Talk:2026 Iran war/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Natanz Claim

The article lacks the information that IAEA has contradicted Iran's claim that (any of) their nuclear sites have been attacked, this should be added to give a complete picture: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/no-sign-irans-nuclear-sites-were-hit-iaea-says-iran-alleges-one-was-2026-03-02/ --Eistreter (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/03/02/european-military-installations-are-targeted-in-iran-retaliation/ Historyguy1138 (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Pahlavi "ready to take over" in Wikivoice

I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to express an opinion about whether Pahlavi is really ready to take over or not. I changed this to say he has claimed he is ready to take over. That was reverted by someone saying "He has prepared, see sources." Two sources are currently cited to support the statement that Pahlavi "has prepared a transitional government that is ready to take over". One is a Politico article that says "Pahlavi announced he was ready". Politico didn't declare him to be ready; they just said that he said he was ready. The second source cited is Pahlavi's own advocacy organization. It's nowhere near a neutral source of information. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You're right; the wording was not impartial. ConflictFan (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

On that note, it should be "said", not "claimed". MB2437 04:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That ("says") is the way I most recently re-added it. But all mention of Pahlavi was then removed from the article at 04:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC) by 4-RAZOR 01. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Im in the middle of shuttling content Between the war page, reactions page and kohmenis death and simplefing that flag salad into paragrahs. pardon me if ive done something wrong there 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Pahlavi is not just part of the reaction to the attacks. He has been actively involved in trying to instigate a regime change since 1979, and he met with both Netanyahu and Trump recently, before these attacks. He also encouraged the pre-attack protests. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

A historical equivalent to Pahlavi would be Charles de Gaulle. There should definitely be more mention of him and his concrete plans for the transitional government on this article, so that readers know that we aren't toppling the IR without a plan ConflictFan (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"We"? As far as I know, Wikipedia is not trying to topple Iran – with or without a plan, a plan that might involve Rajavi or Pahlavi or someone other people. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe instead we can add that on Pahalvis page? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

"Islamist-Marxist"

The section 2026 Iran conflict § Diaspora and opposition states: Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the France–Albania based National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is the political wing of the Islamist–Marxist organization People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, announced the formation of a rival transitional government and rejected both the Islamic Republic and the Iran Prosperity Project.

While the label "Islamist-Marxist" was accurate in the 70s, the People's Mojahedin has evolved since then and I'm not convinced it's an accurate label now. The reference provided is a primary source from the People's Mojahedin and it includes no mention of Marxism or Islamism. In fact it explicitly calls for the separation of religion and state; a position which is fundamentally contrary to Islamism.

People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran § Ideology states that they always denied being Marxists and that the Iranian regime for the same reason was "eager to pin on the Mojahedin the labels of Islamic-Marxists and Marxist-Muslims".

This suggests that today the description of the organisation as "Islamist-Marxist" isn't a neutral one, but one which is applied to them by opponents. The article National Council of Resistance of Iran doesn't mention "Marx", "Marxist", or Marxism" at all, and in-fact lists its ideology as "liberalism". The section describing its platform also reads as clearly liberal much more so than Marxist or Islamist.

I've gone ahead and simply removed this unnecessary and apparently false description. – Scyrme (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Scyrme, agreed, it seems to be a label used or highlighted by their opponents to discredit them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ronnnaldo7: Why did you reinsert the description? Your edit summary was Restore description per article but that is not what the article says, as I demonstrated above. Please do not put the description back into the article without an independent reliable source. – Scyrme (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme: Thanks for pinging me here, I wasn't aware there was a discussion on the talk page. However, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran article does in fact state that the National Council of Resistance of Iran is the political wing of the MEK, and also notes Marxism and Islamic elements. Multiple sources online also state the same, such as the US Congress, which states The group’s foundational ideology has been described by one historian as "a combination of Islam and Marxism", so it is certainly not a "false description" as you claim. The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran article also states scholars generally describe the MEK's ideology as an attempt to combine "Islam with revolutionary Marxism". --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"Foundational" as in "when it was founded"; this is about its early ideology, as is obvious from the context when reading more than just the sentence you quoted. As for your second quote, the preceding sentence is According to Katzman, the MEK's early ideology is a matter of dispute. That line is clearly about its ideology in the 60s and 70s. The entire section including the line you quoted is under the subheading "Before the revolution". – Scyrme (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

But it's not only their "early ideology", as you claim. Even the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#After the revolution section also specifically states a 2009 report from the US Department of State stated their ideology blended Marxism and Islamism. Cambridge even says their ideology has transitioned to Marxism and later reverted to Islamism. Although the US Congress source above mentions Islamic-Marxism being their foundational ideology, it makes no mention of them "transitioning" their ideology to anything else, and the article was published as early as last year, February 2025. If, as you say, their current ideology is not based on their founding Islamic-Marxist ideology, then what exactly what do you claim they represent, and based on what sources? And, at the very least, wouldn't a valid descriptor to the "Diaspora and opposition" section then be something along the lines of "founded as an Islamist-Marxist organization"? Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"Cambridge" doesn't speak with one voice. The article was written by M.A. Tabaar. If you read further, you'll find Similarly, the MKO’s reversion to Islamism in 1979. The articles dates the Second Islamist Phase to 1979–1981. This article is about the historic MKO in Iran itself until it was banned in 1981, and its whole argument of that article is that ideology isn't a static thing, using the MKO as an examplar of ideology shifting in response to various factors.

Regarding People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran § After the revolution, several points:

1. That article doesn't present it as a fact in Wikivoice, but rather only states that's what the State Department's report says. The reader can decide for themselves if they believe the US government.
2. On that, the US government doesn't have a good record of being trustworthy with regards to who they call "Marxist" and "Islamist", for obvious geopolitical and historic reasons, so it wouldn't be appropriate to take their word for it. This is presumably why the article doesn't cite the report directly. Rather it cites a secondary source; a book which happens to quote the report. Looking at that book, it also appears that its author has some doubts about what the US government says. For example, when quoting the report's assessment, a blend of Marxism, feminism, and Islamism, it prefaces this by describing it as unusual phrasing. Similarly, the reference after the quote reads U.S. State Department, Country Reports on Terrorism 2009 (U.S. State Department, 2010) [...URL...], 247, chapter 6. Yet one of Maryam Rajavi’s books, published in 2013 in France and the United States, is titled Women against Fundamentalism., noting an apparent contradiction between the report's assessment and what the organisation actually appears to espouse.
3. The book also states: Under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi, the organization’s propaganda first emphasized anti-Shah causes, in an unusual mix of Marxism and Islamism. Later, with the country under religious despotism, the MEK’s cries were usually for secularism and liberalism. So, like the Cambridge article, it also notes shifts over time.
4. The same book states that the organisation was delisted as a terrorist organisation by the US in 2012, suggesting even the US government itself reassessed its interpretation of the organisation since that report was published.

I'm not making any claims about their ideology, I'm only doubting the accuracy of the "Islamist-Marxist" label given the information I've quoted earlier, much as I'd question an article describing the Social Democratic Party of Germany as Orthodox Marxist, as though they've not changed since they were founded. (This isn't to say I think MEK are just like the SDP now. It's obviously more complex.)

