Talk:2026 Iran war

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

ECP protection for this talk page

Just so everyone knows, I requested temporary ECP for this talk page due to ongoing disruption. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Very good. Noorullah (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

And the disruption immediately resumed as soon as the protection expired. I requested protection again. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you think it is necessary to do this again? Slomo666 (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Iranian Victory vs Inconclusive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the result of the 2026 Iran war be kept as Iranian Victory or changed to Inconclusive? Vote by writing either Keep or Change.Crampcomes (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Most reliable sources call it an (de facto) Iranian victory. Making it inconclusive is simply representing a POV of a minority, which doesn't follow WP:WEIGHT. And if it continues, nothing is stopping us from changing it to ongoing in the future, but for now, keep it. — Raihanur (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Although most analysts have declared Iranian regime's victory, hostilities may resume without a final nuclear deal. Hu741f4 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Most non-governmental sources describe the war as at least de facto concluded and as an Iranian victory, given the severe concessions the US has made. Frankly I find it difficult to see "inconclusive" as anything but cope.
  If hostilities resume due to the lack of a nuclear deal or due to Israel violating the ceasefire or whatever else, it can be modified then. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Crampcomes (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep If the peace holds, Iranian victory is accurate. This is how basically all sources describe it after all and I don't really see any way it could be considered inconclusive. Genabab (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It would be more accurate to refer to this as a split. Iran achieving strategic victory with the US achieving a structurally crippling direct military victory. It is, as far as I can tell, not an outright Iranian victory OR an outright US victory.

  Where Iran has lost:

  Almost complete destruction of their Air Force, Naval force, massive damage to their missile systems, massive casualties, top leadership assassinated, senior leadership assassinated, economically damaged severely, industrially and infrastructure is extremely damaged. These are proven.

  What the US has lost or yet to achieve:

  Regime change has not happened, oil got constrained, Iran maintained control of the straight.

  We will see how it pans out- but this is absolutely not a one sided victory. ~2026-38736-07 (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  The issue with many sources and individuals claiming Iranian victory is bias- and it is usually driven primarily by dislike for the US president, sympathizing with Islamic nations/islamism, or a dislike for the United States. ~2026-38736-07 (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia typically does not make decisions via voting. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  On paper, yeah, sure. In actual practice these RFCs are ALWAYS structured !vote after !vote after !vote, where a closer (or multiple, for especially contentious debates) is expected to take stock of the most intelligent arguments presented, weigh them according to logic, and assess the consensus. BarntToust 01:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I also want to reiterate this. The use of the word "vote" by the proposer indicates a lack of familiarity with P&G. The rigid "keep" or "change" is also not in line with the RfC structure. Users can and may propose alternatives to the binary. Slomo666 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Change President Loki (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Unless hostilities between Iran and the US resume, or the facts otherwise change, Iranian victory remains the best option at present. entropyandvodka | talk 00:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Keep For now there seems to be a preponderance of sources calling it an Iranian victory. However, there is a good handful of sources that call it inconclusive. If we see growth in inconclusive sources we may want to revisit the results parameter and consider either toggling it off or changing it to "See Aftermath section" (which is permitted by the infobox documentation). Chetsford (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Much more affirm it being an Iranian victory thus far, it should remain as such. Noorullah (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Even within the political class of the United States, and from both sides of the aisle, the prevailing sentiment being reported fairly weighs the sources in this direction. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Iranian victory: I am fairly certain most analysts agree that the US conceded to most Iranian demands on top of having to pay a type of war reparation to Iran, with not much to show for. — IмSтevan ^talk 01:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Edit: and keep it as such until an actual deal is reached. We can revisit this topic if the terms change drastically in the final peace agreement — IмSтevan ^talk 01:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Provided the new present situation holds. Many analysts are calling it an Iranian victory or words to that effect at this point in time, due to the contents of the MoU and the war's outcome and objectives of who achieved them and who failed. The sources veering on the inconclusive side are those who write war may reemerge as an off again, on again conflict in future, due to various misunderstandings and disputes. This is more WP:SPECULATION territory as of now. A reminder, this discussion needs to be guided by WP:RS and not any WP:IDONTLIKEIT factors. Resnjari (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The widely agreed consensus is that Iran won. Setarip (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Theres a preponderance of sources noting it to be an Iranian victory. Zalaraz (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change — EDIT TO ADD: Removal of the parameter would probably be preferable at this time — Perhaps with a dash of WP:IAR, but the sources seem to shifting slightly towards "inconclusive" (or what we define that as for the infobox). As far as IAR, I would like to note that there are already stories about "Wikipedia asserting Iran won". This doesn't impact my opinion, I am merely opining that perhaps we should be careful how we wield Wikivoice, given the ramifications it has. Regardless and more to the point: A Google News search of "Iranian victory" gives a good overview of what I mean. I do not see a strong consensus among reports, and we should be careful as to how we apply op-eds. The excellent Newsweek article linked by @Historyguy1138 is also an excellent compilation of alleged experts who mostly seem to agree that it is a shaky unknown we are entering into. At the very least, we could do with waiting. Yes, we can always change it to "ongoing" if circumstances change, but the more responsible thing to do while wielding Wikivoice is to take care. EDIT TO ADD: We are getting into inappropriate territory for the current sourcing of an "Iranian victory." Several of the sources outright don't say that it was a victory for Iran. At least one of the sources is merely asking questions to the reader. Another source states it was a U.S./Israeli-victory, although Phyrric. Throwing mass-quantities of reporters' opinions at this is not how to solve it. EDIT TO ADD 2: Per ONUS, a "no consensus" determination on this must take us back to the state of the article pre-addition of "Iranian victory" (which shouldn't have been been added sans consensus, anyways, but I digress) — MWFwiki (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change The MOU is not conclusive. 1, It has not yet turned into a reality. 2. It is not an all-encompassing agreement that includes Iran's proxies like Lebanon and other fronts. Therefore Iran is saying one thing and doing another. 3. There are still negotiations in process. Imgeller (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep As it stands right now, the Iranian regime appears to be either in the same place or better off than it was before the conflict started. Things can change, but I am not really hearing people coming out and saying that the USA won this one. At best stalemate? It can always change, nothing is set in stone, but that is how it appears to be today. Cocoaguy (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep if war does not resume. As stated above numerous sources, analysts and the objective terms of the treaty indicate an Iranian victory. VitoxxMass (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change to Inconclusive. The US war aims were never altogether clear, so in the absence of overwhelming military victory there’s not a clear yardstick to define winning or losing on. Meanwhile losing the ayatollah and much of their military infrastructure complicates the image of a clear victory for Iran. WD45 (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change. Articles like Foreign Policy's "Iran's victory is more Pyrrhic than it looks" illustrate the need for a more nuanced label. Both sides inflicted damage on each other, the leadership of both sides are claiming victory, and both sides obtained some concessions from the other. A large number of claims in both directions are obviously politically charged and motivated, so the safer approach for now is to label it as "inconclusive" with a link to an "Aftermath" section summarizing the main arguments of commentators, as with War of Attrition. Chagropango (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• That one seems fairly similar. I agree to a Change to "inconclusive" Hal Nordmann (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• The American objective was regime change, prevent Iranian nuclearization and making Israel the singular regional power.
  The Iranian government remains in place, Iran will not be surrendering Nuclear enrichment and now Iran controls the Strait and will begin charging a toll, furthermore all American military forces will be withdrawing.
  Iran is in a far better position politically then it was prior, the US and Israel is worse off.
  Clearly this is a victory for Iran. KGxHeretic (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per other users A$ianeditorz (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change. Either inconclusive or stalemate, we shouldn't call it a victory until the war actually ends properly with a peace treaty and all hostilities are ceased, for now the war seems largely inconclusive, calling it a victory for Iran would maybe be too one sided.
  While i do agree that the Iranian government is still in place + it will likely not surrender enrichment and its tolls on Hormuz, Israel still occupies southern Lebanon, and the US/Israeli forces have not suffered any major defeat apart from it possibly having to withdraw.
  Both Iran and the Gulf States have suffered major economic losses, with Iran especially having suffered major human losses in addition to having its army/navy somewhat crippled at the start of the war (many commanders were killed, including its Supreme Leader, material losses are also pretty high) - human losses on US/Israel's side have been way lower, in addition to materiel losses (which one could argue was pretty significant, probably more than was expected)
  If we take all of these arguments into consideration, it looks more like an stalemate/middle ground than anything - both sides were heavily affected economically, lost soldiers and weaponry, and the only place where some advance was made is South Lebanon. We also have to take into consideration the fact that hostilites, yet again, are not fully over, so maybe calling the war over is a bit too soon? MySalsa22 (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, it does look like both sides "lost" to a greater or lesser degree. I agree with the need for a change, probably to "inconclusive" Hal Nordmann (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The metrics of who suffered more economic, materiel or personnel losses during the conflict aren't really material to the result, except maybe in considering if it was a pyrrhic victory. The US lost the Vietnam War despite inflicting overwhelmingly more damage and casualties than it incurred. Russia suffered around 25 million dead in WW2 against 5 million German dead. What determines the result is the political outcome.

  In the case of the Iran war, the US agreed to permanently cease hostilities and not initiate new ones, retreat from the region and lift its blockade, lift sanctions, offer a 300 billion reconstruction fund, unfreeze Iranian assets, respect Iran's sovereignty and not interfere with its internal affairs, cede control of Hormuz to Iran and Oman, and commit to a binding UNSC resolution cementing it all. In return, Iran committed to not pursue nuclear weapons, which was already state policy, and to further discuss its nuclear program down the road, which they were already doing prior to the war. The political outcome, the change, is a massive shift in Iran's favor, making the result an Iranian victory. entropyandvodka | talk 21:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  First off, i did not mention only materiel losses, i also counted in economic, human and political ones.

  Second, the major difference between this and Vietnam or WW2 is that neither Iran nor the US were even invaded. Germany lost WW2 because its government capitulated after being beaten and invaded. America lost the Vietnam war due to it pulling out as a result of internal tension and high losses (the war also wasn't even an US-Vietnam war, it was fought between north and south with the US supporting the south, but either way that's unrelated)

  As to the other arguments, from what I've seen, while Iran has been more favored in the deal than the US (they conceded to much less than America did), the war still "ended" (we don't even know if it really did end) in a "stalemate" of sorts, neither side actually capitulated: the memorandum which established this truce is a treaty, not a surrender, in reality its more of a negotiated truce than anything else.

  In addition, yet again, we don't even know if this is fully over or not, so it might just be too soon to establish any "winner".

  MySalsa22 (talk) MySalsa22 (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  My point was that those types of losses (economic, materiel, casualties) are essentially irrelevant, that the political changes as a result are determinative. Germany's loss of WW2 was a political change as a result of the war. I don't think we actually disagree on this, but please correct me if we do. The US goals were a collection of political changes (regime change, end of nuclear program, elimination of highly enriched uranium, end proxy support, etc), all of which it failed to achieve. Either side surrendering is also not a necessary component for identifiable victory or defeat. The US didn't surrender in Afghanistan or Vietnam, but the opposition was victorious in both cases.

  I reject the assessment of the deal as a truce or stalemate because the status quo prior to the war is very different from what's in the deal. The US capitulated under the economic pressure, and the threat of much greater economic catastrophe had the closure of Hormuz continued. A stalemate/inconclusive result would make sense if the situation after the war was essentially the same as before, but that isn't the case here (see the changes I listed above). We have several RS breaking down why.

  It's true the war may resume, but the current terms of its cessation constitute a US defeat. entropyandvodka | talk 22:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, either way id rather wait and see what comes out of all of this (both the war itself and this discussion), we will see in the following days or weeks if the truce will hold anyways and what will result from it. MySalsa22 (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Entropyandvodka The "political outcome" is it? Are we now dealing with prophecy or encyclopaedic facts? The nuclear program: "which was already state policy". Where was that "state policy" being enforced - Natanz, Parchin, Bushehr, Arak, Esfahan or Fordow? Monosig (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Entropyandvodka The "political outcome" is it? Are we now dealing with prophecy or encyclopaedic facts?

  The nuclear program: "which was already state policy". Where was that "state policy" being enforced - Natanz, Parchin, Bushehr, Arak, Esfahan or Fordow?

  May I ask what your "policy" is, as a Wikipedia editor? Monosig (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Entropyandvodka The "political outcome" is it? Are we now dealing with prophecy or encyclopaedic facts?

  The nuclear program: "which was already state policy". Where was that "state policy" being enforced - Natanz, Parchin, Bushehr, Arak, Esfahan or Fordow?

  May I ask what your "policy" is, as a Wikipedia editor? Monosig (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Entropyandvodka The "political outcome" is it? Are we now dealing with prophecy or encyclopaedic facts?

  The nuclear program: "which was already state policy". Where was that "state policy" being enforced - Natanz, Parchin, Bushehr, Arak, Esfahan or Fordow?

  May I ask what your "policy" is, as a Wikipedia editor? Monosig (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Entropyandvodka The "political outcome" is it? Are we now dealing with prophecy or encyclopaedic facts?

  The nuclear program: "which was already state policy". Where was that "state policy" being enforced - Natanz, Parchin, Bushehr, Arak, Esfahan or Fordow? Monosig (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Monosig Why have you posted the exact same thing five times? Is this some sort of technical glitch? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 04:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Change I lean towards Ceasefire or Inconclusive since what was signed was only an MOU to have further talks. Unfortunately, this war is not yet over. SupermarketCake (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change, per MOS:MILRESULT, which reads:
  The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to “X victory” or “Inconclusive”. Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use “See aftermath”.
  Since reliable sources currently disagree, it should be "Inconclusive" or a link to the Aftermath section instead of saying "Iran victory" in Wikipedia's voice. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 20:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Disagree with what, exactly? Reliable sources have already been added in the result parameter of the infobox, and they agree that Iran is victorious, don't they? — Raihanur (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thing is, not all of them agree - quite a few say the final result is yet to be seen or otherwise inconclusive. And some of those that claim Iranian victory also note some caveats to it. Hal Nordmann (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  The ones in the infobox even disagree. If we assume the infobox sources do agree about Iranian victory and ignore that they are cited out of context, there are still sources that support inconclusive. This newsweek article that was provided above shows that experts lean Iranian victory but are not unanimous. The FP article also provided above says the following:

  Who won the war? It is [...] the wrong question. Iran did not defeat the United States and Israel, nor did the Islamic Republic collapse under military pressure.

  The best option here would be using "See aftermath", but "Inconclusive" is acceptable too. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as a multitude of sources seem to agree this is an Iranian victory. Claiming an American tactical victory just because they did a lot of damage to the Iranian military is not a sufficient reason to add it. PaulRKil (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep • Most of the sources which have been reliable said that this is indeed an Iranian victory. SchwartzMorgan (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep generally speaking, whether it be on Wikipedia, in research papers, in historical studies, etc the strategic victor is usually considered the overall victor with that largely being the only criteria. Sailingsmooth5 (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. America has not fulfilled any strategic objectives. Iran is in a better strategic position than it was before the war, therefore it is a victory for Iran. Mxzkqklt (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change. Not only is the conflict still ongoing but the occupying regime has lost several key figures in their apparatus. Until a final settlement is reached, it should be labelled as "inconclusive". ConflictFan (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Iranian victory: per the plurality of sources. The choice made by WP:FR to say 'Advantage to Iran following the MoU' is also a good choice and maybe better, leaving room for further changes if we see that the war actually more or less finished it could be changed into Iranian victory or if the war drags on after the MoU we will be able to change it. Aristoxène (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:COLLAPSENO

