamas leadership. Specifically, it delves into the reciprocal accusations of ceasefire violations, scrutinizing the impact of alleged military engagements and, crucially, the contentious issue of handling and returning the remains of deceased hostages. By exploring these dynamics, this study aims to shed light on the inherent fragilities of ceasefires in asymmetric conflicts, the challenges of verification, and the profound influence of humanitarian dimensions on political and military decision-making.

2. The October 10th Ceasefire: Terms and Initial Fragility

The ceasefire agreement, which came into effect on October 10, 2025, marked a tentative halt to two years of intense conflict following the October 7, 2023, attacks. Its core provisions included:

Cessation of Hostilities: An end to Israeli military offensives and Hamas rocket fire.
Hostage-Prisoner Exchange: The release of all living Israeli hostages held by Hamas in exchange for approximately 2,000 Palestinian convicts and wartime detainees held by Israel.
Troop Pullback: Israeli military forces were to pull back from certain areas of the Gaza Strip.
Humanitarian Provisions: Hamas agreed to hand over the remains of all dead hostages, a process acknowledged to require time due to the devastation in Gaza.

From its inception, the ceasefire was characterized by an underlying fragility. Both sides had deep-seated grievances, profound mistrust, and conflicting interpretations of territories and responsibilities. The US President Donald Trump’s direct monitoring of the agreement underscored the high-stakes international investment in its success, yet also implicitly acknowledged the potential for rapid breakdown in the absence of robust enforcement and verification mechanisms. The previous two years of conflict had severely degraded infrastructure and societal cohesion in Gaza, ensuring that any perceived violation or misstep would be amplified against a backdrop of immense human suffering and political tension.

3. The October 28th Breakdown: Allegations and Counter-Allegations

The ceasefire’s precariousness became acutely evident on October 28, 2025, when Israeli planes launched strikes in Gaza City. This escalation followed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s order for “powerful attacks,” predicated on his accusation that Hamas had violated the ceasefire. At least two people were killed and four wounded in a strike on a residential building in the Sabra neighborhood, and an area near Shifa hospital was also hit, underscoring the immediate human cost of the renewed hostilities.

Netanyahu’s office did not initially provide a specific public reason for the attacks, but an Israeli military official subsequently claimed that Hamas had violated the ceasefire by attacking Israeli forces in an area of the enclave under Israeli control. This assertion was framed as “yet another blatant violation,” suggesting a pattern of non-compliance. Israeli media reports earlier on the same day had also detailed an exchange of fire between Israeli forces and Hamas fighters in Rafah, further fueling the narrative of Hamas aggression.

Hamas, however, vehemently denied these accusations. The group explicitly disavowed responsibility for any attack on Israeli forces in Rafah and reaffirmed its commitment to the ceasefire deal. Crucially, Hamas accused Netanyahu of actively seeking “excuses to back away from Israel’s obligations,” portraying the Israeli actions as a deliberate attempt to undermine the agreement rather than a reactive measure. This reciprocal blame-attribution cycle highlights a core challenge in asymmetric conflicts without impartial monitoring: the absence of a universally accepted truth, where each side frames events to legitimize its own actions and delegitimize the adversary’s.

4. The Hostage Remains Dilemma: A Humanitarian Flashpoint

Beyond the immediate allegations of military engagement, a critical and emotionally charged dimension contributing to the ceasefire’s collapse was the dispute over the return of deceased hostage remains. This issue escalated when Prime Minister Netanyahu specifically accused Hamas of violating the ceasefire by providing incorrect remains during the handover process. He stated that remains handed over on October 27 belonged to Ofir Tzarfati, an Israeli killed during the October 7, 2023, attack whose remains had already been partially retrieved by Israeli troops during the war. This suggested either a deliberate deception or a significant failure in Hamas’s ability to accurately account for the deceased.

The issue rapidly became a flashpoint. Hamas initially announced its intention to hand over the body of another missing hostage found in a tunnel in Gaza on October 29. However, its armed wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, later postponed this planned handover, citing what it described as “Israel’s violations of the ceasefire.” This sequence of events transformed a humanitarian obligation into a tool for political leverage and blame, further eroding trust and complicating an already sensitive process.

