Talk:2026 Iran war/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Turkey should be removed from the infobox

Azerbaijan was recently removed from the infobox given its extremely limited involvement in the conflict and the unclear responsibility for the attacks in the country. It would seem Turkey should be removed for similar reasons: both Turkey and Iran have denied that the country was ever actually hit by Iranian strikes () and the Turkish government has sought to maintain a largely neutral stance, putting it at odds with Arab states like Saudi Arabia (). The entire scope of the alleged Iranian attacks on Turkey are three missiles that entered Turkish airspace and were intercepted by NATO (). It's not entirely clear what their targets were, and Iran has denied ever attacking Turkey (). Currently, it seems that the role of Turkey in the conflict is actually less significant than that of Azerbaijan. — An anonymous username, not my real name 14:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Support Turkey’s removal per nom Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Support for the same reasons Syria was removed. A missile of indeterminate destination being intercepted, accompanied by denials of intent to attack that country, seems insufficient grounds for inclusion. That section shouldn't exist as is, IMO, but at least it should be reserved for intentional, verifiable involvement. Imagine how absurd it would be to claim Ukraine attacked Poland in the Russo-Ukrainian war when a Ukrainian missile landed in Polish territory. entropyandvodka | talk 16:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom Evaporation123 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Support - No reason for Turkey being there... like really no reason at all. It's completely random and irrelevant to include them especially when we take into consideration the denial of both nations regarding an attack from Iran onto Turkey. HarvardJock (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Original poster has made false statements here. There have been three separate ballistic missile attacks on Turkey, on 4, 9 and 13 March. While the first attack was not acknowledged by the Turkish government to have been launched from Iran, (as seen in original poster reference) the latter two were.

9 March: Turkish National Defense Ministry said Monday that a ballistic missile fired from Iran that entered Turkish airspace was neutralized by NATO air and missile defense assets deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean.,.

13 March: NATO air defenses intercepted a missile fired from Iran and entering Turkey’s airspace on Friday, the Turkish defense ministry said in a statement.,.

During all 3 strikes, SM-3 interceptors were located over different parts of Turkish territory. "4 March, interceptor located in Hatay"., "9 March, interceptor located in Gaziantep"., "13 March, interceptor located in Adiyaman".

Iran's denial is completely irrelevant, since it has also denied attacking economic targets in Gulf countries, as well as entirely attacking Oman and Diego Garcia.

Iran's FM spokesman denies responsibility in all Gulf attacks, warns of US–Israel ‘false flag’

Iran denies role in Turkey, Oman attacks; blames Israeli 'false flags'

‘False flag attack’: Iran denies claims it fired missiles at Diego Garcia

Re-pinging the involved editors in light of the corrected information initially posted here. @An anonymous username, not my real name, Ahammed Saad, Entropyandvodka, Evaporation123, and HarvardJock:

Ecrusized (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ecrusized, this changes absolutely nothing about what I said. You agree that there were three missiles that entered Turkish airspace and that none of them actually hit any part of Turkey. Iran's denial is not irrelevant and your statement is the one that's false here: Iran has denied attacking neutral countries like Oman and the UK, but has openly admitted to attacking Gulf countries with US forces. — An anonymous username, not my real name 12:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ecrusized Since there's an ongoing RfC about renaming, or ideally striking, the list altogether, this all may be rendered moot, but it's important to consider the scale and intent of involvement here. Three intercepted missiles with unknown targets and two governments showing a sustained intent to avoid engagement with each other is too little to include them in an infobox about belligerents. Iran's denials, as well as their taking credit in other cases, do matter, especially in a case like this. The Diego Garcia case only strengthens the case of Iran's denials, since there's no proof the "attack" actually took place, just the word of officials from the the aggressors (US, Israel) who have supplied no evidence to support the claim. entropyandvodka | talk 14:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@User:Entropyandvodka As you can see from the cites in 2026 interceptions of Iranian missiles in Turkey there is more evidence than “just the word of officials from the the aggressors”. Turkey is not an aggressor in this conflict. It seems highly unlikely that 3 missiles all entered our airspace by mistake, but given the chaos of war I suppose low-ranking commanders might have decided to fire at us rather than there being any high-level Iranian decision. Hopefully it won’t happen again but if it does we can discuss further. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to Diego Garcia in that case, not Turkey. entropyandvodka | talk 18:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and clarification. If Turkey has in fact acknowledged the following two strikes hitting them from Iran, then in that case Turkey should be included. Fair enough. HarvardJock (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@HarvardJock, to be clear, no strikes hit Turkey. — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay noted. Let me take a look into this matter a little later when I have time and I'll come back with an opinion, assuming this isn't resolved by then. I'm only one voice so my input probably doesn't count for much anyway, especially considering how fast moving this talk page is. HarvardJock (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

First sentence violates MOS:AVOIDBOLD

The lead reads like this "The 2026 Iran war began on 28 February 2026, when the United States and Israel launched surprise airstrikes on multiple sites and cities across Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several other Iranian officials. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel, US bases, and US-allied countries in the Middle East."

This is a very clear violation of AVOIDBOLD. It should say something like this:

"On 28 February 2026, a war began when the United States and Israel launched surprise airstrikes on multiple sites and cities across Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several other Iranian officials. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel, US bases, and US-allied countries in the Middle East."

The only reason I'm trying to gain a consensus on this is because I saw a note in the lead to not change anything without a consensus, though I don't know if that applies to the first sentence as well (but presumably so). MountainJew6150 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree, it reads better and is clearly supported by the MOS. Could also alleviate some of the constant concerns about the article title. —BrechtBro (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:BOLDLEAD is a carve-out in the manual of style, though I agree your suggested intro is much better. Mitchsavl (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It's still part of the guideline so it has just as much weight in decision-making compared to any other policy or guideline. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Support. That avoids awkward language and it keeps the lead clear. I think that comment about first seeking consensus violates WP:BUREAU unless there have previously been repeated, erroneous edits.

When should we assume consensus has been achieved? Qwerty123M (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Support. I think it was me who added the bold type because I was not aware of that guideline in enwiki. Hispalois (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - Keep those sentences as it is. HarvardJock (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Support - The article title is currently descriptive, so per MOS:AVOIDBOLD we should not try to awkwardly construct the first sentence to include a boldlead. JasonMacker (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The bolded term should be restored. "Iran war" is not just a descriptive name and this isn't an obscure, untitled war - a true descriptive name for those is pretty rare. The problem is more that the names might change or aren't universal, but that isn't cause not to bold the title in the lede. SnowFire (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Support per MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Readers will reasonably expect a name such as 2026 Iran war when searching for the article, but it's not a WP:COMMONNAME that's well established like World War II. In particular, news media publishing this month don't need to mention 2026: their readers assume that "Iran war" or "war in Iran" refers to the war in Iran that is still happening as of March 2026. Boud (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed the RM above. But nobody seems to be arguing for 2026 Iran war as the WP:COMMONNAME, though the proposer and some others are arguing for Iran war as the WP:COMMONNAME. In any case, until/unless the result of the RM is Iran war, MOS:AVOIDBOLD justifies avoiding bold. Boud (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

What happened to the Ahwaz Falcons and Kurdish seperatists?

Why do they keep getting added and removed? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Likely due to either vandalism (not saying anyone is a vandal) or more likely someone believes that they aren’t really involved, or have only been a part of small skirmishes and nothing major, I’m not sure, perhaps if you go to View History you can find when it was removed. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually you can go see on the Iran War infobox page where the changes are made The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Should they be included? I think their role is major enough, given they are literally operating inside and against Iran... If Hezbollah is included as one of the belligrents I think they should be put back in too. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree, if you can find sources regarding there operations that are notable enough then I agree, maybe wait on the Kurds, as they haven’t yet invaded but are eager to. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, I found a Guardian source and added it. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

And fortunately it's been an hour and no one's taken it down. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater Are you sure about the Kurds? I found this source from the AP: Kurdish separatist group claims to have mounted ‘armed operations’ in Iran to defend protesters. It was mostly to defend protesters, but it was as part of a seperatist movement so I think they can be put next to the Ahwaz Falcons. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m not 100% well versed on the topic so I may have missed some news, perhaps you could add a note in the infobox saying “mounted operations to protect Iranian Kurds” so it doesn’t look like a full offensive. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

OK; I don't know how to put the "Non-state actors" in bold above Ahwaz and Kurdistan; it either creates a weird break in the middle. I did add the PAK (Kurdish seperatists) per the AP article in which they did actually claim involvement. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Try copy the other side, or ask on the Teahouse, the coding of Wikipedia is hard XD The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

How sure are we the Ahwaz Falcons group exists? A few days ago I tried to find coverage of the group from before the war—the only earlier mention I know of is from the Rawabet Center for Research and Strategic Studies reporting they claimed an attack on a petrochemical site here (which I only see from the link in our Ahwaz Falcons article—it doesn't appear for me in Google search results). Searching "Ahwaz Falcons" in Google from before March 1, 2025 gives me literally 9 results, most of them Wikipedia pages with new links to our new article, and none of them seeming relevant to a purported group.

The Guardian, the more well-known source in the Ahwaz Falcons article, refers to them at the very end of an article as an apparently newly formed group calling itself the “Ahwaz Falcons”. On one hand, this contradicts the Rawabet Center; on the other, not even The Guardian is sure the group exists. The other English source in our article is "American Partisan" which looks highly dubious. I haven't come across the name in any of my own reading of English-language Western newspapers, and when I search "Ahwaz Falcons" in Google without a set time frame I see the Guardian article, a bunch of social media posts, and mentions of a (presumably unrelated) football team.

Is there any better sourcing for the existence of this group? Is their existence propaganda? The Rawabet Center does have some WP:UBO by Combating Terrorism Center IranWire* *(their website is under maintenance currently but Google shows me a blurb referencing the Center), this article published by Taylor & Francis, this (not peer-reviewed) research report by one Harith Hasan, and some Kurdish media (Kurdistan24 and Shafaq).

I think my main questions are 1. Who other than the Rawabet Center reports the existence of the Ahwaz Falcons and when, and, if no one else, then 2. Does the Rawabet Center have any affiliations (e.g to state actors) that might make it questionable? I might also bring the latter question to RSN Placeholderer (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Someone brought this up earlier, and I managed to find some Arab sources for them, all from this month: Kul al-Arab, Enab Baladi, Al Araby Television Network, and Al Mashhad Media All four suggest they were founded rather recently, with the third even including a video announcing their 'formation'. Perhaps there are just multiple low-profile groups with the same name? ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 21:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah! I missed that, thanks. Could be worth working those into Ahwaz Falcons Placeholderer (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Went looking specifically for sources around 2016 and managed to find a couple more: the confusingly named Al Arab, Al Arabiya, and Al-Quds Al-Arabi plus Al-Jarida and Orient News. The same name hypothesis is seeming more likely now. ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 22:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Possibly one group which has existed has no come together with some other groups to formally announce the Ahwaz Falcons after 10 years? I wouldn’t say it’s a coincidence that multiple orgs have the same name The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, what's up with everything getting collapsed? I don't think there is a huge number of countries to the point where collapsing is necessary. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Kurdish separatists currently aren't a party in this war whatsoever and haven't taken any action against Iran. So it's fine to leave them out. At best they're on standby, so they can be added later IF they join the war or take some kind of action. HarvardJock (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought the same too, they aren’t a major party if a party at all, they have protected civilians during protests but I wouldn’t say that is part of the war. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah exactly. The article is fine as it is without their inclusion at all. HarvardJock (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Removing HRANA from the infobox and having it in the body with appropriate context

I posted the following last week and never got a response on it, so for courtesy I'm going to do so again on the current version of the talk page before moving forward.