• @MWFwiki Completely agree with you on that. An issue I've had with a few articles citied by some editors in this talk page seemed to be written by staunch Trump critics who might be a little too politically incentivized with their conclusions. Randomuser335S (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agree on that. There's a lot of opinions, and plenty of ways to consider it, plus there's a lot of people trying to push an agenda. I'd refrain until a final deal is reached, and have it as "ongoing" or "waiting" (or just blank) until then. My opinion is that it was a Pyrrhic victory for whichever side "won". Hal Nordmann (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. A handful of sources clearly state this, and this is manifestly evident, however an explanatory footnote would be needed here analyse the sources and show how Iran has won this war per WP:LEADCITE. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Reliable sources have consistently declared this an Iranian victory and the Trump administration is not a reliable source. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change. Tactical victory for US given the might they blow before and after, societal disruption, nuke negotiations are not yet on paper that is the very goal of US. Decisive victory for Iran as they hold the ground and US concede things for negotiations. Absolutely inconclusive. Maoylord (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nuke disruptions are not real, as Khomeini never intended nor tried to build a nuclear bomb ante bellum. RobotGoggles (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There's plenty of reliable sources that he did, though. You don't enrich uranium as high as they did unless you're at least thinking of getting a nuke at some point Hal Nordmann (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Their own spies said Iran wasn't making nukes (). No other sources confirm that Iran was making nukes either. It's just WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Raihanur (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Enrichment to those levels can also be a bargaining chip in international negotiations, ie, to leverage the lifting of sanctions. Iran stated as much, and this was also the opinion of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and other experts, which is discussed in the Background section of the article. entropyandvodka | talk 17:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, this one is better those down here Mason54432 (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  He wants it to be a fair fight for them, so they will retain the ability to blow up the region. Originally the goal was total regime change and obliterating their entire missile capacity. The goal posts are always changing it seems, but right now it looks like Iran is the winner here. Cocoaguy (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The sources we have seem to be mostly opinion or opinion/analysis. A few of them say that Iran won in their own voice, while most say that Iran made out better or suggest the same without explicitly calling it an Iranian victory. Because of this, I'm not super convinced the sources have settled on an outcome yet, but I also agree with the majority here that "Iranian victory" is closer to what the sources are saying than "inconclusive". Loki (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change Such a declaration seems a little too hasty in my opinion, and I’d greatly prefer “negotiated settlement” outcome for the time being. The economic and geopolitical repercussions from this war have yet to fully materialize for all parties involved, and there are still so much behind the scenes transactions locked away from public view. For example, the power vacuums and infighting within the Islamic Republic regime could very well be far more severe then what the outside world is aware of, and that hypothetically could very well destabilize Iran in the next couple of years. Furthermore, the whole situation is still very unpredictable and volatile, and can easily flip from any unforeseeable turn of events. Those peace agreements and settlements could also be voided one way or another by next week. Overall, I personally feel it’s best wait until the fog clears the next year or two to make any victory determinations. Randomuser335S (talk)
• Note Crampcomes, there are other options under MOS:MILRESULT that are also appropriate, particularly See Analysis (the equivalent of See Aftermath for this article). Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a summary of key facts from the article. As things stand, there is no analysis of the Islamabad Memorandum as a result. There is nothing in the article to support what the result is. Sources reporting on the memorandum are primarily WP:NEWSORG and the use of such sources is highly qualified. They are generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact but not so much for opinion. One also needs to consider WP:RSBREAKING and WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Opinions expressed in sources should be attributed but what is said in the infobox is being said in a Wiki voice. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm honestly surprised, but after looking at what reliable sources are saying, the answer is we should call it an Iranian victory. I came here wanting to say "this is the problem with simple infobox parameters", because nuance is lost. I expected a lot of equivocation from reliable sources, a hesitancy to call it one way or the other. So I was really surprised to see the Newsweek article report that of the 10 experts they spot to, 7 said Iran, 2 said no one, and 1 said the US. Other sources didn't hesitate to call it a victory.
  But the problem Cinderella157 raises is real too - despite what the sources say, this article doesn't say that. And that's a real problem, especially since readers aren't going to see the discussion on this page. Guettarda (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. Crampcomes (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  At the time of Cinderella157's note, I don't think the Aftermath section had yet been created, but it since has. It will likely expand in the coming days. This is an area where expert analysis will also be useful for expanding the section, though the media statements are also relevant. entropyandvodka | talk 03:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. Crampcomes (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Change: This is a solid "Both sides claim victory." situation. We shouldn't be taking a point of view, so declaring either side a victor seems biased, particularly in this case where the appearance of neutrality is important. It's also worth mentioning that, if we could be right to declare an Iranian victory, then considering reports that the peace deal achieves the US objective of getting Iran to give up their weapons-grade uranium, the US may very well have won. Nuke (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  But why? There are no notable RS' that descrube this as an American victory, or a result where both sides can claim victory. Genabab (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Issue is, there is no definite source on what either side considers their objectives - especially as some seem to have changed them midway through. I'd still change it to "inconclusive", though Hal Nordmann (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Literally what WP:RS lists this as an american victory, in any way? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep @Crampcomes The overwhelming majority of analytics favour the Iran victory Anas Riaz (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change: Iran may claim victory, but it's geopolitical standing was damaged by the drone attacks on the other Gulf States. Not to mention Iran having to give up its enriched uranium and having to rebuild its military with such crippling economic struggles that's not guaranteed to improve. I'd say it's a Inconclusive result; especially since we have no idea whether or not it will hold. Emigdioofmiami (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  A war victory isn't determined by how much manpower or infrastructure a party loses. The point other's making isn't based on "Iran claiming victory," but on independent, reliable sources claiming Iran's victory. — Raihanur (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - There is a clear consensus among reliable sources that Iranian victory is the most best description of the result of this war. If we do have an aftermath section added, the minority views that it's Inconclusive or American victory can be stated in accordance with WP:DUE. However, the infobox should provide the consensus view, which is Iranian victory.--JasonMacker (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Per above. A clear consensus exists among sources that Iranian victory is an apt description of the result. Additionally the "problem" raised by Cinderella157 is not a problem and only meandering to avoid acknowledging the truthful outcome. MazurTutejszy (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change per Emigdioofmiami, Nuke, Randomuser335S, MWFwiki, and User:BigRed606 Newsweek shows a lot of different perspectives ranging from Iran Won, to Inconclusive, to the U.S.A. Won, moreover, the 60 Nucllur talks are not over, and according to Trump could resume the conflict. Which being that this matter is not resolved, would show me that the matter is inconclusive. https://www.newsweek.com/who-won-iran-war-10-military-experts-explain-12084896 Historyguy1138 (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Newsweek is not a reliable source. RobotGoggles (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Newsweek is conditionally reliable, per WP:NEWSWEEK. In this case, essentially reprinting the opinions of 10 different experts, it can be considered reliable. That said, 7 of the 10 experts they cited considered Iran the victor, 2 said no victor, and 1 said United States. entropyandvodka | talk 17:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Few (if any) of America’s stated objectives have been met. Instead, they’ve agreed to a raft of political and economic concessions, and Iran now has the right to charge passage fees in the Strait of Hormuz. I fail to understand how anyone can see this as anything other than an Iranian victory. StellaAquila (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change " Reliable sources" are different opinions and perspective and This section is taking a point of view from "Iran victory" because of partisanship. You can say "Iran claims victory". This is a clear Inconclusive or "Both sides claim victory." situation. Roman–Persian wars for example stated "Inconclusive" despite Byzantine/Roman victory in the final war between them. Mason54432 (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change. The results have been inconclusive at best. Status que ante bellum. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Not true. Ante bellum, there was no allowance for Iran to charge tolls for transits through Hormuz. Ante bellum, there was considerably more confidence in neighboring countries hosting American military bases. Ante bellum, there was no leader in Iran intent on building a nuclear weapons program. Ante bellum, the assessment of most of the aggressor states was that a civilian uprising would overthrow the Iranian government. All of these status quo are now moot. Further, in a defensive war, all the defending has to do to win is to not lose. Iran has won. RobotGoggles (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  What the hell even is "all the defending has to do to win is to not lose" ? So by this logic Venezuela won the US military intervention because the regime is still intact and didn't collapse due to capture of Maduro. Mason54432 (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The thing that matters is the objective. The US didn't have the objective of changing the regime in Venezuela, nor was it a war. In the case of Iran, regime change was an objective, and they failed to achieve it. Be civil. And DON'T BLUDGEON THE PROCESS. — Raihanur (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Minus 300 billion USD. — goethean

  — goethean 12:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: most of the reliable sources support the claim that Iran has won this war especially after the signing of islamabad MoU DataCrusade1999 (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change As i have said multiple times, it is way too early to say one way or the other who won this war. The MOU signing, which is just framework for further negotiations, happened just two days ago, why are we jumping the gun? The war could resume tomorrow. We should wait until the dust has completely settled a peace deal has been signed before we talk about winners and losers. Many of the fundamental issues remain unresolved, longterm control over the strait, future of Iran’s nuclear program and their material, Iran’s missiles capabilities, issues of Iran proxies, Israel’s ongoing war in Lebanon ect. I have feeling if we go the route of jumping the gun and saying “Iran won” we will be changing it to inconclusive in the near future. I think the smart move, is to list the outcome of the War in the box as “Inconclusive” with a mention of ongoing peace talks, until we get further picture, i think this the best solution. BigRed606 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nothing is stopping us from changing it to Ongoing if the war continues, but currently it isn't happening. And whatever happens in the future falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Raihanur (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why not just wait, until we have peace deal, and we can determine the outcome of the, current ongoing questions, Strait of Hormuz, Iran nuclear program, Iranian missiles, Israel and Hezbollah etc. Why say “Iranian Victory, when it’s obviously premature.

  Ps, sorry for the delay of response. BigRed606 (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep At least for now. The consensus among WP:RS is that this is an Iranian victory. However, if a final Iran deal is not reached, the war could resume. Pachu Kannan (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Most of the reliable sources support the claim that Iran has won this war especially after the signing of islamabad MoU

  Sarim Wani (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The current status of this conflict is that both sides are declaring it over and finished. If the peace holds, it is an Iranian victory. If the peace does not hold, as other commenters are suggesting, then it is a simple matter of changing "Result" to "Status". As it stands right now, it should show Result - Iranian victory. This is what the overwhelming majority of reporting has said, and we can always change it if Historians later reassess and come to a different consensus. To squabble over this seems unproductive. RobotGoggles (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  "The current status of this conflict is that both sides are declaring it over and finished." That's literally means Inconclusive or still Ceasefire or Status que ante bellum Mason54432 (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's not status quo ante bellum. Instead, it is Uti possidetis because Iran gained control of the Strait of Hormuz in the course of the war, and is retaining control after the war's end. JasonMacker (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Iran also forced major concessions from the United States while conceding next to nothing themselves. Their economy was in shambles from sanctions, and they were undergoing internal political turmoil. The MOU, if executed, reverses both of those pre-war conditions, strengthens their regional position, and even grants their government tacitly acknowledged legitimacy from the United States. Status quo ante 1979 would have a stronger case than status quo ante bellum. entropyandvodka | talk 16:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, because the fact the war is over has no bearing on who won. RobotGoggles (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Most of reliable sources say Iran won the war Iranian112 (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change I'd prefer to wait a few weeks before determining that the war has concluded. Ordinary Person (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per the consensus among RS that the operation failed to fully achieve any of its intended objectives. Skitash (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change The document itself says it's core purpose to facilitate further peace talks. There are subjects in the treaty which meet the goals of both sides. Personally I think it would be better to continue to use Ceasefire in the info box until a more detailed treaty comes from the Geneva peace talks facilitated by the deal. The subject being a political soccer ball currently also makes it risky to state either side has "won" based on WP:RS. Fantastic Mr. Fox 11:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  How would "Ceasefire" be accurate when two of the principal belligerents have agreed, in writing, to a permanent cessation of all hostilities? Should hostilities resume, then Ongoing would be best. The MOU, however, encompasses much more than a ceasefire, and several of its key points are already in action. It would be WP:OR to label it a ceasefire at present. entropyandvodka | talk 18:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Iranian victory because Trump released a statement saying the purpose of the strikes was regime change which is failed. Beshogur (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  He also posted multiple time saying "regime change has already happened" in April and May. Mason54432 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, Trump's statements aren't really a reliable source either way. Besides, the war is not over yeat Hal Nordmann (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah Trump's statements aren't reliable but you literally just said it's "Iranian victory because Trump released a statement saying the purpose of the strikes was regime change which is failed." You just contradicted yourself Mason54432 (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  That was not me who said it, look at the usernames. I disagree with the idea that Iran won the war. Hal Nordmann (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  What's this argument? The purpose was regime change as he told, just because he told after that the regime change happened, doesn't mean it happened. Can you verify that regime change happened? There is no slightest indication that the regime change happened (eg. Fall of the Assad regime), which makes again it Iranian victory, pyrrhic or whatever, we don't that include on the infobox. Beshogur (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Sources clearly state this. Dasomm (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above and per the majority sources Junosang^{leave a message} 12:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I think the addition of "strategic" before would be helpful. Tactically, Israel and the United States did inflict severe damage on Iran's military defenses and leadership, as well as its nuclear infrastructure. Iran's conventional weapons capabilities were also badly degraded. However, I do think the political/strategic/ MOU outcome is clearly in Iran's favor, and none of the US's strategic goals were met other than the return of the status quo ante. Many of Iran's strategic goals (end of blockade, sanctions relief, deferment of nuclear talks, etc.) were met. I think therefore "strategic victory" is most accurate outcome. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  @LongIslandThomist914 IIRC there was some report by, I think the Washington Post, that as much as 90% of Iran's missile stockpiles were operational and unaffected by the war. So I don't think a tactical victory is accurate either. Genabab (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Template:Infobox military conflict: result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Beshogur (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes I agree Mason54432 (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Per reasons given above. Also US didn't achieved any of their declared objectives, same with Israel.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per other users as most reliable sources supporting Iranian victory. Ahammed Saad (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Most sources and analysts claim the war is an Iranian victory. Zabezt (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep A victory in this case is simply continued survival of the regime. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is a completely arbitrary standard for what constitutes victory. It can only be applied if RS say this is how victory is defined. Otherwise it's original research. Slava570 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  CNN and the Guardian both stated that the regime's goal in this war is to survive. Meeting your strategic goal is a win, right? ACasualEditor97 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's also original research. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 19:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  What exactly would not count as original then? The news outlet already put out a stated condition, the condition appears to be met and the active aggression activity has dropped. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Meeting a goal is not the same thing as military victory. Not losing everything is not the same thing as winning. It would not be OR if the RS explicitly said surviving means winning. Slava570 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per other users and also reliable sources are cited. ArchivioItalia ✉ 16:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change to Inconclusive as the sources simply do not support the claim of an Iranian victory. There are three sources provided. The sources from The New York Times and The Guardian are analysis / opinion pieces. And the source from The Indian Express is rather equivocal, stating The answer depends entirely on who is being asked. Trump has repeatedly portrayed the outcome as a decisive victory for the United States and Israel, arguing that military pressure forced Iran to negotiate and paved the way for a deal that would prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iranian officials, meanwhile, have framed the outcome very differently. For them, the Islamic Republic’s survival despite months of bombardment amounts to a historic defeat inflicted on Washington and its allies. The overwhelming majority of those voters supporting a Keep -- "per other users", "per above", "per others", "per reasons above" and a dozen other variations of the same -- are not policy based and make no mention of the actual content of the sources, which simply do not support the claim. If this was a definitive Iranian victory at this point, there would be hundreds of mainstream reliable and verifiable sources shouting it from the rooftops and front pages, and included in the article. Three sources sends a message that the claim of victory is not supported by the sources. Alansohn (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There is no need to lie about the sources which are claimed. Other users have put forward a large number of sources which claim an Iranian victory, such as Chetsford. Sources which claim an inconclusive result are minimal. MazurTutejszy (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  MazurTutejszy, this shameless personal attack -- {{Tq|There is no need to lie about the sources which are claimed]] -- is further evidence of the problem here. Chetsford refers to a "preponderance of sources" but doesn't cite them. No editor has worked harder to prove my point that the claim of an "Iranian victory" doesn't hold. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Have you seen the "Combined section for edit requests regarding "Result"" section...? I hope you do so if you have not. Otherwise, there is no need to continue this discussion further MazurTutejszy (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

• Comment:To all the involved editors here although not a very topic of my interest but as far as I can see it's just too soon to clearly declare one side as victorious, at most if there indeed are very enough reliable sources for Iranian victory then I think it may be added but with a nuance in my opinion. Regards, AristocrSirr 🗨️ 18:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change to Inconclusive and include discussion and analysis about who won in the aftermath section. AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as per others Poyani (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep:

