Talk:2026 Iran war/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Suggestion

Can we move both Domestic and International reactions to the conflict to Reactions to the 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran (currently existing as a re-direct)? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Video of Trump statement available

Video of Trump statement available here: --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Reactions (Europe - France + Germany)

The international reactions part needs to be alphabetical, also add France and Germany per source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn5ge95q6y7t?post=asset%3A05978f8e-38a8-4cbe-aec8-43ee1b25d903#post Alimsts (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) template

We are not well served by this template hogging all of that space, not least because succeeding illustrations don't match their corresponding texts; it casts too wide a net. Can the toggle be changed to [Show], or the whole megillah just shifted to See Also? Thanks. kencf0618 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The campaign box is already collapsed by default, so I assume this was  Done by someone. – Scyrme (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: the time the first U.S. strike in this campaign took place. ~2026-12086-96 (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Was already  Done by someone when I checked. This information is covered at 2026 Iran conflict § Initial Israeli and American strikes. – Scyrme (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2026 (10)

Change 'Defensive' to 'third-party' in belligerents part of infobox Onlineuser14 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done please establish consensus. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: removal of unconfirmed deaths of Iranian military officers

Hi, I wanted to remove the unconfirmed deaths of Iranian military officers Aziz Nasirzadeh and Mohammad Pakpour as their deaths are not confirmed. Josemite (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It appears tgat the death of Mhmd. Pakpour ha been confirmed, so that can be left RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 23:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Add UAE response

someone Please Add UAE response in 2026_Israeli–United_States_strikes_on_Iran#State_actors. jolielover♥talk 17:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Was already  Done when I checked. The UAE was mentioned at 2026 Iran conflict § International and at the dedicated article Reactions to the 2026 Iran conflict. – Scyrme (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Page about apparent succession crisis

I made a page about the apparent power vaccum, succession crisis, whatever you wanna call it, for people in this talk page to edit.

Page: 2026 Iranian leadership crisis shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Current last sentence of lead

"The Washington Post reported that President Trump's decision to attack Iran came after Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman and the Israeli government lobbied him repeatedly to make the move."

• This is certainly notable reporting and belongs in the article, but struck me as potentially undue to end the lead with, as it gives the impression Trump was convinced to undertake this campaign by the Saudis/Israelis only weeks after Trump conducted a regime change operation in Venezuela.

DiodotusNicator (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The operation in Venezuela doesn't seem to be mentioned there, why would that be a problem? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

My point is that regime change seems to just be a plank of Trump's foreign policy rather than something he has to be convinced to undertake DiodotusNicator (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

You would need reliable sources in order to state that in the article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Reactions to the 2026 Iran conflict has been created.

---

With larger and larger reactions from the worlds, as well as the cumbersome size of the Reactions section, I am proposing that we split of the Reactions page to Reactions to the 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran or its equivalent, subject to consusnes on the proposed name change. This will help cover reactions from both withing Iran and all opposition groups, natons and subnational groups acroos both the Middle East and the Rest of the world.

It can be done similarly to International reactions to the 2026 United States intervention in Venezuela subject to name change

In addition, we cane include reactions to ALi Kohmanis assasination also on this proposed page

4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

We can also include more detailed opinions, such as those by other Iran-aligned groups, Multinational groupings such as BRICS or OIC in addition, as well as detailed opinion of the People. A small extract can be written as a lead up to the article 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The current international reactions section is unencyclopedic and fails WP:BALASP: a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news; and spinning out into another article does not solve the problem at all. Instead, the section should be trimmed down to only include actually relevant and significant reactions, and be rewritten into prose instead of an indiscriminate list. I oppose a split that would result in the creation of yet another terrible quote farm article like the Venezuela one you linked, which completely fails the WP:10YT. 9ninety (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@9ninety I understand that, however if we can write each nations details a bit more well detailed data from what a foreign nations populance recived , it will improve the article significantly.

For example, under India we can include the governmen's misgivings, the protest to ayotollahs death and critism from opposition and under Pakistan, we can write about the attack on the US consulate. It would also work for any nations who have large expat population there and we can include those efforts too. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the possibility of the 10Year test, We are looking at a possibility of total regime change in Iran and how it may even affects Persia's foreign policies in the future! Definitely more contextual information will be helpful!

In the event of the article being created, more people will be able to contribute to writing more detailed reactions from within their nation/sub region 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah well, we should try to trim and rewrite the section first before considering spinning out a problematic article. Statements like "Netherlands: Prime Minister Rob Jetten called on all parties to exercise restraint" are super routine, insignificant and not due for inclusion. And if a country's reaction is only being covered by local sources, then it's likely not relevant and notable.

The Gulf War was a major war, and its article doesn't have a section detailing the reactions of every country in the world. Because they're not relevant just because they're in the news. Creating an article would actually exacerbate the problem — more people will be able to contribute to writing more detailed reactions from within their nation/sub region this is not desirable, and we should not encourage this. 9ninety (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom Dasomm (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Please, please no. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need entire pages of reactioncruft. Half-hearted "war is bad" statements from the leaders of random countries are routine. We had a reactioncruft page about Charlie Kirk's death get merged not long ago for these reasons. — An anonymous username, not my real name 21:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Splitting off a reactioncruft article in the short term is generally the only practical way to handle the enthusiasm from editors who insist on adding it. Debates about which reactions are notable and which are irrelevant is easier on the talk page for the reactions article, rather than clogging up the main article. If there's consensus to compress the reactions article on the reactions talk page, then it may be reducible to a small enough key content to then get consensus for a merge after the topic is no longer top of the news - as in the Charlie Kirk page. Boud (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Unlike Charlie Kirk, who was just a (relatively important) politician, here we are dealing with a history changing event on a country. It would be in everyone's best to split off, as we can in addition to international coverage, look at how even the ordinary Iranian reacted. We can include the protests and counter protest and the mourning for ali within Iran and abroad. That will significantly broaden the scope of the article sufficiently over. In addition, more detailed intro for the Middle East can also be stated. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Support per norm and also that we can include more info and avoid making the main article a giant unreadable article as there have been so many different reactions from various U.S., NGO, foreign, terrorist, etc. entities. Avishai11 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Support including "in addition, we can include reactions to ALi Kohmanis assassination also on this proposed page". 🔥Komonzia (message) 04:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

tentative Support as a large part of the Reactions section is currently a wall of irrelevant and (ultimately) historically insigificant reactions from various states and individuals that should be deleted or undergo extreme pruning. A very small percentage of the current material there is relevant for an encyclopedic article. DiodotusNicator (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Support natural and standard split. Boud (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Support as per nomination and replies. ङघिञ (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support That article can include the reaction of various countries, Iranian people both in Iran and the diaspora, Iranian opposition groups and others. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

MAJOR ALERT!

