Jump to content

Talk:2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iran's response should be divided among the Gulf countries

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

Don't worry about a thousand recommendations for litigation, etc. I won't even write a single line in this article.
My proposal is only to make it easier to read and write about events. Rapidfirreee (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dubai International Airport, panic, injuries and deaths, perhaps one or more. Hit by ballistic missiles and drones. Burj Al Arab, Dubai's iconic hotel, was lightly hit by drones. Rapidfirreee (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is Thomas Massie not notable enough?

I feel like, since the New York Times and other news outlets reported him (and since he has been in the news a lot recently), that he could be considered notable. Also, primary source because the sentence was just a direct quote and nothing else (there is more information on other news sites). Aepeul (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a single U.S. congressman, one member of a lower house of 435 legislators; the fact that no secondary sources are reporting means you should de facto assume it's not notable enough to insert. DiodotusNicator (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, Thank you! Aepeul (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its more than just Massie who has condemned the attacks. Also, if reliable sources give more attention to some legislators than others, wikipedia generally tries to follow that pattern.VR (Please ping on reply) 12:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss a name change

Sources are now reporting that Iran has begun retaliation against Israel with its own strikes. Obviously that means the current name "2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran" will not suffice. There should definitely not be a new page created called "2026 Iranian strikes on Israel". But we will need a new name. Thoughts? I was thinking maybe 2026 Iran war?

Edit: I just realized, someone added the requested move format to my comment. I never intended to request a move. Just general discussion about a name change. Please do not edit my comments for other purposes. Evaporation123 (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this page is move protected, meaning the close must be done by an administrator. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 08:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Too early to call it war. We will probably need to wait until many sources begin calling it as such. NewishIdeas (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not a war, yet... How about 2026 Iran conflict ? — Raihanur (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too early to call it a war or a conflict (WP:CRYSTAL). I haven't seen any source saying that Iran has responded to the strikes yet, could you provide the sources that you're talking about @Evaporation123? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that if Iran did strike Israel (or when it does that in the future), it is better for it to have a separate article on that strike and that a new parent article should be made for the new conflict as a whole 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree, because there is no guarantee that the Iranian strikes will be a singular, one and done event. Same with the strikes coming from Israel. And three separate articles would just confuse readers. Evaporation123 (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Evaporation123 (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Iran recently struck the US 5th fleet HQ
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVTKc1hjtfM/?igsh=MWx1MDc5bmhvenc3dg== ~2026-13156-32 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As others said this is too early, this could be just exchanged strikes. Obviously it looks like they are posturing to topple the government however that would be WP:CRYSTAL Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - although it has been stated that Israel is preparing for a “prolonged conflict” that lasts several days, this is WP:TOOSOON OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
wait per others Braganza (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i am not opposed to war however Braganza (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It will change, just not now because of how recent it is The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 2026 Iran conflict because there have been retaliatory strikes from Iran, also I think it's too early to address it a war. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
support for conflict Braganza (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Evaporation123
Comment: I do agree the name of the page should be changed, but I don't agree with localising the name to just Iran, Israel, or the United States. Iran has launched airstrikes on several targets in the Arab Gulf, which reigonalises the conflict to a greater extent. Mintyohnoes (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've plugged in "Persian Gulf theater", notwithstanding if that's in any citations. By definition it matches the current situation, and you can have just one. It also spares us chasing after events leaving nomenclature in their wake. kencf0618 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all American/Israeli targets so it's just the expected response. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM kencf0618 (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Who knows if more separate wars occur between USA and Iran this year? It will not be wise to name this certain conflict as the 2026 war
TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 06:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose statements section

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2026

In "Reaction" section, "Iran" "Domestic" subsection we can add this: Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the national security commission of the Iranian parliament, threatened a “crushing” response. “We warned you!” Azizi wrote on social media. “Now you have started down a path which end is no longer in your control.” Source - [1] Regards. DonDragonWilson99 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

