Talk:2026 Iran war/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Possible WP:NPOV violations in this article for the third time

I think that some users are pov pushing to support a regime change. The background section (and lead) simply lack an explanation for why Iranian regime became anti-Israeli and anti-American after the 1979 revolution. In fact, it provides the appearance that this was solely due to the philosophy of the new political system. I think that American and Israeli support for the Shah and American-British backed overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government should be included. But I think the best option is removing unnecessary background section and removing Iranian regime's massacre of thousands of protestors during crackdown against 2025–2026 Iranian protests from the lead (I think it is not an immediate cause of this war) as it is mentioned in detail in the article body. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You already started this discussion at #Possible WP:NPOV violations in this article again. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The massacre of protestors is an obviously notable event in the lead-up to this conflict and should certainly be in the lead, given that Trump threatened military action if protesters were killed, as is documented in the body. DiodotusNicator (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that some users are pov pushing to support a regime change.

I note also that this is another vague statement which mentions no specific material. Please state which sentences, passages, or sources within the article you believe to be "pov pushing to support a regime change." DiodotusNicator (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The massacre of protesters is a notable event as it's currently used as a justification of the military operations currently ongoing in Iran, with Trump threatening intervention months before in regards to these events. I do however agree that the background section is incomplete and paints a simplistic, and biased picture of complex historical, ideological, and social processes, and it should definitely be expanded, rather than the article acting like the Iranian government hates America and Israel for no reason whatsoever. A sentence like this;

"Since Iran became an Islamist theocracy after the 1979 Revolution, it has adopted an anti-American stance and called for Israel's destruction, secretly developed a military nuclear program (active at least until 2003, according to the IAEA), and supported anti-Israeli and anti-American proxies across the Middle East."

Is very clearly and obviously biased, and utterly decontextualized, and frankly should have no real place in a neutral wikipedia entry.

Whatever748 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If there is necessary material to cover in order to ensure NPOV, then any capable editor should be WP:BOLD and compose + insert it. DiodotusNicator (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry, what makes it biased? These are all facts. What part do you think is untrue? Ruzhiner (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the problem is the lack of context: why did Iran enact an anti-US stance? Why did it call for the destruction of Israel? Why did it develop a nuclear weapons program? Why did it sponsor other adversaries of the United States and Israel?

In leaving out US and Israeli aggression toward Iran from the discussion it presents the unfounded idea that Iran was just doing stuff for the lulz as opposed to responding to aggression from a nuclear superpower and its nuclear-armed regional proxy. It leaves out important original context such as US and UK support for the Shah during the revolution. Hell it even occludes how the socialist elements of the revolution were overcome by the theocratic ones. That summary, as it stands, is non-neutral and would be improved by also discussing those historical aggressions enacted by the parties who, you know, started this war. Simonm223 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll redirect this here.

@ShotaNino How exactly does "we already have pages about this" or whatever legitimize removal of sourced content in regards to the roots of Iranian-US hostile relations from the background section (where it belongs)? The removed section itself is nothing more than a singular sentence. So why remove a sentence with background information in regards to the conflict? Removing the existence of U.S. meddling previously in the area, including in Iran which has also been identified as one of the sources of anti-American sentiment in the country, alongside mentions of the current military and economic sanctions which Iranian officials state is a roadblock to U.S-Iran relations is in my opinon not justified.

Whatever748 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think going back to events in the middle of the 20th century is any relevant for the events of a war in the second quarter of the 21st century. It can be good on article on the history of Iran and US relations but not here. Unless we are trying to push an extremist anti American view here which I don't think we should on the English Wikipedia. ShotaNino (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Mossadeq and the pre-1979 events do not belong in this article. Rehashing the 1953 coup risks turning the page into a historical essay instead of what we actually want, which is keeping it focused on the current conflict. In any case, the hostility of the Islamic Republic toward the United States does not require us to relitigate mid-20th-century history here. The regime's reasons are surely not limited to any specific event. The U.S. was involved in many countries during the 20th century, yet no country other than Iran refers to it as the "Big Satan" or chants "Death to America" on a daily basis. Clearly, their motivations go beyond 1953 and include religious and ideological factors. I also agree with ShotaNino above: if someone wants to read about the early relations between the two countries, going back to the 1950s, they can read the Iran–US relations article. There is already more than enough to cover here without bringing in distant history. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but mentioning Mossadegh is at best maybe out of scope which is why i tagged you here to discuss it and make a neutral resolution. Saying that simply mentioning U.S meddling in the region is somehow pushing "an extremist anti american view" is very absurd and even dishonest. Please conduct yourself according to Wikipedia:AGF.

Rather than mentioning Mossadegh directly, how about an edited version?

"Iran's stance towards the United States and Israel has been shaped in part by historical grievances related to U.S. intervention in Iranian politics, and decades of regional military involvement and sanctions, which Iranian leaders and many analysts view as factors contributing to mutual hostility."

This should mention the obvious reasons for Iran's dislike of the U.S while not going back 70 or so years.

Whatever748 (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

My take on it: we should avoid scope creep. If people want to read analysts’ views on what caused the Islamic regime’s hostility toward the United States, there are dozens of other places on Wikipedia where that is covered. Analysis of when, why, and how this hostility developed is not relevant to the background section here. This article does not need to present that analysis, it is enough to state the fact that the regime has been hostile for 47 years now, without attempting to justify it. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

With multiple sources discussing the origins of the war in both 53 and 79, it's demonstrably not scope creep. key context for anyone hoping to get an overview of the conflict, as this main article on it is going to bring in a lot of readers who lack any background. Discussion of Reza Pahlavi later in the article only underlines the need. There are many sources from last summer that did this exact contextualization during the last conflict (USA Today: See a timeline of 70 years of history that led to U.S. bombing Iran). Seems like pretty typical background info, both in major newspapers and here on wikipedia. —BrechtBro (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the Iranian regime turned anti-Israel and anti-American following the 1979 revolution. But, as previously said, my concern is with claiming that this was primarily due to the khomeinism philosophy of the new political structure. As I previously stated, I believe that US and Israeli support for the Shah, as well as the American-British-backed overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government, contributed to the revolution's success and the attendance of approximately 10 million people at Ruhollah Khomeini's state funeral (the second-largest funeral in history). I agree that it is a fact that Iran provided political, financial, and military support to non-state actors for countering the influence of US and Israel in West Asia. As I previously said, I agree that the Iranian regime massacred hundreds of protestors during the 2025-2026 Iranian protest crackdown, and the regime may have had more opponents and supporters in recent years for a variety of reasons (particularly following the crackdown). However, it is also true that US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent alleged that Washington created a dollar shortage in Iran to push the Iranian rial into freefall and cause protests in Iran per https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/feb/27/iran-economic-sanctions-currency-bessent-trump/, https://www.npr.org/2026/02/23/nx-s1-5708935/trumps-sanctions-on-iran-have-dramatically-affected-its-economy-and-led-to-protests and https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/2/13/us-says-it-caused-dollar-shortage-to-trigger-iran-protests-what-that-means. Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know thousands, not hundreds were killed (some say tens of thousands). Everything else you wrote is probably true too but I agree with the above statements that in the end this is a question of scope and exploring how western involvement in the 1950s to the 1970s in Iran impacted the 1979 revolution is probably really out of scope. This article has the potential to expand more and more and there is no reason to get into the opinions of this and that scholars of what contributed to something that happened in 1979. That would be opening a pandora box. Ruzhiner (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that thousands or even tens of thousands of protesters were killed in the crackdown. That was a typo. Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems comfortable to me. We cannot ignore the historical factor that shaped the present anti-American sentiment in Iran, which is essentially a fact ignored in the background section. Both viewpoints should equally exist. Ahammed Saad (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