What they were founded as isn't relevant if they've changed. The safest and most expedient solution is to cut the description. If readers want to know more about what the organisation stands for, they can click through to the article and read all about it with more context than would be provided here, and with references. It's clearly something that warrants more nuance than "Islamist-Marxist", and the main article can provide that. There's a reason the main article's infobox links to the section when it gets to listing its ideology, rather than just attempting to list some -isms as these infoboxes usually do. – Scyrme (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The same user seems to have been who inserted it the first time (saying "Clarify description"). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Per above, multiple sources online also state the same, such as the US Congress, which states The group’s foundational ideology has been described by one historian as "a combination of Islam and Marxism". The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran article also states scholars generally describe the MEK's ideology as an attempt to combine "Islam with revolutionary Marxism". It is, therefore, most certainly a valid clarifying description. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Repeating the same information in the same answers in reply to multiple people clutters the discussion. It also potentially leads people to miss things because they may only see your reply to them and the discussion that follows without checking if it were answered in a thread in response to someone else. Just say something like "see my discussion with Scyrme above".

As for these quotes, I addressed them in my reply to you above. – Scyrme (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, good point and thank you for the tip; I'll make sure to do that going forward. BarrelProof, please see above for the replies and discussions, thanks. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: "Agreed" with what exactly? Scyrme's claim of it being a "false description" is incorrect, per above.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Bombing was leaked to TMZ hours beforehand

At 3:45 pm TMZ was interviewing Mark Geragos for their "2 Angry Men" podcast. Geragos was in a busy restaurant near the White House. When the interviewer complained about why he was in such a loud, noisy restaurant, Geragos said he planned to leave before the interview began, but couldn't because he was overhearing 4 men discussing how they were bombing Iran that night.

A few hours later Iran was bombed. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Isn't TMZ known for being a gossipy tabloid? Should probably wait for the story to get picked up and independently verified by more reliable papers. – Scyrme (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:RSP says there's no consensus on whether they are or aren't generally reliable. Regardless, this isn't TMZ reporting on an unnamed source, it's an interview they did with Mark Geragos who said, hours before the bombing started, that he had just overheard people discussing Iran being bombed later that night. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If Geragos was willing to give this account to TMZ he's surely willing to give it to someone else. Alternatively if TMZ release audio of this part of the interview others will probably comment on it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Geragos didn't give this account to TMZ. He was being interviewed by TMZ on something completely unrelated, and began talking about how the people at the table near his were talking about Iran being bombed later that night.

There's no "if TMZ release the audio", the full interview was already uploaded to Youtube on the night of the bombing. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Based on this video, it seems like he wasn't even planning on saying anything about it, and even then he was vague about what exactly he overheard. Wonder if they can prove that the call was recorded before the strikes happened? Regardless, even if they could, Gregaros was so vague that all this really proves is that he overheard that something was about to happen with Iran. He doesn't even mention "bombing", he just says that he thinks "today is the day". I'm not saying it didn't happen, but given the vagueness it's easy to retroactively exaggerate what was implied in the interview. I'm still not sure if it'd be due to mention it. – Scyrme (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

By definition if he told TMZ what was being said, he gave an account of what was being said to TMZ. It's not like TMZ just heard the comments themselves and came up with this independently. Geragos relayed it, reluctantly or whatever he still did it. It makes no sense to suggest he'd talk about it to TMZ when they asked him why he was there but will refuse to comment to anyone else. But even if this does happen the other sources will still say this is what happened if it mattered. Also if the audio has already been released of this part of the interview then other sources have already had the chance to review it and comment on it if it matters. So far there only seems to be one not very good source besides TMZ who've said anything and no one had asked Geragos about it. So there's no indication if any significance especially for such a high level article like this. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

We do nothing until independent reliable sources deem it important and give it coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"Casualties by country"

This section contains incorrect information and contradictions. Many GCC countries have high foreign national presence and naturalization is basically impossible. Therefore many people killed or injured in them are not nationals of the country. For example, all 3 people killed in the UAE are not nationals, but are nationals of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal; this is clearly noted in news reports. Either this sections represents all people hurt in a country regardless of their nationality, or shows nationality. I think the former is preferred right now as there is not clear news on the number of people from each specific country who are hurt, and the amount of people hurt in each country is more important than the passport they hold. jolielover♥talk 06:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

See, I just went through it and there are duplicates - the Bangladeshi person killed has been counted as a death for both the UAE and Bangladesh. Please remove countries evidently not involved in this war (ie. has not spilled to their territory) and make deaths based on the country of death. jolielover♥talk 06:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Casualties3 section is currently way too large for WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, its also supplanting information not mentioned in the article, such as expatriate deaths. I don't think expats should be listed under separate flags, and also the entire section should be merged to something like:

"8 civilians killed in Gulf countries" with an in line note describing how many civilians were killed/injured in specific nations. Ecrusized (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems comfortable to me. Further explanation of nationality-wise death tolls can be explained in the casualties section of the article, or a table can be created if necessary. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Amazon Web Services

I've been writing that section of "Impact" (as it caused widespread web issues due to how many websites rely on AWS, and is the first physical strike on public data centers so pretty historical and covered extensively by the press), but as someone interested in tech I'm worried I made it a bit WP:CRUFT-y with all the details I added. If someone with fresh eyes could take a look and edit out any un-needed details if there are any and/or let me know if I used too much tech jargon that's not understandable, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! MolecularPilot^Talk 07:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The inclusion is important I think, however perhaps this could be part of a larger topic of damage to infrastructure, or communications infrastructure more specifically, given that it appears strikes have allegedly damaged broadcasting stations in Iran as well. Platttenbau (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Tasnim News as a source for Iranian claims

Can I use the Tasnim News Agency as a source for the Iranian claims of US casualties, even though it is not a reliable source? For example, the following article states that the United States suffered 650 casualties: https://www.tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/03/03/3530082/us-forces-suffer-650-casualties-as-iranian-strikes-force-retreat-of-american-carrier-irgc Balthasar144 (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I feel like you could, but you'd have to format it like:

Iranian claim:

Biased # JaxsonR (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding "Biased"? This will be very unencyclopedic. "Iranian claim:" is enough, or may be accompanied by an inline note if necessary. Ahammed Saad (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"Claim" should also be avoided in most cases (MOS:CLAIM). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Why was it then removed? While Tasnim News may be an unreliable source for general news, it is still the semi-official news website of the IRGC. I think that, when it comes to what Iran or its military claims to have done, it can be used as a source. Like the state news agency IRNA, it is subject to state control, which means that what Tasnim claims is also the opinion of the government. So if you use it as the source and write „Per Iran“, I think that it follows the Wikipedia guidelines. Balthasar144 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If it is not a reliable source, you cannot use it to validate unconfirmed claims. Full stop. PaulRKil (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Noting that WP:ABOUTSELF can apply in cases like this, but this particular claim is definitely an exceptional claim for which ABOUTSELF doesn't apply Placeholderer (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@PaulRKil: can’t you see this discussion? You’ve removed it three times (diff) already. What exactly is your point? You can discuss it here. — Raihanur (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You’re edit warring and posting unreliable and deprecated sources to justify your reverts. PaulRKil (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@PaulRKil, Which of the sources is "unreliable"? — Raihanur (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@PaulRKil I don't see any problem with the sources, none of these are linked with Iran, you are intentionally removing contents without discussing in the talk page Ahammed Saad (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

They all reference the unsubstantiated Iranian claim that they killed 650 members of the military. All the sites being used to push this claim are either deprecated, unreliable, and/or questionable, I’ve opened a talk page discussion because other editors insist on edit warring. PaulRKil (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Effect to sporting events

Is it worth adding a bit about sporting events in the impact section. and are two examples of changes due to the conflict. Louis (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Removal of content

Why have large amounts of content been removed -- such as what is happening in the US about this, like the War Powers Act resolution congress has been proposing? These are verifiable and significant to these events. I think they should be restored. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems most of it was removed in this single huge edit. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662 per the edit summary, a large amount of content was duplicated at Reactions to the 2026 Iran conflict, see this diff. Considering that this article is 250,000 bytes, I'd say that it's fair to focus on Congressional reactions elsewhere until there's an actual vote on invoking the War Powers Resolution. Courtesy ping: @4-RAZOR 01 mdm.bla 17:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd understand trimming it, but I don't see why we can't even include a small segment briefly mentioning it. It seems rather significant enough even at this point. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Qatar

The infobox states that Qatar is now directly involved in the conflict while the reference used now contradicts this. From what is stated in the sources, Qatar did apparently strike Iran back. It’s not exactly clear if they or didn’t, as Israeli media said they did, but Qatar denies being apart of the wider campaign but said they are “exercising our right in self-defense and deterring Iranian attacks against our country”.