  1. The Iranian regime has survived.

  2. Their nuclear program is still under their control.

  3. They are getting their frozen assets back.

  Meanwhile, opponents have failed to achieve any of their objectives. Everything is under Irans control. It’s a big win. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 19:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per sources UNLESS conflict resumes. Will require an explanatory footnote though to be tagged on to the end. Pax Brittanica (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Ceasefire, Stalemate or Inconclusive for now. I think something like the Yom Kippur War may apply here, but really its WP:TOOSOON to even say. Gaza war doesnt even have a result. And this only has one source, which is far from sufficient for the claim. The sources are inadequate for a claim of this, which mind you I lean towards personally. But taking a step back, its too soon to be saying this. Iran has been devastated militarily and the ink on the MOU isnt even dry. There is no full formal agreement. Its just a second level ceasefire. Really should be removed immediately pending discussion. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  There are four major publications supporting "Iranian victory" in the aftermath section, and plenty more out there if we are to start delineating the opinions of various experts and think tanks. On what do you base the claim that there is only one source? entropyandvodka | talk 19:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I was about to add a correction. I had looked on mobile hours ago and it only showed the Guardian. I dont know if thats a glitch or thats how it was at the time. But looking at the sources, its still inadequate to make the claim. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The Aftermath section cites BBC, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, and The Independent. Are you referring to the inline sources listed in the infobox? entropyandvodka | talk 19:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, which presumably is what we are discussing. The Aftermath section allows more nuance and both (or all three) sides to have a position. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The discussion applies to both. Ideally, the infobox wouldn't even have the inline citation, and the relevant material from that list of sources would be broken down and properly summarized in the body of the article, which the infobox should merely be summarizing. entropyandvodka | talk 19:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Side note: there were previously something like 10 sources in the list in the infobox citation. I was not aware several had been deleted since yesterday. entropyandvodka | talk 20:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as Iranian victory as US failed all of its goals and forked over a giant sum of money. Jon698 (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  But do sources say it was an Iranian victory? Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 20:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, a significant amount do. Jon698 (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Then why don't you provide them? Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 20:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  They have already been provided in this talk page, provided you simply scroll up. MazurTutejszy (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  FP: Iran’s Victory Is More Pyrrhic Than It Looks Beshogur (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  That article does not support you. It shows nuance is needed. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 22:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The Aftermath section provides several. entropyandvodka | talk 09:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  If that is true, WP:PROVEIT. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  See my comment further down listing the sources in the article body. entropyandvodka | talk 19:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  You just listed sources to be used "for everyone's reference" there that came from the aftermath section. That comment doesn't prove the sources in the aftermath section support you. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 20:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should read them. entropyandvodka | talk 23:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should read WP:BURDEN. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 23:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  You're misunderstanding the larger issue. I listed those sources for easy reference, as many editors were focusing on whichever sources were used in the infobox rather than the (more relevant) sources in the article body. The comment was intended as a convenient resource, not to formulate an argument (which I and others have already done elsewhere in this discussion). When I said the (then) Aftermath section provides several references relevant to the discussion, you asked for proof, and I pointed you to the references I was referring to. Moreover, when you said that the article doesn't support my position, it tells me you haven't read that part of the article, as the relevant paragraph strongly supports my position. entropyandvodka | talk 00:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  You pointed to a wall of citations, but failed to prove that those citations supported you. I also said nothing about the text of the section text itself, so the last part of your response twists what I actually said. Your comment down there is useful, but doesn't prove anything. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 01:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Again, the point of the comment was to provide a convenient list of RS the article body was using, not relitigate my arguments or others. Your last comment failed to tell me what the weather was like today, but that wasn't the point of your comment, now was it? entropyandvodka | talk 01:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's a false equivalence. Proving if sources support you is relevant to this discussion, while the weather is not. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 01:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  To WP:PROVEIT, explain why the sources in that comment support you. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 01:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• A suggestion: What do we think of writing "Islamabad Memorandum" instead? Our articles for the Nine Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, and the Eighty Years' War all refer to the diplomatic resolutions that made peace, rather than pass judgement. If further developments indicate that victory or defeat in this conflict is overwhelmingly clear enough, we can say so in time. Crampcomes? Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 22:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, i think this may be a good middle ground. MySalsa22 (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  We have already received "overwhelming clarity" in regards to this conflict. The Memorandum is largely one-sided and most experts, news sites and political thinkers agree so. MazurTutejszy (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The resolutions in all three of those articles are far less one-sided than the Memorandum. The US gains extremely little in it, compared to lets say the Peace of Münster where the Dutch gain independence but lose a lot of claims on their territory. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• None of the above - there cannot be a result for a war that is still ongoing. Iff we still list a result regardless of the war being ongoing, then yes, the consensus among reliable sources is that the MoU agreed to is a victory for Iran. We're running into a problem where in this RfC the current consensus leans towards "the result was an Iranian victory," but in another thread just below this one, there seems to be overwhelming agreement for "the war never ended in the first place." Are we headed towards two mutually exclusive consensuses about the status of the war?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Bad RfC – As I warned could happen, the way the aftermath of the MOU has developed means the question this RfC is asking is what the result of an ongoing war is, which obviously does not make sense. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Comment: We are in a much worse position to judge this so soon after the agreement than we will be towards the end of this RfC. The aftermath is still developing and the consequences it will have for both sides are unclear. Right now, putting a one- or two-word label on the outcome of the war in wikivoice is premature and verging on WP:CRYSTALBALL. Editors voting early should understand there will be a need to come back to this thread and reevaluate the situation in a few weeks when we have more sources to go off. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  It would also be WP:CRYSTALBALL to not describe the current state of the war on the basis that it could revert to ongoing in the future. Our main concern should be accurately describing things as they are now. entropyandvodka | talk 01:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  You seem to be arguing that it's both ongoing and over. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 01:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  At the moment, it is not ongoing. entropyandvodka | talk 08:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Then why did you say we needed to describe "things as they are now"? Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 11:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Because "things as they are now" are that the war concluded with a US capitulation. entropyandvodka | talk 16:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  The result isn't "things as they are now". It's the things that happeed. So, why did you say we need to "describe things as they are now", which contradicts your statement that the war is "not ongoing"? Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 20:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  There is no contradiction there, and things as they are now are a result of things that have happened. You have a result now because of things that have happened in the past. entropyandvodka | talk 23:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  You also said we need to "describe the current state of the war" to not violate WP:CRYSTALBALL. However, if the war is done, there is no "current state of the war" to describe. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 00:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. The current state of the war is over. entropyandvodka | talk 05:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, there isn't a "current state of the war" at all if it is over. Those things contradict each other. If the war has a current state, it isn't over; if the war is over, it doesn't have a current state. It can't be both simultaneously. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 09:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Buddy, Marco Rubio himself literally said the war is over during testimonies a few days ago. Magapetro (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  And? Selbstporträt (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  It appears that open conflict has resumed, which means many of the replies that have been made so far have been rendered all but obsolete. I have to say it's talking a lot of willpower to refrain from writing up a sarcastic comment and instead just leave it at saying "I told you so" in the general direction of this thread.

  Just to clarify, considering the replies to my above comment: I was not saying we shouldn't describe stuff as it is currently reported because we don't know how it will be reported in a month, but that replying "let's describe things as they are currently reported" to an RfC with weeks left is like replying at the end of the RfC saying "let's describe things as they were a few weeks ago"; usually alright, not so much for volatile and rapidly developing events. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Bad RfC Takes for granted that there should be a Result parameter at all, i.e that the war is conclusively over. Whether we should describe it that way should be subject to discussion—it was subject to discussion in threads that were collapsed to make way for this RfC. Also is explicitly described as a vote, but that's the lesser problem Placeholderer (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'll just note canvassing at Reddit's third most visited subreddit—with a pinned link to this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Given all the reverting to maintain a change to the infobox during ongoing discussion, please note WP:STATUSQUO: To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. (emphasis original). A Result parameter should not be included pending discussion Placeholderer (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've restored the status quo of a "Status" parameter pending consensus to change to "Result"—which should have been attained before this RfC about which "Result" to use. "Status" parameter also obviates the need to jump to declaring winners while discussion is ongoing.

  Because this RfC is about choosing between "Result" parameters, a separate discussion will be needed to assess consensus on using "Result" at all. One such discussion is below. Placeholderer (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per other users' comments due to WP:RS. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. This looks to be well sourced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Bad RfC/neither. WP:TOOSOON. The war is not over yet. It should be changed back to ongoing. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 10:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Many of the sources cited above (ie. from Chetsford) shouldn't be used here.
  • The Atlantic is in the Ideas column, which per RSP is an opinion piece, and per RSOPINION, opinion pieces should not be used for statements of fact.
  • Andalou Agency is unreliable for politics per RSP.
  • John Mearsheimer is a substack post.
  • Branislav Slantchev is a post on X.
  • Chris Murphy is another post on X.
  • Graeme Wood is another Ideas article from The Atlantic
  • Times of Israel is an opinion piece.

  ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 11:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Two of these are IR experts and one of them is a senior US politician; i don't believe whether their statements are made on Twitter or a journal makes any difference. MazurTutejszy (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  If this truly is an Iranian victory (or inconclusive or whatever), then there should be many RS's that say so. We should not need to rely on self published statements, even if they are from SMEs. Per WP:SELFPUB: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  The Aftermath section is more relevant. Further, the result field shouldn't be separately sourced from that. Any usable and relevant sources should be summarized into the article body, or added if they are reiterating the same points. entropyandvodka | talk 16:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Few people out of the most entrenched US foreign-policy blobbites view this as anything other than an Iranian victory. Brycehughes (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep None of the US stated objectives have been met and Iran has succeeded in getting more out of the war than it had going in.Pranav (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, because an aggressor that fails to achieve any of its objectives can hardly be called a victor. Most sources argue that it is some kind of victory for Iran, which makes sense to me given that the regime is still in power and that the agreement on the table is more beneficial to them than any nuclear deal they would have reached prior to the war. However, it is important to clarify various nuances of said victory in the article itself. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 13:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change, For starters, I share the above sentiment that many sources present here ought not to be used. Now then, given that the reasons for the war were quite literally all over the place, saying that the US failed in all of its objectives, a perspective I see expressed here, is misguided, in my view. Bare minimum, severely limiting the military power of Iran accounted for several of them, and that was accomplished for the most part. Further, just blanketly applying "Iranian Victory" ignores the nuances of this war and its effects. Sidenote: 2 of the 3 sources in the infobox do not claim an Iranian victory. The quote from the Indian Express article is quite out of context, and the article itself concludes that experts are divided, and the NYT, more so, frames a defeat for Israel, if anything. The best choice, in my opinion, is either inconclusive or (as someone else mentioned), similar to the 30-Years War page, placing the Islamabad Memorandum in the result line. Man-Man122 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Like others, I also take issue with the RfC in the first place; given recent developments, just this morning, is the war over? Moreover, the partisan and biased natures of the sources persuade me to state that it should be changed to inconclusive. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: The sources and the votes advise me now to state that this is a bad RfC and I hereby void my earlier vote. The war isn't over yet, so the answer should be Ongoing. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - Given that this is under consideration in an ongoing RfC, the relevant section(s) of the infobox should not be changed prior to the resolution of this RfC. As it currently stands, this change to the infobox has made this RfC moot. I will be reverting that change so that a stable version of the infobox can reflect what is currently being discussed in this RfC--JasonMacker (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  @JasonMacker that's not at all reflective of WP:STATUSQUO. There's a dispute over whether or not to use a Result parameter. The fact that there's a dispute over which Result parameter would be preferred is not reason to entirely skip discussion and consensus-building around which parameter to use.

  Starting a discussion predicated on non-extant consensus around X is not a cheat code to declare there's consensus for X and we need not discuss it at all Placeholderer (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  ??? There is discussion happening right now. Unilateral nullification to render this RfC moot is, to put it lightly, frowned upon. JasonMacker (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Correct! There is currently discussion of whether or not we should describe the war as being completely over—i.e, whether we should use a Result parameter or a Status parameter in the infobox. Until that discussion is resolved, we should restore the status quo ante,. That would be the Status parameter. Placeholderer (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  And why is the discussion of whether to use a Result parameter below the RfC of which Result parameter would be better? Because the RfC was started prematurely and the preceding discussion on Result v. Status was all closed early to make room for it.

  There are layers and layers of mess here Placeholderer (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  No? There was a discussion on the talk page, which is why the Status parameter got replaced with the Result parameter, in this edit back on 18 June 2026. Then, this RfC was started in 19 June, asking what the Result parameter should state. As should be obvious from what has happened in this discussion, there are a large number of editors that support keeping it as "Iranian victory" rather than changing it to "Inconclusive". So, the status quo of this RfC was that the result parameter stated Iranian victory. The "dispute" as to whether to even use the Result parameter began after the initiation of this RfC. JasonMacker (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  The discussion you're referring to was started after this RfC, and has seen significantly less participation. Many of the editors supporting the change result of this RfC are citing similar reasons to those reflected in the other discussion. Rather than trying to invalidate an RfC with a subsequent, simultaneous discussion, editors of that discussion should participate in this RfC (and some have). entropyandvodka | talk 18:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  My 18:40 reply might not have come through in time x2 Placeholderer (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  (I'll note that one reason for the significant participation here is likely to do with the canvassing) Placeholderer (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Read WP:CANVASS. There is no indication within that reddit post of encouraging any edits to the article or this talk page. So, not a canvass. JasonMacker (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  This RfC is literally pinned to the top of the thread. But that's beside the point here of consensus to use Result Placeholderer (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Again, there is no indication within that reddit post of encouraging any edits to the article or this talk page. So, not a canvass. Merely linking to this RfC is not a canvass. Also, this talk page is extended-confirmed restricted anyways, so it's not like there's going to be a deluge of random redditors coming here to !vote. JasonMacker (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:CANVASS: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." entropyandvodka | talk 19:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment The sources cited in the infobox are not the only RS relevant to the discussion. Some issue was taken with editors vaguely referring to RS without specifying which ones. These sources were used in the relevant portion of the article body, for everyone's reference:

BBC

Foreign Policy

The Atlantic

The Independent

NPR

Sydney Morning Herald

entropyandvodka | talk 03:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

A few more, not currently in the article.

Middle East Eye

Foreign Affairs

Asia Times

entropyandvodka | talk 16:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Atlantic, The Independent, MEE, and Asia Times are opinion pieces, see WP:RSOPINION. Foreign Policy published a number of articles on the result, one of which holds a dissenting pov: . However, there does seem to be more articles that state Iran won the war (or at least that the US did not achieve its goals). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, not achieving the goals doesn't necessarily mean the other side won. It's possible for both sides to lose, and I feel like that's the case here as well. And let's not forget, the war is not over yet. Hal Nordmann (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Change and to ongoing, since the question of whether one side had won or it was inconclusive does not arise in the first place, as the conflict has never concluded to get to that point. Its a category error. The MoU is a 60-day ceasefire agreement with the intent to work out and finalize a lasting peace deal within the allotted timeframe. One major prerequisite for the MoU, as per the first paragraph, is the cessation of all hostilities in Lebanon by not only the USA and Iran, but also their respective allies. Israel refused any commitment to the Memorandum and to withdraw their forces. Instead they maintain to remain on occupied territory until all opposition infrastructure was destroyed. One of the main prerequisites to fulfill the MoU alone, never materialized. To talk of any result is premature. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change to inconclusive. WP:NPOV says: Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views. Even if the argument for inconclusive is a minority view, it needs to be reflected in the article in proportion to the preponderance of that view in sources.

Here are a few such sources:

BBC Both sides have sold the deal to their public as a win but, as our analysts here explain, neither has fully convinced them and domestic critics on both sides argue that too many concessions were made.

Center for Strategic and International Studies Iran lost the war but won the negotiation and won it convincingly.

Hudson Institute Yet the larger reality remains unchanged. Together, the U.S. and Israel shattered Iran’s integrated deterrence system, crippled its military infrastructure, halted its uranium enrichment, and degraded Hezbollah.

AP News “It’s too much to say that Iran has emerged a victor, but it could have been much worse,” said Farzan Sabet, an Iran expert at the Geneva Graduate Institute think tank. “I think that the real victory for Iran was … survival."

Note: The political bent of the sources are irrelevant per WP:BIASED. What matters is that these viewpoints exist at all.

Slava570 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Amending my own !vote above. First Bad RFC. Once this RFC is over, we will immediately require a new RfC to determine whether to make it status ongoing or result. If we close this RFC now and open the second one, we will only need one RfC to determine the full consensus. Secondly, I would be fine with Inconclusive as per above or changing to ONGOING. Slava570 (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

"It needs to be reflected in the article in proportion to the preponderance of that view in sources." Yeah, sure. No one is denying the inclusion of the other POV, but just not in the infobox. — Raihanur (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

"Victory" would only represent a portion of the sources (the exact proportion unknown) whereas "inconclusive" would reflect a broader range of sources. All it means is that a single conclusion has not been reached. This still allows for the "victory" sources because it says victory is one of the possible conclusions (of several). Slava570 (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• Keep. Same guy who said he did not want to waste American taxpayer money into another costly pointless war in the Middle East launched another costly pointless war in the Middle East and will now gift the Iranian regime 300 billion with the added of a nice ribbon and all sanctions lifted. Not only American defeat is obvious from simply observing reality, reliable sources are also describing it as such, and it is clear that, as time passes by and we start to be able to depend more on academic sources rather than newspaper and think tank pieces, the wind will keep blowing this way and not the opposite one.

Something worth discussing could be whether the Iranian victory should be noted plainly as such or as a "strategic victory", given the American–Israeli military campaign itself was widely successful. Though, such clarifications are unorthodox and probably discouraged in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 14:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Our own opinions about US presidential politics are not relevant to the discussion, and no one has the right to impose their political views on this article. The closer should take that into consideration and discount such arguments. Slava570 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Iranian victory. The Wikipedia team did the same for the 2024 Lebanon War despite ceasefire. WeAreNicePeople (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  That is a very different context. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 16:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Per core content policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE, the infobox must reflect the prevailing view among reliable sources, as opposed to elevating a minority interpretation to equal footing. That prevailing view is clear: Newsweek not only reported on the debate but explicitly affirmed that "Wikipedia's verdict echoes what several military experts and geopolitical watchers have told Newsweek". This directly endorses the current listing from Newsweek that in another report surveyed ten experts who uniformly characterized the outcome as an Iranian success. The Guardian notes that Tehran secured a deal far better than any pre-war nuclear arrangement while keeping the government intact, Foreign Policy calls it a "pyrrhic victory", still a victory, not a draw. Even, as reported by the Times of Israel, 92% of Israeli respondents believe Iran won. The "inconclusive" framing is a distinct minority position, and per WP:NPOV, we do not give WP:UNDUE weight to minority views in the infobox. The finer points —how costly or incomplete that victory might be— are better handled in the main text. For the infobox, we stick to the consensus result, which reliable sources consistently describe as Iranian victory. I've only cited a few here, but they are representative of more reliable sources that reaches the same conclusion --Mhhossein ^talk 14:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  "uniformly characterized the outcome as an Iranian success"