We can ignore it because it is irrelevant for explaining why the 2026 war erupted. Saying Iran is anti-American is basic information for the war. Why Iran is anti-American is not, and it should appear somewhere else. "Both viewpoints should equally exist" could be FALSE BALANCE. ShotaNino (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I would remove all pre-2026 information from the background and start with the anti-regime protests, since without them the current war likely wouldn't have begun. Relations between the US, Israel, and Iran had been mostly quiet since the June war, and the current conflict stems largely from the anti-regime protests in Iran in January 2026, the international responses, Trump's promises of help, and the negotiations in February 2026. Everything before 2026 could be moved to a "Further information" subtitle just below the background. The background section should be renamed "Prelude" to make it clear that this section covers only the events immediately preceding the war. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, since you participated in a similar discussion above, could you please share your thoughts on this point here? MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

My stance is that we should start from the sources about the new conflict and take what they deem relevant, rather than start from what we believe is relevant and find sources to support it. I've written about this at User:Thebiguglyalien/The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you. But I think you should also mention US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's claim that Washington created a dollar shortage in Iran to push the Iranian rial into freefall and cause protests in Iran per https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/feb/27/iran-economic-sanctions-currency-bessent-trump/, https://www.npr.org/2026/02/23/nx-s1-5708935/trumps-sanctions-on-iran-have-dramatically-affected-its-economy-and-led-to-protests and https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/2/13/us-says-it-caused-dollar-shortage-to-trigger-iran-protests-what-that-means for avoiding violation of the WP:NPOV. Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? There are so many factors that led to the protests, each analyst would use mention other ones. I've seen mentions of years of brutal state violence, harsh repression of human rights, years of widespread capital punishment, environmental bankruptcy, and the draining of national resources through irresponsible spending on extremist foreign policy, terrorist groups, and more. So why focus on just one statement from one American official? That's totally out of scope. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV, not vice versa. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your viewpoint. But, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's claim that Washington engineered a dollar shortage in Iran to push the Iranian rial into freefall and cause protests in Iran is significant because US and Israel used deadly crackdown against protesters as one of the justification for their ongoing military operations against the Iranian regime. Pachu Kannan (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You need sources that confirm it's part of this conflict. The sources you listed don't even mention the conflict that began on February 28. Until you can find such sources, you're coming up with the connection on your own and violating NPOV's WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE requirements. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

In any case, per WP:NOR we should be citing sources that mention the war and not those that were published before the war even began. Mellk (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone want to find sources about the war's background, or am I going to have to wipe out the section down to a few sentences? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you can proceed. As a I previously stated, I think US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's claim that Washington engineered a dollar shortage in Iran to push the Iranian rial into freefall and cause protests in Iran is relevant as US and Israel used deadly crackdown against protesters as one of the justification for their ongoing military operations against the Iranian regime (source is https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/2/13/us-says-it-caused-dollar-shortage-to-trigger-iran-protests-what-that-means), but you can take the final decision as I am still an inexperienced user. Pachu Kannan (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I've added a source published since the start of the war to that section. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this is something useful? Mellk (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added that source. I now think that background section should not be removed. Pachu Kannan (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks like there's a multi-editor effort to find more contemporary sources for the section. Once that plays out a bit, I think it would make sense to remove material that has no supporting contemporary source. There should be at least a mention of each aspect of this section in a post-2/28 source. However, given that this the background page for a fresh geopolitical conflict, we will likely need pre-2/28 sources to contextualize and balance passing references made in the most up-to-date sources, which may themselves expect the reader to have familiarity with pre-2/28 material on the topic.

For example, if a source from 3/1 says that Iran supporting the Axis of Resistance is background to the war, but we only have a source from 06/2025 that says Iranian proxies suffered heavy losses in the Gaza war, I think it makes sense to include all that material while seeking to update sourcing as it becomes available. Otherwise, this article will suffer from a sort of context-blindness that will harm it. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The News18 source is rather exhaustive in it's summary —BrechtBro (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a wise approach. —BrechtBro (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@ShotaNino, I restored the opening background paragraph and the paragraph on the Iranian economic crisis that you removed. The material in these sections is adequately covered by contemporary reliable sources and is essential rather than extraneous context to the war. Without these sections, the reader has no way to access information about the history of relations between the belligerents in this conflict from this page. The economic crisis also deserves a mention. These paragraphs are small, have been improved significantly, and are the wrong sections to target to trim the background and prelude sections. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Why was Germany removed from the Infobox?

My understanding is that their bases were attacked in Jordan and Iraq.

https://www.bild.de/politik/medienbericht-bundeswehr-in-jordanien-und-irak-vom-iran-beschossen-69a4767d3be39e8ecd920236 Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

AFAIK Because based on most reputble sources, the other extended confirmed users (ECUs I call them) removed it as not stated there RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 10:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

well the Bild is generally unreliable, see WP:BILD Laura240406 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There! 1 source doesn't mean everything is true RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 15:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Oooooh fair enough. I did not realize that was the base. German is not my first language. How about these 2?

https://caliber.az/en/post/spiegel-iran-strikes-bases-in-jordan-and-iraq-hosting-german-troops

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/03/02/european-military-installations-are-targeted-in-iran-retaliation/

I don't see them on the list, but maybe you know something I do not know. Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok I need some time to verify these sources. Perhaps the other ECUs can help out RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 15:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Boston MayflowerI think let's just leave Germany out for now until we find real info where Germamy reallygets attacked or really defends Cyprus RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 16:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmmmm was something wrong with the other 2 sources?

Actually I found a different source from Der Spiegel which according to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is a good source, and is a major German News site. It even adds that Germany shot down the missles.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/iran-krieg-bundeswehr-feldlager-in-jordanien-und-irak-mit-drohnen-und-raketen-angegriffen-a-fb18c834-2e16-4ac2-ac33-f9984fd2d631 Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah now things get spicy, because which source is now correct? We might need to dig deeper, but looks like Germany really got attacked. Howeever, let's just see first. If more news outlets did report the info in your latest link, then ok RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 22:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Pretty sure it did as Der Spiegel is considered reliable, I think those other sources are not on the list one way or another. Historyguy1138 (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

yeah Der Spiegel should qualify as a reliable source Laura240406 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

War in Middle East

To preface, I'll understand if this gets closed very quickly, there have been quite a few discussions of the title of the article.