Based on the conflicting information at hand I think it’s best to place Qatar back in the defensive only section unless a better reference can be found. I may have missed something here but I’m not sure. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

it seems as I was writing this message it was changed to add “debated” after Qatar’s involvement. I think this is good but an explanatory footnote would be helpful here as well. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Undiscussed edit, so I removed it. I think it would be better to add a <hr> tag between Israel and Qatar Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: make Qatar belligerent3, it's motive for attack is different from the US' and Israel's. Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. This is probably the best option right now as the situation develops. An explanatory footnote would be a good addition as well. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The statement released by Qatar is really ambiguous, it doesn't really deny the strike happened it just says they are merely protecting their civilian infrastructures and safety. But they do make one thing clear, that they ARE NOT part of the campaign against Iran, so an <hr> tag will be suitable. I support the alternative proposal. I'd say we also add a note explaining their status. VitoxxMass (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd support the hr tag, but would oppose marking Qatar as belligerent3; Qatar is a US ally that has been attacked by Iran, shot down Iranian planes, and explicitly did not deny directly attacking Iran (only saying they "ha[ve] not been part" of the US/Israeli attacks). A footnote/hr line would explain this nuance -- but entirely separating Qatar from the US/Israel side of the conflict amounts to OR not supported by the sources. DecafPotato (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The wording is really ambiguous (maybe we should look for an Arabic version?), it can be read either way so i don't know what the best way to put it is, i think i prefer the original proposal. Braganza (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

the Google & Twitter translated versions of the Arabic statement appear to speak of the "war" not just of the [Israeli-American] "campaign". Braganza (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Check this source: https://elkanananews.com/%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B6%D8%AD-%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%82%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%85-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A5/

Qatar is saying that Western sources are saying they joined the attack, but Qatar is saying they are only doing self defence. Guz13 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

This means they don't see it as being part of the US-Israel campaign (the "attack") most likely and see it as self defence, but it still makes the single reported initiative as aggressive. Once again, it's really ambiguous and up to interpretation, but clearly there should be at least a <hr> divide VitoxxMass (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Do we need like a mini-RFC or something? Anyone have any ideas? Avishai11 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

They have launched strikes against Iran, they are a belligerent in the war.XavierGreen (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It's reported but not verified *really* Braganza (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"Qatar denies Israeli media report that it’s carrying out retaliatory strikes in Iran" (per Times of Israel, citing Qatar's official Spokesperson for Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who wrote on X: "Qatar has not been part of the campaign targeting Iran. We are exercising our right in self defense and deterring Iranian attacks against our country"). – Alcaios (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess there is a strong case that we should just wait for now before having Qatar outside of "defensive", until there's clearer reporting Placeholderer (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I was looking for a discussion like this and thinking Qatar should be moved, but I am persuaded by the above discussion to hold off on that. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

US motive

US motive behind the war has not been clear. We should not only rely on Trump's statements. Rubio recently made a statement where claimed motive behind the war seems different from the Trump's motives. Similar statements of US military commanders also detracted from Trump's stated motives. We need to add those to the article; better would be to create a section/subsection here. Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders in infobox

Coming from WP:RFED here: should we list vice presidents (JD Vance, Mohammad Reza Aref) and foreign ministers (Marco Rubio, Abbas Araghchi)? Per OP (@Brobot2341), removing them would be consistent with 12-day war, and given that I'm comfortable with removing them pending discussion (will do so). However, I'm also wondering about Qatari PM Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani—I don't know the significance of the PM-ship in Qatar; does his inclusion make sense in context? Placeholderer (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

J.D. Vance does not have to have any actual military power or decision ability at this moment -- that is reserve for the President and the military leaders. Marco Rubio is not a military leader -- I'd characterize him more as a "diplomat" than someone actually making the decisions.

Also idk on the Qatari PM. The Emir effectively controls the PM as he appoints them, and so it does feel redundant. If anything, we should totally add Lieutenant General Jassim bin Mohammed bin Ahmed Al Mannai, the Chief of Staff of the Qatari Armed Forces. Just seeing if we can get any more people to get a mini-consensous on this one Avishai11 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Placeholderer Did this answer your question? Avishai11 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure; someone's gone ahead and removed all the Qatari leaders—I may go add the emir and MoD back if Edit Conflict Hell dies down a bit Placeholderer (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Placeholderer This is honestly extremely frustrating with all the edit warring happening in the past hour. I am not usually one to get overwhelmed but this is literally insane (probably since I'm reading the news at the same time). If you can handle it, can you explain which users are doing what, etc.? If you can't I understand. Thanks! Avishai11 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Avishai11 The main other thread where Qatar's placement is being discussed is Talk:2026 Iran conflict#Qatar, but I don't see any consensus there to remove Qatar entirely from Belligerents and Commanders and leaders, so I do think restoring Qatar there would be appropriate (I'll probably go do that).

If you're looking for who's added or removed something, you can try WikiBlame, but I'm not sure if it looks through infoboxes or not Placeholderer (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Placeholderer Feel free to add it and I will monitor and then report it if someone starts another edit war Avishai11 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Who should be at the top of the infobox, US or Israel?

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 came to my attention that Israel is listed first in the lede, while the US is listed first in the infobox. I suppose it's difficult to determine which belligerent is more "relevant" since these are joint strikes. But perhaps Israel should be listed first in the infobox, as this is basically an extension of the Iran–Israel conflicts and an escalation of the Middle Eastern crisis. Evaporation123 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters all too much, but President Donald Trump did say at at a public meeting with the German Chancellor today, March 3, 2026, that he "forced Israel's hand".

I think it should stay as it is. As you said, they were "joint strikes". Avishai11 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The United States is the most powerful of the 2, they should be first. JaxsonR (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Why does it matter who's the "most powerful"? None of the other lists here use that criterion. Why not who struck first? Or who has inflicted the most damage? Or who's suffered the most casualties as a result of the conflict, and by extension sacrificed the most? Or who made the first move in lobbying the other belligerents to get involved? Or who has the most active personnel involved?

There are all sorts of criteria you could use for "relevance". I don't see the problem with simple alphabetical order, which is what I set it to in response to the first time this issue was raised for discussion (now located at Talk:2026 Iran conflict/Archive 2 § Should Israel come first before the United States in the infobox?). Any other order is just editor's preference. – Scyrme (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Almost all of these things besides lobbying would point to the United States. JaxsonR (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Israel struck first. Israel has more losses (at least according to the infobox in question). Regarding lobbying, Avishai11 apparently argued that the US initiated this on the basis of Trump's statement, but Trump also has a habit of speaking without regard for what's actually true and Netanyahu has wanted a US-backed war with Iran for decades, so personally I suspect Israel initiated this; I imagine Trump would've been satisfied with the now irrelevant nuclear deal in which Iran conceded to denuclearisation, as he could then brag he got a better deal than Obama, just as he said he would. (That said, I could be wrong in my suspicions; obviously we'd have to see what reliable sources say to ultimately determine that, rather than editor opinion.)