  That's false. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Let's see how Newsweek describes the 10 experts comment ^{see the comments}: "But Wikipedia's verdict echoes what several military experts and geopolitical watchers have told Newsweek. ^here --Mhhossein ^talk 13:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  I already did, below. Search for "Here are 10 opiniators with 10 opinions". What you need is at least three reliable sources saying "consensus says it's an Iran win". Selbstporträt (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, opinions - even those of experts - are just that. The fact that a selection of 10 had a majority saying Iran won doesn't make for a consensus - they could've just been (un)lucky in picking those 10 Hal Nordmann (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Selbstporträt: Which WP guideline do require having "at least three reliable sources saying 'consensus says it's an Iran win'"? Mhhossein ^talk 07:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  You're not going to sealion me right after being caught misrepresenting a source to push a point of view, kind sir. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  We base our articles on reliable sources, not what 92% of Israelis think. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 10:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Question. On scientific pages, we don't go around and try to tally what scientists say. We find sources that do, and we report them. In other words, we support the claim that there's a consensus (say on vaccine efficacy or climate change) by pointing at sources that say there's a consensus. Doesn't the same apply on military pages? Selbstporträt 16:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: It should probably be noted here that this discussion was previously closed at 19:53, 20 June 2026 (Special:diff/1360327388), and reopened a day or so later following a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RfC_closure_review_at_Talk:2026_Iran_war. Considering the problematic RfC question, interested editors are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal:_New,_three-part_RfC. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change Iran hasn't had an overall gain; despite getting more control over the Strait of Hormuz, it also has lost a lot of its military, no longer has a conscious ruler, and has lost key allies such as Qatar and Iraq that started fighting against it. I say both sides have had gains and losses so inconclusive is probably best. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  We're not going to decide based on the users' personal opinions. What belongs in the infobox is largely determined by several guidelines and policies, among them WP:VERIFY and WP:DUE which is well grounded here, thanks to numerous sources supporting the Victory statement. The weight and depth of reliable sources coverage points strongly in that direction. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Change. Way WP:TOOSOON. Just at the very beginning of the latest ceasefire. —Biosketch (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The Iranians defended their country succesfuly, the US is now gonna need to pay them too Magapetro (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Neither for now The war has not ended and we should not be deciding who "won" it until it is over per WP:CRYSTAL. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Neither for now per above. How many times was this war "over", over and over again. See also, Korean War. Finally, if what you actually mean is the result is the MOU, these are not the way to say that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change to continuous: it cannot be said that the war has effectively ended before we see what the negotiations will lead to . For they are negotiating now, and the purpose of it is to end the war completely.--Sakiv (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change and reevaluate in 60 days. Jon Ace ^{T C} 16:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change to ongoing for now. Romanov loyalist (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Neither This RfC is flawed as it is based on the premise that the war is actually over, but there still appears to be dispute between both nations over what the Islamabad Memorandum actually agreed to. The choices available both fail WP:CRYSTAL. This RfC really should have been the one closed on procedural grounds.Dfadden (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Dfadden Couldn't inconclusive fit that at least until the war restarts assuming it does? ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  My decision here has been informed by the discussion over at Administrator's Noticeboard. But my objection is grounded in it being WP:TOOSOON to be discussing a result. If the war was undisputably over, then per the sources, these would lean towards support an Iran "victory" (even if only a pyrrhic one). But as it is not clear the war is over, a status parameter that reflects the conflict is ongoing or unresolved is more appropriate than a result one that impliees it has concluded with an ambiguous result. The second RfC below was attempting to address this exact issue, although it may have been opened prematurely. Dfadden (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Remove and keep this field empty. No doubts that Iran is the beneficiary of this war so far. But the war did not really end. Therefore, making any conclusions about the "winners" would be premature. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Remove. It's unclear who's the winner or loser, and there's no clear result. Both Iran and USA's governments are still standing, and neither countries are occupied in part or in whole. That would be the normal standard to tell who won or lost a war. For instance, it's very obvious who won the war between USA and Iraq in 2003. But, the Supreme Leader and many top military and political leaders in Iran were killed, plus much of their military was damaged or destroyed so it's not like they walked away with nothing. This is the sort of things historians are going to wrangle over for years and years. Now let's look at sources: 1. Indian Express is a trash tabloid taht should NEVER be used. 2. NY Times and Foreign Affairs analysis pages. Half of them are talking about how Trump politically is the loser in this. This is different than who is the military leader. And half of these sources are more current opinion pieces and analysis, and it's all ncie and good. But you can't use that for a straight forward objective "A or B won". Including "Iranian victory" is bordering on propaganda, and makes Wikipedia look outlandish and goofy. Trump is unpopular, and of course the Iranian side is going to claim victory, so it's easy for people to falsely conclude that there's some "consensus" around this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  "Both Iran's and the USA's governments are still standing," *sighs*. You completely missed the point that Iran's objective was never to bring down the Trump administration. A defender's primary objective is simply to defend. It has nothing to do with the status of the US government.

  Please read MOS:VICTORY and don't make the change until the discussion is closed. And assume good faith.. — Raihanur (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Change It isn't like there were mass American casualties and the US outright surrendered. I know some of us here would like to frame it that way to make Trump look bad, and he does have egg on his face for sure, but "victory" is hyperbolic. Pickle Mon (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change to Inconclusive. The only "consensus" I am assured of, is that after a glorious quarter-century Wikipedia is committing suicide before our very eyes, an intellectual tragedy of global proportions. Perhaps editors here, instead of relishing their "Iranian victory", in the name of intellectual integrity could perhaps check out the situation within Iran first - and compare it to that of the nations that Iran attacked: successful and prosperous Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar & Oman. The main result of this war is that for those countries, by 2027 the Straits of Hormuz will have little or no strategic importance, Iran having fired the sole projectile that it had in its Hormuz cannon. Meanwhile unrest in Iran has renewed throughout the country, the drought is horrific and unsolvable, the regime now has no air force, navy or air defenses, its proxies are decimated & proxy populations exiled, its vaunted vast nuclear project permanently shattered - and its access to the billions being dangled by the US conditional upon its good behaviour. If that is an "Iranian victory" then the success of Wikipedia's sane competitors is more critically important than ever. Monosig (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Talk pages are not a forum for political soapboxing or future predictions (WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:CRYSTAL). Your personal feelings about the Iranian regime or the future of Wikipedia are irrelevant to this discussion. Speculating about 2027 or venting about the collapse of Wikipedia does not help improve this article based on policy. — Raihanur (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Monosig, you're in the wrong place to engage in political propaganda. This is not a place for political propaganda (WP:NOTADVOCACY) or for expressing your own ideological views. What independent, reputable sources say is what counts. Wikipedia has reached this point by maintaining a neutral point of view. Even if we aren't always neutral in our daily lives, we must be neutral on Wikipedia. No one has the right to undermine this, and it is everyone's duty to protect it. Acratopotes (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Acratopotes That is precisely the problem. Wikipedia has been flooded by new editors on a mission (which isn't encyclopaedic excellence, as it was in "our" days), the chronically-inflated rules system is being cynically exploited and the results can be plainly seen. Who ever dreamed that Wikipedia whould have myriad competitors established solely because of what I have written in this comment? Monosig (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Reputable and well-known news agencies report that this resulted in an Iranian victory. Acratopotes (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

• Keep: Agree that most reliable sources attribute a victory to Iran. Those arguing the Iranian losses seem not to understand that wars do not mean a victory by destroying your enemy's country or killing their top leaders. It is extremely clear that the US intent to overthrow the Islamic republic utterly failed despite Trump's usual tough talk. Besides, we can argue too that in economic terms, the rural Americans (often MAGAts) got their pockets destroyed by the Hormuz blockade and its consequences. I think that if a war like Iraq's (which also costed so much to the US) was considered a US victory because of the successful aim of replacing Saddam, then here it was a brutally failed mission and humiliation to the US and the MAGA agenda. PS: Perhaps, if I were to support rewording, I am for watering down the Iranian victory and replace it with (it is seen in other warfare articles) something like US strategic defeat and so on. CoryGlee 16:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's original research, just like the comments you called out. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Cool. I do not care. You are free to disagree. By the way, Grilledcheeseisgreat this is WP:NOTAFORUM, I did not !vote to debate my position. Thanks for understanding. CoryGlee 19:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not treating this like a WP:FORUM. I'm treating it as a discussion. If you don't want to debate your position, don't !vote. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 19:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  My Keep stands, just in case. CoryGlee 19:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Change → ongoing until there's something more conclusive than a ceasefire. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep if nothing else. But truly it should be
  

Iranian victory

• Both sides claim victory
• Islamabad Memorandum

Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Most RS consider this an Iranian victory. EkoGraf (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change, at least for now, to "Inconclusive" or "Stalemate" per MOS:MILRESULT.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 21:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Please note that I have already opined "change" — just an update... clearly we need to remove the parameter or change to "ongoing/inconclusive" given recent events (read: strikes) by both Iran and the U.S. — MWFwiki (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Most WP:RS says Iran Victory; Iranian regime change failed by the US and Israel. BBC The Guardian. In a Hebrew University poll, 92% of Israelis supported that Iran won the war, primarily viewing the conflict as weakening Israel's long-term security. Middle East Eye. --QalasQalas (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. This RfC is atrocious and completely goes against WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The preponderance of reliable sources make zero judgement of whether it was an "iranian victory" or "US victory" and either say the war was inconclusive or do not judge the conclusion yet. The war isn't even over, in reality, because exchanges of fire continue on all fronts. Basically zero editors in this RfC are actually citing sources that claim it was an Iranian victory, of which there are very few, and most of which are not reliable. for every 10 reliable sources that make the claim, there are 100 more reliable sources that cover the Iran War and are making no such claim. The lack of a claim of Iranian victory by a reliable source, e.g. NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Reuters, FT, (and I'm not referring to their editorial boards or opinion writers, I mean their actual newsrooms), means that they either believe the war was inconclusive or that it is not yet over. There should simply not be a "result" section to the Infobox at all, and I am genuinely appalled by the participants in RfC straying so far away from Wikipedia policy. Bill Williams 01:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  This RFC would definitely benefit from a source analysis, if nothing else, showing what RS are saying about the situation (if anything at all). I pity anyone looking to take that on for something that seems to be falling apart as we speak. I also share your frustration with the framing of this RFC, which is why I've ignored it. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 02:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Bill Williams Every word written in stone. Monosig (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  I also just noticed that the OP of this RFC, Crampcomes, opened a talk page discussion below, to which I responded, asking for the infobox to show territorial changes on how Iran extended its territorial waters over the entire Strait of Hormuz. Crampcomes cited no sources for this claim, so I pointed out how it completely violates WP:OR and WP:V to add his opinion to the article with no sources. Clearly this RFC is being affected by the same lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and POV pushing. I'm still assuming good faith, but I'm saying that for any RfC closer, please note which participants are actually following Wikipedia policy, because clearly the OP (Crampcomes) and most of the participants are not. Bill Williams 15:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Totally not true. I just asked a question below and noted with source that Iran claims sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and controls it. Crampcomes (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, "atrocious" is the correct word.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Trump himself claimed multiple times that the war is over, so minor skirmishes could be aftermath of the war, just as happened with Iraq after the end of the Gulf War.Crampcomes (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Trump is not a reliable source. It's too soon to deem the war over yet - who knows, maybe June 17 could be considered the traditional end of the war in a couple years. But for now, we should wait. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 19:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Change – as others have said, it is far WP:TOOSOON to determine who "won". Beside the fact that hositlies are still ongoing, the most appropriate "outcome" to list is either "ceasefire" or "inconclusive". As many of the "keep comments" demonstrate, that perspective is driven more by POV reason than by factual or logical support. Bravelake (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The war has not even ended still. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep for now; that's what the best available sources currently seem to be saying. It's certainly true that events are developing rapidly and the war might resume or conclusions about the outcome might shift, but if that happens (and the sources shift to reflect it) we can just update things then. --Aquillion (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The war has not even ended still. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You've said this already. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 13:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yet no one listened to them. Now with the fighting resuming ,this has ought to be closed by someone with no consensus. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 13:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep for now. Maybe add “see aftermath” link. Seems like most reliable sourcing states iranian victory. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Change: The current result goes against WP:NPOV. While Iran successfully used the Strait of Hormuz blockade to force a stalemate, they also suffered catastrophic infrastructure damage (upwards of $145B) and the decimation of top IRGC leadership. The war ended via a negotiated diplomatic compromise via the Islamabad Memorandum, not a military capitulation. Per Wikipedia infobox guidelines for inconclusive modern conflicts, the result parameter should be updated to a neutral Inconclusive to avoid original research. ArzLibnan (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Bad RFC Per previous responses, this is/was straightforwardly WP:TOOSOON. Skirmishes continue, so if anything the status should be "Ongoing". Support the above suggestion of hyperlinking Islamabad Memorandum instead of some WP:CRYSTALBALL-like factual pronouncement as well. DiodotusNicator (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Comment it's only a victory because Israeli government still affirms there is nuclear program in Iran. But in this "2026" war alone, Israeli forces played a sidekick character, because the Israel-Iran proxy conflict will remain. LIrala (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Change: I am now changing my vote from Iranian victory to inconclusive. On 30 June, Iran announced that it was unable to export any oil during the US blockade of its ports, conceding that it was a decisive American victory per https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2026/07/01/iran-couldn-t-export-single-barrel-of-oil-during-us-blockade-ghalibaf-says. Pachu Kannan (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nowhere in your link is there any mention of a "decisive American victory" JasonMacker (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, you are correct and I was wrong. But, Ghalibaf acknowledged that the Iranian regime was unable to export any oil during the US blockade of its ports. Pachu Kannan (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Data from maritime intelligence firm Kpler showed that Iran's crude exports were 260,000 barrels per day in May 2026. Crampcomes (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Bad RfC - wrong parameter - Bizarre this managed to get so far. Just opened all of the top Iran-related stories in my google news feed. None regard the war as over. Yes, I've seen some headlines along the lines of "Trump capitulates" or "Trump lost" or whatnot. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars also had early judgments about winning and losing (especially following the "Mission Accomplished" incident). Yet it is plainly not done. There is certainly some consensus among reliable sources that the whole affair has been a quagmire for the US, that in various ways the US is worse off now than before, that it has thus far failed to achieve its objectives, etc. but, again, it's clearly not done. Doesn't mean those evaluations will change, but that it's ... not done. The rush to close the books and force a label or outcome via RfC is harmful to this project. And, to bang one of my usual drums, if some stylistic matter like squeezing something to fit into an infobox parameter harms nuanced reader comprehension of the subject, don't do it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Bad RfC Using the result parameter assumes that the conflict has ceased. Also, the RfC assumes a choice limited to Iranian victory and Inconclusive when MOS:MILRESULT provides other options that might better serve if the conflict were over at this time. The Islamabad Memorandum is primarily a ceasefire that portends and end to the conflict. It is not in itself and end to the conflict. As with other ceasefires that have occurred during this conflict, it is more notable for ongoing fire rather than the cessation of fire. Therefore, we should not be using the result parameter at this time. There is no comparison between the Islamabad Memorandum and the Armistice of 11 November 1918. In the latter, there was a permanent and lasting cessation of hostilities that was respected by both sides. As to what the result might be if it were based on the Islamabad Memorandum, we are guided by MILRESULT and the template documentation. This is a classic case of who won by how much (or perhaps better stated in this instance as who lost and by how much) that the guidance warns us about. This will not be a victory in any conventional sense. There is nuance and detail as to what the result is. Sources would describe and qualify this as a strategic or political victory for Iran, while some contrast this as being a tactical victory for the US. Others note that both sides have lost to varying degrees (see June 2026 Memorandum of Understanding). In such an instance, the option in MILRESULT of see Aftermath section will probably be the best way to present the result. In my note above I have referred to WP:NEWSORG and the use of such sources is highly qualified. They are generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact but not so much for opinion. One also needs to consider WP:RSBREAKING and WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Bad RfC — the conflict isn't over, and moreover, both the Trump administration and the government of the IRI have extensive track records of outright lying about what's going on, which is a problem that relying on RS news outlets can't solve. Any statement — even from an RS news source! — about the conclusion of the conflict which merely repeats government statements, is a statement that should be disregarded entirely given that such statements have so far had basically zero correlation to an actual cessation of hostilities. The fundamental problem here is that we cannot do otherwise than rely on WP:RS news sources, but the

belligerent governments' actions and statements are deeply antagonistic to the factors that usually make WP:RS a good guideline. Thus WP:RS is necessary but not sufficient. To establish that the war has ended, we must have not just RS news sources repeating the governments' claims, but reporting that the facts on the ground that would constitute an end to the war, are in fact the case — which is to say, we must hold tightly to WP:NPOV in light of how the belligerent governments have a track record of bad-faith public statements. The belligerent governments' repeated demonstrations of mendacity and bad faith mean that Wikipedia's standards are best served by assuming that we cannot trust their statements about the state of the conflict and must rely not just on RS news sources, but RS news sources' reporting about facts on the ground. As in articles about conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, we must incorporate into our understanding of WP:RS and WP:NPOV that proven liars should be treated as such and furthermore that those liars' utterances are not more likely to be true just because they uttered their lies to an RS news source. Personally I expect that there will be roughly one Trump utterance per week about the war that is substantially a lie from now until the end of the war, because that's how many there have been so far, and I expect that the end of the war is at least several such lies away. Krinn DNZ (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) I agree with those before me. This is a Bad RfC, as it is too soon. The result will become evident in the sources once the war is actually definitively over, but sources do not yet agree on this, much less whether the result has a conclusive victory or not. I fear many editors here are "voting" way too much based on their personal beliefs.Slomo666 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I believe this is not only inconclusive, but still ongoing. Already hearing of accusations from both sides of the MOU being violated. Therefore, my opinion remains that this war is not over. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: It is not up to us to say what we believe, or to share our opinion on the facts, or even our understanding thereof, but to find agreement on what the sources say. Integrating "accusations" and using it to make judgements is up to the reliable sources, not up to us. Slomo666 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Still ongoing, and it was when the RFC was launched; a ceasefire does not mean a war has ended. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: I have reverted the obvious WP:BADNAC by User:Fantastic Mr. Fox, who was, first of all, involved in the discussion and closed it with a non-natural summary. Furthermore, this is a contentious topic, and the closure was highly controversial. — Raihanur (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  There was several people who supported the NAC. You are the only person who has opposed the closure, let alone considers it a "highly controversial" closure. I won't revert you because I implied it was open to WP:BRD, however accusing me of "obvious" bad practice seems to be just your opinion. . Fantastic Mr. Fox 08:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  It does not matter if five or fifty people supported your closure. An involved non-admin closure on a contentious topic is a textbook WP:BADNAC. Policy is not a headcount, and consensus cannot override the strict requirement for a neutral, uninvolved closer. — Raihanur (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  While WP:BADNAC outlines the risks of involved closures, it is not a suicide pact designed to force bureaucracy over a clear community consensus. While the broader topic of the 2026 Iran war is undoubtedly contentious, the standard for a bad non-admin closure relies heavily on whether the closure misrepresents the community's will or causes actual disruption. If a specific discussion has reached a clear, uncontentious direction, an involved closure merely logs the inevitable outcome and saves community time.