An anonymous user has already modified the redirect to include bigger data from the article. I am requesting final Confirmation that I can split, seeing that those edits have been live for some time and that the article is in progress of creation 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you (and anyone interested in performing the split) at least make an effort to clean up the international reactions section, converting it to prose and removing insignificant statements, before splitting. I'm willing to help. We should try to avoid the creation of an article in the unencyclopedic style of the Venezuela one. 9ninety (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand, and I will do that. For the mean time, I'll give another 6 hours for comments on the topic so I can catch I few winks. I will try to have the sections up and running by about 9 AM IST ( 4 am GMT ). In the Mean time, I invite everyone to express you opinion on the topic and suggestions to add on the page.

Thanks 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support to avoid clogging up the main article without leaving out important reactions. This is a history-defining event, it deserves to take up a few pages. Any issues with regards to relevance are better kept on a separate talk page for this new article, and leaving it as one article would just render the talk page on the main one overburdened. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

New wounded

One person wounded in Oman’s port of Duqm. Yes Yes NoNoNo (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Source? Avishai11 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Already  Done when I checked. This is mentioned (with references and further detail) at 2026 Iran conflict § Iranian retaliation. – Scyrme (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

A few thing I think we can add to this article

An Iranian news outlet has threatened assasination of Donald Trump, and Israel has stated that Turkey is their next target. https://www.wionews.com/world/irans-media-watchdog-warns-hardline-newspaper-that-threatened-trump-8936929. ङघिञ (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This is an irrelevant article from April 2025. DiodotusNicator (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2026 (4)

Change “According to Iran International, quoting the Iranian Students' News Agency, thousands of IRGC personnel, including several senior officials,[74] were killed or wounded as several military bases were attacked.[60] It also reported that the port city of Bushehr was also struck, however it was unclear whether the nuclear reactor sustained any damage.[60]” to Islamic Republic News Agency reported that the death toll has risen to 53 after a strike on a girls school. General Swag567 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done This now outdated (the toll is much more than 53) and information about this strike is covered elsewhere in the article, as well as having an entire separate article focusing on it. – Scyrme (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Iran's response should be divided among the Gulf countries

Iran's response should be divided among the Gulf countries. I refer to the subsection "Iranian response and missile attacks in the Persian Gulf theater." Every Gulf country is suffering damage. Tel Aviv and Dubai are currently under heavy ballistic missile fire. --Rapidfirreee (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry about a thousand recommendations for litigation, etc. I won't even write a single line in this article.

My proposal is only to make it easier to read and write about events. Rapidfirreee (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Dubai International Airport, panic, injuries and deaths, perhaps one or more. Hit by ballistic missiles and drones. Burj Al Arab, Dubai's iconic hotel, was lightly hit by drones. Rapidfirreee (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I came up with "Persian Gulf theater", and the last I heard every Persian Gulf country has been hit with the exception of Oman. kencf0618 (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Purpose statements section

It seems to me like the extensive quoting is a bit excessive. We could cut down on it a little. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

not opposed 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Armed forces

Hasn't the official Iranian Armed forces been involved yet or is the IRGC doing all the work? Can't find sources though...

also, can we include the USN carrier strike groups under the US Navy? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, check out the acronym. kencf0618 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Sources for Casualties

Considering the questionable sources for the casualty number mentioning 51 girls being killed, can the sources for that number be permanently barred from being used as sources if it turns out that number was just a lie? If it is a lie, it isn't a matter of a news organization lying in order to make extra cash like most bias is. Its an attempt to shape a war and it uses this site in order to push a piece of propaganda that is clearly intended to influence a conflict. I'm pretty sure this site being used as a tool in a war goes against some major rules and can also lead to this site getting in trouble with the US government for assisting an adversarial nation in a time of war.

So can that source be double and triple checked along with the article expressing that the numbers may not be reliable? Even if you hate Israel, using biased sources during a battle in order to shape public perception in-the-moment is something that will get this site taken down. ~2026-13133-38 (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that editors need to use more caution before listing casualty claims in the infobox. I will review the ones currently listed and remove those not cited to a reliable source. Bravelake (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Bravelake (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

What source say this was a lie? Clearly it is widely reported on by RS: AlJazeera, BBC, MEE, Sunday Guardian, New Arab etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Its how it was presented on the page. From what I can tell, the original source that the media sources used was the Iranian government. Even if the most honest journalists in the world reported that number, its still only as accurate as the source they used which is why the journalists said the information came to them from the Iranian government or some organization affiliated with it. Say you're a journalist who's 100% unbiased and 100% honest and you interview someone claiming to have invented cold fusion in their garage and you report the story. Just because you're a reliable, honest reporter doesn't mean that the words of the person you interviewed can be trusted. This is a dangerous issue for a site like this when it comes to things like warfare because the admins of this site could find themselves being questioned by the US Congress or Senate if the government felt that the site was being used as a tool in a war. ~2026-13050-20 (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop speaking nonsensical rubbish. SwedishDutch (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You need to read WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE... If anything is false, let it be. — Raihanur (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If a reliable source says the information came from an unreliable source, you can't just present the information as if its as reliable as the reliable source. Its the presentation that mattered in this case. Also, site rules can easily be overridden by actual law which is what can happen if you're presenting information in a deceptive manner and, in doing so, are trying to influence world events. The last thing you'd want is for the admins of this site to be called into a Congressional hearing. ~2026-13050-20 (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no problem with this information. We can add claimed by Iran bracketed in the infobox if necessary, but I strongly favour keeping this in the infobox. Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Add "claimed by iran". Minnoweu (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

that's why news agencies don't report until they find secondary sources to confirm the claim. In this case the only source is a news agency affiliated with the IRGC. These numbers should be removed. Also there are video evidence claiming the IRGC missiles hit the school. In one case it was even Geo located. ~2026-13118-14 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If we banned every source after a single mistake and assumed the mistake was malicious, we wouldn't have any sources left to use. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Correct, we should apply hanlon's razor UserMemer (chat) Tribs 19:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

If you want to avoid Wikipedia being a tool of war, then we should make sure any claims sourced from the US, Israeli, or other governments are treated with the same skepticism as claims sourced from the Iranian government. All parties in wars can engage in propaganda, so we should either flag all such info as "claimed/according to x government" or none of it. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be taking sides. EdityMcEdit (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

On marking people as "Assassinated"

There seems to be a growing consensus at Talk:Ali Khamenei that he should not be marked as dead until independent or Iranian sources corroborate Israel's claims of deaths. Should this apply to the other figures listed as "assassinated" in the infobox? It does seem contradictory to list Khamenei's death as unconfirmed while using wikivoice for the others. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Armenia/az

The RS are not in yet, but Agarak border crossing is likely jam-packed. Probs the az border too. Just a note to keep in mind.Psephguru (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Manama hotel strike

Manama Hotel in Bahrain was hit by Iran with some injuries Yes Yes NoNoNo (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Did this happen on March 1 or was this the same day as the initial strikes + also source? @Yes Yes NoNoNo Avishai11 (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Casualties

The 48 leaders killed and 9 warships sunk should have Per US above them, nothing is confirmed. ManiLLa (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, But this page has been nothing but biased so far.