I don't know whether the US or Irsael has dedicated more personnel to this, whether in absolute terms or relative terms (eg. per capita). "More powerful" is vague, as one could in principle argue over how to quantify it, but practically we all know the US is the more powerful party.

So of this things I listed, at most exactly half (3 out of 6) are the US (power, lobbying, personnel), and if you go with my interpretation of the answers it's only 1~2 (power, maybe personnel idk) so most actually point to Israel.

Regardless, I don't care who most of them point to. One could argue for expanding the list to other criteria for relevance, and argue over whether some criteria should really be subcriteria rather than counted independently, etc. All this could change the math in favour of one or the other. The reality is regardless of what criteria we use for relevance, it'll come down to editor preference rather than anything neutral or objective, and the criteria won't necessarily be obvious to readers who may ask why some things are given alphabetically while others are ordered by unstated criteria. Furthermore, because the criteria are open to interpretation, editors may go back and forth depending on their own interpretation of who wins out for whatever the criteria we're using is. (And, in some cases, inevitably mistakes will be made as not every editor knows all relevant details, especially as the situation is ongoing and some information becomes outdated.)

Consistently using alphabetical order avoids all these issues and is transparent to anyone literate. – Scyrme (talk) 01:27, 4 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.

Combining Iran retaliatory strike articles?

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've been noticing the number of articles relating to Iranian strikes on other countries going up significantly (currently there's 6: Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) Do these articles have to be standalone, or can we merge them into one? Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There's also Bahrain, Cyprus, and the Kurdistan Region. Merging into a new article is an option, but a generic "2026 Iranian strikes" or "2026 Iran conflict by country" article risks being unfocused and indiscriminate. The current articles mostly look like lists of incidents, in which case they could all be merged into List of attacks during the 2026 Iran conflict and/or Timeline of the 2026 Iran conflict. If there's more to say on the diplomacy and other involvement, they could be renamed "[country] in the 2026 Iran conflict", although that risks them staying more or less as they are. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd argue for keeping more significant ones, like the United Arab Emirates, which is fell fleshed-out, the Kurdistan Region, considering the very real possibility of a Kurdish uprising, and Cyprus, which has drawn European mobilization efforts. 9ninety (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I am opposed, though I if too little data is present, by the end of conflict it would be making sense to merge. At this moment let's keep them separately. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong Oppose for now. As @4-RAZOR 01 said wonderfully, we should wait. However, they should be expanded more. In most (by soon, it may be all) of those retaliation countries, deaths and severe damage have occured. Avishai11 (talk) 22:15, 4 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.

MOS:UPRIGHT and image sizes

A lot of images in this article are resized using px measurements. However, MOS:UPRIGHT explicitly states that an upright scaling factor is preferred. The images in the article should be adjusted accordingly. – Scyrme (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: I started this topic thread after noticing your recent edit. In future, could you please use |upright= to set image sizes, per Wikipedia's Manual of Style? – Scyrme (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I just saw that some of them had |256x256px and the others didn't, so I copied |256x256px to the ones that didn't have a size. Please feel free to fix it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think I got them all, at least for now. – Scyrme (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

IRIS Dena

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.

---

Indian and Sri lankan sources have Indicated that IRIS Dena has been struck by American Submarines as she was returning from a port calls in Visakhapatnam. 101 missing, 78 injured, evacuated to Sri lankan hospitals.

Is it possible to get he name of the Attack submarine that sunk her? It will perhaps be the third Submarine kill since ww2 and the 2nd by a nuclear submarine. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Also isn't the Yak-130 a trainer jet, not a fighter ? Should it be listed like that? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 10:55, 4 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.

Ignored intermediate version

@Avishai11: Sorry I ignored your revision, which conflicts with mine. Because I don't understand what you did. It seems that you merely restored many duplicate citations. My apologies. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 16:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry! I was merging and I guess I didn't see yours?

I am going to re-add it right now. I would suggest not editing for the next 2 minutes so we don't have this happen again. Avishai11 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Interaccoonale I think it is fixed now Avishai11 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 20:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

On your edit

@Gluonz your edit wasn't all bad, it just had a lot that I think it could improve on, and that I could get farther by reverting first and then implementing. Also, please make an edit per one section at a time, so when you get reverted you don't have the entire thing reverted at once. Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: Understood, thanks. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 05:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

And feel free to either suggest or make whatever other edits you think are necessary, and again much of the stuff you added is important, I just don't think that all of it was significant enough for the first paragraph. But yeah, please let me know if you strongly disagree with any changes I've made. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: I have published a new revision. Hopefully, this version mostly addresses your concern about potential redundancy by preserving more of the previous structure of the lead section. As for your concerns about inclusion and exclusion of content, I have tried to move some content out of the first paragraph, including information about Iranian retaliation, but I am not exactly sure of what else to fix. In general, I had exclusively made changes to structure and wording while avoiding both addition of new content and removal of existing content in the lead. The main exception to that, as far as I can tell, is the addition of a mention of the preceding US military buildup. That had earlier been present in the lead but was eventually removed; I restored it because it seems to be contextually important. If you find that the new lead has any specific issues, please fix them or note them in this talk section, and feel free to revert again if you think that leaving the new version would be a net negative. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 07:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gluonz Thank you, although it seems that the section of this being a part of a regime change war (with a reliable source) was removed from the first paragraph, are you able to bring that back over there? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: Yes, I can restore that shortly. I removed that wording and moved that source to the fourth paragraph largely because "part of a regime change war" seems to be an awkward way of phrasing that, so I will probably rephrase it. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 21:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662:  Restored; you may further adjust the wording or its placement if you would like. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 05:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you once again! Do you think that it should be mentioned in the first sentence, considering this is a central goal behind this strike? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: Perhaps, so long as a suitable way of incorporating it can be found. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 07:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done feel free to make changes you think are appropriate or let me know what you think. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Airstrike

Hi

We should have a page about the airstrike which killed Ali Shamkhani, Mohammad Pakpour, Aziz Nasirzadeh and Abdolrahim Mousavi. Panam2014 (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Panam2014 There is already an article on the Assassination of Ali Khamenei RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 11:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

As well, I don’t think the killing of the rest are of high-interest and need separate articles RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 12:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Absence of pro-Iran/anti-war protests in the lead

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.

---

The lead only includes the informations of opposition celebration rallies, but worldwide pro-Iran/anti-war protests are absent in the info, which is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This article should not only favour or focus on a particular group's reactions. Moreover, some particular protests, such as in Pakistan, received global coverage, and pro-Khamenei mourning rallies in Iran weren't insignificant as well. I, thus, strongly favour adding these informations to the lead as soon as possible. Ahammed Saad (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The prevalence of pro-Khamenei rallies appear to pale in comparison to those celebrating his death and the strikes. We must contain what is put in the lead to ensure only the most necessary information is included, otherwise we risk the lead getting far too long. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 08:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

what about pro-Iran/anti-war protests in other countries?? They are significant. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There were many more pro-Iran demonstrations that celebrated the death of Khamenei and the strikes on the Islamic Republic ConflictFan (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@ConflictFan: What's your source and what media channels are you watching? Quite the contrary, if you see the numbers on the streets. --Masssly (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any source comparing the size of the protests for/against the war. Are you? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:45, 4 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.

Technical problem

FYI, a non-XC user has reported the edit request form isn't working at Teahouse. Maybe someone savvy could have a look? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

2 Bangladeshi died

Here's the ref https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iran-missile-strikes-kill-two-bangladeshi-nationals-wound-several-across-gulf TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Possible inclusion

Mystery Bank In Beijing Behind China's Silence On The US-Iran Conflict?, from NDTV. Perhaps under "Analysis" sections. For the "Bank of Kunlun," it is under List of banks involved in Iranian oil money laundering. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Any other sources? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I concur with @4-RAZOR 01 for now let's keep it out. They have said many things about it, so not silent anymore. Avishai11 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Armageddon rhetoric by commenders

Should this be mentioned in the article somewhere?