The return of deceased hostages carries immense emotional and cultural significance for the families and the nation, making it a powerful point of contention. Hamas’s agreement to hand over all remains was a key humanitarian term of the ceasefire. The alleged misidentification or deliberate misrepresentation of remains, as accused by Netanyahu, would be perceived as a profound breach of trust and an affront to the human dignity of the deceased and their families. Conversely, Hamas’s subsequent delay, citing Israeli violations, suggests a strategic use of this humanitarian issue to pressure Israel and counter its narrative of non-compliance. This dilemma illustrates how deeply humanitarian issues can become intertwined with political and military strategies, often hindering rather than facilitating peace.

5. Implications of Ceasefire Erosion

The breakdown of the October 2025 ceasefire carries several significant implications:

Renewed Violence and Civilian Casualties: The most immediate consequence is the resumption of hostilities, directly leading to civilian deaths and injuries, as evidenced by the strikes on Gaza City. This perpetuates the cycle of violence and deepens humanitarian crises in an already devastated region.
Erosion of Trust and Future Peace Prospects: Each alleged violation and counter-accusation further erodes the already minimal trust between the warring parties. This makes future negotiations and the establishment of durable peace agreements significantly more challenging, as each side becomes more wary of the other’s commitments.

Political Instability: For Prime Minister Netanyahu, maintaining a strong stance against perceived Hamas violations might be tied to domestic political considerations, potentially impacting his leadership. For Hamas, demonstrating resilience against Israeli attacks might serve to consolidate its authority among certain segments of the Palestinian population.
International Scrutiny and Mediation Challenges: The US, as a key backer of the ceasefire, finds its diplomatic efforts undermined. US President Trump’s declaration of “watching closely” indicates international concern, but without robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, external mediation efforts face severe limitations. The inability to definitively attribute blame independently exacerbates this challenge.
Weaponization of Humanitarian Issues: The dispute over hostage remains highlights how deeply sensitive humanitarian concerns can be weaponized in conflict. This not only causes distress to affected families but also complicates the very humanitarian efforts intended to alleviate suffering and build bridges.

6. Discussion: The Anatomy of a Fragile Ceasefire

The rapid unraveling of the October 2025 ceasefire serves as a stark illustration of the multifaceted challenges inherent in resolving deeply rooted conflicts, particularly those involving state and non-state actors. Several theoretical frameworks help to contextualize this breakdown:

The Security Dilemma: In an environment of deep suspicion, actions taken by one party for defensive purposes (e.g., Israel’s “powerful attacks” after alleged Hamas breaches) are often perceived as offensive threats by the other (e.g., Hamas viewing Netanyahu’s orders as excuses to renege on obligations). This fuels a cycle of pre-emptive or retaliatory actions, making de-escalation difficult.
Asymmetric Warfare and Accountability: The asymmetric nature of the conflict, with Israel as a state actor and Hamas as a non-state militant group, complicates accountability. Mechanisms for verifying adherence to ceasefire terms are often less robust, especially in areas controlled by the non-state actor.
Role of Spoilers: Both sides may contain elements or leaders who have an interest in undermining peace for political or ideological reasons. While not explicitly stated, the reciprocal accusations suggest that either side might strategically leverage minor incidents or ambiguities to disrupt the ceasefire if it is perceived as not serving their broader interests.
Ambiguity in Ceasefire Terms and Verification: The article indicates disputes over “an area of the enclave that is under Israeli control” and the process for returning remains. Ambiguities in delineating control, movement, or protocols for sensitive humanitarian issues can be exploited or genuinely misinterpreted, leading to violations. The absence of a strong, independent third-party verification mechanism meant that each side’s claims could not be authoritatively validated or refuted, allowing narratives of blame to prevail.
The Emotional and Political Weight of Humanitarian Issues: The dispute over Ofir Tzarfati’s remains underscores how deeply personal and emotional issues can become profoundly political, especially in protracted conflicts. The perceived disrespect or deceit regarding the deceased can quickly overshadow other considerations, providing powerful justification for escalation.