No independent outlet or source confirmed the sinking of 9 ships nor have we seen any footage of it RealFactChecker101 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Why are sources based on what trump said? Why are they taken as factual?

User is not extended-confirmed. 9ninety (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

almost all sources from casualties are based on unverified stuff that trump said like the 9 warships which was never verified by any independent source and has zero footage of it.

Meanwhile Iran's claims got deleted and can't be taken as seriously as Trump's? Its ridiculous. RealFactChecker101 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have statements from Iran denying that they lost 9 ships? Iran claimed to have hit the Abraham Lincoln, but this was denied by US CENTCOM.

A truly independent source is difficult to come by in a war, war is rarely conducted in front of independent observers. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

lack of denial doesn't mean the claim is true, some claims are straight up too absurd to be denied.

So far every news outlet that reported what trump said didn't verify the claims and only re uttered what trump already said.

Hell, the claim wasn't even verified by CENTCOM themselves, they only claimed to have sunk one jamarian class Corvette and that's it. RealFactChecker101 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should treat Trump's posts, or any single official's reports for that matter as reliable when verifying information. His Truth Social account doesn't have any editorial standards and, frankly, he can post whatever he wants on there. We also shouldn't treat lack of denial in any case as evidence that it's true, especially with these claims that go beyond what could reasonably be non-controversial. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 20:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that you are not extended-confirmed(just checked) so you cannot participate in discussion about this topic which is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic area. See your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Trump is not a reliable source: see WP:TRUMPCRUFT Boud (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Boud that is a WP:ESSAY. Plus no one has proven otherwise. And it says in the info box, “per U.S.” — the President speaks for the United States. Avishai11 (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Iran admits to being struck when it is indeed struck.

This happened with nuclear facilities in Isfahan, with the death of khamenei, with IRGC officials and with missile sites.

Again, lack of denial doesn't mean that the initial claim is factual RealFactChecker101 (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, Trump would be considered unreliable here. He can make claims that involve his position but they must "not involve claims about third parties". Additionally, Trump's Truth Social account lacks the meaningful editorial oversight needed to establish a source as reliable. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 14:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Deaths in Syria caused by Iranian missile removed from Infobox

I noticed that the four deaths caused by an Iranian missile in Syria were removed from the Infobox. I would like to know why this is. Reuters and other reliable sources are reporting it. NesserWiki (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Click on "view history" to find the answer to your question. You can do a binary search, or use tools suggested at the top of the history interface. Boud (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, one could use the tool Wikiblame. Darer101 01:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@NesserWiki, #No missile impact in Syria, reading is fun. :D — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hezbollah involvement?

IDF is claiming that Hezbollah has joined the fighting but there is no statement from Hezbollah yet. I think it might be best to wait for an official declaration from Hezbollah. RisingTzar (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

We don’t need to wait for a group to say they’re doing something to say they’re doing something if there is overwhelming evidence and news coverage (which there is) showing the have. Avishai11 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

When I made that post there was a lot of debate online as to whether Hezbollah was actually behind these rocket salvos. Especially that Hezbollah "journalists" were denying it and there was some evidence that pointed to this being the work of Palestinian groups operating in Lebanon. It turns out it is likely that this was a trick and misinformation on their part.

I know I sound silly now as it turns out to be true but the reality is that I want to make sure of information before I add it to a Wikipedia infobox and look like a fool. There's a lot of misinformation and noise and I don't want to contribute to it.

In any case, Hezbollah has since officially announced that they've joined the fight so I think it's fair to add them to the infobox. RisingTzar (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Syria

why is syria not in the defensive only section in the infobox? werent they there yesterday? theyve also had casualties as a results of the remains of iranian missiles Invisious (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

see #No missile impact in Syria Louis (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

"Jaraman-class frigate" is error

"Jaraman-class frigate" must be an error; IRIS Jaraman is a Moudge-class frigate. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hassan Shariatmadari

The name Hassan Shariatmadari must be removed from the list of commanders and leaders associated with the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran. He has had no role in the operation or in any coordination related to this attack, and he has not been involved at any level of planning, directing, or supporting it. Shariatmadari has never called on the people to wait for a specific time to take to the streets, and his name has never been mentioned by figures such as trump or Benjamin Netanyahu. In contrast, Reza Pahlavi has been repeatedly mentioned in official statements and media discussions regarding this issue. Therefore, from both a political and analytical standpoint, Shariatmadari is neither a leader nor a commander of any specific action or movement. As such, including his name in this list is inaccurate and it should be removed. Khodakhoda (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

EU three?

• 1) The UK is not in the Eu, lol
• 2) Left out that they are in favor of talks/against further action
• 3) Likely will not get involved on behalf of the U.S. and Israel.
  

Some things someone should probably fix. --DC Ambrose (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to make an edit request where you propose specific changes.in a change X to Y format. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

For the "EU" part:  Done before I saw this message. For the rest: please make a proper proposal as 331dot suggested too. 🔥Komonzia (message) 04:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the section has just been removed altogether, which is fine I guess --DC Ambrose (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje'i

Add him to the officials of the Islamic Republic; he is a member of the current Leadership Council and Alireza Arafi Khodakhoda (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources and Lack of Neutrality

User is not extended-confirmation EvergreenFir (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Iranian Foreign Minister stated the military has partially lost control over its units.

Source? It would've been better if Pahlavists were stopped from injecting claims everywhere.

Local sources say Iran used Shahed drones, that are one of the deadliest weapons used by the regime as well as its proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.[191]

The "regime"? You aren't even trying to be neutral here.

Later that morning, the Khatam-al-Anbia and Gandi hospitals in Tehran were hit by strikes, as reported by Iran and verified by BBC Verify.[244] The former hospital[clarification needed] is associated with the government.

Too vague and almost no details. Could've added photos and added the death toll caused by Israeli-US strikes on both hospitals (particularly Gandhi hospital). "The former hospital is associated with the government" sounds like a cheap move to dismiss and minimze Iranian suffering, especially since it's uncited.

Furthermore, it looks like most writers here strongly disdain the Islamic Republic government and spam anti-IR sources, particularly Iran International. Any reason why you consider native media corporations in Iran unreliable, while you deem foreign and anti-IR media more reliable? That's how you wreck neutrality.

It would be great if actual neutral authors could join and edit out the intense pro-Pahlavi propaganda, not to mention more genuine sources instead of spamming Iran International everywhere. Instead of excessively focusing on minimizing the achievements of the IRGC and promoting Hasbara, authors should consider enforcing neutrality.