Somewhat tangentially related is the fact that Pete Hegseth has previously advocated using the Crusades as a model for US military policy (although that probably fits better in Hegseth’s own article than here). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Every source I'm finding says it's a claim by a single advocacy organization (the Military Religious Freedom Foundation), so I have hesitations about taking it at face value. If it's independently verified then I'd say it's at least worth a mention, whether it be in this article or at Reactions to the 2026 Iran conflict. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Add information on limited Air-space opening.

The UAE now allows a limited amount of flights to leave to clear the backlog of stranded tourists. It's been like this a few days now. Abudefduf221 (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Iraqi casualties

an Iraqi MP (appearently affiliated to Iraqi Hezbollah) claimed that 19 PMF fighters were killed and dozens were wounded. Braganza (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Do we have another source for this? @Braganza Avishai11 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Avishai11 i think the current source/casualty rate is the same figure so just ignore it Braganza (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

IRIS Dena (again)

Why have we included casualties from the sinking of Dena under Iranians in Sri Lanka? They were in Intl waters making them directly combat casualties. Those who survived only were moved to Sri Lanka for treatment 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Created Draft:Misinformation and disinformation during the 2026 Iran conflict

Created Misinformation and disinformation during the 2026 Iran conflict, currently in draft form. AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

OSINT twitter accounts claiming an offensive in Iran from Kurdish insurgents

I've been seeing many osint accounts on twitter (such as OSINTdefender and Faytuks News) claiming that Kurdish insurgents launched an offensive against the Islamic Republic with CIA backing this afternoon. However, I'm currently not able to find any news outlets officially verifying anything of the sort at all. Has there been any sort of conformation of this supposed Kurdish offensive in any reliable sources?

If so, it should definitely added to this page soon. Randomuser335S (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

[i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/artc-exclusive-thousands-of-kurdish-fighters-launch-ground-offensive-into-iran-against-regime-official-says] Esolo5002 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Aside from i24 are there any others? @Esolo5002 @Randomuser335S? Avishai11 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No, its since been denied by all parties. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Avishai11 I'm also seeing many Kurdish insurgent groups denying any sort of offensives against the Islamic Republic, and one reporter claiming an offensive has since backtracked on twitter. What I'm personally guessing is happening is that some skirmishes occurred between a few Kurdish fighters and Iranian security forces, and that got confused by i24 and other outlets as a full scale offensive. However, there does seem to be something in the water with the amount of talks of unity between Kurdish insurgents in Iran and the Trump admin with arming them, and I don't doubt that there might indeed be a Kurdish insurgent offensive against the Islamic Republic in the very near future. Randomuser335S (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Removal from infobox

@Monk of Monk Hall It seems you've removed the list of countries (but not the index) from the map of countries in the article . If on purpose, please tell me the reason. If by accident, please give the reason and I'll put it back. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Definitely an accident. Go ahead and revert me if you're able and I'll redo my edit after. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Monk of Monk Hall Seems that you've accidentally removed it again, after another user restored it after another removed it. Do you know how it keeps on getting removed by accident? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't know what happened. That's confusing. I'm just trying to change the wording around a section in the nuclear enrichment section. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Weird, I did add a notice to the source right above the map though, hopefully that should help. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm done editing the sentence that was apparently causing the issue, so if any further changes need to be made to the map to restore it, you should be good to go on that. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asarlaí it seems the same thing happened with you, where you removed the list of countries (but not the index) from the map. Was this also an accident? Please let me know so I can restore it if that's the case. If it was on purpose, please give me the reason. Thank you. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, I only meant to remove Syria from the list of participants, as it has not yet taken military action. There's a lot of edit conflicts because the article is being edited so much. I think the solution is to make a template for the infobox, like Template:Hezbollah–Israel conflict (2023–present) infobox, so we can edit it separately from the article itself. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 20:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed Syria from the list for now, although you don't need to take military action; these colors are based on what the countries stated.

Also, I don't see the problem, I put a notice on the source right above the map so people will likely now know to be more careful.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Legality

There are legal experts that call the war as "patently illegal"., including a former US State Department lawyer and an independent UN investigation into human rights violations, saying the attack violates the UN Charter. Shouldn't there be a section in the Reactions chapter for (Legal assessments) by experts? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie See the Reactions to the 2026 Iran war article and ask it there. It isn't probably important enough to put it in the main article. Plus, we are focusing on country-level reactions in the main article since those are quite... violent now. Avishai11 (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I asked it there on talk - JaredMcKenzie (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Lists of the Iranian warships

We need more WP:RS for:

• List of current ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy
• List of equipment of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy

Just in case other editors come across some, please update these lists. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Azerbaijan?

This source says that Azerbaijan deployed troops on its border incase of any attack. Should it be added to defensive side? JaxsonR (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@JaxsonR Can you find additional confirmation elsewhere? Avishai11 (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Appears its only this. JaxsonR (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No. Beefing up one's security is far from getting involved in the conflict. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Iran just hit Azerbaijan Thegunkid (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

well given they were attacked and that this is now reflected in the infobox, imma archive this Laura240406 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Map

@Pppery you broke something changing the module. Can you fix it ASAP? Yacàwotçã (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to archive talk page

I think we should archive at least part of this talk page -- it is massive and very difficult to understand. Maybe we should keep some important ones and archive the rest. Anyone concur? Avishai11 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Avishai11 Oppose the discussions are still underway, don't archive yet RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 17:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

We already have been manually archiving topic threads which are resolved or aren't actually discussion, etc. Autoarchiving has also already been set up with the exceptionally short autoarchiving period of just 5 days; the problem is it hasn't even been 5 days since the Talk page was created, so the bot hasn't begun making runs. – Scyrme (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been regularly archiving closed discussions but a lot of them are still open so I guess we'll just have to accept that the talk page is huge Laura240406 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: all user scripts have been disabled across Wikipedia due to WP:Village pump (technical)#Today's outage. This includes OneClickArchiver scripts, so manual archiving will be delayed/slower until that's resolved. – Scyrme (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I also noticed this Laura240406 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Scripts working again now. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Created Draft:List of ships wrecked, damaged, or sunk during the 2026 Iran conflict

Created List of ships wrecked, damaged, or sunk during the 2026 Iran conflict, currently in draft form. AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste Amen Avishai11 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting development, Spain has agreed to cooperate with US military

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/white-house-spain-has-agreed-cooperate-with-us-military-2026-03-04/

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-us-israel-conflict-2026/card/white-house-says-spain-will-cooperate-with-u-s-military-CatIrFrCoZj4vXRK6RAw VitoxxMass (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Wednesday that Spain had "agreed to co-operate" with the US military after hearing Trump's message "loud and clear" - a claim Spanish foreign minister José Manuel Albares categorically denied, telling local media that his government's position "has not changed one iota" from BBC Placeholderer (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Man, you can't really trust the USA for sources anymore. Maybe we should change standards for perennial sources. VitoxxMass (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. "White House claim gets reported on; later (or immediately) debunked" has been a regular pattern Placeholderer (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Syrian bomb

Iran has allegedly struck Syria with an unexploded ballistic missile. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@NeoSyria: This was likely a missile headed for the NATO base in Turkey that got intercepted over Syria https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2029341345165549902 Ecrusized (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Nevertheless, it hit Syria. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

add Brad Cooper to infobox

Brad Cooper (admiral) is the commander of CENTCOM, cf. Schwarzkopf in the Gulf War DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Indian?

An Indian citizen was reportedly injured in the strikes in UAE. Should that be included underneath as Injuries?