"This page keeps citing HRANA's count as a valid total for Iranian deaths in the war. The org itself never even presents their count as such and in fact straight-up says that it's not. I don't know if this is a result of some editors trying to frame a narrative or just no one actually reading their reports past the headline. All of them, including the latest, contain (among other qualifiers) the following text: "It is believed that military casualties are significantly higher than the figures reported in these reports. However, due to the sensitive nature of military information and the limited access of human rights groups and media to locations where military forces are present, this section largely reflects reports of senior officers or military personnel who were present in urban areas." If a death is not allowed to be verified by the Iranian state [which blocks access to NGOs] AND in an urban area AND [sometimes] of a certain rank, it doesn't count for their list. By definition, HRANA's count excludes the vast majority of places where soldiers would actually die (both on Iranian soil and on ships - 43 warships have been struck and HRANA has access to 0 of them), and the vast majority of ranks soldiers hold."

HRANA's figures should not be in the infobox. They were never meant to be a complete count of Iranian deaths, and are giving casual readers of the page (the vast majority of Wikipedia's users) a false impression of the source. At most, you could count their civilian death toll as solely the number of civilians killed with no reference to military casualties, which by their own admission they're not tracking to any notable degree.--Nihlus1 (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

HRANA is currently the most reliable source that isn't biased and isn't affiliated to the Iranian health ministry, it should be included, since the other NGO report is outdated and very unrealistic, Iranian health ministry's report is outdated as well, the page needs to have a daily updated death toll and this is exactly the case with HRANA. Whitesin21 (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that HRANA's independence and daily monitoring of casualties makes it (perhaps unfortunately) an indispensable source right now for civilian casualties -- I think it's the best source we have out of those in the infobox for this measure. However, if HRANA says its military casualty counting isn't reliable, we probably shouldn't use it as a source for military casualties. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

None of this actually addresses any of what I brought up about its military casualty figures being explicitly and self-admittedly unreliable. You just asserted "other orgs are biased" without evidence and ignored the actual topic.Nihlus1 (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that @Whitesin21 does address your concern to an extent: They have pointed out that there is no reason to believe that any of the other sources being used in the infobox are any less unreliable than HRANA with respect to military casualties. All of the other sources we have either have an incentive to lie or the same methodological limitations that HRANA has. It follows that if it is permissible to use these sources for military casualties, it is also permissible to keep HRANA's tally in there, perhaps with a note about their own admissions regarding their methodology. In any event, I think they're indispensable with respect to civilian casualties. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

HRANA's number is inadmissible because, unlike the sources listed, it doesn't even present itself as an estimate of total military casualties. It is, very specifically, a confirmed count of publicly-verified fatalities of high-ranking officers and/or soldiers in urban areas, which HRANA admits upfront is not the same as counting total military casualties ("military casualties are significantly higher than the figures reported in these reports" because of "the limited access of human rights groups and media to locations where military forces are present"). Listing this figure in the infobox alongside other sources which are claiming to give total military fatalities is heavily misleading. They're literally not counting the same things or using the same criteria. It's just lying.--Nihlus1 (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

HRANA publishes structured datasets, often with named victims, dates, locations and circumstances of death, there is a clear categorization of casualties, that's why they update and revise their death toll daily, why is this wrong? It's not lying, it's actually far more accurate than presenting a death toll with fewer structured datasets like Hengaw, with early figures that are surely not verified and it also relies heavily on Kurdish regional network, unlike HRANA's bigger volunteer network that covers all of Iran. HRANA has a multi-source verification approach instead of Hengaw as well and it has more stable numbers than Hengaw, international analysts use HRANA as well, you're dishonestly framing it for lies. Whitesin21 (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

HRANA isn't lying. They straight-up say what their methodology is and explain why it vastly understates military casualties. Hence why they never actually present their confirmed counts as accurate or total in that respect. They are explicitly and self-admittedly not counting total military losses, but only losses they can confirm in the highly limited areas they have access to (they do not have access to the vast majority of the state's military bases or any of its warships). The liar is you for using them in a way that they were never intended to be used.--Nihlus1 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess you want to be a liar, under reporting civilian casualties, you have a very poor understanding of how HRANA is working, completely missing the point of the volunteering network, you're obviously biased and it shows, hopefully you'll try to understand it. Whitesin21 (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

You are literally not reading the report that you cite or addressing any of the points. It's immensely frustrating having to explain this to someone who appears to be either discussing the issue in bad faith or who is functionally illiterate.--Nihlus1 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely zero bad faith, maybe you're the functionally illiterate if you still want to underreport civilian casualties and exclude a perfectly reliable source, I'm definitely not illiterate in any way and I can't understand why would you say such a thing. Whitesin21 (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

HRANA is by far the most reliable source for Iranian casualties. It absolutely must stay in this article. I agree with @Whitesin21 that it should stay in the article and I agree with him on his points in your debate. I'll add my own POV later when I find the time. HarvardJock (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to adjust lead wording on nuclear negotiations

I'd like to propose a minor edit to the lead to improve neutrality and conciseness, while respecting the existing consensus noted in the hidden comments.

Current structure: - Paragraph 1: Announces the attack and the Iranian response, but omits the context of the ongoing nuclear negotiations. - Paragraph 2: Provides background, including the fact that indirect nuclear talks were taking place in mid‑February. - Paragraph 3: Repeats that the attack was launched during the negotiations and again lists the casualties.

Proposed change: 1. Add a brief, neutral mention in the first paragraph that the surprise attack occurred amid the nuclear negotiations. This gives readers the essential context immediately, which is standard for WP:LEAD. 2. Remove the redundant phrasing from the third paragraph ("launched during the nuclear negotiations") and the repeated casualty list, since that information already appears in the first paragraph.

Detailed diff:

First paragraph (current):

On 28 February 2026, a war began when the United States and Israel launched surprise airstrikes on multiple sites and cities across Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several other Iranian officials. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel, US bases, and US-allied countries in the Middle East.

First paragraph (proposed):

On 28 February 2026, a war began when the United States and Israel launched surprise airstrikes on multiple sites and cities across Iran amid ongoing nuclear negotiations between the two countries, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several other Iranian officials. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel, US bases, and US-allied countries in the Middle East.

Third paragraph (current):

The surprise US-Israeli attack, launched during the nuclear negotiations, killed Khamenei, other Iranian officials, and civilians.

Third paragraph (proposed):

The surprise US-Israeli attack killed civilians in addition to the targeted officials.

(Alternatively, if the third paragraph is deemed unnecessary after the change, it could be merged or removed entirely—but I propose this minimal adjustment first.)

I see the hidden note in the first paragraph requesting consensus before altering the order. My edit does not change the order; it adds context already present in the article and removes redundancy, which should improve neutrality (by showing the attack occurred during diplomatic talks) and conciseness.

Please let me know your thoughts. If there are concerns, we can refine the wording. Mhhossein ^talk 13:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• Current wording. I believe the first and third paragraphs as currently worded are fine. The new proposed wording is not a neutral change. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that there is slightly too much repetition in the opening of the third paragraph from the first, the result of the line on the targeting of officials being moved to the top and replaced in a summary style (undiscussed, afaik). I don't feel strongly about these particular changes, but it feels like we're getting into WP:BUREAUcracy here. Bigger problem in the third graf is that it reads like the hostilities consist of an opening round of US-Israel attacks and on-going retaliation by Iran. It's possible that "during nuclear negotiations" may be undue weight in the first graf.

These two paragraphs have been mostly stable, with some updates, since the first week or so of the war, and the third graf. I suspect these problems of repetition would be solved through a rewrite of the lead section that updates and synthesizes the new developments of the war over the last three weeks. What may have been a prominent event in week 1 may be undue weight a month in, and more context could be moved to the opening paragraph as things have become clearer. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Mhhossein's change. Its a small enough change. And agree with Mhhossein that redundancy should be avoided.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks everyone for the feedback (courtesy ping @Coretheapple, BrechtBro, and Vice regent:. I appreciate the concerns about neutrality and due weight, and I'd like to respectfully respond with some words I believe supports the edit. On neutrality: The fact that the attack occurred during ongoing nuclear negotiations is not a partisan framing—Multiple reliable sources explicitly contextualize the February 28 strikes within the diplomatic timeline. As for the undue weight: The diplomatic context is not a minor detail. It's central to understanding the nature of the conflict—an attack launched while formal negotiations were actively underway, with mediators declaring progress the day prior. This context appears in the second paragraph already; moving a concise mention to the first paragraph merely aligns the lead with WP:LEAD, which states the opening should summarize the most significant aspects of the topic. Lastly, on the third paragraph: Removing the duplicate "launched during the nuclear negotiations" phrase and the redundant casualty list is a straightforward matter of conciseness. The first paragraph already states that the strikes killed Khamenei and several other officials. Repeating it in the third paragraph adds no new information.

I welcome alternative wording if the exact phrasing is the concern. But the underlying contextual fact—that the attack occurred during active nuclear talks—is well-sourced and belongs in the lead per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD. — Mhhossein ^talk 02:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Financial cost to military in the lead

I have readded this sentence to the lead, per a limited agreement in this discussion:

On 19 March, the cost of the war to the US was estimated at US$18 billion, and the Pentagon requested an additional US$200 billion for the war. (Guardian and NYT refs)

I have also invis commented that it shouldn't be removed yet. However, it is far from perfect, I would suggest we come to a consensus on a cost per day estimate for the US military to include, as it is now another week i.e. 25% further into the war. I would also suggest we try find some sources for Israeli military expenditure, potentially cost of Iranian losses/missile expenditure. This says nothing of the colossal cost to the global economy, from fossil fuel site damage in Iran and the GCC, and the Hormuz closure, which should belong in the following paragraph. The NYT also reliably quotes that US future expenditure such as healthcare may exceed $1 trillion as in the Gulf War. Doeze (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

What's the exact issue here? Are you just trying to find a daily average of US financial expenditure of the war and put that in the article? Can you explain? HarvardJock (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to add the changes you listed here just like the sentence you added per WP:BOLD. There is currently no opposition to making these edits (so far, as of my comment here). HarvardJock (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Good addition. It should not be removed until we see a significant update on the matter. Zalaraz (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Helicopter training accident - not part of this war

this source about a helicopter crash is cited four times in the article to support data about casualties, but this is a training accident that has nothing to do with the conflict other than happening to occur while the conflict is going on.

Why is this in the article? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Although supporters have cited WP:COMMONNAME, there has not been much evidence provided to support this. Some users are sympathetic to an eventual move, but advise to wait before a definitive name can be selected. (non-admin closure) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 11:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

---

2026 Iran war → Iran WarIran War – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Almost all of the news portals mentioning it as Iran war. A$ianeditorz (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC) A$ianeditorz (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: Out of the over 100 Iran wars listed on List of wars involving Iran, what makes this article stand out the most that it needs to be moved to an ambiguous term? And once the war ends, will this still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? This doesn't seem to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT either. Note that WP:COMMONNAME also requires long-term significance. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 12:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Support: "Iran War" would be a more accurate description of the scale of the conflict. It would also likely serve as a precursor to a possible invasion. Alexandros17 (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wait. I predict this move will eventually happen, but it's still too early. — An anonymous username, not my real name 14:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Requester's justification and sources neither argue for nor support capitalizing the W in war as a proper noun.—BrechtBro (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  Of the 4 sources provided with the request, NBC and Reuters do use the capitalised "Iran War" in the page titles but looking closer their headlines still use "Iran war", while Al Jazeera and Associated Press stick with "Iran war" in both. (This is just a note; I'm not arguing for or against either way.) – Scyrme (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  Right, it's just their website header style. Across their sites, NBC uses all caps while Reuters capitalizes each word. That's a design choice, not a datapoint. —BrechtBro (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  @BrechtBro fully agree, didn't notice... Avishai11 (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wait If this war becomes a prolonged conflict similar to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or the Iraq War, I would support the move. But it's not clear that this is actually going to play out in that way just yet. It's only been a few weeks So I'd just wait.--JasonMacker (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wait for 3 weeks exactly. So far, it's been 3 weeks. 6 weeks+ seems like a more long-term thing. Definitely not total oppose, but not total support yet.