Thank you. Wirmaple73 (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

A recent discussion determined Iran International is generally reliable. State media in a country without a free press is not reliable for obvious reasons. — Czello ^(music) 15:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

But a foreign media owned by the Zionists is reliable. Should've remembered Wikipedia is no longer neutral. What about my other points, though? Wirmaple73 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Friendly Fire

There's reports of 3 US jets shot down in friendly fire by Kuwait. No deaths reported however Evan Durston (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Already done plz see the article. It is mentioned very clearly in the infobox. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

New Kuwaiti casualty

A Kuwaiti Navy soldier was killed on Monday, according to the Kuwait Army. It should be put on the main info box casualty as this is a military one. https://www.marketscreener.com/news/kuwait-army-says-a-navy-soldier-was-killed-on-monday-during-operation-by-armed-forces-ce7e5cddda88ff2c Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Already done by User:ThirdEye96. Please link to sources with more context than a headline in the future. mdm.bla 20:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Add Iranian claims in casualties

Claims are one sided only showing claims by US and Israel and NOT Iranian claims.

All parties claims are unfounded but its extremely biased to just include claims from one side and not the other. RealFactChecker101 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

IRIS Jamaran

Should the loss of IRIS Jamaran be added to the infobox? Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

we prob need a good source 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Ignore this, I misread the story, was from 2020. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Purpouted Images are on Social Media, not reliable sources so it will probably be another Zargos incident only. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Iran Update Evening Special Report, February 28, 2026 by the Institute for the Study of War ᚃᚔᚠᚓᚱᚅ Wyvern (♠️💛) 15:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Edit request Infobox

Remove "Logistical Support" from United Kingdom in the info box. Nowhere in the source does it state the UK provided logistical source for the strike. Idontwantaaccount (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment in the #Role of UK and Turkey section above, instead of creating new sections to discuss the same thing. 9ninety (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

mentio Kuwait International Airport in injury section below infobox Indian Fact Finder (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

As a non confirmed user I can only make edit requests. As far as I can tell UK was initially added to the info box in the "defensive" section then removed at some point, and the readded alongside Turkey under "logistical support" despite neither source stating this.

Whether UK is included or not under defensive is under discussion but should definitely not be kept under "logistical support" as no source states this. Idontwantaaccount (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done by Lemonade100 9ninety (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

MQ-9 shot down

according to Iran a MQ-9 Reaper drone was shot down by the IRGC, they have released video confirmation and news media has mentioned it. https://www.trend.az/iran/4159382.html https://www.nampa.org/text/22873619 https://en.iz.ru/en/2051569/2026-03-02/media-reported-destruction-one-mq-9-reaper-uav-over-iran Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Already  Done when I checked. This is mentioned at 2026 Iran conflict § Iranian retaliation and Hezbollah offensive. – Scyrme (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

More Israelis injured

Israeli Ministry of Health reports 765 injuries from its ongoing operation against Iran. Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you also provide the link of this official source ? King Ayan Das (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

 sure

According to times of Israel it's more than 770+ injuries

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/health-ministry-says-777-people-hospitalized-since-start-of-iran-war/#:~:text=Health%20Ministry%20says%20777%20people,The%20Times%20of%20Israel

Also can you please check my talk page about MQ-9 drone being shot over Isfahan in Iran according to IRGC? Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read these lines carefully -

777 people have been evacuated to hospitals, of whom 86 are currently hospitalized or in the ER

Four are in serious condition; two of those cases are not directly the result of missile strikes. Twenty are in moderate condition and 58 are in good condition. Another four are undergoing medical evaluation.

It is not possible to add the total number of individuals evacuated to hospitals since the start of the military operation from this breakdown alone. The verified total, based on reliable sources and without engaging in original research (WP:OR), is already stated in the article.
As, MQ-9 shot down is a different topic so we can't discuss it here. Thank you! King Ayan Das (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

ok thank you Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Iran refuses negotiation

Ali Larjini tweeted on X reposting an article by WSJ that Iran will not negotiate with the United States. Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems the Iranian Regime just attacked Incirlik Airbase in Turkey. Add Turkey to the defensive only list?

Link:

https://x.com/itsalireza_akb/status/2028353865267994954?s=20 Revolver guy (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

CORRECTION: It seems the video I posted above is a fake. I apologize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revolver guy (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read - WP:PUBLISHED and WP:RSPTWITTER.
Twitter (rebranded to X since July 2023) is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. King Ayan Das (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Friendly fire

There seems to have been a friendly fire incident which took down one or more F-15 but waiting better sourcing. If anyone can find anything, do add. Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've seen the news, but all the outlets are basing it solely off Iran's claim, once there is admission by the United States or reliable secondary sourcing, I will add it. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 08:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I🇺🇸🇰🇼⚡️- Photos of three U.S. pilots who ejected today in Kuwait were published. Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

iranian red crescent said 555 people died in Iran. pls check the talk page I gave Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

two F-15s so far were confirmed shot down and filmed by locals.

https://x.com/i/status/2028363746477830421

https://x.com/i/status/2028395759595368772

https://share.google/3RyDX2ueMcZMDTBqa RealFactChecker101 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done by someone. The infobox has a mention of 3 F-15Es lost in friendly fire, sourced from CENTCOM. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Iranian new casualties

The Red Crescent claims at least 555 Iranians died since the start of the war. https://www.thedailystar.net/news/world/israel-iran-conflict/news/iran-red-crescent-says-555-people-killed-iran-start-us-israel-attack-4118641 Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

more source:

Al Jazeera and also

Iran death toll rises to 555 after US, Israeli strikes - The Economic Times https:///GNANPXPd7RKtqGWip Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

why is nobody checking? Over 550 people died in Iran according to Red crescent society Iran! Change the casualties

https://www.thedailystar.net/news/world/israel-iran-conflict/news/iran-red-crescent-says-555-people-killed-iran-start-us-israel-attack-4118641

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/3/2/us-israel-attack-iran-live

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Israeli-FM-warns-Iran-'threatens-world-peace'/65773632 Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Already been added Ahammed Saad (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Aircraft

As Israel has confirmed ground attacks disabled an F4 and another F5, along with US Strike footage showing F-14s, can we included them in the Infobox as Iranian casualties? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems to have already been  Done. – Scyrme (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

10 dead in Karachi attempted storming of US embassy.

10 people have been confirmed dead after a attempted storming of the US embassy in Karachi after the death of Ali Khameini. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/south-asia/article/3345061/10-killed-karachi-pro-iran-protests-erupt-across-pakistan-india#:~:text=Security%20forces%20opened%20fire%20on,READ%20FULL%20ARTICLE%20App Imhereforonethinganditsforeditingandhelp (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Already  Done when I checked. This is mentioned at 2026 Iran conflict § Attacks abroad and has a dedicated article at 2026 attack on the United States consulate in Karachi. – Scyrme (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

More US aircraft ejected and crashed

The Kuwaiti Ministry of Defense says SEVERAL U.S. fighter jets crashed this morning, all crew members survived.