  
  

  Labeling this specific closure "highly controversial" when you are the only person objecting to it is a self-fulfilling circular argument. Five separate editors have already reached out to support the closure because it was seen as fair. One editor's disagreement does not instantly transform a settled consensus into a "contentious closure".Fantastic Mr. Fox 09:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:INVOLVED, an involved editor is procedurally barred from assessing consensus in that discussion, which is why the closure was invalid regardless of how clear you believed the outcome to be. Furthermore, which policy states that an involved non-admin closure is permitted on a contentious topic. Bypassing this isn't 'avoiding bureaucracy'; it's bypassing neutrality. Amd if breaking the rule causes a dispute, then it fails the basic test of WP:IAR. — Raihanur (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  You are ardently sticking to guidelines and policy to override the implementation of a solid consensus. Your revert of the closure in reality basically is just going to lengthen this discussion and take up more time to ultimately reach the same conclusion, only this time coming from someone you consider "neutral", because the situation when this RFC started and today is incompatible. Fantastic Mr. Fox 09:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Here I have to disagree; the war was not over when this RFC stated and it remains that way. So the result should be put in, untill the war is either officially over or a ceasefire has lasted a while without major incident. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  I proposed a 6 month moratorium two weeks ago. But it seems like editors prefer this back-and-forth we have going on now. I think we should set the status as "ongoing" and leave it for a while. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, we do not need to rush to publication. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  +1. Fantastic Mr. Fox 10:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  As someone who is no fan of this RfC and wants it closed, I do think it should be closed by someone uninvolved. WP:NACINV says editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted (bolding original). There've been enough problems already out of neglecting best practice that this really should be closed under best practice. Imo it's not about any issue with the summary—I can't imagine this closing any other way.

  But given that we're no longer actively projecting a misleading |result that was never supported by broad consensus, in an extremely contentious subject and in a way that bypassed policy, I don't think a little more delay does much harm Placeholderer (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Rainahur that it's an obvious WP:BADNAC. I doubt an actual closer would say much different at this point, but you simply shouldn't close discussions you participated in and I think upholding that principle easily warrants waiting for a neutral closer. Loki (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Apparently, we're prioritizing strictly following the rules over ending this WP:TRAINWRECK. Obviously, it would be preferrable if someone else had closed it, but it's better than this remaining open. This RFC is so broken and reopening it makes everything worse. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 18:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Raihanur: I've restored the closure. You don't overturn a closure by edit warring, you overturn it by discussion with the closer, or, failing that, a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've undone your restore. You do in fact undo WP:INVOLVED closures by simply unclosing. Loki (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  ​I highly doubt your definition of edit warring. Read WP:EW#What edit warring is not. Reverting an obvious BADNAC is not considered edit warring, especially when it is not a revert game. ASSUME GOOD FAITH. — Raihanur (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• It's too soon to declare victory when the war hasn't even ended. My "vote" is to get rid of that Result parameter for now. Some1 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MOS:VICTORY

Several users are unilaterally changing the infobox. Please understand that as per MOS:VICTORY:

The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed

The result of RfC is clear—It should be "Iranian victory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2026_Iran_war#Iranian_Victory_vs_Inconclusive

These users should be warned not to repeat this again: @TheMightyGeneral https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2026_Iran_war_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1360397538 @Miki1234568 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2026_Iran_war_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1360408561 @Fantastic Mr. Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2026_Iran_war_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1360407942 @Cockfightermaster1969 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2026_Iran_war_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1360401845 Hu741f4 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Well considering the conflict is in a similar state to the Yemeni civil war (2014–present), should it be rephrased as "ongoing"? A poorly worded RFC followed by an overcomplicated NAC from @Feeglgeef that occured when active discussion was still occuring which is in favour of Iranian victory being used but also.. isn't?

Furthermore, it is worth noting MOS:VICTORY is a guideline, and can be altered by consensus. Fantastic Mr. Fox 14:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Trump is threatening to bomb Iran again and the Strait of Hormuz, which is considered a front of the Iran war, is still closed by Iran. The peace agreement's terms for Lebanon are not being followed. I think it's too early to say that the war is over. If the MOU does actually end the war over the next 60 days on its terms, then I do think that would be an Iranian victory (just like the war in Afghanistan was a Taliban victory even though the US killed far more Taliban than it lost American soldiers), but it's too early to say that at this stage. Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we should do an RFC on whether or not to include the |result= parameter. I'd strongly recommend including an X-day moratorium as a secondary option for !votes to consider. I'd suggest recommending at least a 30-day moratorium for the sources (and this event) to settle down. If we do an RFC, can we at least wait a couple of days before closing it unless it's a true WP:SNOW close (which I don't think the one above was)? I'd say a week would be ideal unless discussion slows to a crawl. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 15:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll note that Template:Infobox military conflict says "Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." 9ninety (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Very poor comparison. What do sources say is more important. Yemeni civil war isn't over according to majority of reports and analysts. It was modified as "Iranian victory" based on wide range of sources. Hu741f4 (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You have bolded "what do sources say" and sources say outside a flare-up in late 2025 between the STC and Hadi government, which then stopped, there has been a de facto ceasefire since around 2022. The exact same logic can be applied to this situation, since the Islamabad Memorandum is considered a part of the peace process, not THEE peace treaty, as per sources such as https://www.parleypolicy.com/post/the-u-s-iran-islamabad-memorandum-of-understanding-explained?hl=en-GB#:~:text=On%2014%20June%20in%20Washington,settlement%20of%20the%20conflict%20and . Fantastic Mr. Fox 16:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"Yemeni civil war isn't over according to majority of reports and analysts."

What would be your three most authoritative sources that say the current war is over? Selbstporträt (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Are we really going to have another discussion about this? Let the consensus be respected for at least a week. We should know by then of additional developments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

There was never, never, ever any broad consensus here to switch to a Result parameter. That was a hat trick. The process here has been catastrophic. The RfC presupposed consensus that didn't exist, closed the discussions that would have decided that consensus, instructed people to "vote" as talk page views rocketed to 31,000 amid canvassing, and somehow bypassed WP:STATUSQUO and WP:ONUS to prop up/implement a major proposed change amid even that ongoing discussion Placeholderer (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Were there a consensus that the war was ongoing or inconclusive, I doubt the RfC would have had a strong majority of editors saying "Keep", which implicitly includes the war being over. entropyandvodka | talk 18:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The RfC that instructed people to Vote by writing either Keep or Change (i.e |result being "Iranian Victory" or "Inconclusive") is not indicative of consensus to switch |status for |result. Placeholderer (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Editors, are, and were, free to dissent from the framing of the RfC. Some did just that. Others qualified their opinions with caveats, "weak keep" etc. It's entirely possible for this war to start up again, but the consensus of editors, supported by RS, is that it ended with an Iranian victory.

Also, with regard to canvassing, while the talk page was linked in the Reddit thread you mentioned, likely accounting for the spike in traffic, the post doing so was not in any apparent way attempting to influence the outcome, which is part of Wikipedia's definition of canvassing. This was pointed out to you when you initially made the claim of canvassing, but I haven't seen any evidence of canvassing. A link to a publicly viewable discussion, absent any encouragement or context urging participation to influence the discussion's outcome, does not qualify as canvassing. The post, in fact, didn't encourage any participation at all, merely pointed to the discussion that influenced the outcome. It also mistakenly identified the RfC as the discussion that led to the change, when in fact those discussions had already happened. It's even referring to the discussion in the past tense. This is what the post said:

It was recently decided to change it from "inconclusive" to "iranian victory" [link]

And that was it. Moreover, the page was EC locked at during the entire RfC. I think we can dismiss the canvassing assertion. entropyandvodka | talk 18:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I find it distasteful to disregard so much of what I'm saying, here and previously, and instead focus on asserting that technically pinning a link (at a high-traffic and opinionated venue, r/SipsTea) to internal Wikipedia discussion that instructs readers to join in on a literal vote isn't canvassing. It "tastes" like what Larry Sanger is trying to pull off.

The RfC did not present any option other than having a Result parameter. It told people to vote on a Result parameter. There is no feasible way to contort that into "we switched away from a Status parameter in line with consensus at the RfC".

Since I don't want to keep talking to the same person over and over about the tangential point on canvassing I'll just bring this to AN for outside opinions. Placeholderer (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I think the closure of the RFC was a WP:BADNAC. WP:RFC says An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The closer also invoked WP:AVALANCHE (a stronger WP:SNOW), even though there was clearly disagreement, as well as disagreement with the formulation of the RFC itself (which presented as a false choice). SNOW implies a near unanimous consensus, and this wasn't that. RFC discussions shouldn't be closed while comments are actively being made, and this one was, and well before the 7-day minimum recommended at WP:RFC.

I think a better RFC would be a 3-part question: 1) Do we use the |result= or the |status=? 2) If we choose |result=, what result do we choose (the infobox suggests this should be either "X victory" or "Inconclusive"); "Iranian victory", "United States victory", or "Inconclusive"? 3) Do we want to have an X-day moratorium on future RFCs on this topic absent major developments?

Let the RFC run until there's either been no significant discussion for 48 hours or up to a week. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I was in the process of writing a pretty broad post for AN about this stuff, but this covers the problem with the RfC itself in a more focused way (and the 3-part suggestion would remedy the things I'm complaining about). Mind if I just copy/paste your reply over to there for a closure review? Placeholderer (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Go for it. =) —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

If someone uses my RFC language, I should have added that the opinions expressed should be based on the WP:RS, not our personal opinion on whether this event is over or our personal opinion on who the "victor" was (all of that would be WP:OR). —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just another reasonably experienced editor, here, seconding your and Locke Cole's points, and you may repeat that/the following. I was... rather shocked, to be honest, that the relevant RfC was a NAC. Their good-faith closure and closure argument was also a tad odd (they mentioned "change" supporters arguing NPOV... I think I saw that argument one time? "NPOV" was never mentioned by anyone. "Neutrality" was mentioned once? But I admit I could be misremembering) and smacked of a bit of NOTAVOTE. As I alluded to in my "change" opinion, we have a responsibility to get this (the discussion) right as, whether we like it or not, Wikipedia creates a Woozle/confirmation bias effect. Or rather, we have a responsibility to show that we have extensively done our due-diligence. I further take issue with the sources utilized for "Iranian victory" (not from a reliability standpoint, but a verifiability one), as I laid-out in My opinion. Regardless, I strongly second that this was not a SNOW vote. Besides; opinions arguing "well, I think X won/lost" should be discounted (and hopefully they were).  — MWFwiki (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily nullifying "Keep" side to the RFC, but there was a huge amount of "keep per others" and "keep per RS" votes and I was hard pressed to actually find what these sources were. Especially given the circumstances of the RFC being linked to Reddit, I find it rather concerning that a lot of editors were turning up to a Request For Comment to give a binary answer.

Also I will note that I first learned of the RFC via a Threads post that appeared when looking at Instagram. Fantastic Mr. Fox 20:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

During the RfC, I pointed people multiple times to the (then) Aftermath section. Another user has moved that to another section since (Diplomatic Efforts, section "June 2026 Memorandum of Understanding", second paragraph, though I don't agree with this move), but the text is unchanged as far as I'm aware. I don't agree with that move, but these are the sources supporting that paragraph, and the summary "Iranian victory" result:

BBC

Foreign Policy

The Atlantic

The Independent

NPR

Sydney Morning Herald

The body of the article, as currently written, reads:

The BBC, Foreign Policy, and The Atlantic described the outcome of the war as a "defeat" for the United States and Israel. The Independent said that America had lost the war, and called Iran's now-proven ability to close of the Strait of Hormuz a "weapon of mass economic destruction of unique power" and "far more useful option than any nuclear device." Robert Kagan said the deal was "a total victory for Iran and a total defeat for the United States," citing major US concessions, and characterized increased Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz as "a major blow to the United States' position in the region, and it's also a major blow to Israel's security going forward." American diplomat Richard Haas described the deal a "a massive victory for Iran," pointing to the failure of the United States to topple the Iranian government, Iran's keeping of its drone and missile arsenal, deferral of issues regarding its nuclear program, continued ability to support groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, sanctions relief and future reconstruction fund, and a commitment from the United States not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs. He also said US-Israel relations were badly damaged, and that Israel's "freedom of action has been significantly curtailed." Paul Musgrave, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said the deal indicated that "the Iranians had greater strategic patience, greater strategic leverage and the ability to shape a deal that was always going to be more favorable to them relative to the Americans." Susan Rice described the MOU as "a jaw-dropping, horrific surrender document complete with hundreds of billions in reparations." entropyandvodka | talk 23:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It is quite possible for two parties to lose a war. From your last source:

"If you’re looking at the outcome of a war," says Paul Musgrave, associate professor of international relations at Georgetown University in Qatar, "it is actually perfectly possible for both sides to lose."

Musgrave is also the author of the FP piece. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually hadn't added that source to the article body, but in that, he states that it's possible for two parties to lose, then goes on to frame it as an Iranian victory. The source also cites several other individuals. Using that source to make a "both sides lost" argument would be misrepresenting it.

On a side note, it also says, "Other than Israel, Middle East countries and the rest of the world broadly welcomed this week’s deal, if only because it marked an end to the war and a return to something resembling normal maritime trade." (Bold added by me) entropyandvodka | talk 00:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That said, I'd actually be fine dropping the Musgrave portion from the SMH source and keeping it with Susan Rice, since, as you pointed out, Musgrave wrote the FP piece. entropyandvodka | talk 00:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Instead of dropping Musgrave, we could own that the "game" we're describing isn't zero-sum. Which means we can't infer that Iran won because the US lost. That's classic OR.

We could also make clear that this isn't our call: not only we need many "X says P", but we need many "A majority of X's say P". Ideally, we should be able to find "the consensus is that P" without having to say it in wiki voice. If we can't, then perhaps we should consider that wars aren't battles and should not be judged as such.

For now, it might be a little too soon to speak of a victor. What are the wiki conventions on that? The template and the MOS don't shed much light. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The Atlantic piece reads:

Humiliation, however, is distinct from defeat. Only the United States was humiliated; both countries have experienced a catastrophic loss. The defeat for the United States is the more obvious of the two: a loss of standing and the confirmation that even a rich country cannot force its will on a poor but determined one. For Iran, the defeat is subtler. Bordering countries once considered it a problem neighbor and now know it to be an outright threat. They are arming themselves accordingly and seeking ways to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s economy has been a disaster for about 15 years and is now a total wreck. Sanctions relief will help, but who exactly will want to invest in a country whose government is sustained by brutality and ruled according to the whims of a junta led by a mangled religious fanatic?

Looks like another 0-0. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could archive it (and the FP article), as it's paywalled. From the portion I can see, the summary right under the title reads: "Officials in Tehran got the United States to sign a document that even Americans described as degrading, mortifying, a total capitulation." Hardly a 0-0, as you put it. entropyandvodka | talk 08:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, "that even Americans described as degrading, mortifying, a total capitulation" only implies that US lost. To write "Iran won" we need a claim that Iran won, not that US lost. You really should read back about synthetizing information.

There are ways to bypass paywalls. We can't cite WP:ATODAY. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: The RfC has reopened following this discussion at AN: RfC closure review at Talk:2026 Iran war. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The result of the RfC is not clear by any means. The only thing that’s “clear” is a continuing divide in opinion among both editors and sources—until that’s settled it should remain ongoing/inconclusive. WD45 (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Here would be something we would be able to say: Robert Kagan said "it's pretty much a total victory for Iran and a total defeat for the United States", with a citation to the NPR piece. To emphasize or clarify Kagan's position, it could be in a paragraph for those who say it's 0-1. Then there could be a paragraph that says the US lost. For instance, we could also say that Jeremy Bowen said that the US lost the war, and cite the BBC commentary. If there are other pundits we want to include, that information could be compacted. Then there could be a paragraph that says the US and the Iran lost. We already have two sources for that. Then there might be opiniators who say that the US won. This could include those who say it's 1-0, and those who say it's 1-1, if there are any. We should not say "all agree that P" or "the US lost so it means Iran won" unless we have a source that says it more or less explicitly. At least that's what I would do. I know this sucks, but we can't go above what our sources say. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are 10 opiniators with 10 opinions:

• James G. Stavridis said the US did not win much, but it's still early to tell
• Jim Townsend said everyone lost
• Michael O'Hanlon said it's a win-win, with the US on top
• Brian Carter from AEI said Iran won overall but the US also won some
• Mark Cancian from CSIS said they both won a little, with the US on top
• Burcu Ozcelik from RUSI said nobody won
• Melanie Garson from UCL said Iran can more easily claim having won (note the phrasing)
• Yossi Mekelberg from CH said Iran lost less
• Fawaz Gerges from LSE said there's a consensus that Iran won and the US lost (which shows he wasn't in the same panels as the first 8 opiniators)
• Lisa Daftari from the Foreign Desk said that Iran is on top

https://www.newsweek.com/who-won-iran-war-10-military-experts-explain-12084896

Gerges offers editors a chance to jump on something like VICTORY. I am taking the commentaries at face value and do not consider Newsweek's staffers summaries, because WP:NEWSWEEK. While we find better sources for these opinions (opiniators tend to opine a lot, it should not be hard), we could add these costs:

• $29 billion on the US side
• 3,636 lives on the Iran side
• $2.2 trillion for the total cost on everyone
• 1 million Lebanese people displaced

https://time.com/article/2026/06/21/the-toll-of-the-u-s--iran-war-by-the-numbers/

Perhaps editors should be reminded that war isn't exactly a game. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Here could be a source for Gerges' opinion, which was already formed in April:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/23/donald-trump-iran-war-tehran-strait-hormuz

Make that what you will. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:OR, as well as the concept of attributed statements vs Wikivoice. If you review the paragraph I mentioned in the article body, the conclusions of Kagan, Rice, Musgrave are presented as attributed statements. Same with the The Independent's editorial piece, which reflects the views of their staff broadly. I stayed away from inclusion of that Newsweek survey of 10 experts, in small part because the Newsweek-ish clickbaity way they slapped a clear result over each expert opinion's statement (though that aspect could be disregarded if there was a particular point we wanted from a particular quote or quotes), but mostly because the amount of space each expert view was presented with was pretty minimal.