Avishai11 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, the current title is more precise and recognisable, sourcing isn't strong enough to meet WP:NCCAPS. It's also WP:RECENTISM Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

support redirecting Iran war here, I can't see the wikinav results for March, but I bet the vast majority of readers are looking for this Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

That should be decided via an WP:RfD discussion rather than here. Looking at its history of going back and forth between targets, retargeting wouldn't be uncontroversial. However, I'd suggest holding off until after this requested move is closed as the decision may be relevant. (Since if the move gathers support and ultimately succeeds, the case for retargetting the redirect would likely be stronger.) – Scyrme (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support: "Iran War" is a more accurate description of the scale and geopolitical significance of this conflict. Including a specific year unnecessarily limits the scope of the article, whereas "Iran War" correctly identifies it as a major confrontation. It also aligns better with how similar major conflicts are titled (Vietnam War, Iraq War). WinstonSmith22 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait - there are a number of competing names used in RS. It should settle down in a couple of weeks. Riposte97 (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait/Leaning Support : Its not like there will be aonther "IRAN WAR", but i think it would still be more prudent to wait until cession of hostilities. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Cessation of hostilities may plausibly take years. – Scyrme (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme It doesn't necessarily require any wars though. Alexandros17 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

??? ... There's already a war. The war ending wouldn't retroactively mean there wasn't a war. I've no idea what you mean, sorry. – Scyrme (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme I mean any new ones after the ceasefire. Except an invasion ofc. Alexandros17 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Support as the war has nearly completed it's 4th week, I think it's enough for the move. It's also become a major confrontation. Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for now. This is not the common name yet. This can be just another TACO. Let's wait for a few weeks. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait. Dylan240 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait. Lova Falk (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Support fits WP:COMMONNAME and is reflective of the war's scope, per Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war Doeze (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Support as per WinstonSmith22. Thegreatrebellion (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong Support It seems to me this current name "2026 Iran war) makes no sense, but we should keep the spelling of war in this scenario as lowercase. In that case I Support Iran War. shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wait, seems too soon. Retargeting makes sense (with a hatnote of course). --📎 JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose 2026 Iran war makes more sense Setarip (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

What makes you think that there would be another Iran war because at this point its is switching the landscape from 2026 Iran war to Iran War/War in Iran/alternative names. Keeping the year would be WP:CRYSTAL as "2026 Iran war" makes it seem like a prophetic message that there will be another war of this scale. shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The year isn't there to imply that there won't be another war of this scale, it's just there to disambiguation which Iran war this is; ie, the one which started in 2026. It's just natural disambiguation (WP:NATURAL). It doesn't preclude the possibility of any future wars of equal (or even greater scale or long term significance). If anything, you could argue the inverse, that removing the year is WP:CRYSTAL because it implies that we're sure it will continue for much longer than just the year. While I think it's plausible it'll last longer than year, it's still a prediction. There are no sources out there that can establish that it definitely will, unless you have access to sources from the future. – Scyrme (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

there are already other iran wars. Setarip (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Support because many WP:RS are using the term "Iran War", and because the scale and impact of this conflict has already far surpassed the 2024 Iran–Israel conflict and the Twelve-Day War in 2025. For instance, The New York Times has a section called "Iran War Live Updates". Just looking at Google News today, several WP:RS have articles using "Iran War" in the title (Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker). One can find many more examples. Even if it were to end within the next few weeks, it would take years to rebuild the damage that was caused. Romanov loyalist (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Romanov loyalist it sounds like you are mistaking the house style of publications such as Bloomberg and The New Yorker, which use a title style and capitalize every word in a headline, for editorial decisions to give the war a proper name. WP:HEADLINES themselves are not reliable sources. —BrechtBro (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there also many sources using "the Iran war" in an article body or title. Changing this article title to either "Iran War" or "Iran war" would be consistent with the name being used in many sources. It may be too early to use a capital W, like in the name Iraq War, for this conflict, but at this point I don't think the 2026 qualifier is necessary. Romanov loyalist (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"Iran war" is simply not specific enough. As much as I think "2026 Iran war" is a bad title, we can't neglect to understand that calling it "Iran war" is obviously a recentism bias. I don't expect our sources to call a war that recently began the "2026 Iran war." As of now, no common name has truly been established. We should wait for the time being. MountainJew6150 (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as this shouldn't be based on a subjective assessment of the war but on whether it is the predominant spelling in RS. Examples like "Iran War Live Updates" are evidence of title case (which we don't follow) rather than of it being used as a proper noun. Additionally, we should be mindful of the systemic bias from focusing exclusively on American (and allied) news sources when deciding how to discuss this war. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

As Romanov loyalist had said, alot of sources on ourlist of reliable sources we can use are switching to the term "Iran War" but to be in alignment with WP policy, the "War" should be changed to lowercase. shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Support Per several WP:RS. Pachu Kannan (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait I am not opposed to the name but the conflict does not seem comparable to, let's say, the Iraq War. If we see American (or Israeli I suppose) troops on the ground seizing places in Iran, I'll move my vote to support. Mtcat101 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - Unlike what some editors have said in this discussion, the significance of the event doesn't determine whether we use capitalization; reliable sources do. As of now, I don't see a consensus, though I could imagine one might develop later. BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: The nominator's wording doesn't make much sense, since they say most sources call it the "Iran war" and then proceed to capitalize "War". Additionally, there is no provided rationale for removing the year as of course no sources are going to be calling it the "2026 Iran war" in 2026. For now, based on WP:NOYEAR, I don't see it reaching the threshold for not having a year. Raskuly (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seeing as List of wars involving Iran exists, you could be confused if you were looking for a different conflict involving Iran. This has turned out to be a very notable event of 2026, so the year should stay. WP:NCWWW says that we do not need to remove the year unless there is a commonly accepted name. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wait until the new year. While this is definitely a significant event, this region has had several prior conflicts, and generally I would reserve omitting the year for multi year wars, in regions with more than one historical conflict. Mitchsavl (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - Raskuly put it precisely. Jay 💬 05:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Wait. "Iran War" isn't used widely enough by sources. Cortador (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Wait. Although I'm not strongly opposed. Danski14^(talk) 15:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Support. per above. Vectorange (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait I think we should wait, we do have the “Iraq War”, it may also be better to move to Iran War (2026) instead, especially if it lasts longer, I’m unaware of any other articles where the date is in the front, it seems weird and unnatural. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose "Iran war", without the capitalization of "war", is widely used sure, but only as a descriptive title; there is as of yet no standardized name for the war. So "Iran War" is not the common name. Evaporation123 (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too soon. If this becomes a multi-year grinding war, maybe, but we'll see. The year is useful disambiguation. SnowFire (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support per WinstonSmith22. Iran War is the WP:COMMONNAME. --Plumber (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the year should be in brackets at the end, look at Afghanistan War or other examples, why does this conflict have the date at the front, it seems unnatural. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. We already had the Iran-Iraq war and need a new, disambiguating tag for this one. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. This 2026-war is just the most recent, and happens to attract media due to the energy price volatility. The year is a useful disambiguation. The Iran–Iraq War was much bigger in terms of victims. Also see List of wars involving Iran - should all of these be less notable? TGCP (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Most sources continue to refer to this as the Iran war, a common noun, not as the Iran War, a proper noun. The proper noun is not yet the common name for this topic. Where Iran War is used, it is in contexts where title case is used, which requires capitalising even common nouns. Wikipedia article titles do not use title case.

While journalistic sources don't include the year, that's because newspapers don't need to worry about WP:RECENTISM or about ambiguity with the titles of other articles; their articles are all dated and it doesn't matter if the terms they use are ambiguous in the long-term context of history. On Wikipedia the title has to be disambiguated. Unlike Wikipedia, the news can and actively does rely on recentism and the date of the article to disambiguate what it means. Wikipedia isn't the news.

I do not agree that parenthetical disambiguation would be preferable. A parenthetical disambiguation is added when disambiguation is necessary but the text within the parentheses can be ignored when reading the title. For example, Fishing (sculpture) can be read simply as Fishing (capital F), which is the actual title of the sculpture. The title Iran war (2026) would imply that the title would otherwise just be Iran war by itself if it were not ambiguous. However, Iran war by itself is just a common noun, not the title of this war specifically.

Some have argued that this war is the most likely topic readers would be looking for when searching for Iran war (lowercase), however, a primary topic needs to more likely than all the other topics combined (WP:PTOPIC), not just more likely individually. Given the length of the list of major conflicts at List of wars involving Iran, that seems unlikely. – Scyrme (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Prothe1st

Cognsci (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. "Iran War" fails multiple policies.

WP:PRECISION: Ambiguous; Iran has had many conflicts, including the Iran–Iraq War (sometimes called the "Iran War"), and perhaps future wars.

WP:Common Name : No established proper name. Sources mostly use descriptive lowercase phrases like "war in Iran" or "US-Israeli strikes on Iran". That shouldn't count.

WP:RECENTISM : Only four weeks old. Premature to drop the year. Since we can't use 'US-Israel Iran war' then we should stick to '2026 Iran war' or wait for sourcing to stabilise. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 07:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Support (very strongly) - Yes absolutely it should be renamed to Iran War. I've been saying this from the beginning. WP:RS is the main policy reason but this war itself is strongly centered around Iran and is a significant global/regional conflict so it only makes sense to call it that. This is no different than calling the Iraq war the "Iraq War" or the war in Afghanistan the "Afghanistan War." Absolutely change the article name to Iran War. I see absolutely no rationale to keep it under the current name, it looks weird/awkward and it makes no sense. When has Iran ever been involved in another war in recent times, where we need to distinguish the present war by putting "2026" in front of it? Answer: never. Iran-Iraq War comes to mind but that is explicitly called the "iran-iraq war" and nothing else in texts and everyday language. And the 12-day war is usually called the 12-day war or the Iran-Israel war. I vote we change the title. Also WP:COMMONNAME applies here as everyone else been pointing out and for rather obvious reasons. HarvardJock (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your use of strongly, especially when you mention that the war is "strongly centered" around Iran. Hostilities have spilt through the Middle East including an offshoot war in Lebanon. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes and it's all a direct result of the US attack on Iran, beginning on Feb 28, and thus the current war on Iran. It's a regional war yes but there are other pages for the specific offshoot wars taking place like the one in Lebanon (see 2026 Lebanon war). Also the other countries involved have their own pages with regards to their involvement in the war. HarvardJock (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose (very strongly) - Iran has been involved in numerous wars (many of which also have also been called simply the 'Iran War'). This is hyper-recentism. Horsers (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Support it appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME at this point, being used by numerous WP:RS's

I think it absolutely makes sense to move to Iran War. President Loki (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong Oppose for several reasons.