I think "War in the Middle East" or some variation on that might be a better descriptor and more of a WP:COMMONNAME than previous discussions let on. I've found mainstream news outlets from around the world in multiple languages using this descriptor from the last few days. I think a title along these lines fits the scope of the conflict better than naming it after one of the belligerents. Some examples listed below (I'm only including languages that I'm at least moderately conversant in, maybe other editors can look for sources in other languages)

• English (US): CNN calls it 'Middle East war', Reuters calling it 'war in the Middle East', PBS
• English (UK): The Guardian calls it 'Middle East war', The Independent in the first sentence says 'The war in the Middle East...'
• English (Ireland): Irish Times, the headline is 'Five days of war across Middle East'
• German: Can't link directly, but the headline on the homepage is "Krieg in Nahost" or "War in Middle East" Tagesschau
• Dutch: NOS
• French: Le Monde
• Spanish: El Pais

--ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@ScrubbedFalcon give it a few more days. But a couple things: one headline at an outlet doesn't even demonstrate a common name at that outlet, only what's in use in a particular headline. The Guardian, for example, is referring to both a "Middle East crisis" and "US-Israel war on Iran" in headers (and directly under the linked headline) on their website (the dual use may reflect a question of scope which is not necessarily best answered in a discussion about common name for this conflict). Foreign language sources don't contribute to WP:COMMONNAME. —BrechtBro (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Nakhchivan listed separately

@JaxsonR: Kurdistan region was listed separately because its a de-facto independent country from Iraq, with its own president, army and foreign policy. Nakhchivan shouldn't be added separately because its just an autonomous zone that is a part of the same federal structure, like Sicily is within Italy. Ecrusized (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Kurdistan is literally apart of the Federal government of Iraq. JaxsonR (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It is on paper. Kurdish officials have diplomatic relations, Barzani visits White House and other world leaders. They have their own army, the Peshmerga. The KRG has diplomatic missions abroad. KRG collects taxes. None of these things are true for Nakhchivan.

These are just a few examples. My point is, KRG and Nakhchivan hardly have an equal degree of autonomy. So I would appreciate if you removed Nakhchivan from infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Nakhchivan also has diplomatic relataions. JaxsonR (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

....okay, that is a very brief, and not helpful statement... KRG maintains diplomatic missions abroad and negotiates trade, and security agreements with other countries. Nakhchivan cannot engage in independent diplomacy, all foreign relations are handled by Baku. Point here is that this is about a military conflict. Kurdistan is listed separately because they have their own army, the Peshmerga. There are no Iraqi federal troops in Kurdistan. Nakhchivan is defended by Armed Forces of Azerbaijan. Ecrusized (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

removal of historical background

Removal of background, both recent and long-term, not only strips the article of useful context for readers, but is POV pushing, stripping out the context needed to understand the war, especiallt in a non-unilateral way. This section was clearly within scope as it was supported by contemporary sources about the war. I can't easily restore it immediately being mobile today, but this perhaps warrants further discussion. See also, the discussion under heading, "Possible WP:NPOV violations in this article for the third time. —BrechtBro (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Britannica gives their background as

Once allies—from 1948 to 1979—Israel and Iran became bitter enemies after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, in which the new, anti-colonial Islamic regime blamed the United States and Israel for the region’s greatest grievances. Matters escalated significantly in the early 2000s when Iran was revealed to have a suspiciously secret nuclear program and, as U.S.-led forces toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq that fiercely opposed Iran, Iran expanded its reach across the region (see Axis of Resistance).

, and they also summarise the 2025 conflict Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There is also Guardian: Trump’s current war on Iran picks up where a longstanding enmity left off which links back to the 1953 coup Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

tagging @ShotaNino, who removed the section —BrechtBro (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@BrechtBro @ShotaNino @Kowal2701 in the past 14 hours, numerous sections have been removed, including reactions in the lead, some countries from the infobox, and more. Why? Avishai11 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

no idea Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Should've happened days ago. POV pushing would be editors having their own opinions about what caused the war and then finding ways to put it in the article, and that's exactly what was happening. If you want to read about the broader context and lead up to the war, you can peruse Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present), 2026 United States military buildup in the Middle East, 2025–2026 Iran–United States negotiations, 2026 Iran massacres, Iran–Israel proxy conflict, Iran–United States relations, Iran–Israel relations, Iran internal crisis (2025–present), Twelve-Day War, and 2025–2026 Iranian protests, among others. There's no need to expend thousands of words in this article's already-overused real estate to go so in depth on things that are already covered extensively on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It would seem to make more sense to trim it than to cut it off entirely. The background and how we got here is extremely important, and I'm sure the background section is not currently nearly as problematic as the timeline sections that expand on very specific war-related details. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

agreed, we can have like 3/4 paras, though Myanmar civil war (2021–present)#Background, War in the Sahel#Background, and Russo-Ukrainian War#Background have longer sections Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien a concise, clear background section is, among other things, a navigational aid for readers to find their way to those pages if they want to read in more depth. Which can be accomplished in hundreds, not thousands, of words. —BrechtBro (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @BrechtBro that the background section is essential. The history of conflict between the belligerents and the Iran nuclear issue need a place in this article so that readers can delve deeper into those topics if they choose. I think that the state of the background section now is pretty acceptable, and it can be improved as more reliable post-2/28 sourcing emerges.

Credit to @ShotaNino for making the distinction between the background and the prelude, which I think has been really useful in separating the necessary historical context from the immediate buildup to the war. I'd suggest that the prelude section can be further trimmed as it becomes more clear which details remain relevant. The background section, though, is pretty tight as it is in my opinion. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The background section, though, is pretty tight as it is in my opinion. that might be in part because I've trimmed it since this conversation started. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox: "Attacked by Israel: Lebanon"

Hezbollah has attacked Israel on 2 March, and Israel retaliated with an operation against Hezbollah, in cooperation with the Lebanese government. Israel has not attacked the Lebanese state. This should be removed from the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreement: As far as I'm aware , the Lebanese state itself opposes Hezbollah and is concerned in maintaining it's sovereignty by dismantling Hezbollah , also Israeli air raids and strikes were dedicated against Hezbollah militias and their top commanders within Lebanon. For the time being , Lebanon should be removed as per @Ecrusized Legion of Liberty (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think Lebanon should be on side 1 given its opposition to Hezbollah VitoxxMass (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Support - Best to remove Lebanon entirely, just leave Hezbollah there on the side of Iran. HarvardJock (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree - seems the Lebanese state is actually moving against Hezbollah politically so this placement doesn't make much sense DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I have removed it per the above. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Should Sri Lanka be listed as Defensive under Iran? They appear to be supporting Iranian vessels in their waters and did a recovery mission after the Iranian boat was struck in their water. See Esolo5002 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not defensive of Iran, I'm pretty sure its illegal under international law to not help a sinking ship. (just assuming) JaxsonR (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it’s a fundamental legal duty to rescue anyone in danger at sea. I wouldn’t read too much into that. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@4-RAZOR 01 According to NYT, Sri Lanka detained the Iranian sailors. Avishai11 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Sri Lanka has said that it will not involve itself in the war and has also detained another Iranian ship at colombo, the IRIS Busher as we speak 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Dubious

Some sources say yes

Kurdish Iranian opposition groups say Iran targeted them in northern Iraq, claim operations in Iran

EXCLUSIVE: Thousands Of Kurdish Fighters Launch Ground Offensive Into Iran Against Regime, Official Says - i24NEWS

But some say no

ANF | Kurdish forces deny reports of alleged ground offensive against Iran GarethBaloney (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It's unclear @GarethBaloney. For now I say take it away until we get a major news confirmation, DoD (or DoW now), etc. confirmation. Since yesterday's alert may have been false, I think there hasn't been much new news now. If you see more, then sure. See below: Talk:2026 Iran war#Footage of alleged Kurdish mobilization on instagram Avishai11 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