Flag salad "Reactions" section

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

Nonsense. The bulleted flagged list is far more useful and user friendly.~2026-87016-6 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, not another case of editors soapboxing their politicians' commentaries. Borgenland (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty straightforward WP:BALASP failure: a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Each bulleted point needs to explain how that comment affected the situation. If it didn't affect the situation, then why was it added to the article? I've added a notice to the top of the section to link to this discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This gets brought up on practically every geopolitical current events article, atm the convention is to spin them off into a separate article and just have the most relevant ones here. Worth discussing at WP:VPI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
cant we just remove the section entirely? Eventually everyone on earth will give their opinion on this war, and this list would be longer than the article itself 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unfortunately this has been a standard to add on the pages of the most recent wars going on in the world. Deus vult fratres! (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It can and should be split off (see WP:SPINOUT) if users cannot bring its length under control. Abductive (reasoning) 00:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of the "Islamic Republic of Iran"

This page often refers to the Islamic Republic as just "Iran". I find this unrepresentative of the nature of the conflict. Iranian civilians are cheering for the overthrow of the regime they see as illegitimate.[1][2] I propose that we use more neutral terms such as "Islamic Republic" or "Islamic regime" rather than making it seem like the entire nation is on the side of the Islamic Republic. The purpose of this conflict is regime change after all. ConflictFan (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources use the country name during the attacks. Also, the "Islamic Republic" is the internationally recognized government of the country. While it may influence the popular feelings, I don't think this suggestion can really help improving the article. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Simply does not matter, it's not a civil war. Braganza (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Armed forces

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

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

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

IMAGE

anyone can add a better image? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i just changed it to the map we already have. Braganza (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 February 2026

2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran → 2026 Iran conflict2026 Iran conflict: Proposing the move because the conflict has already escalated into a bilateral conflict where attacks from both sides have been reported, thus it's no longer needed to keep Israel and the United States' name in the title only. As the conflict is mainly surrounding Iran, I think this title would be appropriate and neutral from all sides Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

maybe we should rename it to "diplomatic crisis" while we rename this to conflict (and potentially war in the future) Braganza (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
anyway support and speedy close Braganza (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That article potentially covers the whole scenario, including the diplomatic crisis. I don't this two different article will clash each other, take the example of 2025 India–Pakistan crisis and 2025 India–Pakistan conflict. Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Similar named separate articles exist in Wikipedia. See 2025 India–Pakistan conflict and 2025 India–Pakistan crisis Ahammed Saad (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Western Asia, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Iran have been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are still possibilities that the Iranian Regime will fall and The USA will call it Iranian Liberation war (knowing Trump)
So yeah, just wait for two-three days. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
we can start another rm it by then. Also Iranian Liberation war is a violation of WP:NPOV and wont be renamed to that 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, sources indicating the COMMONNAME for the subject is the current title:
--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a biased argument that is POV-pushing. It is not Wikipedia's job to protect an argument for “posterity” or ensure that one particular viewpoint is elevated over others. We simply document what has been reported in reliable sources.
The 85 killed statistic has not been independently verified and, as of now, has only been attributed to sources from the Iranian government. Bravelake (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia documents what reliable sources say and how many sides are involved in a conflict we do not and should not base our decisions on our views of if it was cowardly or not and if they are proud of what they did. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom EvanTech10 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I do feel like the name needs to be changed (changing 'Israeli' and 'United States' to either both be demonyms or country names would be better for grammatical consistency, and 'strikes' is outdated since the retaliation), there are more belligerents than Iran in this conflict, and we should wait for reliable sources to agree upon or at least consistently use this name or another name before changing the title. 'War' seems too escalatory right now. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 19:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for 2026 Iran war. The scale of the confrontation has already clearly exceeded the Twelve-Day War, and there is no obvious ceasefire in sight anytime soon to call it strikes or a conflict. Some news sources still call it strikes or conflict, while the others, like, for example, The Guardian, Arab News, have already started calling it the US-Israel war on Iran, War in Iran etc.  PLATEL  (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to merge. This is currently a specific military operation started by two countries, not only by USA. Yes, this page can be renamed to something like 2026 Iran war, but I would wait a little to see what common name will emerge. My very best wishes (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - The current title isn't going to work, but the conflict just started. I think it will most probably be labeled a war, but we need to wait for reliable sources to say so. Also, in lieu of a common name, we should include the US and Israel since they are also belligerents. Something like "2026 US–Israel war with Iran" would be better, though I'm not attached to that specific wording. BappleBusiness[talk] 20:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While I believe conflict seems vague, it's more true to fact than attack/strikes. If anything, the two should be in seperate articles.Minnoweu (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They should be in separate articles which is exactly why the move should not be done. And the better target is 2026 Iran–United States crisis. - Indefensible (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was made aware of the Crisis article, and I fully agree with you. Minnoweu (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like oppose rather than support then in my opinion. At least that is how I see it. - Indefensible (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would edit my original comment, but I'm unsure how to. My apologies. Minnoweu (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You use strikethrough to update your entry < s > like this < / s > - Indefensible (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Minnoweu (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't exactly reached the level of war yet, and I have yet to see media sources classifying it as such. I believe crisis is a better term. Minnoweu (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Israel was the nation that killed the leader. Second, we need consensus in sources rather than relying on speculation or original research. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 02:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait / Oppose for now - give it at least a day or two. "Iran conflict" is too nonspecific. If back and forth strikes between the US+Israel and Iran continue to escalate, there's a very real possibility this event will be referred to as the 2026 Iran war. Alternatively, if the Islamic Republic folds/collapses quickly, then something along the lines of Israel–United States intervention in Iran or Israel–United States regime change in Iran would be more appropriate. It's too soon to know right now, and so far the Israeli–United States strikes on Iran are far more significant than the Iranian counterstrikes, so this title works unless/until the COMMONNAME becomes something different (as C&C demonstrated the current COMMONNAME is the current title).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Israeli"