"Iran War" is an ambiguous non-descript title, there are many many wars in which Iran is involved. Additionally it only names one belligerent, IMO any title should include Israel and America anyway, something closer to "Israeli-American war with Iran" would work as an undated title. Furthermore, the idea that "Iran War" works as a common name is a frankly American-centric and probably unrealisedly biased notion, we must not forget that this is English language Wikipedia and not American Wikipedia. Ukrainians typically just call their current conflict "The War", likewise Americans wouldn't mention their own country in discussions of the conflict. Keeping on the point of Ukraine, day to day people don't typically refer to the "Russo-Ukrainian War", rather things along the lines of "War in Ukraine" but I don't think we should be changing the title of the current conflict there either. To circle back to the American-centric oint, why should this be the conflict that the title of definitive war involving Iran be bestowed? Why not Iraq-Iran War? It went on for 8 years and resulted in half a million deaths, by current count the 2026 conflict has been going for less than a month and has less than one and a half thousand deaths. Finally, Ukraine War redirects to List of wars involving Ukraine, likewise Iran War should remain a redirect to List of wars involving Iran.

Further, the word "war" should not be capitalised yet as the conflict is only very young and a proper name has not had the time to develop. Historical precedents warns us against this, people will look at Wikipedia, see "Iran War", and think that must be the conflicts official name, see the case of an incorrect design for the Flag of the Vatican City becoming very widespread as a result of its presence on Wikipedia. On this point I would once again suggest something along the lines of "Israeli-American war with Iran", a descriptive name that doesn't risk Wikipedians naming this conflict for the rest of the Anglosphere. Lord Beesus (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

On your first point (also mentioned throughout your post), the thing is that all the other conflicts that Iran has been involved in already have their own names that people call them by in everyday language and in texts (professional, academic, media, etc) and as of right now, so far, this war is the only one where we are referring to it as the "Iran War." So for WP:COMMONNAME purposes it makes sense and also this war is analogous to the other US regime-change wars in which they are called "[country name] War" like "Iraq War" or "Vietnam War" or "Afghanistan War" so for these reasons I contend it should be changed. All we need to do is drop the "2026". HarvardJock (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose moving to "Iran War" since; WP:PRECISION demands that titles distinguish topics, yet this name is hopelessly ambiguous given Iran's long history of conflicts—including the Iran–Iraq War, which is still commonly referred to as the "Iran War" in many sources—and the existence of List of wars involving Iran makes an undifferentiated title a disservice to readers. WP:COMMONNAME does not support the move either, as no established proper name has emerged; reliable sources still use descriptive phrases like "war in Iran" or "US‑Israeli strikes on Iran," often with a year or other qualifier. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NCWWW counsel against dropping a year disambiguator for a conflict that is only weeks old, as stable naming conventions take time to crystallize. Prematurely moving to an overly broad title would create confusion for readers seeking other Iranian wars and would set a poor precedent for naming recent conflicts. — Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Copy-pasting my reply that I gave to another user with similar concerns to yours:

"The thing is that all the other conflicts that Iran has been involved in already have their own names that people call them by in everyday language and in texts (professional, academic, media, etc) and as of right now, so far, this war is the only one where we are referring to it as the "Iran War." So for WP:COMMONNAME purposes it makes sense and also this war is analogous to the other US regime-change wars in which they are called "[country name] War" like "Iraq War" or "Vietnam War" or "Afghanistan War" so for these reasons I contend it should be changed. All we need to do is drop the "2026"."

Regardless though it seems like the change won't happen. HarvardJock (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wait, for now.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 22:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Wait, too early.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support as it fits the WP:COMMONNAME per RS. Skitash (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: Iran has been involved in many conflicts. The war is only a few weeks old. Moving it to "Iran War" would be ambigous. See WP:PRECISION. — PPriyix (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wait, per similar reasons others gave above. It's too ambiguous at this stage to drop the year, but at some point, if it becomes a longer protracted war and RS converge on the name, then the move might make sense.ECTran71 (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is not the news. Move proposal does not show a good understanding of the actual text of WP:COMMONNAME; the current title is adequately recognizable. VQuakr (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait of course news will be talking about it as the "Iran war" when it's the only Iran war currently ongoing. That can be expected for pretty much any conflict, it would just be redundant for them to say "2026 Iran war". I think such usage cannot be considered to have transitioned from simply being a description, as in "that war going on in Iran" rather than an actual proper name for the war itself that can qualify under WP:COMMONNAME. There is no telling how it will be referred to after all is said and done, or even just later this year. I don't think this would be useful right now, and would suggest waiting until there are more academic sources talking about the war to see how they call it.
―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 17:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, to avoid confusion with the Twelve-Day War. It’s also a valid point that Iran has been involved in a number of modern military conflicts, and the current US media coverage of an ongoing conflict is not a great place to derive names for this conflict in military historiography. --Katangais (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait Hasn't been going long enough yet compared to other wars involving Iran Chidgk1 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed name of "Iran War" will cause too much confusion an ambiguity. There are many other better names for this page, like the U.S.-Israel War on Iran, or something along those lines, but the proposed name change will help no one, either editors like ourselves or casual users. I strongly oppose it on the grounds that others have pointed out and because the OP does not provide adequate sourcing, at all, to even support this proposal. Historyday01 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Wait. Unlike the Iraq War or Vietnam War, which earned their proper names after years of sustained conflict and historiographical consensus, this war is only weeks old. Recentism is a real risk here — news outlets saying "Iran war" are using a descriptor, not a proper name. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we need sources to stabilize first. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Accesscrawl Well said! Concur fully Avishai11 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Quite straightforward Wait. If the US deploys "boots on the ground", it'll be difficult to argue against this move. If it didn't (cf. TACO), it'll be hard to argue for it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  If Americans invade Iran, but only a few islands off near Hormuz, I would say it would not be worthy of the title as THE Iran War. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Most news outlets mentioning it without capital letter w. Beshogur (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait, as suggested above. Not enough consensus on using title case for 'war', and the year should stay until it is 'easily described without it' WP:NCWWW (currently, a move would create unneccessary issues with readers wanting to find articles like List of wars involving Iran). UserMemer (chat) Tribs 05:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Unconvinced by comments here about other wars being known as such (none from the pre-modern era and recent ones like the Twelve Day aren't known as such, a weak case can be made for the Iran-Iraq War but it already has that commonname) or recentism (solid sourcing exists for the naming now). Though I don't see the point of it but wouldn't mind waiting either. Gotitbro (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Support Most call it the Iran war. Datawikiperson (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose move News refers to it as the "Iran war" because it is the ongoing war involving Iran. We would need the war to end and reliable sources to continue to refer to it as the "Iran War" for a sustained period after it ends before I would argue it is the primary topic as such happened with Iraq War; WP:RECENCY doesn't make something the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Iran war". As a compromise, Iran War ("War" capitalised) being redirected here with a hatnote could be justified if it can be demonstrated such wording is overwhelmingly used by sources, and such sources would have to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL as it is definitely stretching policy and precedent to do such. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that we could potentially do a WP:MORATORIUM given this move has been proposed before this month and no new information likely to change consensus has been brought. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Undecided - while I cannot say with certainty which name is better right now, I can say that the target name is common enough for me not to object to the change. gidonb (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wait per Accesscrawl. Jon Ace ^{T C} 17:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Historyexpert2 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for now I don't think I've seen it referred to as "Iran War" (proper noun) very much, and we are only weeks into this conflict and its impossible to tell what will happen in the next few weeks (will it fizzle out or escalate to involve more countries). I have no doubt that the name will need to be changed in the future, but I see no compelling reason to change it right now. Giulio 21:47, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per too soon to tell.

🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 23:34, 28 March 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.

References

Fifth week vs second month

@Skitash why did you revert my edit that changed the date from fifth week to second month? We should make them broader to avoid unimportant information added to this oversized article. Also, you should add an edit summary to your edits, it might help with these situations. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Greetings. I believe suddenly jumping from weeks to "second month" would be inconsistent and premature. The weekly format has been working well so far for keeping updates clear and organized. Switching to months this early is probably not a good idea. We don't know how long this war will last, so labeling this as the second month assumes the war will drag on for several months. Skitash (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

labeling this as the second month assumes the war will drag on for several months. Not sure if I agree with that... at the very least it could be 2 months. It also says through the present, so it perhaps could mean even less. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps. In that scenario, switching to a monthly format would leave us with just two broad giant "first month" and "second month" sections. What's the benefit of that over keeping the weekly format? Skitash (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Couldn't we for the first month do it every week but after that by every month, considering that far more happened in the first? Wikieditor662 (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

That brings us back to the consistency issue I raised earlier. We could definitely wait and review this later should it become more appropriate to do so once the conflict has progressed further. Skitash (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that by this point you'd already have far more content. As with the first few weeks, they were days at first so now they're much longer than they need to be. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Creation of "Palestine in the 2026 Iran War" article

I think such an article is needed. I would contribute to it, but I cannot focus on the creation of such an article as of right now (maybe in the near future I'll be able to). This way we can appropiately expand upon the effects of the war in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, also describe those instances in which Palestinian territory was hit. VitoxxMass (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You can create the article and put a “work in progress” tag at the top and get others to help you write it. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Iranian officials killed during the 2026 Iran war which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

USS Bainbridge image

In the section titled "Disruption of international trade", there is an image of USS Bainbridge that is not displayed correctly, causing the name of the file to appear in the body of the text. I am aware that this article is undergoing constant and contentious editing, so I am not comfortable attempting to fix the problem myself. Sipik06 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 Fixed The issue was brackets in the filename Placeholderer (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Split Kurdistan Region and Iraq casualties

The Kurdistan Region casualties should be separate from Iraq in the infobox. The region had a completely different role and stance during the conflict. Plus, grouping them together is misleading since some of the attacks on the Kurdistan Region actually originated from Iraqi actors. It makes no sense to have a single "Iraq" category that implies the country was attacking itself.  Zemen  (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox issue: The countries listed seem inconsistent.

Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine have all been attacked by Isreal since the start of this conflict yet are not listed in the infobox. I have tried to add them and they have been removed. Am I missing something? Israel's military is using this war as a chance to attack these three countries. I understand that there are some military groups listed but if a missile hits Lebanese land it doesn't really matter who they were targeting, they're attacking Lebanon, right? If that's not how things are done then why are there around 14 countries listed under "Attacked by Iran" when most of the countries have only been hit in US military bases? This seems like a big double standard, how can we make the infobox make more sense? GlowingLava (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think there is any evidence to say the state of Palestine has been attacked, nor have I seen any regarding Iraq. The matter of Lebanon is confusing, Lebanon isn’t really a fan of Hezbollah either, and they could be seen as a separate entity on Lebanese soil, you’ll have to reach a consensus regarding Lebanon’s (and the other states’) inclusion. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Lebanon should be included; I don't know about Palestine and Iraq but attack on Lebanon is very much part of this war. Hezbollah is a "separate entity" only in sense as a rouge militant on their own-Lebanon soil - they are, after all, constituent people and citizens of the state of Lebanon. This can be resolved in a manner and style UK with its territories is included. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd support the inclusion of Lebanon as a belligerent, with Hezbollah as a sub-entity as you propose, or as a full separate entity. Israel's attacks in Lebanon range all the way to the north of the country, and it has openly stated plans to occupy and annex the southern regions. One can hardly claim they're not attacking a country while also openly violating its territorial sovereignty. entropyandvodka | talk 05:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, except I wouldn't separate Hezbollah from the country - yes, they are rogue paramilitary org., but they are Lebanese after all (I don't know what the situation is today, but they had political wing too, in parliament, led govt, etc). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a note should be added above Lebanon to state it’s Hezbollah or one of those line things that the UK and Akrotiri has but for Lebanon and Hezbollah. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that was my suggestion, but at this point, are we even sure that the list is gona stay in Infobox? Let's wait and see. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

