Fuzzy logic and the US–Iran war
In this ‘frozen and thawed’ war of ambiguity—in which neither side has reached a definitive conclusion, or perhaps does not wish to, and which they have deliberately left ambiguous, to be utilised according to domestic and foreign policy circumstances in the coming period—there is no true winner. There are, however, many losers.
Logic is precise. Fuzzy logic, on the other hand, is ambiguous. Fuzzy logic is a method discovered and developed by the renowned Azerbaijani mathematician Lotfi A. Zadeh. My master’s thesis also concerned the application of this fuzzy logic.
Let us explain briefly.
Fuzzy logic is a method of reasoning in which the truth values of variables are expressed not only by definite values such as ‘0’ (false) or ‘1’ (true), but also by all intermediate values between 0 and 1. This method enables computers to understand vague concepts—such as ‘a bit warm’ or ‘quite fast’—just as the human mind does. In classical logic, a situation is either black or white; there are no shades of grey. However, in fuzzy logic, shades of grey are also taken into account. For example, rather than describing a person’s height as ‘tall’ or ‘short’, a membership function is used to provide gradations such as ‘0.75 tall’.
Another example relates to the degree of fullness.
Definite True (1): Completely full.
Definite False (0): Completely empty.
Fuzzy Values (0.6): Slightly more than half full, for instance.
Whilst in crisp logic age categories such as child (0–25), young (25–50), mature (50–75) and elderly (75–100) are used, fuzzy logic determines different membership values for each category and evaluates accordingly. There may be individuals whose membership value places them in the ‘elderly’ category at the age of 40, even if only by a small margin, just as there may be those who still fall into the ‘young’ category even at the age of 80, and evaluations are made according to these membership values.
Let us turn to the US–Iran war.
This war, in which the winner is ambiguous, there is no loser, and both sides claim to have won, must be assessed using fuzzy logic rather than classical logic.
First, let us recall what is happening in the US-Israel war.
The first operation was carried out by the US via an intercontinental air strike on nuclear facilities using B-52 heavy bombers. Demonstrating its military might to the entire world, the US struck the underground Fordow nuclear facility from thousands of kilometres away and completed the operation without a single aircraft sustaining damage.
The second operation began whilst negotiations were still ongoing, targeting Iran’s leadership, and virtually the entire leadership was wiped out in an instant. Following Israel’s intervention, we witnessed the US-Israel/Iran war, with its missiles and bombs.
Just as it seemed a new reconciliation was taking shape and the talks were going well, the US this time cited the dispute over the Strait of Hormuz as a pretext, and the third phase began. Under this new pretext, the US has been bombing Iran for the past five days. In response, Iran is carrying out attacks on US bases and facilities in the Gulf states. The US-Iran conflict, which has been alternating between cooling and heating up, continues into its third phase.
Both the US and Iran are continuing the conflict or war amidst ongoing ambiguity, without achieving a definitive outcome. Yes, the US has inflicted damage on the Iranian military and nuclear facilities and eliminated key leadership figures, but it has not achieved a definitive outcome. It has failed to topple the Iranian regime; on the contrary, it has led to the mullah regime—which the majority of the Iranian people have grown weary of, feel oppressed by and no longer want—being re-consolidated in the eyes of the Iranian people. Despite deploying such military force and imposing economic sanctions, it has failed to achieve any outcome through negotiations. There is now discussion of the US occupying Iranian islands or stepping up its bombardment. Although the US keeps insisting, in the traditional sense, that ‘we have won’, in a broader sense, its ‘membership value’ would be at most 0.6.
Let us turn to Iran.
The very fact of being able to resist US hegemony to such an extent – and ensuring not only that the regime was not overthrown but, on the contrary, that it was consolidated in the eyes of the people – may in itself be sufficient to claim that ‘we have won’. On the other hand, it would be incorrect for Iran—which has been unable to use its airspace, protect its nuclear facilities and leadership, has only been able to respond with missiles that were mostly destroyed by steel domes, and has failed to assert its sovereignty in the Strait of Hormuz—to claim, by any rational standard, that it has won this war. Iran’s membership value also appears to be around 0.4 at most.
In short, there is no clear winner in this ambiguous war—which has been frozen and then reignited, and which both sides have deliberately left ambiguous, perhaps because they have not reached, or do not wish to reach, a definitive conclusion—and which they will utilise depending on future domestic and foreign policy circumstances. There are, however, many losers.
Examples of the losers include democracy, human rights, the United Nations, legitimacy, international law, the civilians killed, the negative impact on the global economy, the money spent on armaments, and a world driven to madness by autocratic leaders.