MountainJew6150 makes a good point above that should be addressed immediately as noncontroversial. Per Israel–United States relations and other similar articles, we should immediately move to 2026 Israel–United States strikes on Iran. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support because as I already said, it's inconsistent. I'm glad you created this subsection because I'm sure my original comment would have been buried. MountainJew6150 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As I suggested previously, we should change the title at least, to be consistent, so that both Israel and the United states would be mentioned in their noun/demonym forms (although Israel–United States seems more appealing due to the potention confusion between the two meanings of 'American'). UserMemer (chat) Tribs 03:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Cfls (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support CapeVerdeWave (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. KrispyBlueJays (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

fix this page

S.A has also joined the war, and UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain got attacked by Iran and Iraq. Fix the page pls. ~2026-13101-54 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq and Syria

Why are Iraq and Syria in the defense-only category? I don’t think they’ve done anything in the war yet. ~2026-13085-56 (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Casualties

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

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

I agree that editors need to use more caution before listing casualty claims in the infobox. I will review the ones currently listed and remove those not cited to a reliable source. Bravelake (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Bravelake (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What source say this was a lie? Clearly it is widely reported on by RS: AlJazeera, BBC, MEE, Sunday Guardian, New Arab etc.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its how it was presented on the page. From what I can tell, the original source that the media sources used was the Iranian government. Even if the most honest journalists in the world reported that number, its still only as accurate as the source they used which is why the journalists said the information came to them from the Iranian government or some organization affiliated with it. Say you're a journalist who's 100% unbiased and 100% honest and you interview someone claiming to have invented cold fusion in their garage and you report the story. Just because you're a reliable, honest reporter doesn't mean that the words of the person you interviewed can be trusted. This is a dangerous issue for a site like this when it comes to things like warfare because the admins of this site could find themselves being questioned by the US Congress or Senate if the government felt that the site was being used as a tool in a war. ~2026-13050-20 (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop speaking nonsensical rubbish. SwedishDutch (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE... If anything is false, let it be. — Raihanur (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source says the information came from an unreliable source, you can't just present the information as if its as reliable as the reliable source. Its the presentation that mattered in this case. Also, site rules can easily be overridden by actual law which is what can happen if you're presenting information in a deceptive manner and, in doing so, are trying to influence world events. The last thing you'd want is for the admins of this site to be called into a Congressional hearing. ~2026-13050-20 (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with this information. We can add claimed by Iran bracketed in the infobox if necessary, but I strongly favour keeping this in the infobox. Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Add "claimed by iran". Minnoweu (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
that's why news agencies don't report until they find secondary sources to confirm the claim. In this case the only source is a news agency affiliated with the IRGC. These numbers should be removed. Also there are video evidence claiming the IRGC missiles hit the school. In one case it was even Geo located. ~2026-13118-14 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we banned every source after a single mistake and assumed the mistake was malicious, we wouldn't have any sources left to use. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