About the 'both sides win and lose some' way of looking at it, I'd note that this is true of all wars. There is quite a bit of available commentary about the cost of the war to the belligerents and the rest of the world, and the 'everybody loses in war' sentiment has been around forever. Cost and damage metrics are relevant in determining qualifiers like "pyrrhic victory" (which our discussions aren't concerned with, per MOS:MILRESULT), but it's the political outcome that's determinative. To summarize how several analysts put it during the war: for the US and Israel to win they need to achieve Iranian regime change, or extract other major concessions; for Iran to win, all they have to do is survive. This piece framed that issue pretty well. entropyandvodka | talk 16:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No need for any mealy-mouthed pyrrhic victory. As the MOS says, "it may also be appropriate to omit the "result". More so that the war has not ended, contrary to what you just implied elsewhere.

The point of quoting Musgrave was to show that we can't infer that a side wins when the other loses. To make that inference is synthesis. To use Musgrave to support that inference shows the source hasn't been read. We know know why: you don't have access.

Cost and damage metric are relevant to show that all this infobox shadowboxing is quite tasteless. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In any event, here's how I see it. We only have one claim that supports that there's a consensus that Iran won: Fawaz Gerges'. That's not ideal, both in quality and in quantity. I could search for sources about that, for treasure hunting is what I do best.

Still, we should not be saying "Result", but something like "See Analysis" (to borrow from "See aftermath" (or similar)" in MOS. I'm willing to write that Iran won myself if I find three reliable and authoritative sources that says there's a consensus Iran won.

Would that work? Selbstporträt (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd be against the See Analysis idea for several reasons. Principal among them is that Iranian victory does best describe the result in real life, and is supported by multiple RS citing various expert opinions and mainstream publications. Another is that this article's Analysis section is an excerpt from another article, which mostly focuses on the legality of the war. Note that this article did have an Aftermath section, but another editor moved it to a subsection of Diplomatic efforts, which doesn't seem a good fit to encompass everything that was in the Aftermath section.

With regard to sources specifically stating there's a consensus Iran won or the US capitulated, I'd argue it's sufficient to cite some amount of expert opinion and major publications (both of which we have), but there's nothing wrong with going further. Here's a piece from Time stating roughly that. Quote:

The signing of the initial agreement between Washington and Tehran by Trump left unaddressed the massive arsenal of intact Iranian missile launchers, permitted the continued Iranian possession of enriched uranium, granted Iran the right to levy passage fees in the Strait of Hormuz. The agreement did nothing to stop Iran from continuing funding its proxy terrorists—Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah—while promising to work with regional partners to raise reconstruction funds of $300 billion for Iran. And Trump left the repressive, militarist theocratic Iranian regime intact, a combination widely seen as a stunning American capitulation.

There was also a poll widely reported that 92% of Israelis believe Iran won the war, though I'm not sure how relevant that is and would prefer for now to stick with experts. entropyandvodka | talk 20:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have read the Sydney Morning Herald source, start to finish, more than once, which explicitly quotes Musgrave in the article body. It's the FP source that's paywalled, which doesn't quote him by name in the article body (nor did I write the portion of the article that did cite that piece). entropyandvodka | talk 19:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

"Principal among them is that Iranian victory does best describe the result in real life, and is supported by multiple RS citing various expert opinions and mainstream publications."

Once again, I don't think *we* can decide that. Since what you infer from the "signing of the initial agreement" quote clearly indicates synthesis, I'll address one last thing and then stop before hitting the stone wall. SHM cites Susan Rice, Dan Shapiro, Roger Wicker, Ian Bremmer, Vali Nasr, James Acton, and Paul Musgrave. The first three are politicos, Bremmer is only mentioned because he said that a dropping Bibi could be a good thing for Israel, Nasr talks about JD, and Acton contradicts any idea that the MOU is solid enough to declare anything, i.e. my own position. The best you can get out of this piece is the fall:

For Musgrave, the short-term winners of this war are clear: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Netanyahu’s political rivals, and anybody involved in the transition to green technology. “But overall, the losers are the entire world.”

Note that he hasn't said "Iran". So even there that's shaky at best.

I started to gather some notes, and will revisit the page from the start. It should be at a slow pace. Take care. Selbstporträt (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the SMH piece is fine for citing attributed statements to those individuals (which as far as I know is all the article body does with that reference). I don't believe we'd disagree on that. Did you get a chance to look at the Time reference? entropyandvodka | talk 01:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a page on Reactions to the 2026 Iran war, a page on the Islamabad Memorandum, a page on the 2026 Iran war ceasefire, and a page on Analysis of the 2026 Iran war. I see no reason to duplicate that effort.

The excerpts from these pages are way too big for our page.

The Time piece is an infomercial for a book. Search for "In our new book, Trump's Ten Commandments". It has been written by a professor of management and a director at the The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Why should these two dudes be our war referees? Selbstporträt (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Referee would be a strong term, as opposed to two voices among many that we might consider. I suppose it depends if you think affiliation with a think tank is disqualifying as having a relevant opinion. While the article does plug their book, the commentary in the article itself seems still of use. entropyandvodka | talk 05:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It's of little use. Even if we accept the idea that you can cite a few authorities to support that infobox (which I don't) they need to be authorities. They're pundits:

https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/state-department-yale-soms-jeffrey-sonnenfeld-and-steven-tian-brief-foreign-press-impact

The best we got so far is Gerges. He's the only one who said there was a consensus. The problem is that he simply waved his arms. Which is perfectly normal, considering that he's not writing an encyclopedia.

Think about what this page should look like in two years. This should tell us where to cut. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

How exactly are you defining an authority in this sense? entropyandvodka | talk 15:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Consensus statements

I don't need to define authority for the same reason I don't need to define pornography. I'm not here to play elenchus games. Been there, done that.

Look. We want to claim there's a consensus by those who study these things. This is similar to a scientific consensus, but for historians. How can we know that the sources we cite constitute a consensus?

We can't. We can't check everywhere. We can only cite people who did, and report on that. Here's what a consensus looks like:

The world's leading association of genocide scholars has declared that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63o

Or this:

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

If you look at the citations, you won't find four dudes who said "I tell you: Jesus existed". What you will get is quotes such as "The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt." What we're looking for are statements of consensus like that. And just like authority, I don't need to define consensus.

Find statements of consensus. Win. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

1. The government of Iran and USA are still standing. 2. Neither Iran or USA are occupied by an invading force. 3. There is no mechanism in the short term for either government being toppled.

In situations like this, historians go back and forth who "won" the conflict with endless debate since it's not clear. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

??? The United States and Israel waged a war of aggression. They failed in their aggression, and this even resulted in the defending party gaining territorial control as well as massive concessions. As stated by a plethora of reliable sources, and basic common sense, the defending party won. I don't understand this novel interpretation of a defender fending off an attack, and consequently gaining territorial control & concessions, as not being a victory. This is not original research. This is literally what experts are stating:

the Newsweek assessment: "Iran's regime survived, giving it a strategic win"

the ASPI assessment: "The regime’s survival is, in itself, a meaningful victory for Tehran"

Richard Haas, CFR's assessment: "massive victory for Iran"

FP assessment: "Iran’s Victory Is More Pyrrhic Than It Looks"

Nevertheless, there is still a minority that either take the position that it was "inconclusive," or that the US was victorious. But combining these takes, there are very few, if any, that insist that the war has not ended. Otherwise, how can they assess who won? At best, they would say which side is currently winning. But we don't see that. Instead, we see experts primarily using the past tense for assessments of the war. JasonMacker (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A few more for good measure:

Middle East Eye "Iran has won the war." "But however tortuous the path, and even if this deal fails and Trump decides to attack Iran for a third time, it is brutally clear that the US has just lost another war in the Middle East - its sixth in 25 years."

Foreign Affairs "Put plainly, U.S. President Donald Trump lost both the war and the negotiations to end it."

Asia Times "Iran won in the sense that matters strategically: it preserved the regime, demonstrated the resilience of its military and industrial capacity, neutralized the political will of its adversaries to continue the campaign and emerged with enhanced legitimacy at home and elevated prestige across the region. It survived the decapitation attempt. It reconstituted its missile forces faster than anticipated. And it now, in practical terms, controls the Strait of Hormuz in a way that gives it leverage over the global economy that no amount of American naval presence can easily negate." entropyandvodka | talk 15:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Newsweek's journalists won't decide who won the war. And if you look at the ten opinions, you'll see that you're running away with the headline.

ASPI is a think tank. So is CFR. And Richard Haass is that Richard Haass.

Your FP link leads to a commentary by Menahem Merhavy, and the meaning of Pyrrhic victory is "a victory gained at such a cost to the victor that it is tantamount to defeat".

We're not looking for occurrences of the word "victory" in the press. We're looking for evidence that there's consensus that Iran won the war in the sense that we need to build an encyclopedia. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Following up on the "good measures: David Hearst is the founder of MEE and former Grauniad lead writer. Nate Swanson is at the Atlantic Council and his commentary, instead of telling why Iran won, explains why Iran may end up losing. FWIW, Hearst's editorial is more interesting. But that's just that: an editorial. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

how are think tanks and other foreign policy and international relations experts not credible here? What's the alternative, exactly? JasonMacker (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The alternative is to get statements about consensus. We don't get to judge if there's a consensus. Those we cite do. Search for "Consensus statements" on the page for examples.

Asking me follow-up questions while ignoring what I'm saying doesn't look quite productive. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

We literally have that, as cited in the Newsweek article: "There is a relative consensus worldwide, even in the United States, that Iran has won the war and President Trump lost this war," added Fawaz Gerges, a professor in international relations at the London School of Economics." https://www.newsweek.com/wikipedia-lists-result-iran-war-as-iranian-victory-12094762 JasonMacker (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No, we don't. What we got is one single quote from Gerges in a Newsweek piece which is less conclusive as the author stated. And Gerges has not substantiated his "relative consensus". Selbstporträt (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• I think the issue here is not the winner (this is clearly Iran at this point), but the ending date of the war (17 June 2026 in the infobox). There is no consensus of RS that the war has ended, and it can easily continue for quite some time. Even the existence of ceasefire (as outlined in the MOU) is debatable given the recent military actions in Lebanon that had happened after June 17. I suggest removing the end date of the war from the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: The Epstein alliance thankfully lost. This is fact.

  PS Not a fan of Iranian regime, just don't like very much wars and imperialism in general Piccionaia (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  What exactly has this statement added to the discussion. Fantastic Mr. Fox 16:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  It added that I modestly suggest stating Iranian victory as the result of the war. Piccionaia (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  It seems to me to be a biased political motivation... the war isn't over, and no one knows if it is, and nothing has been decided. On what basis would the Iranians have won? Just because they're fighting the United States? The United States has always demanded the delivery of uranium enriched above 5% for military purposes (for civilian energy purposes, as everyone knows, must be between 3 and 5%), a halt to the construction of medium- to long-range missiles for attack, not defense, their sale along with shale drones, support for terrorist groups and armed militias like Hamas and other Palestinians, Hezbollah and others in Lebanon, pro-Iranian groups in Syria, pro-Iranian Shiite groups in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. As reiterated, either they accept everything or the war will continue and will not end until the annihilation of the regime, this was said in 2018 during the agreements on the nuclear program and again at the negotiations to avoid the conflict in Geneva until a few days before the start of the conflict ~2026-36818-47 (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Lead section

As stated at WP:AS, "most leads of featured articles are 250–400 words". The current lead has North of 900. I'm not a fan of hard size limits, but perhaps we could think of trimming it down a bit.

There are 7 paragraphs. I don't see the point of the second one: we don't need that much background information. I don't see why we should emphasize Trump's declarations either. So the lead should contain 5 paras at most. Perhaps 4 with some effort, but that can wait. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The page has more than 17K words, and more than 1,2K citations. Dragon Lord have mercy. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Update. We're at 809 words. Still too much emphasis on what people say. Many citations in the lead don't even appear in the text. This looks like an old lead. Selbstporträt (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Update. We're at 700 words thanks to Tpbradbury! Selbstporträt (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

We're at 538 words. The lead was pre-splits, most probably, as it emphasizes material (e.g. economic impacts) that now belongs to other pages (e.g. Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war).

Detail on the latest updates surrounding the Memorandum should take something like 100 words at most. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright. We now have 4 paragraphs. The first three have ca 300 words. The last one has 200 words. It should be cut in half.

Once it is, we should be good to go. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done We're at 437 words. The second paragraph could be shortened, but our objective is met. Our lead should be somewhat stable, and it's readable. I expect elves and gnomes to do their thing. Selbstporträt (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: We returned above 500 words. Not good enough. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Blatant Violation of Wikipedia Policy

I gave my reasoning here , and was reverted here . The editor who reverted me gave no reasons why my edits were incorrect; in fact they backed up my reasoning. The CNN article does not back up the claim in Wikipedia voice that Trump, a living person, lied, it just says that his claims were incorrect. If you insist on keeping the sentence, then you can at least change it to "incorrectly claimed" which aligns more with the article. As for the Washington Post article, you'll notice the editor who reverted me never quoted that article. That's because it does not whatsoever back up the claim that Trump "manipulated the markets," which in this article is hyperlinked to the specific article on market manipulation. That's a very specific claim that has zero evidence in reliable sources. Trump said he was continuing the ceasefire because the markets supported it, which is reacting to the markets, not the other way around. The editor inserted their own original research to deduce that Trump is manipulating the markets, which goes against basic Wikipedia policy. There's also nothing in the body about this, so WP:SUMMARY? In one of the most viewed Wikipedia articles right now, we should be following some of the simple rules that editors agreed to. Bill Williams 17:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear why this editor isn't quoting the WaPo source directly, which is the only source for this claim, it says:

Title: How the stock market became Trump’s most favored adviser."

Subheading: The president says market gains helped guide his push to reach a deal with Iran, even as critics warn that stocks are an uneven measure of national interest.

[The following quotes are all from the body of the article.]

But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“[Trump said] I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe... If you kept this going, that could have happened, but all I know is every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shot up like a rocket ship."

Whether he grapples with war, the rapid advance of artificial intelligence or the economic fallout from his effort to remake global trade, Trump considers market reaction a key measure of success.

But Trump has been especially transparent that market feedback guides his foreign policy decisions — including at moments when at least some of his allies feel there is significant strategic downside to doing so.

Iranians “recognized how critical market reaction was to U.S. decision-making, and it gave them leverage, especially as the U.S. strategic reserves were approaching dangerously low levels,” said Suzanne Maloney, an expert on U.S.-Iran relations at the Brookings Institution.