"The US made the attack without a clear plan" claim in lead

This is currently in the lead, and I am proposing changing it. It seems extremely charged. Maybe they haven't laid out a clear plan publicly, but that does NOT mean they DIDN'T. No military source or major newspaper/news site has confirmed they have no plan. The only source appears to be from some "Middle East experts" and a U.S. Senator -- not any administration official. I am wondering what all of you think. Avishai11 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Needs rewording, like "thorough plan" or something, seems to be communicating that they did it without forcing a particular outcome Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, still the main point in my view is that it is declaring something as FACT without attribution when no one has confirmed this. Also, even if it did have attribution, I doubt it belongs in the lead. If there is a "controversies" or "reactions" page (there is a "reactions" page, idk about the "controversies" page), it can go there. What do you think? Avishai11 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You’re right, remove for now. It’s the sort of thing for an Analysis section Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 absolutely. And even then, this should not be in without WP:ATTRIBUTION. Avishai11 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Norwegian civilian casualty

it was confirmed 2 days ago that a norwegian citizen was killed in a israeli/american air attack ~2026-14205-67 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Norwegian-Iranian citizen. Poor fella. How does one count dual citizens in these counts? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5786 07:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

"Attacked by Iran" but not "attacked by Israel"

The outcomes of separate discussions regarding the infobox seem to be at odds with one another. It was agreed to remove the mention of Israel attacking Lebanon on the grounds that it was specifically targeting Hezbollah and not the Lebanese state, but Iran's attacks on (most) Middle Eastern countries were specifically targeting US bases, not the militaries of the countries themselves. Both should be treated similarly, whether that means equal inclusion or equal removal. — An anonymous username, not my real name 05:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

We should revert to the previous version of the infobox which only included states that took defensive military action, rather than every state that was attacked. 9ninety (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Status of the Republic of Lebanon?

The Lebanese Republic has been acting against Hezbollah using its army and law-enforcement procedures, arresting various individuals and partly cooperating with Israel.

Considering the fact other countries are even supplying their anti-militant attitude (with France even offering armored vehicles to Lebanon to persue their goals:https://aje.news/0avpno?update=4369419) Should the position of Lebanon be shown in any way in the infobox? VitoxxMass (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

do you have a source for The Lebanese Republic has been acting against Hezbollah using its army and law-enforcement procedures, arresting various individuals and partly cooperating with Israel? 9ninety (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

As you can see the army is used to arrest Hezbollah fighters

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/lebanese-army-reportedly-arrests-12-armed-members-of-hezbollah/

Question is the arrest of active fighters considered a belligerant action, especially after said militants are deemed "illegal" VitoxxMass (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd say that counts as a belligerent action; I've added Lebanon and France to the infobox in 2026 Hezbollah–Israel strikes. 9ninety (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Houthi participation

Houthi leader said today that they are ready to intervene in support Iran quoting "Our hands are on trigger regarding escalation & military action whenever developments require it." Source: 1 Any updates on that. Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait For Now: Currently they haven't joined the war militarily yet just diplomatically expressed support for Iran , Hezbollah wasn't in the infobox until it military joined the war by attacking Israel. Houthis can be added onto the belligerents if in near future they military join the war as per me. Legion of Liberty (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait Shouldn't be added to the infobox unless they actually join the hostilities. Ecrusized (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait words aren't action just yet until words are backed up with actions Avishai11 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait per above we should wait till hey have fully joined the war. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

IAEA statements and the language in the lead

My edit was reverted, removing the source with the latest IAEA statement on the Iranian nuclear issue and changing the wording in the lead. This material was removed earlier, after @Pachu Kannan added it.

I'm confused as to the reasoning here -- the WSJ reports that Iran Has No Structured Program to Build Nuclear Weapons, and that Grossi of the IAEA says Iran has an “ambitious” nuclear program but doesn’t have a program for building nuclear weapons currently. “It is an evaluation that is based on the fact that Iran has a very big, ambitious nuclear program, that we do not have the accesses that we should have” Grossi said, referring to Iran’s refusal to let IAEA inspectors visit its damaged nuclear sites. “At the same time, I have said…we don’t see a structured program to manufacture nuclear weapons,” he added. Al Jazeera corroborates this report, citing NBC. I think that the language I picked is exactly accurate; although Iran has some of the necessary precursors to start producing nuclear weapons (what Grossi calls their "ambitious" Iran nuclear program), there is no evidence it has organized or structured production in a manner that can produce nuclear weapons. Even if it can't be ruled out that Iran might secretly have some or most of the capabilities to organize production that way (big, ambitious nuclear program, that we do not have the accesses that we should have), there is no available evidence indicating that they have done so yet.

@L69 (or another opponent of including this material/wording), can you please explain your reasoning for exclusion? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The version that L69 removed was egregious SYNTH. We should not be restating WP:ALJAZEERA's gloss on this subject in wikivoice.

Note the AJ article following some editorial gloss with:

Later on Tuesday, Grossi said on X that “while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern”.“For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful,” he concluded. DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this conclusion, and support the removal made by L69. Bravelake (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The WSJ is the source that was being used in the article. I only included AJ to show that a quorum of sources is reporting on the same statements from Grossi.

In any event, I think these two statements can be (and according to Grossi, are) true:

1. The IAEA can't guarantee that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. Because it lost full access to the sites, it cannot assure that Iran is not pursuing development of one of the prerequisites to build a nuclear weapon (in this case, Grossi seems to be talking specifically about weapons-grade uranium).

2. Iran lacks a structured nuclear weapons program. They are several steps away from building a nuclear weapon, and there is no evidence that they were actively trying to obtain one before the war.

The lead should somehow capture all of this information. If you are worried about SYNTH, I originally supported @Pachu Kannan's edit, which contrasted the IAEA's clarification that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program with the relevant US justifications for the strike. I prefer this version to my own edit, but it was also reverted by @L69. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Canadian involvment

On the topic of Canadian involvement in this conflict:

- Despite denial of involvement from the DND, according to retired Major-General Denis Thompson, Canadian forces from the Combined Aerospace Operations Center of the 1 Canadian Air Division have been providing intelligence support for the strikes on Iran Did Canadian exchange officers participate in U.S. Iran strike planning? DND says no, but questions linger | CBC News

- Also per the same source, around 18 Canadian soldiers were on present at the American bases in Qatar and Bahrain when they were attacked Did Canadian exchange officers participate in U.S. Iran strike planning? DND says no, but questions linger | CBC News

- On March 3, 2026, Canadian Defence Minister David McGuinty confirmed that Canadian forces are in the Middle East, confirmed that they hadn't suffered any casualties, stated that the Canadian Armed Forces will “assess any potential impacts on CAF personnel in the region", stated that the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "is a positive development", though like with the prior DND statement he denied Canadian involvement in planning the operation Canadian troops in Middle East ‘are all fine’ amid Iran war, McGuinty says - National | Globalnews.ca

- On March 3, 2026, Canada requested Oman to use it airspace to evacuate Canadian civilians Ottawa has asked Oman to use its airspace to evacuate Canadians in Middle East, minister says | Radio-Canada.ca Lazarbeem (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lazarbeem Okay, are you requesting that this be added? Avishai11 (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes please. I also request that there is a part in the article body explaining that contradictions between the DND's own statements and retired Major-General Denis Thompson statement to CBC News Lazarbeem (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney says he "won't rule out military involvement". This should also be added to the article Iran news: PM Carney won't rule out Canada participation Lazarbeem (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this is WP:TOOSOON. Canada is not, at this time, a party to this war in a meaningful sense. Wait until it's more than Carney triangulating in the press. Simonm223 (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Recently the Chief of the Defence Staff General Jennie Carignan said that Canada "could be called on to help defend Gulf states." As I mentioned on Ecrusized's talk page, I think that there should be an article titled: "Canada and the Iran conflict" because this is getting increasingly complicated. Lazarbeem (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, such an article could help editors know Canada's evolving stance on the conflict without having to argue about it Lazarbeem (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Iran denies attacking Azerbaijan