It was originally thought to just be a single crash. Photos of three U.S. pilots who ejected today in Kuwait were published. (Note:current casualties listed only one F-15E crash, though there are multiple now) https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/iran-israel-us-attack-03-02-26-intl-hnk#:~:text=Kuwait's%20Ministry%20of%20Defense%20said%20%E2%80%9Cseveral%20United%20States%20military%20aircraft,pilot%20parachuting%20to%20the%20ground.&text=CNN%20has%20reached%20out%20to%20US%20Central%20Command%20for%20comment. Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

NDTV has also reported on the same, but I hope CENTCOM will tell us 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Shall we add the phrase "Several" US aircrafts shot down (according to Kuwait) to the infobox?? Ahammed Saad (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Several is a strong word, I would suggest Multiple even if it means lack of exact compression, but that would be fixed when CENTCOM will confirm the downing.

Seriously hoping it's friendly fire and 104-0 has not been outdone.If it is , pls be a Tomcat with an aim54 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

it was confirmed it was 3 F-15 jets. Kuwait has apologized. It has been added in the page article here Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Fourth US soldier killed in action in the Iran War

The US Central Command (Centcom) has reported the death of a fourth US soldier in the attacks against Iran. According to Centcom's statement on Platform X, the soldier succumbed to serious injuries sustained during the initial Iranian attacks.

Is there a reason why this has not been updated yet? FreakyN (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done by PaulRKil. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

2 Iranian SU24 destroyed

hello please put attention to this BREAKING: Qatar Ministry of Defence reports they successfully shot down two Iranian Su-24 aircraft. I found this from Rerun Novarum telegram channel Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. Thanks. Raskuly (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Three people have died in the United Arab Emirates, none of whom are UAE nationals. Among them, one is Bangladeshi, one is Pakistani and one is Nepali.

Three people have died in the United Arab Emirates, none of whom are UAE nationals. Among them, one is Bangladeshi, one is Pakistani and one is Nepali.

https://www.thedailystar.net/news/world/news/one-bangladeshi-killed-uae-after-iranian-attacks-defence-ministry-4118001

https://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/dbbf3c115fa3 Tanzil1998 (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Added as a footnote to the UAE casualties in the infobox

Seven Train (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Austin, Texas shooting possibly retaliation?

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/multiple-people-injured-in-mass-shooting-on-6th-st-austin-police-investigating I read this and thought it should be discussed here? Victor Grigas (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd say this news is too fresh. Wait for more reporting until the motives of the shooter aren't just the subject of speculation based on circumstantial evidence like wearing a t-shirt that suggests sympathies with Iran. – Scyrme (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Should Israel come first before the United States in the infobox?

Israel technically struck first, right? Shouldn't the order of belligerents in the infobox reflect that? Econ Geek 876 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It could also be justified on the basis of simple alphabetical order. – Scyrme (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: I've gone ahead and alphabetised the lists in the infobox. The list for "defensive only" already was alphabetised, so now it's consistent. – Scyrme (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia most likely joining.

saudi Arabia is most likely responding to Iran due to the recent strikes that Iran had done. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/insight/saudi-arabia-hints-at-joining-iran-war/gm-GMC996AAD6?gemSnapshotKey=GMC996AAD6-snapshot-0&uxmode=ruby Imhereforonethinganditsforeditingandhelp (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Two MIGs shot down by F-35 - Add to article?

can confirm through military radio personally but here is a article to confirm the casualties.

source

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/josephchalfant/2026/03/01/f-35s-take-out-iranian-migs-for-first-air-to-air-kills-in-operation-epic-fury-n2672077 LilPeepers99 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Your own link(which seems to be a partisan outlet) has a tweet that indicates the site used as the source for this piece publishes satire and that an air-to-air kill by an F-35 has not been confirmed by an official source. Anyone on Wikipedia can claim to have access to military radio; we need an official statement from CENTCOM or a reputable media outlet. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Created article: List of attacks during the 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran

Created the article: List of attacks during the 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran, currently a draft, to document the strikes in the same style as the article: List of attacks during the Twelve-Day War, and make a organized and easy-to-read article listing the strikes. AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The "defensive only" part of the infobox...

I've been trying to tinker around with the wiki markup. Does anyone know how to make the "Defensive only" belligerent parties centered in the middle instead of being on the belligerent 1 side, as in 2026 Iran–United States crisis and Twelve-Day War? Darer101 22:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Darer101: Turns out it was a rogue   in |combatant2a=. Removing it fixed the issue. I have no idea why it was causing this peculiar problem or why it was there to begin with as it wasn't doing anything helpful as far as I could tell. I found it by process of elimination, narrowing in on which part of the template was causing the problem by removing parameters preceding and following the parameter holding the "Defensive only" list until it disappeared. – Scyrme (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

march 2 extended confirmed protection edit request

since the UK has recently been added to the belligerents tab, its leaders and commanders should be added underneath as well including starmer and generals and whoever runs the raf bases in cyprus JustSomeGuy4361 (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Add atleast 1 source. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: The UK is currently listed as Defensive only in the belligerents tab, while only full belligerents have their commanders listed (i.e. if we listed Starmer and the Cyprus commanders, we'd also be listing those for France, Canada, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, etc.). This change may be implemented if the UK's level of involvement increases. mdm.bla 15:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: The heads of state and government for the Defensive only belligerents have been listed. mdm.bla 20:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Flag salad "Reactions" section

As many of you know, most Wikipedia editors despise these list-formatted (and WP:QUOTEFARM) "Reactions" sections, especially the flag icons. The section should be converted into prose—not a bulleted (flagged) list. Abductive (reasoning) 10:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. The bulleted flagged list is far more useful and user friendly.~2026-87016-6 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree, not another case of editors soapboxing their politicians' commentaries. Borgenland (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward WP:BALASP failure: a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Each bulleted point needs to explain how that comment affected the situation. If it didn't affect the situation, then why was it added to the article? I've added a notice to the top of the section to link to this discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This gets brought up on practically every geopolitical current events article, atm the convention is to spin them off into a separate article and just have the most relevant ones here. Worth discussing at WP:VPI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

cant we just remove the section entirely? Eventually everyone on earth will give their opinion on this war, and this list would be longer than the article itself 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately this has been a standard to add on the pages of the most recent wars going on in the world. Deus vult fratres! (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It can and should be split off (see WP:SPINOUT) if users cannot bring its length under control. Abductive (reasoning) 00:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Naming of the "Islamic Republic of Iran"