Every one of these sentences is discussing Trump's reaction to the markets. Please read the hyperlinked article that the editor insists on including in the lead of this article, because it says "market manipulation occurs when someone intentionally alters the supply or demand of a security to influence its price. This can involve spreading misleading information, executing misleading trades, or manipulating quotes and prices." None of this is applicable to Trump's actions, and if you want to pretend like this is analogous to the CEO of a company, then you could argue that Trump is making decisions for the company in reaction to seeing its stock tank. That's not market manipulation, and it's irrelevant anyway, because the reliable sources do not make that comparison, they just demonstrate how Trump wanted the ceasefire because the markets wanted it. It's just an egregious example of WP:OR where an editor is making an analogy to a company CEO even though the reliable sources don't say that. Bill Williams 17:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally think that Trump is a clown and a liar, but I don't want his statements framed in a uniquely damning way in Wikivoice. Anyhow, that's irrelevant - I want neutrality more than I want my own agenda to prevail. Alas, Wikipedia has become an activist battleground, and I think it's largely become a lost cause as a result. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That's my general fear about the encyclopedia, too, alas. To get to the meat of the matter: Bill, you're right, per Mikrobølgeovn above, even if we might clash politically. XD — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree the sentence was in violation of at least MOS:Said and NPOV, and poorly written at that. One wouldn't claim that something supposedly was about to happen, the supposedly aspect thus undermining their claim. I made a couple adjustments, and to the adjacent sentence, though in my opinion I don't think the sentence adds anything important enough to be in the lead. Delineating the blockade, truce, strikes during the truce, then MOU seem relevant for summarizing the article's key facts (and even then, the dual blockade and MOU are the major events), and the lead is overly long as is. entropyandvodka | talk 06:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think Trump has been a bad president, and that the Iran war was unjust to wage. But neither of those mean that we should violate basic Wikipedia policy in the lead of the article. Our job is to present the facts based on reliable sources, even if we have stronger opinions than those sources suggest. Bill Williams 12:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the "admitted to market manipulation" claim was not supported by RS and did remove it at one point . I checked and it does look like this removal has stuck for the moment. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that, thank you for the edit. I also changed "falsely" to "incorrectly" for Trump's claims that Iran's military was destroyed and that the US was close to reaching a peace agreement repeatedly. The cited sources mostly do not claim that he "falsely" made these claims, just that these claims were incorrect. This is particularly important because Trump is a living person and "falsely claimed" was hyperlinked to all his other false claims, even though reliable sources are not making that comparison.Bill Williams 13:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"largely become a lost cause as a result" The political biases and inaccuracies of Wikipedia don't worry me most of the time, because they typically reflect whatever opinionated sources are used. What really worries me is that an ever larger number of users seem to only edit or discuss political topics, while articles about historical topics, the arts, social science, or palaeontology have not been edited or updated in a long time. Not much of an encyclopedia, when the focus is so narrow.Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to strongly second @Bill Williams' points. I was (and am) rather shocked at some of the content of this article. We have some mildly to moderately serious OR and NPOV issues, as they have already pointed-out. Whether we like it or not, larger, more important articles have more of a chance to cause a Woozle effect and we must place them under additional scrutiny (in an ideal world, all articles would be placed under this level of scrutiny... but if one only has limited time to devote to Wikipedia in a day, are you going to expend your energy on a major article or on something 6 people per day read? Many people choose the former). I digress; as I said, just wanted to second or third their contention.  — MWFwiki (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"expend your energy on a major article or on something 6 people per day read?" Personally, the second option. High-traffic articles translate to wasting time and energy so that someone can delete your text to present the POV of his/her favorite news-source. I find more obscure topics to be more appealing as a reader and editor. Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually agree, but many editors don't, was my point  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

What are the criteria for being listed as an 'Other party' and why are these listed as a subsection of "Belligerents"

Quite a number of countries are listed under "Other parties" implying that they are co-belligerents of the US. The criteria for inclusion is not stated and the common factor appears to be that they have been targetted by Iran at some point. Most of the entries are not cited and where they are, the cite appears to confirm solely that they have been so targetted. This makes them victims of this war, but in no sense "Belligerents". Many of the refereences relating to the UK are explicit that the UK has at no point supported this war and has only given limited permission for UK bases to be used by US to neutralise Iranian assets targetting British resources or those of Britain's allies. Other EU and NATO countries have adopted similar positions. The reference for Turkey explicitly states that NATO assets neutralised an Iranian missile which was aimed at Turkey. Again this makes Turkey a victim, but not a co-belligerent of anyone. Also, the involvement of most of these countries does not appear to be expanded in the body of the article of which the infobox is ostensibly a summary.

What are the criteria for inclusion and why is the involvement of each of these countries not expanded in the article body? In the past we listed 'Supported by"in the infobox, but that parameter was dropped as the level of 'support' varied between diplomatic help, being prepared to supply intelligence, weaponry or aid, through to actively putting planes in the air or boots on the ground, thus making the parameter virtually meaningless. The criteria here seem even vaguer. Every country paying more for fuel or fertilisers, every country with ships or citizenry embargoed by either Iran or US and every country which has been directly attacked is a victim of this war, but very few AFAIK have in any sense acted as 'Belligerents'.

IMO only those countries actively militarily involved should be listed as 'Belligerents'. If we want to list countries that have been targetted, we should in a way that is clear what the criteria are and that does not imply that they support either party in this conflict. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Other parties was settled on after an RfC about how they should be listed. Previously, there was an "Attacked by Iran" and "Attacked by United States" subfield on each side, which presented factual and neutrality issues, among other issues brought up in that discussion. Additionally, many countries allowed their territory to be used to launch attacks against Iran, which constitutes an act of aggression in International Humanitarian Law (though whether that makes one a belligerent/party to the conflict is more nuanced). Cases could also be made that countries which were struck and didn't strike back were nevertheless parties to the conflict, but that their relatively minimal involvement didn't constitute due weight for infobox placement as it wouldn't accurately summarizing key facts. "Other parties" ended up sticking as it offered a means of noting that they are involved parties, but without putting them in exactly the same category as the main parties to the conflict.

As a side note, being a party to the conflict (belligerent) is agnostic about whether that party is the aggressor or victim/defender, and determined by whether the party is neutral or not under IHL. Many modern conflicts have blurred the distinctions, and this is certainly one of them. entropyandvodka | talk 13:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou for the courtesy of a detailed reply, though it only confirms my suspicion that there is little alignment between inclusion criteria and text resulting in the info presented being muddled/misleading.

Territories "Attacked by Iran" is clear and aligns with those cites that are given, but listing "Other parties" as a subsection of 'Belligerents' makes no sense at all and is actively contradicted by some of the sources used (some of the UK ones are fairly explicit about UK not supporting US actions). Regardless of the niceties of international law, it is generally WP policy to only include in the infobox entities actively fighting under 'Belligerents'. Countries offering some level of support are ordinarily covered in text, since this info is too nuanced to be summarised in a list in the infobox. This was the result of an RfC some years ago I believe. In the case of Turkey, it has been attacked but has not itself instituted any reaction AFAIK (NATO systems based in Turkey have defended it). Pincrete (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Belarus is listed in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) infobox without an "Other parties" label, merely for hosting Russian forces and allowing Russians to use their territory for offensive and/or "logistical" actions. Using that same standard, there would clearly be listed belligerents alongside the United States and Israel without the "Other parties" label. I disagree with that label. I do, however, consider those countries to be in fact belligerents on par with the United States and Israel, when applying the same standard. My proposal was to not have an "Other parties" label, but instead have a "and others ..." wikilink that would direct users to an article that would explain the situation, simiilar to how the World War I has a "and others ..." wikilink in its infobox. JasonMacker (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Belarus did a lot more . Saying that, the list of other parties on US side indeed seem to be excessive. I would say only countries that became a target of significant attacks by Iran should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

To make the argument that Belarus "did a lot more," it's not enough to simply link to an article discussing the actions of Belarus. You have to make the comparison with the actions of the states in the Persian Gulf that host US military assets. So, what actions have they engaged in that leads you to conclude that Belarus did a lot more? JasonMacker (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I am just saying I agree with the suggestion above about the "Countries attacked by Iran". My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not about the "niceties of international law" as you put it. Being a belligerent (party to the conflict) is a legal state in international law, in which one is either a party to the conflict or neutral. International law defines these states, what puts a state into either category, and legal obligations to stay in those categories. entropyandvodka | talk 20:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Adding Territorial Changes to infobox

Due to this war, Iran now occupies and claims sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. This increases Iran's total area. Should we add this info in the infobox just like, for example, in the Gulf War article? Crampcomes (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I've heard nothing about Iran extending its territorial waters, so probably no. (If Canada decided to obstruct shipping through the Northwest Passage, it would not represent a territorial change.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Iran claims sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, occupies and controls it. Since Iran is claiming sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, it is extending its territorial waters. Crampcomes (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:V. You have no source, i.e. you're asking us to violate basic Wikipedia policy by adding your own opinion that isn't backed by sources. Bill Williams 15:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The source provided reads "Tehran continued to claim Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz". Claiming sovereignty isn't enough to establish it. Sovereignty would need to be recognized somehow by the international community for being de jure; this is disputed for states themselves. We already say that it has de facto control here, elsewhere, and almost everywhere else.

There are lots of territorial disputes. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

No. Iran blocking and controlling the Strait of Hormuz would be a significant result of the war, but the war is ongoing, hence the result is not clear at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

On 8 July 2026, President Trump suggested that USA can seize Kharg Island. [] Cheney123 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Lets wait till the war is actualy over. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there is a 12-mile rule for territorial waters. If they coincide with those of another country, they are divided in half. Iran and Oman had already reached an agreement in 1975, subsequently accepting the Convention of the Sea and the free transit of ships without inspections, authorizations, or tolls. Iran signed the convention, but then did not ratify it, along with the United Arab Emirates, due to a dispute over claims to some islands in the Gulf. Therefore, anything that deviates from the United Nations Convention of the Sea is illegal and violates international law and any possible peace agreement and peace resolution by the United Nations to also remove UN international sanctions. ~2026-36818-47 (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Diego Garcia

Currently, citations c and d in the infobox are giving conflicting information regarding an attack on Diego Garcia. Citation c says there was one in March and provides a source while citation d states that it's disputed as to whether or not there has been an attack on the British Indian Ocean Territory, which includes Diego Garcia, and says no evidence has been corroborated for one. So I'm not really sure which one it's supposed to be. Great Mercian (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur. I attempted a remedy. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Infobox problems

The Template: 2026 Iran war infobox is way too long. Using "#invoke:Infobox military conflict" should not be a permanent solution to bypass its heaviness. Now that we have a proportioned lead, it pushes the page's sections too low. Lots of whitespace does not look pro.

The warbox should be used to summarize information in a standard manner. This information should already be on the page. Warbox information needs to be sourced, but citations don't need to be in the warbox itself:

Information summarized in an infobox should follow the general guidance for writing a lead section. It should not "make claims" or present material not covered by the article. As with a lead section, there is some discretion in citing information in an infobox. The same guidance should be applied to an infobox as given for citations in a lead section. Information in an infobox must conform with verifiability, point-of-view and other policies.

MOS:INFOBOXCITE generalizes this point.

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says we should not use flags in infoboxes.

Casualties and losses should not take much more space than for World War II. If you need to detail stuff, do it in the text, or make a list. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree at a quick glance at this page - I've certainly never seen an infobox with 80+ refs before! The length is absurd, especially when you look at the WW2 template, and there's no need to down to the level of "Azerbaijan reported 4 injuries". The infobox already includes a link to Casualties of the 2026 Iran war. For now, I've deleted this section and left the USA/Iran part. I would be sorely tempted to delete all of the breakdown of air systems, radars etc as well. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

As another example, Russo-Ukrainian war forgoes a breakdown of any sort and just has: "Hundreds of thousands, reports vary widely. See Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian war for details." Copying that for something like "Around 8000 killed and 50,000 injured, reports vary. See Casualties of the 2026 Iran war for details." would help the infobox size greatly. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Casualties and losses is by far the biggest section and overly detailed. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not the place for detail and nuance. Citing different claimants for the same figures (per X) is nuance. If it cannot be simply summarised, then it probably doesn't belong in the infobox. The Other parties under belligerents is also nuance. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  Adding Lebanon war losses looks like double accounting.

  Found back the checklist: WP:INFOBOXTOOLARGE. Is there an item we don't check? Selbstporträt (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  To stop this from timing out, at bare minimum we're failing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and that's just a quick glance. I'd still be up for the "Casualties and losses" being simplified to just the "see this list for X"

  If nothing else, an infobox should not have any/minimum references per MOS:INFOBOXREF. 41 references is absurd. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 7 July 2026: fix nonsense units of measurement

Description of suggested change: Not sure how this happened, but in Continued hostilities (19 June – present) a distance given as "7.5 nautical miles" in the source was written as 7.5 nm, and even converted to a third of a millionth of an inch. Not sure if this implies a deeper problem with the initial edit. Suggest replacing with accurate distance in km (per standard) and NM (per source).

Diff:

−

in the Hormuz 7.5 nanometres (3.0×10−7 in) southeast of Omani port of Dahit

+

in the Hormuz 14 km (7.5 NM) southeast of Omani port of Dahit

ATravellingLight (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done The parameter in the convert template was incorrectly set to nm rather than the proper nmi. —BrechtBro (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2026

(Correction of Cited Month) Change "On 7 June, Iran reportedly launched missiles at commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz,..." to "On 7 July, Iran reportedly launched missiles at commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz,..." AHistoricallyRelevantMole (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Good catch! Placeholderer (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

And here we go again

It (the status) shouldn't be tagged as "disputed" anymore, should it? (Iran launched retaliatory attacks targeting 85 U.S. military sites across the Middle East). Trump says MoU to end Iran war is ‘over’.. — Raihanur (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

done Rolluik (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Should CPFIK be added?

The Kurdish group Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan led PDKI and PJAK has been involved in active hostile clashes with Iran since late June. Now, with the war restarting and they continuing to clash, I suggest for them to be added to the infobox on the US' side. I am not sure though and ask for opinion. I have said this as there is already mention of CPFIK fighters that were killed in the Iranian strikes in Casualties section of the war. Kgeo2.0 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not really PDKI and PJAK clashes "with Iran", it's rather clashes of Iranian Kurds with Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) forces. Putting the Iranian Kurds on the "US side" in the infobox would be misleading, given the denials by the Iranian Kurdish groups that they received US military support. Trump said something is only a source for how Trump's statement might have affected media discussion and debate, not as a reliable about actual real-world events.

Related articles are Western Iran clashes (2026–present) in Iran, 2026 Iranian strikes on the Kurdistan Region in Iraq, and article something closer to an overview: 2026 Kurdish–Iranian crisis. Boud (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I think they should be added for sure MrRandalTea (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Not news

We are not a newspaper; we do not have to repeat everything the USA is going to do. We should only care about what it has done. Can we please stop just repeating Trump's gobbing off? Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Shortcut: WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Boud (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Notifying @Pachu Kannan. Borgenland (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I will keep this in mind. Pachu Kannan (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Be careful, though, because some information might be overlooked. While most people and the press were engrossed in World Cup matches, the brutal heat, and local news and politics, so much so that Iran and Lebanon were no longer being discussed, things were happening: Israel was not withdrawing from certain areas of Lebanon where it was scheduled to withdraw from the agreements; Iran was not only not allowing free movement, including in Omani waters, as the memorandum required, but was attacking oil tankers that, according to the memorandum, had not requested permission (there is no mention of permits or authorizations). There is almost no trace of this news. And then everyone wakes up to the attack by the United States, as if Trump were waking up on the wrong side of the bed after the US was eliminated from the World Cup and then attacks Iran for no reason (this news is even circulating), and this is precisely due to a lack of information and, above all, I believe, from my point of view, due to a lack of clarity and explanation of the points of the memorandum of understanding, misunderstood by most, confusing it with a peace agreement, the end of hostilities, a victory for some, that the memorandum established total control of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, that they could produce missiles at will, enrich uranium as they wished, keep the large uranium stockpiles at 60%, and perhaps produce nuclear weapons (ahh, but there's the 2003 fatwa), etc. But all these things weren't written in the memorandum, and yet journalists, even the specialized press, wrote about everything except the accuracy of what was written in the memorandum, and Wikipedia followed suit, in my opinion forgetting the ancient founding rules... and there are only 14 points that you can read... if you want, but perhaps, as in other cases, the issue isn't just historical-diplomatic, but also becomes political, if not political fiction... but this should be Wikipedia, not a social network. Forgive me for the long rant. ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC) non xC comment

This is precisely why we should be waiting to determine events with clarity before describing them. We're making an encyclopedia. We don't have to be first. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I have not said we cannot list events, only that we cannot keep adding "and today Trump said we would smash Iran into ity bits " like threats. Both sides make threats every day (Trump somewhat more often); what only matters to us (and history) is what they actualy do. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 9 July 2026

Description of suggested change: This section is very awkwardly written and could use tightening. More generally, large chunks of the "Ongoing Hostilities (June 19-Present)" are dedicated to breathlessly quoting every single thing Trump says. Which is (a) not encyclopedic, and (b) WP:TRUMPCRUFT on a smaller scale. In my suggested version even "which he described as 'cancerous'" may well be extraneous.

Diff:

−

The same day, Trump declared that the MOU with Iran is "over" and he did not want to continue dealing with the Iranian regime, which he referred to as “sick people.” He emphasized the need to "rid their cancer," advocating for early intervention akin to cutting out cancer.

+

The same day, Trump declared the MOU with Iran is "over," adding that he lacked further desire to deal with Iran's leadership, which he described as 'cancerous'.

Beeswax1999 (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done I removed the "cancerous" part too. Unfortunately, this sort of writing is all too common in current events articles. Day Creature (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Motion to add Singapore to those who are attacked by Iran in infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This June after the now defunct deal, Iran used drones to attack a ship registered in Singapore that was moving through the straight off the Omani coastline

Watson, Eleanor, and Joe Walsh. “Iran Strikes Commercial Ship in Strait of Hormuz in Challenge to U.S.-Iran Deal.” CBS News, June 25, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-strikes-commercial-ship-strait-of-hormuz-us-iran-deal-oil/. Pat J. McCarthy (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you serious? Ships from half the world have been attacked. ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If we were to abide by this logic, we'd have to add over 30 countries to the list. Besides, it does not even meet the criterias. VitoxxMass (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is the main image so different from those of other conflicts?

This was has gone on for nearly the entire year. surely, at this point, we have enough images to have a collage conveying what has happened and can replace this now meaningless map with little markers. It's so muddled as to not really offer any real information at this point. Dunnowy123 (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC) non-XC

No it has gone on for just 4 months. But one reason might be that when this article was created, it was meant to be a short bomb campaign. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 11 July 2026

Description of suggested change: More grammatically correct. "not confirmed" is not the same as "denied."

Diff:

−

The content of the vice-president's statement were not confirmed by Iranian sources subsequently in a publication of 23 June

+

The content of the vice-president's statement was subsequently denied by Iranian sources in a publication of 23 June

NowInHD (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done with additional changes to match the cited source. Day Creature (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 11 July 2026

Description of suggested change: Update Casualties data in the infobox for the United Arab Emirates, as per sources entered in the Casualties of the 2026 Iran war and United Arab Emirates in the 2026 Iran war infobox pages.