This would be in the belligerents section, not these probably-not-going-to-last 'Attacked by' sections. I see no reason not to include it now, in the format you both suggest. entropyandvodka | talk 02:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead, unless someone objects; I am too busy on osm and wikidata with some issues at the moment. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure of my view about the inclusion of Lebanon etc, but I want to strongly argue against the suggestion that Hezbollah should not be distinguished from Lebanon because of leadership happens to be Lebanese. To say that as Hezbollah is just one face of Lebanon is like saying that Daesh represents Iraq or that the Confederacy fought on the same side as the US during the American Civil War. Hezbollah is an independent actor that functions as a state within a state, with its own military and completely separate command structure BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

100% agree, wars can have non-state actors that act as states. Terrorist groups for example like you stated. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

You cannot compare Daesh with Hezbollah, for haven's sake, Hezbollah political wing is part of the Lebanese government since forever. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn’t it still be a little like the Boxer rebellion, as some of the Boxers were in the government or supported by officials, but the war only was “against china” when the empress fully gave her support. That’s the only similar case I could think of. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Entropyandvodka I would argue that's not very accurate. The Lebanese state did not align itself with Iran in this war and never sought to. Hezbollah acted unilaterally in solidarity with Iran. The Lebanese government explicitly rejected and condemned Hezbollah's actions, declared its military and security activities illegal, and did not join any attacks on Israel. We should probably keep the infobox consistent with other articles where Hezbollah acted as an independent non-state actor, such as 2026 Lebanon war, 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hezbollah–Israel conflict (2023–present), 2006 Lebanon War, and South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000). Skitash (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it’s a shame what happens to Lebanon and them getting dragged in, but Lebanon is not on the side of Iran like some think, likewise with the state of Palestine as the groups operating on their soil aren’t the proper government. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

+1 BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Skitash Given the current state of the infobox, I think you'd at least have to include Lebanon under the 'Attacked by Israel' sub-list (as long as these lists continue to exist, though I don't believe they should). Be the relationship between Lebanon's government and Hezbollah as it may, the territory it operates from is still Lebanon's, and Israel's invasion and annexation of that territory is still an act of war against Lebanon. This ought to put Lebanon squarely in as a belligerent in the conflict as a co-belligerent. Further, the scope of Israel's attacks are wide-ranging throughout Lebanon. We currently list every country under the sun that Iran is attacking as being a country attacked by Iran, regardless if the attacks are primarily focused on US bases. Would you have any objections to Lebanon's inclusion in that sub-list? entropyandvodka | talk 14:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. Given that Israel has killed a number of Lebanese soldiers, it would only make sense to include Lebanon under the "Attacked by Israel" list the same way those under the "Attacked by Iran" list includes countries that are being attacked but have not retaliated and are not aligned with the U.S.–Israeli coalition. Skitash (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add it. entropyandvodka | talk 14:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Snow close - zero support. There does seem to be some support on a move request memorandum.Moxy🍁 18:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Moxy🍁 18:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

---

2026 Iran war → Iran war (2026–)Iran war (2026–) – I believe this name or “Iran war (2026)” would be more fitting following the regulations of a majority of other conflict articles, I’ve not seen many if any articles with the year at the front, so either a “(2026-) showing that it is ongoing, especially as most people refer to the war as the “Iran war” as opposed to “2026 Iran war” (considering there is no need to clarify the year at the start), this would likely only be a small change, moving the year to the back as opposed to the front.

• Note: I don’t want it capitalised, that was a mistake on my part and I did not intend for it to be the same as another discussion, I have a habit of typing “war” as a capital, that’s not the change I was meant to be highlighting.

• Note 2: I was going to propose this in the last discussion but I was informed that I should wait and make a new one

The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is a war not only of Iran but also of the United States. Georgia guy (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest speedy close. We literally just went over this recently with § Requested move 22 March 2026 which closed earlier today. Most participants then did not agree with capitalising "war", favouring waiting. This is not a small change. It changes the word from a common noun and descriptor to a proper noun and name. That changes the guidelines which apply to the title. A parenthetical year with the proper noun would be better than a parenthetical year without a proper noun and would alleviate some concerns people had about even the proper noun being ambiguous, but it's too soon to switch the title to the proper noun. The sources do not support that as was already explained repeatedly in the last RM. – Scyrme (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  We definitely need a WP:MORATORIUM on moves. I'd suggest until 6 months after the start of the war (Friday, 28 August) or until the war ends, whichever is sooner. – Scyrme (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Scyrme that was an accident, I did not intend for it to be a capital, that was an error on my typing part. I have changed my request, the only change I meant to highlight was the year being added at a different place. Please reread the suggestion and amend your opposition if it suits you (bearing in mind the capitalisation wasn’t meant to be changed). Thanks for your help and bringing this clerical error to my attention The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  Still oppose, per my argument in the last RM:

  I do not agree that parenthetical disambiguation would be preferable. A parenthetical disambiguation is added when disambiguation is necessary but the text within the parentheses can be ignored when reading the title. For example, Fishing (sculpture) can be read simply as Fishing (capital F), which is the actual title of the sculpture. The title Iran war (2026) would imply that the title would otherwise just be Iran war by itself if it were not ambiguous. However, Iran war by itself is just a common noun, not the title of this war specifically.

  A parenthetical year would only be appropriate if the title were a proper noun not a naturally disambiguated descriptor. "Iran war" (no capitalisation of "war") is just a description, not the name of this or any other war. – Scyrme (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for considering and walking through your reasoning, I can see why you believe this, and of course the name may change when the war is over (eg Great War—> World War I), however there have been multiple wars in Iran which could be seen as an “Iran War” even though the name is ambiguous. For example the Afghan wars (which I believe all or most have a disambiguation note next to it), of license I do understand that there are no wars to this date with the specific name “Iran war” that would therefore require differentiation between the two. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't argue that a year is not required. I argued for keeping the year where it is, not in parentheses. I agree that a year is needed for disambiguation. But the title needs more than just disambiguation because "Iran war" is a common noun. "Iran war" without a year means something completely different to what is intended; there's a semantic difference because it's a common noun, not a name. It's not just ambiguous, it's incomplete and as a result means something else entirely (ie. war in Iran in general, not just this war specifically). – Scyrme (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  I understand, so the name is actually 2026 Iran War, as opposed to just Iran war. I 100% understand your reasoning. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Can we give this a damn rest? Oppose. I think there was pretty solid consensus against the last move and this suggestion is even worse due to the misuse of parenthetical disambiguation as explained above. — An anonymous username, not my real name 19:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  This move request is different from the last one, without the capitalisation, hope I clarified and thanks for your input. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wait - There are reasons to believe that this conflict could become the most relevant and well-known one known as the "Iran War," and some sources are already starting to use the capitalized term, but I think we are not yet at the point of moving the article. There was just an RfC last week on this same issue. There have been many "Iran wars" in history and you would wish for this one to really and undoubtely stand out as the Iran War before moving. Impru20^talk 19:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Impru20: This move isn't about capitalising to "Iran War", it's about whether to change "2026 Iran war" to "Iran war (2026), both without capitalisation. The RM about capitalisation closed earlier today before this one started. (Though waiting is still a reasonable choice here.) – Scyrme (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Scyrme: Checking it again, it is actually confusing: the RM template does propose two alternative names which are capitalized, whereas the nom explanation proposes two uncapitalized names. My reply should be understood in the context of the capitalized ones; the uncapitalized ones make no sense since the current name is uncapitalized. Impru20^talk 20:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  As the nominator noted, the capitalisation was just a mistake and they didn't intend to suggest that. – Scyrme (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies for the confusion I caused, it was a clerical error, and thank you Scyrme for informing others on the change. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Wait It is too early to tell if the current war will be short-lived (2026) or if it will be a protracted conflict (2026-?). I'm in favor of letting the title unchanged for the time being. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• Wait per above. Skitash (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose please, please give this a break. This is your second or maybe third request. We're done. Seriously, @KeyolTranslater, stop. Now. We're done. Leave it as it is. This is complete. We don't need anything else. Stop. Fully concur with @An anonymous username, not my real name and also @Scyrme. We certainly need a WP:MORATORIUM! Avishai11 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Avishai11, This is my only request, I edited it after some confusion. It’s the same request and it’s been clarified from the previous mistakes. My goodness no need to be kinda aggressive over this small suggestion. Also I do t believe it’s in the criteria for Moratorium considering that this request has not been proposed before to my knowledge. Please clarify your facts first, I’m not trying to hassle or argue with anyone. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  Whatever it is, @KeyolTranslater, look at precedent. Look at the fact that we have had 3-5 (I don't remember) different RMs in the past 2 weeks, and all have failed. Stop. That is worthy of a Moratorium. Avishai11 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  Is that not allowed? I was Informed on the VP to wait several days for the last one to close before opening a new request as opposed to just pinging everyone in the old request. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose current title is fine and naturally disambiguated, recent rm established a consensus for waiting. no evidence supplied for nominator's claim that title would be more consistent with other conflicts and there are many article titles that start with the year; regardless, the current title complies with titling guidelines. need a moratorium on these RMs. —BrechtBro (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for not giving evidence, a couple of articles would be War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) for example or Russo-Persian War (1722–1723) and multiple other articles. Also after reading the guidelines for a moratorium it says that those are only for reopened discussion with a similar or the same message as the last request. The last request and this request are different requests The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater Those are capitalized, proper nouns—explicitly not the case here—and require disambiguation in the parenthetical, as the year isn't part of the proper term. Sometimes the year becomes part of the proper, common name while also being a natural disambiguator, as in 2014 Gaza War and 2012 Gaza War. There are many, many, many other articles that begin with the year, especially describing events. You may find it helpful to review the article title policy, particularly on disambiguators. —BrechtBro (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh I didn’t actually realise that, apologies my mistake. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater you are welcome to withdraw the proposal per WP:RMEC if you believe it's a mistake —BrechtBro (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. At least for now.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 01:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Give it until January 1, 2027. Staryu★ 06:40, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is fine, and it is too early. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose give it a break and stick to the current title. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 16:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Snow close and moratorium on moves. The consensus on the name is not likely to change for at least a few months, let's give it a rest. BappleBusiness^[talk] 17:49, 30 March 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.

"UN Security Council (UNSC) concerns about the nuclear program of Iran from 2006[s] were solved by the creation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015.[150]"

"Were solved by" seems a little biased, as some countries said their concerns were not fully solved by this, and in 2017 the US President said his concerns were not resolved and pulled out of it. That should be elaborated on. Just trying to get a consensus on this matter. Wondering what everyone thinks. Avishai11 (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyone? Avishai11 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Non-state actors getting removed

The Ahwaz Falcons, fighting against Iran, have kept getting removed from the infobox; their role has been demonstrated in several reliable sources, and other editors have agreed with me that they merit a place in the article. What is going on? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The Ahwaz Falcons have played a very minor role in this conflict. Beyond claiming responsibility for a single attack in Ahvaz over three weeks ago, they have shown no further activity. It wouldn't make much sense to place them as a major belligerent alongside the U.S. and Israel. If you have RS documenting any ongoing activities, please provide them. Skitash (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Not a major belligrent, but it still counts; the Houthis have just started a few days ago and they're already in the infobox. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The Houthis are a pretty major player, IMO. They can significantly hamper, if not shut down entirely, shipping out of the Red Sea, and carry out long range ballistic missile and drone strikes. The infobox doesn't seem like a good place to list every non-state actor involved, though I fully support their inclusion in the body of the article. I guess it's an issue of weight and due. The Guardian source on the page for the Ahwaz Falcons, perhaps erroneously, mentions them offhandedly as a newly formed group. The Arabic sources mention them further back, but it's difficult to determine much about them with what's available (membership numbers, power, significance, capabilities). May I ask why you feel so strongly they should be included with the other major players? As a side note, I'm not sure some of the other non-state actors really belong in the infobox either. entropyandvodka | talk 04:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe most non-state actors unless they are tied to the belligerents should be removed plus, the page size for this is somewhat overflowing. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Current "Attacked by Iran" list full assessment

Following the recent removals of Azerbaijan and Turkey from a list that has been quite controversial overall, I decided to do a full evaluation of the current items on the list to see which ones are the strongest candidates for removal (my preference, as I've said several times, is total removal of the list, but some should go even if the list is kept).