This page often refers to the Islamic Republic as just "Iran". I find this unrepresentative of the nature of the conflict. Iranian civilians are cheering for the overthrow of the regime they see as illegitimate. I propose that we use more neutral terms such as "Islamic Republic" or "Islamic regime" rather than making it seem like the entire nation is on the side of the Islamic Republic. The purpose of this conflict is regime change after all. ConflictFan (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Most of the sources use the country name during the attacks. Also, the "Islamic Republic" is the internationally recognized government of the country. While it may influence the popular feelings, I don't think this suggestion can really help improving the article. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Simply does not matter, it's not a civil war. Braganza (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

51 civilians killed

Should they be listed as according to iranian state media as that’s the only source for it? The AJ source only says iranian state media reported 51 civilians being killed Darkdeath0123 (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they should be listed, because they are widely reported by reliable secondary sources: AlJazeera, BBC, MEE, Sunday Guardian, New Arab etc. Of course the source will very much be the Iranian government, in most places in the world, authorities are first to report casualties. We should likewise attribute these casualty figures to the officials.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m not advocating for removal just adding an according to iran qualifier or something like that as the sources are stating what mehr stated as far as i know Darkdeath0123 (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The BBC is also citing Mohammad Radmehr, the governor of Iran's Hormozgan province as giving a similar casualty figure (48 killed). So its more than just state media. We can maybe write "according to state media and officials".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Iranian foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has also now made this claim and Al-Jazeera published: Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Mohammed Vall said the attacks call into question US and Israeli claims that “they are targeting only military targets and they are trying to punish the regime, not the people of Iran.” VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Policy issues with the background section

As often happens with these articles, a significant amount of content has been added to the "Background" section based on editors' own opinions of what's relevant instead of what the sources consider relevant. If sources about the attack don't bring it up to explain why it's relevant to the background, it should not be in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the point is that the Wikipedia police states that only relevant information should be added. But it does not give any guidelines about what is relevant and what isn't. That's, apparently, up to the Wikipedia editors. The problem then is, however, that the Wikipedia editors have different perceptions of what is relevant and what is not, and especially those who think a certain piece of information is not relevant often delete it without discussion simply because they believe it's not relevant. That's the much bigger problem compared to adding information. And due to this a lot of information gets lost. So if you think a piece of information is irrelevant don't delete it right away but discuss it here and explain why you think it's irrelevant! If you personally think a certain piece of info is irrelevant you might still be wrong because it's your personal opinion. --Maxl (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Editors are expected to justify why content should be kept by providing a source demonstrating it is relevant to this specific article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Sources on a current event will usually give background, it's that that should be used, otherwise us linking info to the event is original research Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually, those who want something deleted should explain why they want it. Otherwise it would be a reversal of proof. What you say, Thebiguglyalien, would give editors any right to delete just about everything only by claiming it isn't sufficiently relevant. --Maxl (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

U.S./US

Would be great if we can decide which format to use throughout, since the article is currently using both. Seasider53 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

MOS:US Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

MOS:US would generally encourage use of "US". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

afaict, U.S. is only used in titles of citations now Laura240406 (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps involvement

United States Marine Corps fixed wing strike craft are attached to Carrier Strike Group 3 and have already shot down Iranian Shahed drone a few weeks prior to the operation https://theaviationist.com/2026/02/03/f-35c-shoots-down-iranian-drone/ F18Pilot (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Time of Trump video message and Katz announcement?

I wanted to add the time Trump's video message https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116147082884192486 was posted to Truth Social, but I don't know the time zone that site uses. Does anyone know?

Also, it would be good if someone could track down the time of the Katz announcement. Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

EST most definitely. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Truth Social timestamps are given in the local timezone of the user reading the post; just confirmed with a German friend. AxelBoldt (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

As the article is being so heavily edited and clearly there's editors here fixing things as we go let's not add maintenance templates to the top of the page until editing has slowed down. A maintenance banner like duplicate references is not something that can be dealt with because of so many edit conflicts. Let's let the content editors do what they've got to do and we can deal with minor issues after over tagging the page with something that will be outdated so quickly. Moxy🍁 19:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of which, should we reduce the auto archiving period down to 1-7 days? These discussions are getting bigger and bigger. EvanTech10 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why not for now and let's manually archive the junk. Moxy🍁 20:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I've started archiving some of the answered requests and posts that were not discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Iranian strikes on US bases kill 200 servicemen — IRGC

What do you think about this: (https://tass.com/world/2093413) ? Should it be added to the infobox? — Raihanur (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

TASS is known to publish misleading information and should not be used as a source (see WP:TASS). Case in point, the headline says "kill 200" but the article says "killed or wounded at least 200". We can add the information once more reputable sources confirm it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Centcom has disputed this, among other claims by Iranian organizations. Bravelake (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Jurf al-Sakhar strike color on map

@Hohum:, you undid an edit where I removed the orange icon for the strike on Jurf al-Sakhar, Iraq, to show that it was not struck by Iran, but instead by Israel. Your stated reason was "rv. orange = struck BY Iran". The sources given in the article, such as , state that it was indeed an Israeli attack on Iran-aligned forces. (As a side note, the infobox is probably not the best long-term location for this pushpin map, as the caption appears rather squished on my browser. It should probably be moved to the main body of the article.) --Leviavery (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I made the incorrect assumption that all strikes outside Iran were struck by Iran. I think the infobox is a good place this unlabelled version, but there should probably be a larger, labelled one in the main body. It depends how long this goes on for and how many places are targeted too.(Hohum ^@) 01:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2026

In "Reaction" section, "Iran" "Domestic" subsection we can add this: Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the national security commission of the Iranian parliament, threatened a “crushing” response. “We warned you!” Azizi wrote on social media. “Now you have started down a path which end is no longer in your control.” Source - Regards. DonDragonWilson99 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Seems undue to include a vague verbal warning/threat in a social media post. – Scyrme (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2026 (9)

Description of suggested change: Saudi arabia declared they would join the war against Iran. The hoothies have already attacked them in response.

Diff: Move Saudi arabia into the US alineged belligerents

Sorce https://modern.az/en/dunya/574890/saudi-arabia-joins-attacks-against-iran/

 Not done As of now Saudi Arabia is purely playing defense in a quick google search. They said they "would" but not "are" RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 22:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Rename it as 2026 US Israel attack on Iran

There's already a move request open above. It's not productive to make multiple concurrent requests. 9ninety (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why not rename it as 2026 US Israel attack on Iran? This is the apt title considering the facts and as covered in worldwide media. Such titles are already in vogue in Wikipedia, for example in lines of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Of course if this title is not too risque? Or if such titles reserved only for Russia, the only villain in this world? Sarvagyana guru (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Plz read this move discussion. There is also another discussion going on above. You may want to participate, if you yet haven't. Also 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is only about the invasion. For the full scale conflict, we have Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). And this article covers it all, the initial attacks by the US and Israel as well as the response by Iran all over West Asia, plus the defensive actions by various countries. So that title is no longer relevant. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Suggest then on similar lines to have two separate articles 2026 US Israel attack on Iran and also US Israel - Iran conflict (2026 - present). Sarvagyana guru (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That might eventually happen if this gets stretched out like Ukraine. Or maybe someone else who is interested in doing so might consider doing it now. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The Houthis?