@Evaporation123: Iran also denied attacking Turkey as well as Oman on 1 March, and then attacked them again on 3 March. Their denials are an attempt to avoid responsibility. This isn't something to disputed. Ecrusized (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I suppose. Evaporation123 (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

A cautious approach is needed on this. What do the most reputable non-Israel and non-US based sources say on this attack? Do they affirm unequivocally it was an Iranian attack? What are the proofs? Ingminatacam (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Syria

@Asarlaí Why shouldn't Syria be on the list? Regardless of a deliberate attack or not, the unexploded projectile from Iran hit Syria; This is backed by multiple sources; implying that it never happened or denying the severity of the attack is WP:OR. Also, the list says "Attacked by Iran", so whether you like it or not, Syria was attacked, even if on accident. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Support adding Avishai11 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I've never heard "attack" to mean striking without intent. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

International responses Map glitch

Hi everyone, another editor (@Wikieditor662) has encountered issues where the map on this article 2026 Iran warcontinues to randomly be deleted due to unrelated edits, but the key remains on the article, it appears to be some kind of glitch and I thought I might as well bring it up here as it’s a current issue of which the original question at the Help Desk seems to be somewhat stagnating and diverged from the original issue. So if anyone has any technical knowledge of why this glitch might be happening then that will be great.

Wikipedia:Help desk#Map keeps on getting accidentally removed for some reason Here is the original discussion with the new map at the bottom. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Where should Iran be listed in the infobox?

I have made three edits to list Iran as under the AOR. Each time, other editors eventually edit the infobox to list Iran above the AOR. I strongly support Iran being listed as under the AOR because Iran is a member of that informal alliance and to list them apart insinuates they are separate entities. I want to bring the issue to wider attention here in order to avoid an edit war. Evaporation123 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Evaporation123 Because Iran is also the primary belligerent, I think. Also let's ensure this does NOT turn into an edit war. We need to de-escalate. Maybe Iran can also be listed amongst AOR, but Iran is the primary opposing side. Avishai11 (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I sought to compromise by bolding Iran while also keeping it under the AOR. And I think everyone agrees Iran is the primary belligerent, but it is not the issue at debate here. Evaporation123 (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Name section

Wozld be nice to have a new section to move the names of the operations as well as the common names to refer to the conflict, maki g the lead more concise in the process. Z 15:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I totally agree. We don't need all these operation names at the top of the page. For example see Twelve Day War, which makes mention of the names of operations in the body. October 7 attacks also have a dedicated brief section devoted to names. Yeoutie (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, seems undue to give the codenames of the initial operations that much weight in the first paragraph of the lede. I would cut the second two sentences of the first paragraph. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

imo just put the three code names in an {{efn}} Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I moved the codenames as they were formatted to the hostilities section in the body (they already had notes attached to them that I kept). ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Images of damage outside Iran

@QuisEstJoe points out that we don't have any images of damage in countries other than Iran (namely Israel). The closest we have so far is File:Dankal shelter 2.jpg which shows civilians sheltering in Israel. I looked on Commons but didn't see anything else. If people found stuff to add, that would be good I think! Placeholderer (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Good idea, not sure how but perhaps some images will be released or have been a,ready, I suggest people have a search around (or someone from those places upload their photos. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Footage of alleged Kurdish mobilization on instagram

The Northern Provisions instagram account has shared footage it claimed to be of Kurdish insurgents mobilizing on the Iranian-Iraq border. As of now, I'm not seeing this verified in other sources, and OSINT accounts and news outlets seem rather quiet after the false announcement of a Kurdish offensive yesterday. Are there any other sources reporting such a Kurdish mass mobilization or is this simply more engagement bait? Randomuser335S (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Randomuser335S They seem to have tanks or special vehicles, which is unusual of the Kurds -- unless supplied by the U.S. That's just my view. I don't think we can cite it, obviously, but I mean if you want to tip off Bellingcat, be my guest (lol). Avishai11 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Avishai11 Your point about the vehicles is very true, though it wouldn't surprise me if the CIA and Mossad were supplying the Kurdish insurgents armored vehicles to support a grand offensive against the Islamic Republic if the footage is true. I'm personally extremely skeptical of the Northern Provisions' video, as it is very telling that the even the most feckless OSINT accounts aren't touching it at the moment. Unless it can be collaborated elsewhere, I'm willing to bet that it's older footage the Northern Provisions account appropriated to farm engagement. Randomuser335S (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah @Randomuser335S I haven't heard of the account before so I scrolled through it and it seems quite shady. A lot of bias in previous remarks. I don't know honestly. Plus the setting doesn't really look like Iraq to me. The Iran-Iraq border is not very urban like is shown here (except for the Southern parts, which have very few Kurds compared Arabs). The Kurdistan region is very high-altitude and mountainous. That's just from some quick research. That video doesn't seem to be reported in the media aside from other "journalistic OSINT" accounts -- not even the mainstream ones. Avishai11 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Avishai11 I also asked this question in the 2026 Kurdish Rebellion in 2026 talk page, and @Babeswayscaptcha pointed out that the Kurdish force in the footage was the Pershmerga, which specifically specializes in internal KRG administration, rather then any of the Iranian Kurdish separatists. As such, it doesn't seem like the armored vehicle movements is related to any possible Iranian invasion like the account is trying to present.

With the Northern Provisions account, one red flag I've noticed while following them is they're oddly politically inconsistent and opportunistic with whatever is trending at the moment. For example, I've seen the account post footage of BLM protesters harassing and verbally abusing bystanders and then share Epstein files involving Trump accusations in another. It's almost like the Northern Provisions account is deliberately flirting with both Democrat and Republic spaces to advertise their merchandise to the largest audience possible. Another red flag is the account seems to be actively cultivating and encouraging a very problematic conspiracist viewer base.

Although I was initially wondering if there was any other sources of a mobilized Kurdish force preparing to invade Iran, it seems best to dismiss this as the fabrications of a fair weathered social media muckraker for the time being. Randomuser335S (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Randomuser335S Yeah. It's pretty conspiratorial, if you look at some posts of theirs on Israel and the U.S. and Trump -- but then sometimes in support of them? It's wild. And then some posts I saw having Tucker Carlson on? Like it's crazy. So while we did see that major news outlets DID report that Trump offered to give air support to the Kurds, but no one is saying they actually invaded just yet. I personally suspect that it will happen within 2 days if it ever happens, but alas, I will leave it to the Kurds to decide (lol). Avishai11 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Rename to "Iran War"

This page should be renamed to Iran War. This is the only real full-scale war Iran has been engaged in with the US and its a regional conflict involving multiple countries (Israel and Gulf States, now Azerbaijan) and there hasn't been another one, so it's appropriate to call this the "Iran War" for the page rather than 2026 Iran War. It's the same reason we call the Iraq War the Iraq War and not the "2003 Iraq War" and same with Afghanistan. There is absolutely no reason the "2026" should be there on the page title. HarvardJock (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Please refer to the consensus from yesterday at Talk:2026 Iran war/Archive 3#Requested move 4 March 2026. 9ninety (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The title should be changed back to reflect the US and Israel's foundational involvement. The term Iran War is a shorthand used mostly in the United States. GlowingLava (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Potentially trivial statement

@Ronnnaldo7 your edit seems to be about a very specific circumstance, and I'm not sure if it's significant enough to already be included in this already oversized article. Would you consider self-rv? Perhaps it would be more appropriate in another article, such as Reactions to the 2026 Iran war or the article on Mojtaba Khamenei. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Defensive only listing

@Darer101: I'd rather not discuss this on edit summaries of back and forth reverts, the talk page exists for a reason. During the twelve day war, none of the "defensive only" countries were deliberately struck by Iran, so your comparison doesn't make sense, they were simply intercepting missiles flying over their country.