• Bahrain — The country has been attacked hundreds of times () and a national security analyst interviewed on Iranian state media stated that the Iranian military was prepared to invade Bahraini territory (). There is evidence that strikes against Iran may have been launched from Bahrain (). Suggests a more active role than currently reported in our article.
• Iraq (including Iraqi Kurdistan) — Iraq has been struck by both Iran and the United States and its government has strongly condemned both countries (). Odd that we only list the Iranian attacks in the infobox. The political and military situation in Iraq is extremely complicated; both Iran and the US targeted groups technically affiliated with the central Iraqi government but with widely different goals and ideologies. It would seem to make the most sense to only list those individual groups, not the Iraqi state itself. Therefore, I recommend removal here.
• Jordan — Iran has admitted to firing missiles at Jordan, stating that it has been targeting US forces (). Jordan denies hosting foreign bases, but it has acknowledged the presence of foreign troops in the country (). Compared to the Gulf countries, Iran's attacks against Jordan appear to have been far less indiscriminate. Our article does not make this clear.
• Kuwait — Iran has admitted to firing missiles at Kuwait, stating that it has been targeting US forces (). The emir of Kuwait condemned the strikes, described Iran as a friend, and stated that Kuwaiti territory was never used for aggression against Iran (). This is clearly a much less hawkish stance than those adopted by other Gulf countries. I'm actually not sure how to classify this; for once, it's hard to think of a better label than "attacked by Iran".
• Oman — There are reports of several attacks on the country, but Iran has denied any responsibility (). Oman, for its part, has only weakly condemned Iran's retaliatory strikes and has justified them to an extent (). It may also be worth noting that an early report by Omani state media describing one of the attacks does not explicitly blame Iran for them (). I strongly recommend removal here.
• Qatar — This is a very interesting case where Iran openly attacked civilian infrastructure of a country with which it has had historically friendly relations, in retaliation for an Israeli attack (). There are claims of unclear credibility that Qatar wants the war to continue until Iran's military capacity is degraded (). Suggests a more active role than currently reported in our article.
• Saudi Arabia — There are reports (denied by Saudi Arabia) that the country is urging the United States to continue the war (). They have expanded US military access to local bases since the start of the conflict (). Suggests a more active role than currently reported in our article.
• United Kingdom (Cyprus and Diego Garcia) — While we already acknowledge that Iran denied attacking Diego Garcia, it has also denied attacking Cyprus. Cyprus has stated that the drone strike was most likely by Hezbollah, not Iran (). This situation is overall probably too complicated to be adequately summarized in the infobox.
• UAE — Repeatedly attacked by Iran, apparently more than any other country (). The UAE government has shut down Iranian-owned establishments since the start of the conflict (). A national security analyst interviewed on Iranian state media stated that the Iranian military was prepared to invade Emirati territory (). Suggests a more active role than currently reported in our article.

— An anonymous username, not my real name 02:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling all that. There's a case for promoting Bahrain to belligerent status, having verification that strikes against Iran were indeed launched from Bahrain. I'd still want to include a note beside it explaining why, similar to how Belarus appears in the Russo-Ukrainian war infoboxes. I would also support the removals you mentioned, along with the removal of the United Kingdom (provided the list is still an Attacked by Iran list), if the evidence points to Hezbollah. The Diego Garcia attack remains an entirely unverifiable incident at this point, with no evidence presented that it actually occurred.

The best way forward seems to be to remove the list entirely, do case-by-case consensus seeking for the inclusion/exclusion of belligerents, and define a clear FAQ criteria for inclusion/exclusion. entropyandvodka | talk 04:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

First of all thanks for making an informative list of all this. But I do disagree on some points. Mainly that I think we should keep Iraq and the United Kingdom, especially the latter given that one of the consequences of the war (which is even listed in the infobox) is the mobilization around the island, and also despite only one drone hitting, numerous were stopped before reaching the island, the latest of which NOT from Lebanese territory as per the Cyprus article and the 2026 Lebanon war article. VitoxxMass (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Cyprus, all I can say is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The Cypriot and Lebanese governments have blamed Hezbollah, while UK officials do not appear to have accused any particular party (, , ). It's also worth noting that the strikes started hours after Starmer said that the US could use British bases against Iran () and that the Cypriot government is apparently more upset with the UK's lack of transparency regarding its use of their bases on its territory than with Iran or Hezbollah themselves (). Ultimately, it seems most likely that Akrotiri and Dhekelia were attacked by Hezbollah rather than Iran, and that this attack was not without provocation, as the infobox might imply.

As for Iraq, I'd like to stress that both Iran and the US technically attacked the forces of the Iraqi government. Given the complex political climate of the country, it would make the most sense to list the individual factions rather than simply the state of Iraq. In any case, it's hypocritical to list Iraq as being attacked by Iran but not by the US; the PMF are part of the Iraqi armed forces. — An anonymous username, not my real name 15:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, as per the Guardian

"It has not yet publicly determined from where the drones were launched, though officials said the first drone was launched before Keir Starmer announced the UK would allow the US to use its airbases to bomb Iranian missile sites."

Other sources: (2 March), (4 March), (2 March).

So no, the strikes did not happen "AFTER" Starmer said that the US could use British bases, it was before.

You are right on one thing however, the only succesful strike probably came from Hezbollah. Which brings us to the question on IF countries/territories targetted by Iran's own allies should be included. I think it's fair, as Israel's ones would too. As per the status, I agree the way it should be shown in the infobox is to be debated. VitoxxMass (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Iraq, what's the case for keeping it, considering that the US attacks are not listed on the other side of the ledger under an 'Attacked by United States' sub-list? Or would you have any objection to that also being in the infobox? We've already (rightly) got Iran-aligned factions within Iraq as belligerents, but it seems weirdly biased for the infobox to present it as though Iran is attacking Iraq and omit the United States as attacking Iraq when both are attacking forces in that region in a manner the Iraqi government has denounced. I'd still prefer its removal, since the pertinent forces involved (United States, PMF, Islamic Resistance in Iraq) are already listed as belligerents proper. entropyandvodka | talk 15:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The fact that discussing other countries requires this much detail and documentation is a strong argument against listing anyone other than Iran, Israel, and the United States directly. There should be an "others" category where this hodgepodge of countries can all be listed with all of their intricacies outlined. JasonMacker (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@JasonMacker: I remember the supported by parameter being deprecated exactly due to the "hodgepodge of countries" problem. I can see similar arguments would apply here to trim the infobox from excesses. We need to remember, infoboxes are a summary of the article and are not a substitute for reading it. The major belligerents here, in direct hostilities, are these three parties anything extraneous may as well be done away with. Gotitbro (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

As I stated in the RFC, by "others" I don't mean a collapsible list, but a link to an article, similar to the World War One infobox. JasonMacker (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Compelling analysis, definitely agree with the removal of Iraq and Oman. Evaporation123 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Regardless to who attacked them (e.g. Iraqi Kurdistan was attacked by Iran ,), all these countries except UK were targets of repeated military attacks by others, and as such are participants of the war. It does not matter if these countries attacked Iran back. I believe they should be included in the infobox, possibly as "others". My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  That makes them participants not belligerents/combatants. Exactly what the param is for. Gotitbro (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  Even 'participants' is a bit of a slippery term here, since belligerency is about active participation in hostilities. I believe that international humanitarian law would categorize them as parties to the conflict. Allowing the belligerents to use their land to launch attacks could qualify them as belligerents, but this gets us into WP:OR territory. If there is to be an actual sub-list, perhaps 'Other parties' would be a more appropriate name? Simply 'Others' seems to read as 'Other belligerents'. entropyandvodka | talk 17:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  The British territories in Cyprus were repeatedly attacked actually. Only one attack was succesful, but at least a total of four missiles/drones were sent towards it, with more unconfirmed incidents. VitoxxMass (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• I agree re: Iraq. They, like Lebanon, have seen attacks from both US/Israel and Iran. Iraq as a state should either be listed as attacked by both sides or just the relevant entities on each side should be list (Kurdistan for Iran, PMF and related militas for Israel and the US). Esolo5002 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Outdated table and irrelevant data

2026 Iran war#Attacks by ballistic missiles and drones/UAVs cites a woefully out-of-date report from The Jerusalem Post (dated 10 March) for about a third of the contents. For example, Turkey now reports 4 missile attacks, not one, per this source. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, in the "Casualties by citizenship" table, Turkey shows 3 killed, but this has nothing to do with the Iran war, it's from a training accident resulting from a helicopter crash, according to the cited source. The entry for Qatar also cites the same source. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:2026 Iran war infobox edits

@Crampcomes you didn’t explain your restoration of the content previous removed by me. Is such a large description really necessary here? This section in the infobox is supposed to mention the key events only in a flowchart. I don’t think that the infos your added are notable enough to be here. Ahammed Saad (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree it is long and unnecessary, some text has similar meaning and should be removed. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Iranian officials killed during the 2026 Iran war which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

"Per Iran" for THAAD radar destruction

So I have some concerns over how the infobox presents the losses. We're characterizing the loss of radar systems like the THAAD radar (source) as being "per Iran", but the source cited isn't characterizing it that way. CNN, the source for the THAAD radar, writes that "The radar system for an American THAAD missile battery in Jordan was struck and apparently destroyed in the first days of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, a satellite image taken on Monday shows".

Same goes for some of the other "per Iran" sources, though I haven't gone through all of them. It seems problematic to be saying these are losses claimed "per Iran" when we have RS's confirming they occurred with satellite imagery. If I didn't check the source, as a reader, I would assume that these are just losses Iran is claiming and dismiss them, when these are actual losses reported by RS's that are looking at satellite imagery of the systems in question being destroyed by Iranian strikes. That's my issue with this in a nutshell. Open to suggestions on how to fix it. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2026

Many people are referring to this war as the US-Iran war or the Epstein War. ~2026-20545-77 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The name "Epstein War" is discussed elsewhere, at Reactions to the 2026 Iran war where it's more appropriate to mention it. – Scyrme (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Database for equipment losses

This account counts visually confirmed losses of the war for all sides involved if useful:

https://elmustek.substack.com/p/operation-epic-fury-documenting-equipment ~2026-53711-7 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

KIA or assasinated?