Refrence -> https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/amp/story/international/israel-iran-war-indian-among-58-injured-as-3-dead-in-uae-in-iranian-strikes 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

IMO yes but not in the infobox right now, here first: 2026_Israeli–United_States_strikes_on_Iran#United_Arab_Emirates, because it's common for foreign nationals (e.g. in articles about air disasters or natural disasters, from what I recall) to be listed by their country of citizenship too, not just their location. In my opinion the infobox is very likely to become too cluttered if we start adding nationalities. 🔥Komonzia (message) 04:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright Thanks! 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

a Bangladeshi was as well killed. also can you check the new talk page where I talked that as per to Iran a MQ-9 drone was shot down? Editorofwiki9998 (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

@Rahammz you said Huckabee's religious beliefs is not US policy he's the official United States ambassador to Israel speaking in an official interview, and he was speaking on behalf of the United States. What he says aren't irrelevant opinions. And calling the line which is based on a reliable source a "conspiracy theory" doesn't make any sense either. Could you consider restoring the paragraph you removed ? Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm also going to have to challenge the inclusion of this statement per WP:BALASP. It's a very minor detail there's no source verifying that it had any significant effect on the current conflict. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The notion that Huckabee's religious beliefs means that the US supports Israel taking over is simply nonsensical, he was speaking on behalf of himself after Calrson asked his opinion on the matter. In the interview he immediately also added to his statement that Israel is not planning to takeover the Middle East.

The conspiracy theory here is suggesting that Israel has territorial claims on Iranian land. There is no evidence to suggest that Israel is planning to take over and annex Iranian territory. The source of that paragraph itself doesn't connect the strikes with the podcast interview either. Rahammz (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining; I understand your rationale better, although I still don't think that statement says that Israel is planning to take over and annex Iranian territory. but I could understand if it's a minor detail why it should not be included in this article: should it perhaps be in a different one instead? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance to this article. In the interview Carlson was questioning Huckabee on his views on "Greater Israel", which does not include Iranian land in its ambitions (even amongst most maximalist advocates), so as I've already said there is no connection between this statement and the strikes on Iran which is done primarily for regime change. If you want to add this paragraph somewhere it probably belongs in the Wikipedia article on Greater Israel. Rahammz (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Old version copied

@Asarlaí: I've copied the infobox from the last edit of 2026 Iran war before the you added the template. Lots of new countries are missing in the version you're reverting to, also the old number of casualties are used for Iran etc. Ecrusized (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Ecrusized, update and change the template from the point at which I created it. Change only the things that need to change, rather than reverting everything in one go. Your mass revert undid a lot of tweaks that had been made and removed all the hidden notices. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to name a few things, your edit is removing, Azerbaijan, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, as well as reverting Iranian casualties from 3,000 to 1,000 (old version). I copied this diff which is the last version before you moved everything to this template. Ecrusized (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that these are not my additions, but stuff that multiple editors have added including @VitoxxMass: Ecrusized (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Those specific things can easily be added. Your copy-and-paste revert undid a lot of other changes. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I will check the diff and fix those now. Ecrusized (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Ecrusized, as I said above, it would've been easier just to add those few changes that had been made in the meantime, rather than copying-and-pasting in one go. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 11:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think everything is restored in your diff here now, plus the changes that were missed during the move. Ecrusized (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Regime change

@Sparks19923 why did you decide to remove references to regime change from the first sentence without seeking consensus first when the framing has already been agreed upon by me and @Gluonz after multiple discussions? and why are you classifying this under WP:WTA? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The sentence "starting a major war aimed at a regime change" is unattributed editorial framing in narrator voice. Regime change as a US objective is already covered and properly attributed to US officials three sentences later in the same paragraph. The removal avoids WP:REDUNDANCY and keeps the opening sentence factual rather than interpretive. If the prior consensus was for including it in the opening, I'm happy to discuss whether the attribution added since then makes it redundant. Happy to self-revert if there's consensus to keep it. Sparks19923 (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not redundant, it was on purpose included in the first sentence. I don't see a problem with something being mentioned both in the first sentence in the article and in another part of the lead. And this isn't "interpretive"; it's covered in multiple reliable sources. And yes, the consensus among me and Gluonz was specifically for including it in the opening (although Gluonz asserted caution over the way it's framed in the opening, so if you want to change how it's worded there, that's fine with me). Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll self-revert the regime change removal. You're right that two editors agreeing on framing is prior consensus I should have checked first. That is on me. If there's interest in adjusting the wording in the opening (not removing it), I'm open to that separately. Sparks19923 (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much. And please feel free to share whatever it is you think should be changed from the opening (I think some of it you can also go ahead and just change if you want, as I don't think the majority of it was heavily discussed before. But if you're not sure, then it's probably better to ask first), I'd be happy to share what I think of your proposals if you do. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sparks19923 It seems you still have not self-rv'd, are you able to do so, or do you prefer that I do it? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I restored it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Casualties

Should we have an article about the casualties of the conflict? This article is getting quite long and it might be better to summarize deaths here and have a separate article that goes into more detail about the casualties/losses specifically, similar to how we have the Casualties of the Twelve-Day War article. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 23:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support I think as there are at least 1,000 fatalities and likely over 1,500 injuries total, we probably need a new article. Also wondering if we should have something for "losses" like the ships, drones, planes, equipment, facilities, buildings, etc. destroyed. I think we should, especially as such large claims are being made by Iranian-linked media and more. @Memer15151 What do you think?

Avishai11 (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, yes. About 'losses', I've found one relevant article that uses 'Equipment losses', not just losses (example, Equipment losses in World War II), but I'm not sure there is the same amount of coverage for the materiel/non-casualty losses themselves. We could make a single article for both of them or just have a 'Casualties' article, or if there is enough coverage possibly create 'Destruction in the 2026 Iran conflict' or the like. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 01:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

When the numbers are confirmed by independent sources, sure. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Article trimming

The article is already over 10K words, and I think there are parts of the article that should be trimmed, especially from the Hostilities section, where it goes in detail about what happens every day of the conflict; it could last for weeks, and much of the information could be moved over to other articles, such as Timeline of the 2026 Iran conflict or other appropriate ones.

Here are some specific sections I'm considering (but am not certain about) removing or moving to another article; please let me know what you think. I'll assume that ones without replies for them are up to me to decide. And you're also welcome to just go ahead and remove these if you think they should be gone.

1. X

Reuters reported that strikes were carried out by air and sea.

2. X

The US military stated that it used B-2 stealth bombers, as well as B-1 Lancers and B-52 Stratofortresses, to strike fortified ballistic missile facilities inside Iran.

3.

The Fars News Agency and CNN reported more explosions across other cities in Iran, including Qom, Kermanshah, Isfahan, and Karaj. In Tehran, missile strikes were reported to have occurred on University Street, in the Jomhouri area, and in the northern Seyed Khandan area. A sports hall in Lamerd was bombed during a girls' practice, killing at least 18 civilians.

4.

Israel called up 20,000 in addition to the 50,000 reservists who are on duty.

5.

The UAE said that it had intercepted a "new wave" of Iranian missiles and that "fragments from the interceptions" had fallen in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, causing damage to Burj Al Arab. Strikes on Kuwait International Airport caused several undefined injuries. In Bahrain during the evening a tower in a residential area was reported to be hit by an Iranian drone.

6. X

Israel and the United States launched strikes against Iran targeting Tehran, Sanandaj, and military and strategic locations including command centers and missile sites.

7. X

Israel continued to pursue bombing and operations in Lebanon and Iran in the early hours of the day.

8. X

At 1:40 AM local time (22:00 GMT) a series of loud blasts were recorded in Doha, and continued to be heard hours later.