During this conflict, all of the listed countries (except Canada) have been directly attacked with missiles/drones by Iran. The straight line with 4 x (-) dashes, and the bold title Defensive only alreday clarifies that these countries aren't bombing Iran. Ecrusized (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

fragments of the iranian missiles hit syria aswell leaving several dead, why isnt syria there on the list Invisious (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That was later reported to be from an unrelated incident: https://www.newarab.com/news/five-killed-south-syria-depot-explosion-not-iran-missile Ecrusized (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "none of the defensive only countries were deliberately struck by Iran" in the Twelve Day War? See Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base (Yes, an American base, but that's the same in this conflict as well) Darer101 19:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I forgot about Qatar being struck, but still thats just one country being attacked, as opposed to 10 countries being attacked by Iran in this round. Ecrusized (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion its fine. The line denotes them as two separate co-belligerent factions against Iran. Similar to the relationship between Nazi Germany and the USSR during the Invasion of Poland, and if you go to that page it is formatted exactly the same way in the infobox. The USSR and Germany had a non-aggression pact and were both aligned against Poland as the US/Israel and the UN coalition are against Iran (of course, Poland was not controlled by a belligerent theocracy that hated Jews lol) but weren't exactly on the same "side" writ large (US is pretty much in the same category as Russia and Israel seeing how it now illegally claims territory in Greenland/outside of its territory proper). --DC Ambrose (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there a certain number of defensive parties below which we list them as being in the middle, and above which we list them as being on one side?

In my opinion, there isn't, and we should have principle in deciding how to list defensive parties. And that principle should be that defensive parties are to be listed as they are in the Twelve-Day War article (especially considering that this is currently a high traffic article). Darer101 13:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

(I figure I'll mention this here instead of starting yet another thread) Canada has been removed—what about France and Greece? The footnotes just say they've been moving forces around. I don't think that "moving forces around" is worth adding parties to a Belligerents column. Another example would be Syria, per @Otopon at WP:RFED, which has been "moving forces around"—but where would they be added?

TLDR I think France and Greece should be removed from Belligerents.

(The UK is a special case because of the Cyprus bases) Placeholderer (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

100% agree. As well as The Netherlands for the same reason. Cobblebricks (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

As I've seen no clear objection I'll go ahead and do that Placeholderer (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

THAAD destruction rumored

• Iran Claims Largest US Radar In Gulf Destroyed: All About Billion Dollar Machine

This source (NDTV World) also mentions Qatari officials confirming the Iranian claims, and shows an image allegedly depicting the result of the strike. Other sources also report the destruction of one or more THAAD units. Should this rumor, given its notability, be mentioned in the article, however briefly? CapeVerdeWave (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ill say we wait till today evening (GMT) then when the US Confirms we will add that directly 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

We might not ever get official confirmation. U.S. military communication infrastructure tends to be highly classified. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Others we can write it like Iran claimed destruction of THAAD missile launcher. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Otherwise

4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I will support if you provide another reliable source for this claim Ahammed Saad (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/05/middleeast/radar-bases-us-missile-defense-iran-war-intl-invs

CNN is reputable? ACasualEditor97 (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Good enough! 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

As a note, there is conflicting information about the status of the radar in Qatar. Some sources are saying the AN/FPS-132 was completely destroyed. However, others are only saying it was "damaged." United24 says the "extent of the damage is unclear." Ynet quotes an analyst who says the radar is still functional.

I also have no idea how reliable some of those sources are, but this discrepancy should probably be addressed either way. Ixfd64 (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Casualties3

This section is currently too big for MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It's also supplanting information not mentioned in the article 2026 Iran war, such as expatriate deaths. I think it should be removed and replaced with a link to casualties section of the article, exactly like units1/2 currently is. Lebanese casualties should be moved to casualties2 imo, since it includes both civ/mil deaths. @Asarlaí: Ecrusized (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Guz13: Expatriate and other civilian deaths are mentioned with a link that shows them inside the article. Infobox is not a place to supplant information not mentioned in the article, nor should it be too big. Kuwait's deaths are mentioned in casualties1 because they are military deaths. Ecrusized (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The content in the infobbox which you reverted is in the article. You even just said that.

"deaths are mentioned with a link that shows them inside the article"

"Infobox is not a place to supplant information not mentioned in the article"

Please self revert the infobox to how it was before. Guz13 (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It WASN't in the article before. I've added it yesterday when I removed them from the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It was in the article when I added it a few minutes ago. You have no grounds to remove it. Please self revert. Guz13 (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox is extremely bloated now. You should read MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. @AirshipJungleman29:. Ecrusized (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Showing people who are killed in various countries are a "key fact" in a war. This is fully in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This is a regional war and people are getting killed everywhere and the public should know. Guz13 (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Iran shooting missiles and drones at the entire region causing over 150 casualties is most certainly not "bloat". These attacks have led to immense diplomatic fall out and shocking news to Iranian allies, perhaps most notably Nakhchivan International Airport in Azerbaijan, which rescued Iranian diplomats from Lebanon just days before. On the other hand, documenting equipment destruction in the infobox is unnecessary. It also was mistakenly placed as "per Iran", but cited CNN and Reuters IIRC. It was improper to put the 3rd party casualties in the belligerent section and the flags were unnecessary, but a brief mention in the casualties3 parameter would be in line with similar articles. See Hezbollah–Israel conflict (2023–present), 2024 Iran–Israel conflict, Twelve-Day War, Gulf War, etc. ← Metallurgist (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders - Iran

As it stands, the "Commanders and leaders" in the infobox for Iran are:

Ali Khamenei X (Supreme Leader)

Masoud Pezeshkian (President)

Aziz Nasirzadeh X (Defence Minister)

Ali Larijani (Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council)

Abdolrahim Mousavi X (Military Chief of Staff)

Mohammad Pakpour X (IRGC commander)

Ali Shamkhani X (Member of the Expediency Discernment Council)

That's compared to the US/Israel side, where only the heads of government (Trump, Netanyahu) and defense ministers (Hegseth, Katz) are listed (though @DiodotusNicator is asking above about adding the CENTCOM commander). I don't think everyone here is worth listing on the Iranian side by comparison. Meanwhile, Interim Leadership Council members Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje'i and Alireza Arafi should be added (bolded).

Since infoboxes are touchy and I'm not an expert on the Iranian chain of command, I figured I'd bring this here. At the very least I think Shamkhani should be removed. How important is the military chief of staff? How important is the secretary of the SNSC? I do figure IRGC commander should stay. Placeholderer (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

To me it comes across as needlessly emphasizing the scale of leadership casualties (conflict infoboxes in general seem to have a bad habit of doing this). I say supreme leader, defence minister and IRGC commander should definitely stay, and perhaps just those. This might seem strange, but president should probably be removed for consistency (the actual authority of the president of Iran seems comparable to that of the president of Israel, who is not listed). — An anonymous username, not my real name 05:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll disagree with you about the president—at the very least he's the other member of the Interim Leadership Council, so officially co-in-charge of the country Placeholderer (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed Larijani, Mousavi, and Shamkhani, and added Mohseni-Eje'i and Arafi, pending discussion Placeholderer (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: With Eyal Zamir and Dan Caine being listed under Israel/US I've restored Mousavi as the Iranian equivalent (pointed out by TA). But I also see that @FCBWanderer you've restored Larijani. I guess I'd just ask what your reasoning was—while I've read about Larijani being an important powerbroker, the field in the infobox is rather crowded Placeholderer (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Larijani is the one of the most important negotiation figures in this war. It is much more important than other individuals like the Minister of Defense. FCBWanderer (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Terminology: a war or not?