Why are some of the Iranian leaders (Ali Khameneni) marked as assassinated, but others are marked as KIA? They were all killed by missile strikes, so what makes one assassinated and others KIA? - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 17:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Some were politicians while others were serving in a military capacity. Politicians aren't generally described as killed or missing "in action", whereas active military personnel often are. – Scyrme (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly; therefore "in action" means while performing military duties. Assassination usually refers to that of a politician, though I might be wrong. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Assassination is the willful killing, by a sudden or secret attack, of a person—especially a prominent or important one—typically for political or ideological reasons. - from Assassination. I think it could be applied, because these leaders (military or political) were all killed sitting in their bunkers. No troops on the ground, no bullets shot. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 23:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I favour it. Ahammed Saad (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose change. This has been discussed at some length. They were soldiers killed in war…hence KIA. Riposte97 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Those acting in their military capacity were KIA, those not doing so were assassinated. Simple enough for me. HarvardJock (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete 'number of attacks' graph - Edit request 4 April 2026

Description of suggested change:

Under 2026_Iran_war#Attacks_by_ballistic_missiles_and_drones/UAVs there's a graph (see here) built from data supposedly from a random Twitter account. This is not a reliable source. I think the graph should be removed. -- galenIgh 03:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed. I₂Overcome ^talk 03:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Name section

I know this article is too long already, but it should have a name section to both explain the "Epic Fury" name (there was reporting about Trump picking it out of a list of options and he himself said something about it sounding cool), as well as US officials spending the first two weeks insisting that it's not a war, then accidentally calling it a war. Same for the Israeli name and presumably Iran also has a unique term for it. — jonas (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jonas1015119 the names for the operations are discussed under Hostilities, a section devoted solely to discussing names would likely be redundant, and they are appropriately contextualized as they are now. —BrechtBro (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Most sources still refer to it descriptively as "the Iran war", without giving it a name (which would be a capitalised proper noun like "Iran War"). Trump picking out the name of the operation from a list is a minor detail and mentioning it is WP:UNDUE. (As an aside, the name is a reference to his previous statements in the weeks prior to the war threatening to unleash "epic fury" on Iran, so it's not just about sounding "cool".) The Israeli "Operation Roaring Lion" is already mentioned, along with the American "Operation Epic Fury". I don't think this needs to be repeated in a "Name" section. Iranian state media refers to it as the Ramadan War, which is handled by a disambiguation page; it has also appeared in Western English-language media, but only rarely so I think just having a disambiguation page is fine.

Given the length of the article, I don't think a whole separate section all about various minor and potential names for it is warranted. – Scyrme (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• No, it should not. The people affected by the war have no relation to that US specific designation. Make a new article, one paragraph, boiling down to "because some dude, socialized in the late 90's, thought it sounded cool" and because the first pick "Fast and Furious XXVI" would have needed the OK from Universal Pictures. Alexpl (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  Lol. For real. HarvardJock (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  socialized in the late 90's Donald Trump is 80, not 40. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: The article is already too long as it is (policy wise) and I have just suggested to another user that wordiness and extra details should be cut. No need for explanation about the name of the operation. Totally unimportant details if you ask me. I also agree with the other user who commented here that including that would be a violation of WP:UNDUE because it's such a minor detail that you'd might as well leave it out. HarvardJock (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2026

Found a source which could be used for finding the number of missile/drone strikes against isreal

https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-march-30-2026/ HockeyFinatic (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

"1 AN/FPS-132, 1 AN/TPS-59[35], 1 AN/FPS-117[36], 1 AN/MPQ-64 destroyed[37]"

please correct the text. "," comes before the source. ~2026-19479-05 (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done Fixed this issue at Template:2026 Iran war infobox. Day Creature (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2026 (2)

Change "On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel started a war" to "On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel (also known as the axis of Epstein) started an illegal and offensive war" ~2026-20787-04 (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:NPOV. Day Creature (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

"the world's largest supply disruption since the 1970s energy crisis"

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.

---

Haven't seen it described this way. Oil prices haven't even surpassed 2022 peaks yet. The NYT article referenced just gives readers some historical background. As I said, in pretty much every news article it's described as the largest crisis since *2022* which is in accordance with the facts. Let's not overblow things and sensationalize on Wikipedia Maxbeirut (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Might not be what's referenced, but the IEA says The conflict in the Middle East has created the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. The volume of fuel supply offline now is higher than the supply loss during the oil shock of 1973 that led to the IEA’s creation and any disruption since then Placeholderer (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a verdict on this is premature as it all depends on whether the Strait of Hormuz opens or not. Additionally, apparently Iran has by now allowed pretty much any country (including e.g. France) except the US, Israel and a few others to transport their oil through the Strait. Maxbeirut (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

If the most authoritative source on the topic makes the judgment, we probably should too Placeholderer (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

OPEC countries aren't even part of it, neither did the IEA exist when the 1973 oil crisis happened (it was created in reaction to it). It's a source, but I wouldn't call it "the most authoritative." Also it's from mid-March. It's simply premature, might even be outdated. Maxbeirut (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

To say that the IEA isn't a good source for the scale of an oil supply disruption requires so much twisting into knots. Using that page to say exactly what that page says should be uncontroversial Placeholderer (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The best, most authoritative source on the level of supply must undoubtedly be... the market price. Wouldn't you agree? It's not even surpassed the 2022 peak, might not accomplish that at all. Maxbeirut (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't agree. The market price depends on a lot of factors besides the level of supply, and given the slow pace at which oil tankers travel the effects on supply have been delayed for much of the world. Some pre-war tankers are still at sea. The canaries in the coalmine are places like the Philippines, which has declared a state of emergency recently. (2026 Philippine energy crisis) – Scyrme (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Oil prices are inelastic, so they primarily depend on supply and expectations of supply in the future. Maxbeirut (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

In the short term, yes, because demand is considered inelastic in the short term. But that's a simplification. As you noted now, speculation is also a factor. Expectations have been fluctuating due to contradictory statements from the US, which has deliberately been manipulating market expectations for political reasons. Even if supply were the only factor, as I noted, the impact of supply has been delayed in many countries. – Scyrme (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not a question of market price. The information is about supply Placeholderer (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Market is the best measure of supply. Maxbeirut (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Iran has by now allowed pretty much any country (including e.g. France)

You have a source for that? I heard they let a few French tankers (edit: 1 French container ship) through, not that France has a blanket free pass for all its traffic. That it's basically open except for a few countries, as you suggest here, seems extremely dubious. – Scyrme (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

France as well as other countries do have a blanket free pass, on this basis they've been letting these tankers through. How else do you reckon? :D Maxbeirut (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

These specific ships requested permission and were allowed through. It doesn't imply blanket permission. Also, looking online, it seems it's not even "ships". A single French container ship (not an oil tanker) was allowed through along with 3 Omani tankers (I had misremembered earlier). I can't find any sources to back up what you've suggested here. – Scyrme (talk) 21:14, 4 April 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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Iranian officials killed during the 2026 Iran war which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Created article draft: Search and Rescue of U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle Pilot during the 2026 Iran War

Created article: Search and Rescue of U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle Pilot during the 2026 Iran War, currently in draft form. AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Created article draft: Legality of the 2026 Iran War

Created article: Legality of the 2026 Iran War, currently in draft form. AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Split

I think the 2026 Iran war#First week (28 February – 6 March) should be split into its own article, such as First week of the 2026 Iran war, as this article is far too oversized and this section is way longer than it needs to be.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: I think it's fine as it is. It's much more preferable for everything to be on one article, better for readability sake. I personally don't take the "article too long" tag at the top of the article page too seriously anyway. It's a complex war and its details should be stated. HarvardJock (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Have you read WP:TOOBIG? It says an article over 15K words Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. Wikieditor662 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, if, as you suggest, we decided that it's It's much more preferable for everything to be on one article, better for readability sake., then you would need to move every single one of the child articles to this one -- see Template:Campaignbox 2026 Iran war. If we did this, the article would literally be hundreds of thousands of words long, and eventually might reach millions. Wikieditor662 (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Fine by me if it reaches millions but for policy sake (more important than my opinion) you're right about WP:TOOBIG - so instead of splitting it up I think we should just spend time removing the wordiness or additional unimportant details, wherever found, as a means of trimming down the article. I'm opposing to splitting over anything though, just to be clear. HarvardJock (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for now I agree that the article is becoming too long, but that might also have to do with being overly detailed per para. 2 of WP:NOTNEWS, and I don't think that this is likely to be easily addressed this early in the conflict before non-news secondary sources establish the notability of individual attacks currently mentioned in the hostilities section. I think we'll have to have a longer conversation about how to organize the content related to the war in the future, my gut says having one article per week of the war is not the way to do this. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

one article per week of the war Just to clarify, the proposal isn't to do this for every week of the war, just the first, as it's by far the longest. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I should clarify, I'm concerned that splitting off the first week will (very reasonably given the length of the article) lead to proposals to split other weeks as well. I think we should go through and edit the content first before maybe moving/splitting things to articles about specific campaigns in the future. I strongly suspect there will be plenty of book length coverage of this war and the secondary coverage will lead us to a good way to organize the information, but splitting it out now could make cleaning that up a bit of a mess. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Making an article for the first week would likely encourage making more for each week. I don't think that's the best approach. Could eventually do something like what done with the Syrian civil war, where Timeline of the Syrian civil war has child articles for 3~4 month periods to handle the large amount of content available. Taking that approach seems very like given the current length of Timeline of the 2026 Iran war and the need to add to it as time goes on. Excess detail on day-to-day, week-to-week material should be moved to the timeline article, reserving the main article's history section for details with long-term significance. – Scyrme (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Splitting by calendar week is arbitrary and original research; it sets a bad precedent and would create a content fork of the existing Timeline of the 2026 Iran war. Better to trim and transfer granular details there. — Mhhossein ^talk 05:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

It’s at 17k now, I’d say just mercilessly trim the section, the timeline article exists for this reason. Maybe if it escalates to boots on the ground there could be First phase of the Iran war, but we’d need some sources supporting that Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Iran's version of casualty count

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.

---

all you need to know about tbe bias of Wikipedia is seen in how the US is able to say how many Iranians they believe are casulaties but the equivalent isnt true. US claims have their own tally and are shown while Iranian claims are not. Nice work, really shows your true colors as footsoldiers in an information war. ~2026-29862-9 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I also like the mealy mouthed 'civilian casulaties' in the open, where you use the vague term dozens instead of 'over a hundred female schoolchildren were murdered in an american 'double tap' tomahawk strike on a elementary school.' ~2026-29862-9 (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The infobox gives the Iranian Health Ministry's casualty count and literally the first count of casualties described in 2026 Iran war § Civilians is Iranian state media reported that more than 175 people, mostly school children, were killed and 95 wounded in the strike.

I assume your specific objection is to the opening sentence. If so, I agree that "dozens" is an understatement that doesn't adequately summarise what the article later states; I have changed it to "over a hundred". The text also links to the section which provides further detail, including that the casualties were mostly children. If you have any other specific changes you want to be made to the article, please use the edit request feature. – Scyrme (talk) 15:02, 5 April 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2026 (3)

Change wording of: although Trump refused their offer send over aircraft carriers.

Possibly to: although Trump refused their offer to send over aircraft carriers to the strait.

OR

although the UK and other European nations have refused to send over aircraft carriers. Zephyr98641 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The reason I have said both options is due to the fact Trump wants countries like the UK to help secure the strait. And I can not find where in the article it says he refused them send the aircraft carriers. Might be wrong on this and I am happy to be proven so. Either way the wording does need changing. It could also be deleted. Zephyr98641 (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done I ended up removing this, as the wording is so ambiguous that it's impossible to tell what was originally meant, and it can't be confirmed from the source as it is a liveblog from weeks ago. Another example of the perils of using liveblogs as sources. Day Creature (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

References

RfC: Add nuclear negotiations context to first para and remove redundancy

Should the lead of 2026 Iran war be edited as follows?

Change 1 (first paragraph): Insert "amid ongoing nuclear negotiations between the two countries" after "across Iran" so the opening sentence reads:

>> "On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel started a war with surprise airstrikes on sites and cities across Iran amid ongoing nuclear negotiations between the two countries, assassinating Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei..."