9. X

The cities of Bnei Brak and Rosh HaAyin saw Iranian strikes causing a total of seven injuries amongst civilians.^{[unreliable source]} Hezbollah reported to have struck down an Israeli drone in Nabatieh.

10. X

A drone was downed in the proximity of the Baghdad International Airport, whilst another wave of drones and missiles was intercepted in Erbil.

The Al Minhad Air Base was attacked by Iran. The Air Base is also home to Camp Baird, the Australian Defence Force Headquarters Middle East (HQME). The New Zealand Defence Force also operate out of Camp Baird.

Later in the day Israel said that it had begun another wave of attacks on Iranian air defense and missile launchers in central Iran.

11. X

US warships launched Tomahawk missiles, while the US Army used HIMARS launchers. Undisclosed long-range standoff weapons were also used. Explosions were reported as Defence Minister Israel Katz confirmed an Israeli attack.

These following sections I was surer about removing, so I went ahead and removed them:

1. X

In January 2026, Iranian security forces killed thousands of protesters during the largest protests since the Islamic Revolution, and US president Donald Trump announced that "help is on the way". In February 2026, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed that Washington engineered a dollar shortage in Iran to send the Iranian rial into freefall and cause protests in Iran. In the following weeks, Iran and the US engaged in indirect nuclear negotiations mediated by Oman, and a second round of talks in Geneva made progress, but ended without a deal.

(note that much information from that paragraph is already present in other parts of the article)

2. X

US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee encouraged US citizens in Israel to take immediate action upon hearing the siren,

Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I've already transferred most of 1 March and 2 March under "Hostilities" into Timeline of the 2026 Iran conflict, leaving WP:SUMMARY style sections in the main article. I laid out my rough suggestion for article trimming at #Trimming and summarizing as the article grows. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that parts that have been removed are marked by X, and for ones partially removed, the sections that are trimmed are in strikethrough, like this. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Add Kurdish militants and leaders to belligerent boxes

Multiple sources now claiming that various Kurdish groups have started, or are planning, an offensive into Iranian territory;

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/artc-exclusive-thousands-of-kurdish-fighters-launch-ground-offensive-into-iran-against-regime-official-says

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-kurds-discuss-potential-iran-military-operation-sources-say-2026-03-04/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokateoo (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Has largely been done but the info rn is sparse and we need more confirmation. _⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 01:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

No objections about Kurdish forces, but the inclusion of Ukraine is definitely excessive at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This claim is untrue. Rudaw officially denied any attack on Iran by the Kurds.  Zemen  (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Structural concerns

A few observations after reading through the article:

Lead length: The lead runs about 900 words and includes operational detail (specific city names hit, individual retaliatory strikes, casualty figures by category). Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarize the body without introducing material or going into excessive detail. Suggest trimming to ~400 words focused on the key facts: who, what, when, why, and outcome so far.

Infobox density: The {{Infobox military conflict}} currently lists 15+ commanders and 20+ units per side. For an ongoing conflict this large, a summary-level infobox with top commanders only (heads of state, theater commanders) would be more readable. Subordinate commanders and detailed OOBs belong in the body or sub-articles.

Section structure: Several sections mix chronological narrative with thematic analysis. The "International reactions" section is 8,000+ words and could be split into a standalone article with a summary here, per WP:SPINOFF. Similarly, "Casualties" could benefit from tighter organization.

Not proposing any of these changes immediately, just flagging for discussion. Sparks19923 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2026 Iran war is the place for fine-grained chronology. I've been poaching from here~! kencf0618 (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Helpful NYT article on misinformation in the war

I think creating a small section about misinformation in the war could be beneficial. This article has some important points: Iranian TV and Social Media Project Defiant and Distorted View of the War (Gift Article) OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That might be a good source for Draft:Misinformation and disinformation during the 2026 Iran conflict. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it a guide to how the New York Times undertakes military misinformation? (I'm sorry but this is something where I think NYT is a pot calling the kettle black.) Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

PJAK in infobox

Several Iranian Kurdish armed groups have announced a coalition called Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan (CPFIK). This is similar to Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria, which included People's Defense Units (YPG). In Syrian war articles, SDF was placed in the belligerents alone, I think the same style should be applied here, and PJAK should be placed in units section, below in the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion of Netherlands in Infobox

There have not been any military engagements between Iran and the Netherlands. Should the Netherlands sending one of their warships to the Mediterranean really make them a party to the conflict? Cobblebricks (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Along with France and Greece too now Cobblebricks (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cobblebricks Agree for now. Maybe a new section for who has deployed assets? Or a "parties involved" article? @Ecrusized Avishai11 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Currently, there are 5 countries listed under "Defensive deployments". They only appear to be positioning their assets so far, without any engagement of missiles with the exception of the U.K., I think France, Greece, Italy and Netherlands can be removed. Ecrusized (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "defensive only" title in infobox and replace it with a line

I think a straight line in the infobox would be sufficient to describe that the countries beside U.S. and Israel, which are not conducting offensive action against Iran. Example :

2026 Iran war/Archive 4
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
United States Israel CPFIK Rest of the countries	Iran

Ecrusized (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Against - As far as I'm aware, lines like these by themselves are usually to separate parties which fight on the same side in one conflict, but are not allied with eachother. Cobblebricks (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Removal of some nations from infobox

Why were Qatar, Oman and other gulf nations removed from the infobox? VitoxxMass (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@VitoxxMass also the lead has changed significantly and no mention of the protests Avishai11 (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Status of Italy, Netherlands and Spain

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/italy-spain-france-and-netherlands-to-send-naval-assets-to-cyprus-minister-says/

https://in-cyprus.philenews.com/international/italy-spain-france-and-netherlands-to-send-naval-assets-to-cyprus-minister-says/?utm_source=philenews&utm_medium=phil_feed&utm_campaign=philenews_block

https://en.ilsole24ore.com/art/italy-like-france-and-spain-will-send-naval-assets-to-help-cyprus-crosettos-announcement-AI81VimB?refresh_ce&nof

These nations have officially mobilized to Cyprus in order to defend it from possible Iranian/Hezbollah attacks. Infobox should mirror such evolutions. VitoxxMass (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Merging

I think we should consider merging the Strikes and casualties and the Impact sections of this article, as both go through each country and state what happened to them. What do you all think of this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Successor

@ScrubbedFalcon why did you say that there is no RS about the successor to the Supreme Leader? Isn't this covered in multiple RS? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662 The sources you listed are about wiring money (both seem to mention the US Treasury department) from November 2019 and January 2026, see for example the diff here , I'm assuming this was a mistake. I'm aware that there have been reports and discussions about this on other articles related to the succession but no actual RS confirming Mojtaba Khamenei as far as I've seen. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Revert

Hi LocalF15, I was asked how the names were fictious, and I removed parameters to fix CS1 maint. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

"United States War against Iran" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect United States War against Iran has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 4 § United States War against Iran until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Turkey under NATO in infobox but not UK, France, Greece, or the Netherlands?

The infobox shows Turkey under NATO but not UK, France, Greece, or the Netherlands. All of these countries are in NATO, shouldn't they be listed under NATO just like Turkey is? Cobblebricks (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@VitoxxMass Can you please clarify your explanation here? Your reasoning in your edit description is vague and hard to understand, and I'm not sure what Cyprus has to do with it. Cobblebricks (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

As the sources in the infobox state, when Turkiye took down the ballistic missile that was passing through its territory and heading towards Cyprus NATO protocol were activated, it wasn't merely a Turkish decision to strike down the missile.