The Trump administration uses a mixted terminology to describe what they are doing to Iran, avoiding "war" because of the the legal implications and using euphemisms coming close to the "special military operation" as Russia calls its war against Ukraine. House speaker Mike Johnson said "We’re not at war right now" and called it "a very specific, clear mission and operation". Bancki (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

See the move discussion from the other day: Special:PermanentLink/1341747552#Requested_move_2_March_2026 ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Consensus per the move request is to name it a war GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It's exactly for this reason that Wikipedia refers to things based on what they're called by independent sources (in this case press outlets) instead of from involved parties. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't want to rename this article, I too find "war" the most appropriate, I only want to suggest a chapter about who avoids to name it a war and why, because that's noteworthy in my opinion.----Bancki (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Section Impact/misinformation and propoganda

@Regioncalifornia you added this section, sourcing it to HonestReporting which, while it isn't in the perennial sources list, seems to be viewed questionably as a RS by other editors (see for example: RS noticeboard archive). You also reverted @मल्ल removal of the addition as vandalism although the removal edit summary said it was poorly sourced. I'd like input from other editors on this section, I haven't removed it yet, seeking consensus. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@ScrubbedFalcon if the user thinks a source is not reliable, he shouldn't delete the content but instead add the template [better source needed]. I have more sources and I'll add them, not all at once, but I will. Regioncalifornia (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Noting that @Wikieditor662 removed the section here: , please seek consensus here before adding it again?

Reverting the removal as vandalism even if you don't agree with the removal reason instead of coming here to discuss it doesn't strike me as assuming good faith. The initial removal is part of the BRD cycle as I understand it, reverting it to put the content back isn't. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Removing content on the grounds that it is "poorly sourced", to me, is definitely not assuming good faith. There's a reason the Template:Better source needed exists. Misinformation and propaganda by Iran on social media are widely documented and definitely deserve a section in this article. Here are a few other sources that discuss the same topic:

Times of Israel

ABC

Misbar

CTV

NDTV Regioncalifornia (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Regioncalifornia sourcing was not the reason I removed the content. As I’ve explained in the edit summary, this article is over 10K words and is constantly getting longer, so only the most important information should go in this article, per WP:DUE. Most of the information that’s covered in WP:RS should go in one of the other related articles to the war.

Also, I am not against people disagreeing with the trimmings or even occasionally reverting them. But I can’t ask in the talk page before every trim as so much new information gets added to the article, meaning I have to make many trimmings all the time just to keep the article at a good length. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. Regioncalifornia (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, the majority (if not all) of the content I trim from this article is just moved to another article, that covers the specific topic more in depth. And note that many other members also supported trimming the article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It's generally expected that poorly sourced content be removed. The relevant explanation is at WP:BURDEN: Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. There are other options besides removing it, but removal is the main one. I've added a few better source needed tags to the article, but only because I didn't have the energy to look more closely one by one. Also keep in mind that this is one of the heaviest traffic articles right now, so the editing is going to be more chaotic and more in flux than just about any other article. And as Wikieditor662 said, that also means most of the info about the war should go in articles other than this one—I placed a list of them at the top of this talk page a couple days ago and I'll add Draft:Misinformation during the 2026 Iran war. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien thanks for your help. A second user went to my talk page after reverting a bunch of my trims with the same reason. Maybe we need to put a notice on this talk page about it this. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I tagged you on this conversation because you removed the content being discussed and thought you might have input for the discussion, not because I disagreed with the removal. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured. And thank you for your help as well. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Except it isn't an unreliable source, it's only considered "questionable" by some users. I'll add it to the draft. Regioncalifornia (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

CONSENSOUS REQUEST

In the lead, this is in there: "Attacks [of the U.S./Israel] included also schools, hospitals, and a landmark. In retaliation, Iran launched dozens of its drones and ballistic missiles throughout the Persian Gulf at targets in Israel and US military bases in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Iran launched strikes on civilian airports and shipping ports in Kuwait, the UAE, Oman, and Azerbaijan." I feel like this is quite biased, and doesn't discuss that the majority of targets were NOT "schools, hospitals, and a landmark", they were military targets. It just feels a bit biased, especially since Iran is stated primarily to launch missiles/drones at "military bases", when the U.S. is described as hitting civilian targets. Wondering what everyone thinks. Also Iran launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles, not "dozens". I'm just worried about NPOV. Have a nice day, everyone! Avishai11 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

In context, I do not see a NPOV problem, as the preceding sentences discuss other targets... "joint strikes by US and Israel in the cities of Tehran, Isfahan, Qom, Karaj, and Kermanshah. The attacks included the assassination of Ali Khamenei, whose compound was destroyed; Ali Shamkhani, former secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council; and several other Iranian officials. Attacks included also schools..." discussion of other military targets could be worth mentioning in these two sentences to create additional balance, but they may not be particularly notable. The strikes on non-military targets is notable and worth discussing in the lead, reflected in widespread independent coverage of the strike on the schools. Section may need to be rewritten and updated to better describe specific hostilities beyond the opening of the conflict, but that is not a POV question. —BrechtBro (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I added "The attacks targeted various military and government sites" before the part about assassinations. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I changed it to "The attacks also resulted in civilian casualties and severely damaged at least two schools, a hospital, a historic bazaar, and the historic site of a palace of a previous regime." I didn't see the comment by BrechtBro before doing that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@BarrelProof @BrechtBro Still, needs attribution as almost all of this is per state-owned media or Al Jazeera (or NYT/western sources BUT FROM Iranian media). The Minab school attack has not been confirmed to be either a U.S. or Israeli strike -- it could be IRGC. Avishai11 (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh. I notice that the BBC source does not actually seem to clearly say who caused the damage they are reporting. I changed "The attacks caused" to "The attacks and the ensuing violence by Iranian forces caused ...". It still needs improvement, I think. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The headline says, "Iranian schools, hospital and landmarks among civilian sites hit during US-Israeli strikes" what is unclear about that? The new language is confusing and unnecessary and suggests Iran is bombing their own buildings, which is not supported at all by the source. —BrechtBro (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that headlines are not considered part of the reliable content of a cited source. Headlines are often lacking in nuance, designed primarily to attract attention, and written by someone different from the person who writes an article body. Another thing to notice is that the wording of that headline says when it happened ("during US-Israeli strikes") but not who did it. The Iranians were fighting back during those attacks, using weapons such as missiles that are capable of causing serious damage. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, should be adequate to say that they were damaged during or as a result of the attacks then, rather than by them. The article does attribute the damage to Gandhi hospital a being from an IDF strike, but that's not everything. —BrechtBro (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I just ran across the guideline about headlines in another discussion. It is at WP:HEADLINES. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect: "BBC Verify has documented damage to a hospital, sporting centres, a Unesco world heritage site and two schools - one of which saw 168 people killed on Saturday morning, according to Iranian officials." Only the casualty number there comes from Iran.