(The negotiations are already mentioned and sourced in paragraph 2.)

Change 2 (third paragraph): Remove the redundant phrase "launched during the nuclear negotiations" and the repeated casualty list ("killed Khamenei, other Iranian officials, and civilians") because the first paragraph already states the assassinations and civilian casualties. The third paragraph would then begin with:

>> "Subsequent attacks damaged military bases..." (keeping the remaining text and citations intact).

The suggested change improves neutrality by placing the diplomatic context in the lead (WP:LEAD), reduces redundancy (WP:CONCISE), and still does not alter the established order of information.

Options: Support / Oppose / Modify (please specify)

Please base comments on WP:LEAD, WP:NEUTRAL, and WP:REDUNDANCY. — Mhhossein ^talk 06:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support – The attacks did not occur in a vacuum; the ongoing nuclear negotiations are an essential part of the immediate background to the war. Including "amid ongoing nuclear negotiations" in the first paragraph provides readers with critical context that is already sourced in paragraph 2. Without it, the opening narrative is incomplete and potentially misleading—readers would miss the fact that the surprise strikes happened while diplomatic talks were actively underway. It's a factual timeline element supported by multiple reliable sources. Moving this context to the first para is standard per WP:LEAD, and removing the redundant phrasing from paragraph 3 improves conciseness per WP:CONCISE and WP:REDUNDANCY. No information is lost; the story becomes more accurate and complete. — Mhhossein ^talk 06:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral - The suggested change is not technically wrong, but not really helping with WP:Neutral either. The round of talks ended on 26 Febuary with some workable but unsatisfactory Iranian offer and they were due to continue on 2 March. While that happened the Israelis and the CIA learned about a high level meeting in Iran and saw a chance to kill several important leaders in a surprise strike on saturday and "achieve a critical and early victory" (...) I dont really see the Geneva talks as beeing the reason for the attack, based on the sources. Putting them in the first sentence kind of does.Alexpl (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Is an RfC necessary here? Wasn't there another thread discussing a similar proposed change, what was the outcome there? —BrechtBro (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. The suggested change looks like an artificial construction to deliver a specific POV. But it is really important to include somewhere in the lead. This is now noted in passing in the 3rd paragraph, which is OK. But maybe it should be also (or instead) noted in 4th paragraph. Meaning they have been involved in negotiations, and the Iranian side offered significant concessions (at least in words), but Trump decided to strike because ... as discussed in 4th paragraph. My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes: Actually the reverse. Why should a factual timeline element supported by multiple reliable sources be removed from the immediate context selectively? The current wording is excluding an important point from the course of events that was followed by US-Israel joint attack.--Mhhossein ^talk 15:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The suggested change is not removal, but inserting new text. I am not really opposed to it, and it indeed provides important context and well sourced, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Order of Battle

Shouldn't there be an order of battle sub-article of this? ~2026-20372-26 (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

You mean like Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) order of battle? Probably, though it's only been 5~6 weeks, so it may be difficult to find suitable references. – Scyrme (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

One already exists here: 2026 Iran war order of battle. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Nice. I've added it to {{Campaignbox 2026 Iran war}} so it's easier to find. – Scyrme (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Iran claims 2 F-35 shot down, US acknowledge 1 lost.

Knowing how revert prone, tribal and social mediaized this topic is atm. I thought it better to bring it here than just to add it right away.

Middle East crisis live: Iran strikes oil refinery in Kuwait, says it shot down US fighter jet https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/apr/03/middle-east-crisis-live-trump-urges-iran-to-make-deal-after-bridge-strike?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-69cf4cbb8f080da25b48a3f0#block-69cf4cbb8f080da25b48a3f0 I thus recommend adding what the header says to the Iran claimed causulties. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

US acknowledged 1 damaged, not lost. It landed safely. Maxbeirut (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I support adding this but unfortunately there is minor bias to this article in which US/Western and Israeli claims are added (and given slightly more weight) whereas Iran's claims are not as validated. I've seen other users over the last few weeks support each other saying Iran's claims are just "propaganda" and for that reason alone are unworthy of being added. But hey, it's Wikipedia. No use complaining about it. HarvardJock (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think claims by the Israeli or US governments are being taken at face value, but both those countries have a freer press than Iran does and freer speech in general. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't necessitate greater truth or even better verifiability. Which is exactly why I think all claims from both sides should be included, no matter how outlandish or propagandistic (assuming that is even the case) so long as it's a violation of any editing policy per wikipedia's standards. HarvardJock (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Hasn't Iran also claimed to have sunk American aircraft carriers? :D Maxbeirut (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I think so. If it's been reported in a news article then that should be included as well. Did you really think I would reconsider my position based on that? Lol! HarvardJock (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Created article draft: Destruction of cultural heritage sites during the 2026 Iran War

Created article: Destruction of cultural heritage sites during the 2026 Iran War, currently in draft form. AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft has now been accepted, and the article is now up and running.

AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2026 (2)

In the 6th of April, Majid Khameini who was simultaneously serving as the head of the Intelligence Protection Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Intelligence Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was killed today GeronimokuwaitGamws (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Already done I added his assassination to the article earlier today, using a reliable source. MolecularPilot _Talk 10:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2026 (2)

In the 6th of April, Majid Khameini who was simultaneously serving as the head of the Intelligence Protection Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Intelligence Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was killed GeronimokuwaitGamws (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Already done See above MolecularPilot _Talk 10:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2026

Change 4 soldiers killed to none. Read the article for justification. They were killed due to a technical malfunction and not Iran/hostility. (Sorry if I did anything wrong, first time requesting an edit.) ~2026-21120-64 (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Which 4? Where? Your edit request is too vague to understand. Guile's Theme (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Not sure which soldiers you're referring to, or on what side or group involved. Normally for an edit request to go through you need to be very specific and describe the very specific change you want (word for word, or as exactly articulated as possible). HarvardJock (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe they are referring to Qatar's causalities in the infobox, it's the only thing that comes up on a page search for "4 soldiers killed." MolecularPilot _Talk 10:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: People who were killed in the course of operations in the war, even by accident, are listed in the infobox. For example, we list the U.S. aircrew who were killed in the Stratotanker crash. As the source says the Qatari helicopter crew were killed, even by accident / malfunction, due to operations relating to the conflict, they should be listed. MolecularPilot _Talk 10:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Alireza Arafi not being relevant as a leader anymore.

In my opinion, since the transitional leadership council has now been "abolished", no non-important leaders from it should be included in the leaders section. Alireza Arafi is currently included as a leader of the war, but if he's in the section then the chief justice whom was also in the transitional leadership council should be in the section. I think we need to remove Alireza Arafi from the leaders section. Also, if we're saying that ever leader throughout the war should be included in the commanders and leaders infobox, why isn't Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje'i included? He was also apart of the transitional leadership council. It was rumoured that Alireza Arafi was candidate to become supreme leader of Iran, but that has mostly been debuffed after the election of Mojtaba Khamenei. We need to remove his name and make room for other leaders that are relevant and real in this war. ~2026-20800-30 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This edit is potentially controversial and will require a consensus before it can be implemented. The "Commanders and leaders" section of the infobox includes those who served as leaders at any point during the war, so I don't see how the abolition of the council is relevant. Day Creature (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Support: I agree. He was a potential candidate for Supreme Leader position but since he got passed over for Mojtaba Khamenei, he hasn't been that big of a player during the war. We should remove him from the infobox and make room for other figures. HarvardJock (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Support per HarvardJock, I agree. MolecularPilot _Talk 11:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Enter Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2026

Please add the following sentence to the "Economic impact" section, after the sentence about oil and gas shipments being disrupted:

"The conflict has exposed Asian economies' vulnerability to a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Japan, which depends on the Middle East for 95 percent of its oil imports, has begun drawing on its emergency reserves. South Korea enacted its first fuel price cap in over three decades. India, which relies on the strait for 80 percent of its liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) imports, faces a potential cooking gas shortage."

Source: Calabrese, John (March 13, 2026). "Shockwaves Across Asia: The Iran War's Strategic Fallout". The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2026/03/shockwaves-across-asia-the-iran-wars-strategic-fallout/

Citation:

References

Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Would this be more suitable to include at Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war? Or would you argue it's warranted to mention this here in the main overview at 2026 Iran war? Note that this article is already too long, so we should be particularly mindful of whether new additions are appropriate. – Scyrme (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your message.

I agree that the main 2026 Iran war article is already very long, so I think this addition would be more suitable for the "Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war" sub-article rather than the main overview page.

My reasoning:

The proposed text focuses on detailed economic consequences for specific Asian countries (Japan, South Korea, India), which fits better in a dedicated economic impact article.

The main overview article should remain concise, while the sub-article can go into greater depth on regional effects.

Could you please let me know if you’d like me to resubmit the edit request for the Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war page instead?

Thank you for your guidance. Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Support adding this, whether in this article or the Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war article page. It's a fairly important detail and factor as a result of the war and you sourced it well. HarvardJock (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, HarvardJock – I appreciate that.

@Scyrme, you make a fair point about the main article already being very long. I agree that we should be mindful of bloat.

Since the proposed text focuses on specific national economic policies (Japan's reserves, South Korea's price caps, India's LPG imports), I think it fits better in the "Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war" sub-article, where it can provide useful regional detail without cluttering the main overview.

Action:

I will go ahead and submit the edit request to the "Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war" sub-article instead. If the reviewing editor agrees, they can add it there. If anyone feels strongly that it still belongs in the main article, we can revisit, but the sub-article seems like the right home for this level of detail.

Thanks again to both of you for the thoughtful feedback. Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

About the F-15 strike

APnews reports that Iran hit a transport plane and 2 helicopters (per Iran), while an intelligence official told them the US blew their own aircraft "due to a mishap". I believe this detail is noteworthy of the incident and should be included in the article. Oakchris1955 (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Support - I agree. This should absolutely be included as there is a news article source about it, meeting the verifiability threshold. It should be added. HarvardJock (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

That was originally listed here in this article, before that section about the rescue operation (including the related losses you mention) was moved to 2026 United States F-15E rescue operation in Iran. In this article, we currently link to that article as "further information" below the 6th week heading, as well as within prose (where we just mention that the operation successfully occurred) in the Hostilies section. This article is getting REALLY long (see: tag up top), so I think it's an appropriate detail for the sub article we link to, but probably not here. This page is just meant to be a high level overview, readers interested in the specific information and dispute about the aircraft involved can click through to the more specific article. MolecularPilot _Talk 11:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that page after I opened the section here. Oakchris1955 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The sentence we had was
On 5 April, after heavy fighting, the second stranded crew member from the F-15E downed on 3 April was recovered by US forces in a rescue operation
I think we should mention the other aircraft involved maybe a bit more, which is supported by the original Reuters source and also the AP news one which you suggested (and I've added it in).
This is how I made it now:
On 5 April, after heavy fighting, the second stranded crew member from the F-15E downed on 3 April was recovered by US forces in a rescue operation, which resulted in damage to helicopters, the shooting down of an A-10 Thunderbolt II,[4] and the destruction of two C-130 Hercules.[5]
Readers interested in the whole "who did it" drama of 1 of the C-130s can click through to the main article which is wiki linked to "rescue operation" and in the "Further reading:" of the subsection, I think it's excessive to mention here. MolecularPilot _Talk 12:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2026 (4)

changing the total number of deaths in the Israeli table of casualties ~2026-21051-48 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

•  Not done Please provide the specific edit you would like to see, along with a reliable source to support it, in a "change X to Y" format. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)