Ultimately, the October 2025 ceasefire failed not solely due to a single violation, but as a cumulative result of an inherent trust deficit, the strategic utilization of blame, unclear operational guidelines, and the profound emotional and political salience of humanitarian provisions.

7. Conclusion

The events of late October 2025 in Gaza City offer a poignant and instructive case study in the fragility of ceasefires forged between deeply adversarial parties. Despite international backing, the three-week peace accord between Israel and Hamas swiftly disintegrated under a barrage of reciprocal accusations of violation. The Israeli decision to launch “powerful attacks” was rationalized by alleged Hamas military breaches and, significantly, by disputes over the handling of deceased hostage remains. Hamas, in turn, denied culpability and accused Israel of seeking pretexts to avoid its commitments.

This paper has argued that the breakdown was a confluence of factors: deep-seated mutual mistrust, the strategic use of blame attribution in the absence of independent verification, and the profound emotional and political complexities surrounding humanitarian issues like the repatriation of remains. The case highlights crucial lessons for conflict resolution: the absolute necessity of clear, unambiguous terms of engagement; robust, impartial monitoring and verification mechanisms; and carefully negotiated, transparent protocols for sensitive humanitarian undertakings. Without these foundational elements, any pause in hostilities remains a “perilous pause,” susceptible to rapid erosion and the re-ignition of devastating conflict. Future efforts towards a durable peace in the Israeli-Palestinian context must address these systemic fragilities to prevent the recurrence of such swift and tragic escalations.

Maxthon 

When it comes to staying safe online, using a secure and private browser is crucial. Such a browser can help protect your personal information and keep you safe from cyber threats. One option that offers these features is the Maxthon Browser, which is available for free. It comes with built-in AdBlock and anti-tracking software to enhance your browsing privacy.

Maxthon Browser is dedicated to providing a secure and private browsing experience for its users. With a strong focus on privacy and security, Maxthon implements rigorous measures to protect user data and online activities from potential threats. The browser utilises advanced encryption protocols to ensure that user information remains protected during internet sessions.

Additionally, Maxthon incorporates features such as ad blockers, anti-tracking tools, and incognito mode to enhance users’ privacy. By blocking unwanted ads and preventing tracking, the browser helps maintain a secure environment for online activities. Furthermore, incognito mode enables users to browse the web without leaving any trace of their history or activity on the device.

Maxthon’s commitment to prioritising the privacy and security of its users is exemplified through regular updates and security enhancements. These updates are designed to address emerging vulnerabilities and ensure that the browser maintains its reputation as a safe and reliable option for those seeking a private browsing experience. Overall, Maxthon Browser provides a comprehensive suite of tools and features designed to deliver a secure and private browsing experience.

 Maxthon Browser, a free web browser, provides users with a secure and private browsing experience through its built-in AdBlock and anti-tracking software. These features help to protect users from intrusive ads and prevent websites from tracking their online activities. The browser’s AdBlock functionality blocks annoying pop-ups and banners, allowing for an uninterrupted browsing session. Additionally, the anti-tracking software safeguards user privacy by preventing websites from collecting personal data without consent.

By utilising Maxthon Browser, users can browse the internet confidently, knowing that their online activities are shielded from prying eyes. The integrated security features alleviate concerns about potential privacy breaches, ensuring a safer browsing environment. Furthermore, the browser’s user-friendly interface makes it easy for individuals to customise their privacy settings according to their preferences.

Maxthon Browser not only delivers a seamless browsing experience but also prioritises the privacy and security of its users through its efficient ad-blocking and anti-tracking capabilities. With these protective measures in place, users can enjoy the internet with confidence, knowing their online privacy is protected. 

Additionally, the desktop version of Maxthon Browser integrates seamlessly with their VPN, providing an extra layer of security. By using this browser, you can minimise the risk of encountering online threats and enjoy a safer internet experience. With its combination of security features, Maxthon Browser aims to provide users with peace of mind while they browse.

Maxthon Browser stands out as a reliable choice for users who prioritise privacy and security. With its robust encryption measures and extensive privacy settings, it offers a secure browsing experience that gives users peace of mind. The browser’s commitment to protecting user data and preventing unauthorised access sets it apart in the competitive market of web browsers.