There is also now widespread reporting that the Minab school was likely struck by the US. NYT, Guardian, Reuters . "It could be IRGC" is entirely speculation and OR. —BrechtBro (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@BarrelProof @BrechtBro Clarifying that attribution is probably required if not confirmed. Avishai11 (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Edit recerted

@KeyolTranslater why did you undo my edit? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Don’t worry, I just moved it up the article to a more appropriate area, see the intelligence section in Hostilities The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

PIJ, Amal, and Islamic Group

According to the 2026 Hezbollah strikes on Israel page, the Amal movement, PIJ, and the Islamic Group were attacked by Israel but removed here. Could we perhaps add a section that shows they were attacked by Israel? JaxsonR (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Im not even sure the Hezbollah aspect of this belongs here. It should be on its own article, especially given how enormous this will get, and the US is not striking Hezbollah, only Israel is. ← Metallurgist (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Might want to start a discussion on that, but it would probably be shot down very quickly. JaxsonR (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Given 2026 Hezbollah–Israel war now exists, I'm archiving this. Further discussion should take place at its Talk page. – Scyrme (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

INTELLIGENCE

Hi everyone, I’m not sure who added the sentence that Russia has been giving te intelligence at the very bottom of the page in “international reactions” but honestly that seems like an inadequate place to have it, I moved it to hostilities but it was swiftly removed, where can we add “intelligence” without it being in the reactions area (which imho doesn’t seem like the place for it to be considering intelligence is helping a war and not a reaction from another state). The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater: Sounds like problem solved - but if you ever want to feed back an individual editor who added something and can't find it in the edit history, that's something I use WikiBlame for. Then I drop the briefest note possible (but still polite) on their talk page (when a WP:WARN template isn't appropriate).

WikiBlame is a bit more challenging to use if you have already removed it. In that case, you might have to set the "skip revisions" setting to how many revisions ago it was still in the article. 🔥Komonzia (message) 00:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes the issue has been solved and I believe I managed to find who out it at the bottom, which I simply moved in a dedicated section. Thanks for the tip, might use it in the future. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Financial Times report

Financial Times report on the Gulf States' review on a proposed possible realignment of investments etc. that may negatively impact America. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 I suggest that goes in Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war instead. In 2026 Iran war it should only get a passing mention if that, not even a new sentence. 🔥Komonzia (message) 02:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Russia in infobox? "Russia is providing Iran intelligence to target U.S. forces - per U.S. officials"

Question: Should Russia be included in the infobox?

Background: A Washington Post article from today says that Russia has been providing Iran with targeting information to attack American forces in the Middle East. Including, locations of U.S. military assets, warships and aircraft. The article notes that "the sharing of intelligence would fit the pattern of Iran’s strikes against U.S. forces, including (...) temporary structures, like the one in Kuwait where six service members were killed." Based on this report, I believe Russia should be included in the infobox, with this format: Intelligence sharing: Russia @Doeze: Ecrusized (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a very reasonable belief. But I don't think inclusion is warranted when this is one source, citing active government officials speaking anonymously. WP:WAPO considers it a reliable source, but the article finding is phrased as "officials say" not "The Post has found" etc. Also there is little consensus on Wikipedia conflict infoboxes for the inclusion of any belligerents except the actual belligerents themselves. Doeze (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this is suitable for the article body, but not for the infobox. Cortador (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Support soon. Reuters seems to be saying the same thing. See . @Doeze @Ecrusized Avishai11 (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Reuters article just repeats the WaPo article. Ecrusized (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think intelligence sharing is a key detail to include in the infobox. (I also don't think that the "defensive deployments" should be included in the infobox, either, unless those deployments have seen action). +Intelligence sharing is not included in comparable infoboxes. It's inconsistent to include it here Placeholderer (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Support This shows the war is escalating and that it is beyond a U.S. versus Iran fight. Guz13 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Conditional support if there is explicit mention that the intelligence sharing is for targeting American forces only (not Israeli forces). Oppose for now per Monk of Monk Hall's reasoning. Evaporation123 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. I oppose, otherwise the United States (and many Western countries) should have been added as belligerents in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) infobox 4 years ago, don't you think? Regards! emijrp (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that was a mistake. But consensus can change. Guz13 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose according to the standard set at Gaza war, where US intelligence sharing with Israel was determined to be insufficient for the inclusion of the US as a belligerent, or in the infobox as a supporter (which was apparently deprecated in a 2023 discussion but remains inconsistently enforced across conflicts). I'm undecided as to whether non-belligerent supporters belong in the infobox -- I see the arguments on both sides -- but whatever standard is being adhered to should be applied consistently. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I would argue that it should be included given the U.S. is itself a leading party to this conflict alongside Israel. Not to mention the article in the Washington Post can be confirmed by another published in the Wall Street Journal, with it being argued Russia gave them intelligence on U.S. assets in the Middle East to target any official preconditions to avoid ire from Washington in negotiations on the conflict in Ukraine, but knowing full well Iran will use it to target such assets, effectively allowing them to undermine the U.S.

"Russia is sharing with Iran information about the locations of U.S. military forces in the Middle East that Tehran could be using to help guide its missile attacks in the region, according to U.S. officials and a former Russian intelligence officer, in the strongest indication yet of cooperation between the two nations during the Iran conflict."

"The classified U.S. intelligence finding doesn’t show that Russia is sharing locations with Iran explicitly for targeting purposes, but that would be a reasonable conclusion for why Russia is doing it, one of the U.S. officials said. The types of information being shared include the coordinates of U.S. military ships and aircraft, they said." Jasper Chu (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - per Placeholderer, and I also support the removal of "defensive deployments" until those deployments involve actual kinetic action. DiodotusNicator (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes/Support Russia should be as demonstrated by the sources. Just ensure that a superscript note with the reference is in the infobox. Russia is a major power and is beyond notable and significant for what should be in this infobox. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Interned ships

So after the strikes on IRIS Dena, IRIS Busher has been interned in Tricomalee and IRIS Lavan in Cochin. Should we include it under casualties as two ships interned? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Can they not still be allowed back out? Can they be fixed and released from those ports or has the Sri Lankan government permanently “detained” them? As technically they could just be in the port and therefore not an actual casualty The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

They are not dead per see, the guys in kochi have been moved up to hotels near Nedumbassery (where I live) temporarily and I presume the same for them in trincomalee. They will probably be let out when the war is over 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

THAAD Radar system in Jordan reported by CNN to be destroyed

Jordan

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/05/middleeast/radar-bases-us-missile-defense-iran-war-intl-invs

"The radar system for an American THAAD missile battery in Jordan was struck and apparently destroyed in the first days of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, a satellite image taken on Monday shows."

@PaulRKil I'm starting a new thingy here because that big thread above is primarily about the 650 deaths claim, which I agree is bunk. However, RS' like CNN have now reported that the THAAD systems were in fact hit and the one in Jordan destroyed. Should we take it out of the Iran claim section for the infobox and into the top area? Genabab (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

(also mentions damage on a THAAD site in Saudi Arabia) Genabab (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a verified claim, it should be added to the infobox. Ahammed Saad (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done Ahammed Saad (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Qatar

I'm seeing conflicting information about the status of the radar in Qatar. Some sources are saying the AN/FPS-132 was completely destroyed. However, others are only saying it was "damaged." United24 says the "extent of the damage is unclear." Ynet quotes an analyst who says the radar is still functional.

I also have no idea how reliable some of those sources are. In any case, this discrepancy should probably be addressed. Ixfd64 (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)