Discussion started in violation of the extended confirmed restriction. The following discussion has been closed by Chess enjoyer. Please do not modify it.

Considering the Houthis has said they'd launch strikes against shipping in the Red Sea, shouldn't they be included on the map where confirmed strikes are listed on the side of Iran and Hezbollah Evan Durston (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Have they launched strikes yet? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Can we find any source that has evidence of the Houthis actually being a beligirant? Esolo5002 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

so far I've seen no news about the Houthis launching any airstrikes on ships in the Red Sea yet 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Potential Name change to "2026 Middle East War"

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.

---

Its already official that Israel, Iran and the United States are involved here, however with several strikes claiming casualties in Kuwait and Qatar aswell as attacks on Omani and Saudi territories along with the Levantine area, should this article include to mention the greater middle east as a whole? Also this included a strike in the Republic of Cyprus, but there isnt much data about that yet aside from a few Cypriot news agencies. Republic of Selmaria (talk) 19:43, 2 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.

Would you consider including any of these updates from Iran International?

Tehran residents rejoice over Ali Shamkhani’s death
Iranians in Switzerland rally against the Islamic Republic
Iranians in Finland cheer US-Israeli strikes with protest song
Iranians in Strasbourg cheer US-Israeli strikes with protest song
... ~2026-13216-22 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC) (This comment was removed as a violation of the extended confirmed restriction in the following topic area: the Arab–Israeli conflict. — Newslinger talk 21:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC))

Not sure on the content, but it’s definitely a reliable source FortunateSons (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

How is Iran International considered reliable when native media corporations inside Iran are considered unreliable? Wirmaple73 (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC) Not an XC user. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Why wouldn’t it be? FortunateSons (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Countries' reactions

Is it DUE to include what other countries say about this? I may understand the rationale behind including Russia's reaction, but is it necessary to show what smaller countries like the Philippines think? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know the conventions here but this section is indeed absurdly long. DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hard to believe the average reader cares at all about the reactions of the Prime Ministers of Albania or New Zealand. Should we get Ja Rule on the phone too? DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Im planning to suggest a split for the section following the end of discussion at the Move page. Reactions to 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran is currently a redirect to this page 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I belive it's due time to bring every nation (and subnational groups) reaction to the page, but we will need a separate page for that. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Move the detailed reactions to the redirected article. Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that I removed the least important reactions from the article, anyone else is welcome to remove any other reactions they think are UNDUE. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The usual predictable verbage, off-load it ASAP. WWGB (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Mention of Iranian opposition on infobox

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

---

They are not 'belligerent' but are closely aligned with the Israeli and US alliance. The purpose of the operation is to change regime, not to just have fun bombing Iran. The infobox should reflect this, and my latest edit already included an explanatory footnote that made it clear why it was mentioned. ConflictFan (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Do we list them as part of "combattant1" or "combattant1a"? Doing the latter would put them in their own box like it was I'm a previous edit, similar to the defensive only box presently. ConflictFan (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Neither the Iranian opposition nor the Iranian diaspora is an active combatant in the military conflict. All they can do or are doing is being a vocal supporter of the joint US-Israel operation. They, as a seperate party, can be a part of the protest articles though. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Would it still not be able to include them under the conflict? They have been protesting and defo have sufferd casualties even if they had not fought for anything... 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it'd be like if Free France never had an army but only had the government-in-exile; you should still mention them in the Normandy landings info box because they're the people that the Allies were trying to bring to power ConflictFan (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there any recognised government-in-exile? Also, no party in the conflict has so far said as to who they want to install, if or when this regime is thrown out. Also, to add that we need a broad consenus, probably an RfC will be needed. This discussion is certainely not enough. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

We do have 2025–2026 Iranian protests for opposition and 2026 Iranian diaspora protests for diaspora. This article is about the military conflict. If the opposition inside Iran takes up arms to fight the regime, we can count them as a belligerent and add in infobox. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

OK. For now as they are non-belligerent the opposition will be left out of the infobox. But I think we should at least keep the full name "Islamic Republic of Iran" in the infobox to make it clear that the entirety of Iran is on their side. ConflictFan (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Is not on the side of the Islamic Republic** ConflictFan (talk) 14:06, 1 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.

Arab–Israeli conflict?

Last I checked, Iran wasn't Arab 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah plus it's only Iran so it'd be more like the Iran-Arabia War Evan Durston (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen please see WP:ARCA. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Iran supplies Hamas and Hezbollah, so it is party to the conflict(as is Israel). 331dot (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

No missile impact in Syria

Resolved

@Personisinsterest: "Five killed in south Syria by depot explosion, not Iran missile: state TV" Ecrusized (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, didn't know that Personisinsterest (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@NeoSyria: There was no missile impact on Syria per later reports afaik. Ecrusized (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah. Apologies, won't list that again. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Possible WP:NPOV violations in this article

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.

---

I think there are several WP:NPOV violations in this article. There are both supporters and opponents of the current Iranian government in Iran and Iranian diaspora per several WP:RS. But this article says that most Iranians are opponents of this government, I think this is western and Israeli propaganda. Many claims of Iranian government are also not included in this article. Pachu Kannan (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this is Western and Israeli propaganda.

Which sentences/sources are you referring to? DiodotusNicator (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Khamenei’s killing was mourned by thousands of Iranians per https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2026/3/1/thousands-in-iran-mourn-khameneis-killing. So there are still supporters of the regime in Iran, even if they are less than opponents. Pachu Kannan (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. DiodotusNicator (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi DiodotusNicator, sorry for not answering the question. By saying that "I think this is Western and Israeli propaganda," I mean that pro-Iran/anti-war protests should be mentioned in the lead to avoid violation of the WP:NPOV. One source was already referred in my previous comment. Pachu Kannan (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Also the lead surprisingly skips pro-Iran/anti-war protests and focuses on opposition celebrations only, despite pro-Iran/anti-war protests gaining global coverage. Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You claim that the lead "focuses on opposition celebrations only," but having given it another read, the last paragraph mentions:

• analysts' critical reactions
• "The United Nations and several uninvolved countries condemned the initial strikes...""
• "Critics of the operation also called it illegal..."
• "members of the Iranian diaspora holding celebratory rallies"
• "heightened protests within the country."