In regards to France, Greece, Netherlands and now even Spain and Italy they willingly mobilized under treaties (such as Greece and the United Kingdom) or agreements OUTSIDE of NATO. Their sole defensive military mobilization is to protect the island of Cyprus as a whole (who is not even a NATO member) and they have decided to do so on their own accords and outside of NATO operations. VitoxxMass (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

and obviously i was ignored. wow. VitoxxMass (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at

• Talk:2026 Iran conflict#Turkish Armed Forces or NATO ?

Legion of Liberty (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Turkey

@Asarlaí: I think it should be included, even though the missile was intercepted, it was still headed for Turkey, albeit a NATO base, its still within Turkish territory.

As far as I know, Azerbaijan and Oman who have also been hit by drones/missiles have not taken defensive action. Ecrusized (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Ecrusized, the list is only for parties that have taken military action in defense. The missile didn't actually enter Turkish airspace and Turkey didn't shoot it down. Azerbaijan and Oman should probably be removed for now too.

As a comparison, Russian drones and missiles have landed in Poland, Romania, Moldova and the Baltic countries, and have been shot down by Poland and NATO. But we don't include those parties in the Russo-Ukrainian war infobox. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Completely different contexts, only Ukraine is included there. A dozen countries are already listed here. I also don't agree with the middle placement of "defensive" countries, as this makes it seem like they are defending themselves from both Iran and US/Israel, while they are only defending themselves from Iran. Azerbaijan and Oman should be kept for obvious reasons too, but maybe with a different title, such as "Attacked by Iran". Ecrusized (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

How about, two different titles, first is "Attacked by Iran" which are gulf countries, Azerbaijan, Aktoriri etc, and a second title "Defensive Only" which lists NATO: France, Greece, Italy, Germany etc. This should make things more clear. Ecrusized (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The European countries listed are mobilizing their forces independently, not through NATO. "NATO defensive naval deployments" implies they are sending them within the framework of NATO, which is not true, so I think a different title is needed. Also, not all aid is naval. Based2134 (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Just "defensive deployments"? Ecrusized (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think "European defensive deployments" or just "Defensive deployments" is more appropriate. Based2134 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Turkish Armed Forces or NATO ?

• Just a while ago , an Iranian missile crossed the Turkish airspace over Hatay and was intercepted but however I saw some news media citing that it was "Nato defenses in Turkey" who shot down the missile not necessarily or precisely the Turkish Armed Forces.
• Should NATO be added to the list of belligerents under Defensive: than solely the Turkish Armed Forces ?

Citing some sources :

Legion of Liberty (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

just Iraq i would say Braganza (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Iraq regarding ? Legion of Liberty (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Legion of Liberty Turkey, i don't why i wrote Iraq Braganza (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Well sources say it was Nato and most probably turkish defence minister said that nato defenses shot it down so I guess Legion of Liberty (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes add NATO and Turkey below. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree Legion of Liberty (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I concur. @Braganza @Legion of Liberty @Shadow4dark We should add NATO and Turkey. NATO first (I mean in the lines) since until we can verify that Turkey shot it down, it hasn't taken any real offensive action. All the sources I am reading say "NATO intercepted", not "Turkey". Some have said "Turkey-bound". I don't know if we should add Turkey anymore, but let's just do it for now. Avishai11 (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

maybe a compromise could be

• NATO
  • United Kingdom
    • Akrotiri and Dhekelia
  • France
  • Greece
  • Turkey

Braganza (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I read somewhere that it was RAF who shot down projectiles heading towards Cyprus. Also regarding France , I don't think there was any nato involvement or provocation or execution of any article of Nato during the attack on French bases in middle east.

Maybe all of them can be added under Nato if sources of Nato's involvement can be found in the respective cases , until then we can add only Turkiye under Nato. Legion of Liberty (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Whilst in the interest of NATO, the protection of Cyprus is not something ordered or coordinated directly by NATO itself but by a series of specific volountary members. I shall remind that Cyprus itself is not in NATO, yet nations claim to want to protect it, clearly outside of NATO's scope. VitoxxMass (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

We shall only add info which has wide coverage , at this moment NATO's direct intervention in Turkey is covered. Regarding Cyprus ( not exactly mainland Cyprus ) I think RAF is the entity showing direct intervention. While there's a great possibility that Nato might deploy preparations to thwart further Iranian attacks but as the subsection of belligerents is regarding the "Defensive" terminology , I think a better objective would be add countries under Nato whenever Nato is Directly involved in protecting it's sovereignty , otherwise it's better to leave the armed forces of respective belligerents to be more precise Legion of Liberty (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Going off the precedent set by Turkey having to have been defined as part of the North Atlantic area to join NATO, I'd assume Akrotiri and Dhekelia don't fall under NATO unified defence (e.g. Article 5), this is consistent with precedent set by e.g. the Falklands War. So probably best to leave the UK out of the NATO list. For the same reason France and Greece also shouldn't be below NATO, as they are defending Cyprus. There is benefit to readers by having just Turkey under NATO, as sources seem to elaborate that NATO unified air defence shot down missiles sent towards Turkey. If Article 5 is triggered over this, we should probably remove Turkey below it as all of NATO would be formally involved, and it could suggest only Turkey is participating in the war, but we are not a crystal ball, so it should not be listed this way right now. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Current one is ok, place Turkey under NATO Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Opppose:

• That would suggest that NATO is directly involved as an organisation. However, it is not. NATO military structures have been used solely in a defensive capacity, but NATO is not a belligerent as a whole. For example, Russian drones have breached the Polish and Romanian airspace in the past (see 2025 Russian drone incursion into Poland), but that doesn't automatically make them (or NATO) the belligerents in Russo-Ukrainian war.
• It should be noted that the European states are generally trying to avoid the involvement. Some NATO states, like Spain, expressed a clear opposition to the US-Israel military action. UK and France have acted in a national capacity, rather than within the NATO structures.

-- Mindaur (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There was a explicit mention of NATO intercepting those missiles not the Turkish Armed Forces , adding Turkey under Nato would be abiding by the sources and will be more precise in my opinion Legion of Liberty (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok now we have a problem. The edit versions have been actively changing the NATO part As of now it's

• NATO

• • Greece
  • Turkey

RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 17:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: I'm removing greece frim the NATO field. They send their own troops to Cyprus RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 17:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks. VitoxxMass (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding Turkey under NATO, but not other NATO countries is misleading imo, Turkey should be added separately like every other country. Ecrusized (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It is due to NATO's direct involvement in Turkey , however in case of the Britain , Greece , France , they are not invoking NATO they are individually taking defensive measures against Iranian drone attacks.

• Adding Turkey Seperately will be actually misleading , as far as I'm informed , Turkish Armed Forces weren't the ones who shot down the Missile , add it individually would term as if the Turkish Armed Forces intercepted the missile. As for the current situation I think it's accurate to keep it under NATO but changes be made upon further developments

Legion of Liberty (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Did NATO make any form of official release on this? Did all the sources say Turkey shot down the plane/missile, or did they say NATO forces did? - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 19:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes they explicitly said NATO defenses were involved and NATO intercepted the missile Legion of Liberty (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Support inclusion of NATO as present in article as of writing:

• NATO
  • Turkey

NATO unified air defences were involved in shooting down the missile, while it was an attack on Turkey. Echoing my opinion above, If Article 5 is triggered over this, we should probably remove Turkey below it as all of NATO would be formally involved, and it could suggest only Turkey is participating in the war, but we are not a crystal ball, so it should not be listed this way right now. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Though it looks highly unlikely that Turkey is actually willing to do so. Braganza (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Turkey hasn't even gone as far as Poland. Whilst Article V gets all the press, Poland invoked Article IV. Turkey hasn't invoked anything. kencf0618 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose For my reason listed immediately above, etc.

References