Diff:

−

United Arab Emirates: 2 soldiers and 11 civilians killed, 227 injured

+

United Arab Emirates: 2 soldiers and 11 civilians killed, 229 injured

~2026-30628-51 (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Not without a source. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

It was decided not to include all the sources of each attack, death and injury, referring to the specific Casualties page which in the text also refers to the subpage with all the sources inserted in the text with the events described day by day, this is to avoid weighing down the general infobox, this is why I inserted the reference as a single source, the source to be inserted as for Israel, United States, Iran, Kuwait and others would be: ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You still need to provide one to demonstrate this is not OR. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I thought I did this for the second time above... as for Israel, USA, Iran, Kuwait, etc. the source or reference note is as follows: ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2026_Iran_war#Total ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem of correcting errors (but perhaps those who write the various pages and infoboxes don't collaborate with the data then inserted into the general infobox, which has data that isn't consistent with what's written in the texts and linked subpages). For almost all other countries, after the death and injury reports, there's a footnote with a link that takes you directly to the Casualties_of_the_2026_Iran_war#Total page or to the country chapter on the same page. Just check the infobox for Kuwait's footnote. I don't understand. My comments are then picked up by others who rightly update, correcting errors or inaccuracies, but then don't respond to my various requests, almost deliberately ignoring me. Has netiquette changed since the 1990s? ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

We base our content on what RS say, if you cannot find as RS that says it we cannot make an edit, end of story. This is not a discussion, if you want to discuss this do not make it an edit request. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

RS? ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

It means Wikipedia:Reliable sources. GenuineArt (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I just don't intend to include dozens and dozens of sources, but to put a link to the Emirates' dedicated page on the war where all the data, information, and sources are located. ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

As written, I checked all the sources entered and found an error in the data not being updated on the various pages, especially with the 3 injured in May. The data and sources speak of 13 deaths and 232 injured in total. ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Khamenei message today

Shouldn't we say "a message attributed to" him? He has still not appeared in public or even been shown in an image. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Or just leave it out? Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Are there any credible sources to support this claim? Randomperson122 (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2026

Change:

On 11 June, senior American officials said that Iran told them attacks against shipping were by an "an errant part of their system".

to:

On 11 July, senior American officials said that Iran told them attacks against shipping were by an "an errant part of their system". AbdulHakeeem27 (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Put Aerial in the heading

There are no USA or foregin troops on ground in Iran. ~2026-39327-32 (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear exactly what you want changed/what you mean by "heading", but the war hasn't been entirely aerial—it's involved naval and land-based forces—so it shouldn't be only referred to as an aerial war, if that's what you mean. Bearing in mind the US is only one party Placeholderer (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2026

Change “On 11 June, state media reported that the IRGC navy said that it closed the Hormuz till further notice after firing a warning shot at a vessel trying to transit through an unapproved route.[731]” to “On 11 July, state media reported that the IRGC navy said that it closed the Hormuz till further notice after firing a warning shot at a vessel trying to transit through an unapproved route.[731]”. After that, then add it to the main paragraph. ~2026-37957-34 (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Merging with bigger paragraph made it ok to cut the date entirely. Thanks for pointing this out! Placeholderer (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. ~2026-37957-34 (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

More not news

Do we really need a blow-by-blow death for death every day of casualties? Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

There's actually a page for that—Casualties of the 2026 Iran war

New editors should consult WP:MEMORIAL on why Steven asks the question, and WP:SUMMARY on how to answer it. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Again pinging @Pachu Kannan, who is largely responsible for the predicament we are facing right now. Borgenland (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Updates to the article

Should we add any amount of information from these sources to the article? https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/us-iran-war-trump-ceasefire-talks-strait-of-hormuz/ https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/07/11/world/iran-war-us-trump https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/7/12/iran-war-live-irgc-declares-strait-of-hormuz-closed-over-us-interference https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/7/12/iran-war-live-irgc-declares-strait-of-hormuz-closed-over-us-interference https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/us-iran-war-trump-ceasefire-talks-strait-of-hormuz/ Randomperson122 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

No, as with the above, leave the news to newspapers. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 13 July 2026

Description of suggested change: To be corrected, two news reports of attacks with one injured, but the injured person is the same

Diff:

−

4 soldiers and 7 civilians killed, 78 soldiers and 106 civilians injured

+

4 soldiers and 7 civilians killed, 78 soldiers and 105 civilians injured

~2026-30628-51 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Belligerent update

De Jure Yemeni government enters the fray by attempting to block Iranian delegation in Sanaa's airport militarily. Saudi Arabia is also more openly involved in combat operations. Lars Smiley (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I am unsure just attacking an airport not in Iran counts. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd assume if it involved an Iranian official that it would count. Something I just considered. Lars Smiley (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I would state my support, the Houthis are belligerents in this conflict, and since the Houthi also retaliated such strikes, it seems like a serious development of this conflict. Despite it not being in Iran, it's just as notable as including the Lebanese front, which we did. VitoxxMass (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what does this have to do with the Iran War? Yemen's attacks, along with Saudi Arabia's allies, against the Shiite rebels Houthis, are already part of the long-running conflict of the Yemeni civil war (2014–present), which has already been ongoing for about 12 years. The current war in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah is a direct consequence of the Iran War, in fact it began 2 days later due to the killing of Ali Khamenei and Hezbollah's response with the launch of missiles and drones against Israel. But the war in Yemen is a civil war that has been going on for 12 years between the Yemeni government, the Houthi rebels, and Saudi Arabia for a long time. Except for the fact that Iran has supported it from the beginning and supports it militarily by sending it weapons, missiles and drones with Iranian cargo planes and Saudi Arabia in conflict with Iran since the Iranian revolution (Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy war) has had to and continues to fight both on its territory and in alliance with the Republic of Yemen for the reconquest of the territories held by the Houthi rebels for the Yemeni government. ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC) non-XC

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. Yes, the Yemeni Civil War has been ongoing for over a decade, but the de jure government launching a direct military operation to block a sovereign Iranian delegation is a massive, unprecedented escalation tied to the current war. No one is suggesting we merge the entire 12-year civil war history into this article. However, this specific military clash was a targeted action against an Iranian state entity, which immediately led to Houthi retaliatory strikes. This reaction fits the exact definition of an active theater in the broader conflict. By the logic of excluding this because of its historical roots, we would have to remove the Lebanese front as well, since the Israel–Hezbollah conflict has been ongoing since the 1980s. When a localized proxy conflict escalates to direct military clashes involving Iranian state officials and subsequent retaliatory campaigns, it transcends the local civil war and becomes a theater of the broader 2026 Iran war. It also fits WP:PRECEDENTS on this page. VitoxxMass (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

So should the Palestinian conflict and the Gaza war also be included in the Iran war? Let's also include Afghanistan, the civil war in Iraq and Syria, the Red Sea Crisis, etc. It's the dates that matter and the triggers. In Lebanon, the conflict and the invasion are a cause of the Iran war, as are Iraq and the attacks against Hezbollah in Syria. The Shiite Houthis were included because of a single missile fired at Israel in response to the death of Ali Khamenei. The Yemeni civil war is being fought in Yemen for control of Yemen and the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb towards the Red Sea and Suez. The warring parties are the Yemeni government and the Houthi rebels, and from the beginning there was Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Emirates and many other Arab countries. And this, long before the Iran War, is where the place counts, the dates, the Casus belli (which many English and Americans don't even know what it is or what it means) and the motivations, which are different from control of the Persian Gulf of Hormuz and the enrichment of uranium above 5% for military purposes. ~2026-36818-47 (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC) non-XC

You're missing the point entirely. It is a spillover because an Iranian delegation was directly targeted by Yemeni and Saudi fire as a response to the Iranian attacks on the Gulf nations. Lars Smiley (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Update map to include developments in Saudi Arabia and Yemen

Strikes on international airports are notable due to their dual civil-military nature, and thus the strikes on the Sanaa airport and the Abha airport which happened today should be shown in the map, much like we show Iranian strikes in other Middle Eastern countries and previous strikes in Saudi Arabia in the past. VitoxxMass (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what does this have to do with the Iran War? Yemen's attacks, along with Saudi Arabia's allies, against the Shiite rebels Houthis, are already part of the long-running conflict of the Yemeni civil war (2014–present), which has already been ongoing for about 12 years. ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC) ECR violation

As per my previous response to you, I'll also add that the Houthi are officially designated as part of this conflict already. VitoxxMass (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It is a spillover. Simple. Lars Smiley (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2026

Change “Iran announced that the US has rendered fruitless the efforts made in recent months to establish peace.[758]” to “Iran then announced that the US has rendered fruitless the efforts made in recent months to establish peace.[758]” ~2026-37957-34 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see the text you want to change anywhere in the article. It may have been changed or removed already. Day Creature (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2026 (2)

Merge “On 13 July, state media reported that an American attack hit a water pumping station in Bandar-e Mahshahr, killing one person, injuring four others.[751][752] Iran claimed that it hit fuel tanks and ammunition depots at Prince Hassan Air Base, igniting a fire on them. It described the strike as the first stage of its retaliation to American attacks on its coastal bases. Iran said that in separate incidents the IRGC Navy executed an operation overnight to stop two vessels it accused of violating regulations and endangering shipping in the Strait through disabling their systems.[753] Iran claimed that it hit American military facilities and infrastructure in Juffair in "second phase of retaliation".[754][755] Iran also stated that it hit American airbases including Ali Al Salem and destroyed radar systems in Oman.[756][757] Iran announced that the US has rendered fruitless the efforts made in recent months to establish peace.[758] Isfahan province deputy governor said that one of those American attacks hit a military base in Nain, killing one person and injuring seven others.[759] IRNA announced, citing a provincial deputy governor that two people were killed and three others were wounded in American attacks on several areas in Abadan.[760]” with “Trump announced that the US will reinstate the "Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz" and impose a 20% toll on cargo shipping through the strait. According to Trump, "The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as 'THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT.'" Trump described it as a matter of fairness, claiming that the toll would cover "any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the world."[761] Meanwhile in Yemen, the Yemeni internationally recognized government and Saudi Arabia struck the Sanaa International Airport controlled by the Houthis,[762][763] allegedly to prevent an Iranian plane from landing,[764] the Houthis retaliated by launching numerous missiles and drones against Saudi Arabia’s Abha International Airport.[765][766] The Combined Maritime Forces' Joint Maritime Information Centre (JMIC), which is led by Americans announced that the US naval blockade on Iran will start the following day.[767] Trump formally informed the US Congress that the country has renewed hostilities against Iran.[768] Trump declared that the US will hit Iran hard on that day and the next day, saying that the MoU was a test that the regime did not honor.[769] Trump stated that the US could "relatively soon" destroy Pickaxe Mountain, Iran's heavily fortified underground site suspected of hosting a covert nuclear plant that experts believe is beyond the reach of the most powerful bunker buster bombs in the US arsenal.[770] Iranian army stated that it aimed at a "hostile" American vessel using cruise missiles.[771] CENTCOM said that the US military carried out third consecutive night of strikes on Iran.[772]” into the same paragraph, like you did for every other day. ~2026-37957-34 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: That would be too long of a paragraph. There is no need to have only 1 paragraph for each day, and in fact this WP:PROSELINE-style writing should be avoided. Day Creature (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Well then, if that’s how it works, then split 12 July. ~2026-37957-34 (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

What part of NOT A NEWSPAPER do people not understand?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are very clear guidelines about what Wikipedia is and isn’t. When there is a shortcut that clearly states: WP:NOTNEWS it should be taken to heart and articles like this one are perfect examples of where things are going off the rails. Not only do we have editors adding UP TO THE MINUTE information but we also have edit warring about what slant the article should take. YES there should be an article about the Iran War BUT IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN AFTER THE DUST HAS SETTLED looking back on what took place and not the way this article is developing. Literally we have editors citing things that have happened within the last few hours and it really needs to stop. As an encyclopedia this is an article that should be written six months to a year after hostilities have ended. ~2026-37803-69 (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yemen Addition to belligerents

The official Yemeni Civil War has returned to hostilities in prior to the major 2026 Iran War. The internationally recognised Yemeni government has struck the Sana'a airport and blocked the Iranian delegation entering the War as houthi have already involved yet. This represents WP:PRECEDENTS as the war has also been made as a front to the Iran War as similar to the Lebanon front ~2026-39618-40 (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC) non-xC — WP:ECR violation.

Support

Would also suggest adding "spillover of the Yemeni Civil War" to the template. Lars Smiley (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

if it ever goes to Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy war where other conflicts and the Yemeni civil war are inserted as a reminder. ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Support per my previous responses VitoxxMass (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Banner for too long and too many citations issues

@Pachu Kannan:, please do not remove the issue banner. The page is far too long with too many sources (18k words with 1000 citations!), it is inappropriate to not signal there are problems simply because this is a high-traffic page. The length issue on this page goes far beyond simply giving "Continued hostilities" and the lede's last paragraph a trim (and the CH section itself is nowhere close enough to be deemed ready to close this issue) , and it should ideally be discussed on the talk page before the banners are removed. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I will not remove it once again without discussion in the talk page. Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The entire length of the Hostilities section after the April ceasefire needs to be nuked and moved to a separate page as it is way too long. We do not need a blow by blow of the daily updates. The heaviest part of the war ended in April, so anything beyond that needs to be put on a separate page with only a paragraph or two mentioning the changes and updates since then. WP:NOTNEWS. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Tons of unnecessary content were recently removed by MarioProtIV. Can you check it. Pachu Kannan (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pachu Kannan: I found this evidence. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2026

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Writing this on July 14th, 2026. The Iran War didn’t restart because Iran wouldn’t open the Strait of Hormuz. That is factually wrong. It restarted because the US was using an alternative lane around the Oman coast, even though Iran and the US had agreed in the MoU that Iran would control traffic through the Strait. The US acted against the MoU and Iran had to retaliate. The Strait was open for traffic and ships could go through before the US and Oman did this. ~2026-39876-02 (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Change “ On 8 July, the interim ceasefire deal between the US and Iran collapsed after Iran allegedly struck multiple commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz and the US responded by striking Iranian territory, followed by Iranian strikes on US bases in the Gulf States. “ to “On 8 July, the interim ceasefire deal between the US and Iran collapsed after the US enabled an alternative traffic lane in the Strait of Hormuz, near the Oman coast, without Iran’s approval. Iran considered this to be a violation of point 5 of the MoU and struck multiple commercial ships to reinforce its territorial control over the waterway. The US responded…” ~2026-39876-02 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Not without a soruce. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is another source:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/08/iran-us-war-ceasefire-peace-agreement-strikes-strait-of-hormuz

you can check the following excerpt “ The Iranian officials said the memorandum’s terms clearly put Iran in control of the strait for a minimum of 30 days from the document’s signing. They said the US was violating that commitment by trying to open new sea lanes without Iranian permission. “Responsibility for the dangerous consequences of this escalation lies with the deceitful US regime,” the foreign ministry said.

Announcing the attacks on Bahrain, Iran’s central command, Khatam al-Anbiya, reiterated its statement that “the only safe route for the passage of commercial ships and oil tankers in the strait is the route determined by the Islamic Republic of Iran”. ~2026-39876-02 (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

So no we won't do this, as it is not a fact, it is an Iranian claim. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The other statement you had is also a claim that Iran violated the agreement first. That’s a claim from the US. You should present both sides and then the reader can decide who was the first to violate it. You wrote it in a way that makes it seem like Iran just decided to attack these ships without provocation and that’s misinformation. ~2026-39876-02 (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

For every statement, there are facts and events. There are treaties and laws that should not be interpreted and decided by individuals, and more or less the events of a conflict, as there are also easily readable sources. The Memorandum of Understanding, or the Islamabad Memorandum, which ceased to exist on July 8, is not a state secret. It is all clearly legible on Wikipedia, point by point, word for word, and makes no mention of controls, military escorts, prior authorizations, and above all, routes. The only official route is the one planned in Oman's territorial waters, as can be verified from the maps and transit routes on the Strait of Hormuz page. The Iranian route was "invented" at the time of the authorized and paid passage during the first ceasefire and before the second American blockade against Iranian oil exports in response to the Iranian blockade that blocked transit to and from the ports of Arab countries. Therefore, there is only one official route, as prescribed by the treaties and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), treaties that mandate free commercial circulation even in the event of war (ships cannot be strafed or bombed unless they are deemed military or hostile, nor can they be seized unless an existing economic or trade embargo results). The rest, like the "phantom" Iranian routes, was decided and stated by the Iranians weeks after the memorandum was signed.

For greater clarity, I add points 4 and 5, which refer to the Strait of Hormuz:

• 4. Immediately upon the signing of this MoU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, vessel traffic will be in proportion to the pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.
• 5. Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of ​​Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be established within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

~2026-30628-51 (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request 15 July 2026

Description of suggested change: Once again, as on other occasions, casualties are added twice due to excessive reporting from the same source: a civilian died in Israel from serious injuries sustained in April, so a +1 figure should have been added to the deaths and a -1 figure to the wounded in both the general infobox and the dedicated casualties page. They only added the civilian death to the casualties page with the total of 70 deaths (40 military personnel + 1 contractor + 29 civilians), but two different people added the civilian death twice to the general page, so the written death total is 40 military personnel, 1 contractor, and 30 civilians, but the civilian deaths are 29.

Diff:

−

Israel: 40 soldiers and 1 contractor killed 30 civilians killed 9,240 injured (including 1,461 military personnel)

+

Israel: 40 soldiers and 1 contractor killed 29 civilians killed 9,240 injured (including 1,461 military personnel)

~2026-30628-51 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)