In quick succession to end the lead, with none of these points being given any particular focus over another. Do you think material should be deleted, or have you read an WP:RS publish reporting which you think deserves a mention here? DiodotusNicator (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I never said about or compared these with pro-Iran/anti-war protests. They are independent in their own. But we have a complete article on such protests, but there's no mention in the lead. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

"I think this is Western and Israeli propaganda."

Wikipedia is western aligned in general. In my view, Iran's regime has lost all legitimacy after massacring tens of thousands of protestors two months ago. I don't see any NPOV violations. Ecrusized (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ecrusized, sorry for typos in my edit summary, I published it before checking. I partially agree with your view about Iranian regime. But, Iranian regime still have supporters, even if they are less than opponents per https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2026/3/1/thousands-in-iran-mourn-khameneis-killing and many other WP:RS. I agree that English Wikipedia is western aligned in general, but it will be better without bias. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. I have added this information in last paragraph of lead, as per WP:NPOV. Thank you! King Ayan Das (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

In principle Wikipedia should not be Western-aligned, at all. In practice, as EN-WP is mostly edited by people from Western countries, it has an unfortunate bias in that direction. This is a failure of Wikipedia, not something to celebrate and certainly not something to encourage. We should strive for neutrality in matters of international politics especially. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

With regard to the specific discussion, Al Jazeera is a reliable source for stating that "Tens of thousands" of people in Iran publicly mourned Khamenei. Has this source been excluded? Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin This discussion BasselHarfouch (talk) 17:53, 3 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.

Possible WP:NPOV violations in this article again

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.

---

It is already mentioned in this article that after the 1979 Revolution, Iran became an Islamist theocracy that adopted an anti-Israeli and anti-American stance. Then I think we should also mention the reason of Iran turning anti-Israeli and anti-American after the 1979 Revolution and the reason for the participation of around 10 million people in state funeral of Ruhollah Khomeini (one of the largest gatherings in human history) such as the overthrow of Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh by US and UK during 1953 Iranian coup d'état and Israeli and western support for Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Even if Iranian regime may have more opponents than supporters for several years (especially after Iran massacred thousands of protesters during crackdown against 2025–2026 Iranian protests), it was once comparatively popular, so I think these reasons of Iran turning anti-Israeli and anti-American should be mentioned to avoid violation of the WP:NPOV. Pachu Kannan (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I support deleting the background section (besides the actual prelude to this event, the US military buildup) and removing any equivalent paragraphs from the lead of the article. "Background" sections on articles about divisive ongoing events, especially ones that involve the Israel/Iran and Arab/Israeli conflicts, always devolve into a hotbed of NPOV vios because they are treated as an opportunity to rehash all of the complex and nuanced history behind the conflict, with each individual article telling a slightly different version of that history that includes or excludes certain details that might make a reader more or less sympathetic to one side or the other. We have separate articles for all of this historical background that do a much better job at explaining why relations between Iran and Israel/the US are the way they are today, we do not need to use so many paragraphs of an article about an event that happened in 2026 to try to summarize over 70 years of history.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

On the contrary @Vanilla Wizard, I think the history of the belligerent parties' relations with Iran and its current government are the necessary context for a reader to understand this war. But as you and @Pachu Kannan seem to agree, this section's neutrality should be improved. The material about Iran's "anti-American" stance and "call[s] for Israel's destruction" is decidedly less neutral than the rest of the section. Unsurprisingly, both sides of this conflict are anti-each other and have called for one another's destruction in a variety of ways. It would be more concise and neutral to simply state that Iran has led an Axis of Resistance in opposition to American, Israeli and Saudi interests, give a little more background to the JCPOA to make the subsequent material on US withdrawal more legible. I've attempted to fix this section in my most recent edit. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Monk of Monk Hall, can you make same changes to the lead. I think Axis of Resistance is not opposed to Saudi interests after diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran were restored in 2023 because of Chinese-Iraqi mediated negotiations. What is your viewpoint? Pachu Kannan (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you make the same changes to Twelve-Day War. Pachu Kannan (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I continue to support the removal of the background section as I've said previously on this page. If anything in the article is not described in a source about this specific war (meaning published no earlier than February 28), then it was cherry-picked to be included. If someone wants to put something together based on the background information provided in relevant sources, only then is it at least worth considering. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, I think your criteria for inclusion is a little too stringent. Le Monde Diplomatique's March edition makes many of the connections made in the background section, so reliable post-2/28 sources are already beginning to write more in-depth analysis that could justify inclusion based on your criteria. A few examples:

What of relations with the West, and particularly the US? A long-time victim of Russian, British and then American imperialism, the Iranian state has always sought independence.

In 2018 President Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement – followed by European disengagement – pushed Iran into an unprecedented economic crisis and made its new middle class despair of economic, cultural or political normalisation. Popular uprisings became larger and more frequent, and were brutally suppressed.

But also, sources discussing the immediate prelude to the conflict give the same background. LMD's February edition, (Can you tell I can only afford a few subscriptions?) written just before the strikes, connects US and Israeli backing for the January protests with the history of foreign interventionism, and explicitly to US support for the Shah and the overthrow of Mossadegh.

This uprising is the latest chapter in a long history of power struggles, involving real or alleged intrigues. In 1921 army colonel Reza Khan seized power in a coup, and four years later founded the Pahlavi dynasty. In 1953 the US and UK enlisted the help of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to encourage protests aimed at ousting then prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalised the oil industry. The last few months before the 1979 Islamic Revolution saw harsh repression punctuated by huge demonstrations.

Sources written after the Twelve Day War, or even during/after the main stages of fighting in the Gaza war seem to me like they'd often be appropriate for a background section here. I think @Ahammed Saad's idea of templating an excerpt from the prelude article might help with article length here, but it won't solve the scope and neutrality issues, especially since some but not all of the material is identical. That's going to have to be dealt with by improving the background material somewhere, whether here or in a child article. Wherever it happens, I do think the overthrow of Mossadegh and US/Israeli support for the monarchy is the appropriate starting point because this scope pretty much fully encapsulates the belligerents' geopolitical interests and history with Iran. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Great! These sources about the current war are the authority that decides what actually belongs in the article versus what is just people pushing their own opinion of what belongs. Though we'll still have to be careful of people deciding what to include and then cherry-picking sources to support its inclusion instead of following WP:DUE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Support removal of the background section, it's clearly one-sided and has become a field for legitimizing or delegitimizing the attacks. A "prelude" section may be created summarizing the prelude article. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I’d recommend keeping the “Background” section, but I’d support adding info about the 1953 coup to that section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:39, 3 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.

Codenames in lead

Resolved

Are the codenames necessary in the opening paragraph? It colours the information and doesn't add anything material. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

 Yes this is necessary RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 10:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@RAPTOR7762, thanks. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

npnp! RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 11:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Your article may have saved lives!

CostalCal (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)