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

Video of Trump statement available

Video of Trump statement available here: [3] --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

51 civilians killed

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

Yes, they should be listed, because they are widely reported by reliable secondary sources: AlJazeera, BBC, MEE, Sunday Guardian, New Arab etc. Of course the source will very much be the Iranian government, in most places in the world, authorities are first to report casualties. We should likewise attribute these casualty figures to the officials.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not advocating for removal just adding an according to iran qualifier or something like that as the sources are stating what mehr stated as far as i know Darkdeath0123 (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is also citing Mohammad Radmehr, the governor of Iran's Hormozgan province as giving a similar casualty figure (48 killed)[4]. So its more than just state media. We can maybe write "according to state media and officials".VR (Please ping on reply) 14:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has also now made this claim and Al-Jazeera published: Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Mohammed Vall said the attacks call into question US and Israeli claims that “they are targeting only military targets and they are trying to punish the regime, not the people of Iran.”[5] VR (Please ping on reply) 15:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions (Europe - France + Germany)

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

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

Change “According to Iran International, quoting the Iranian Students' News Agency, thousands of IRGC personnel, including several senior officials,[74] were killed or wounded as several military bases were attacked.[60] It also reported that the port city of Bushehr was also struck, however it was unclear whether the nuclear reactor sustained any damage.[60]” to Islamic Republic News Agency reported that the death toll has risen to 53 after a strike on a girls school.[1] General Swag567 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Phillips, Jacob (2026-02-28). "Iran leadership sites targeted by US and Israel as Tehran retaliates with strikes across the region". {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) template

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

To add to article

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

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

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

Diff: Move Saudi arabia into the US alineged belligerents

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

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

Change 'Defensive' to 'third-party' in belligerents part of infobox


Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
Onlineuser14 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Khameini possibly KIA

multiple sources, Jewish,Saudi are claiming he was killed in the recent airstrike in Iran. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/iran-news-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-dead-or-alive-still-alive-says-iran-minister-as-israel-media-claims-he-may-be-killed-11150560/amp/1 Imhereforonethinganditsforeditingandhelp (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is too early to tell. It is better to wait until things have become clearer and the media can distinguish between rumour, prapaganda and factual reports. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He has been moved to a secure and undisclosed location according to The Times of India.[6] I suggest waiting until more reliable information comes to confirm or deny if this is true. Onlineuser14 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources claim he was brought into a hospital or most likely dead. https://www.turkiyetoday.com/region/is-irans-supreme-leader-ali-khamanei-dead-3215320 Imhereforonethinganditsforeditingandhelp (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+ Iranian sources had claimed he would make a speech that never happened the same source deleted the claim. Imhereforonethinganditsforeditingandhelp (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, FM of Iran actually stated he's alive. Although "as far as I know" is a nuance too, it's best to wait.
The source you mentioned (2nd one) was published at 15:19, and the one I mentioned was published at GMT 15:34. Anyways, it's best to wait. — Raihanur (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
its most likely because Khameini was transported to an hospital, but as far as I know means that he could die at any time. Imhereforonethinganditsforeditingandhelp (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Khameini is probably alive but may be in critical condition and may recover due to their overal good healthcare. shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not really since alot of doctors hate him due to the recent protests, so it's most likely he will die due to the severity of his wounds or doctors just refusing to help him. Imhereforonethinganditsforeditingandhelp (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters is reporting he is dead, but I will add the caveat that it is Israeli officials only saying this. Neither Iran nor the United States are corroborating these statements.Per Reuters PaulRKil (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Khamenei is not dead unless the iranian government or any other government specifically recognizes him as dead. shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Israel allegedly has photographic evidence of his body but again, I agree with you that Israel is probably not the most credible source for this. PaulRKil (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
iran international claims he has been killed. "Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is dead | Iran International" https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602280738 Imhereforonethinganditsforeditingandhelp (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But Reuters again reported, (link) "Iranian news agencies say Khamenei 'commanding the field'"... — Raihanur (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would say we should keep everyone involved marked as alive with a footnote clarifying the alleged killings/assassinations unless it can be shown that they were killed/assassinated beyond any reasonable objections. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But he's been confirmed as dead by Israel, the United States. Every news media outlet is saying he is dead! The fact that Wikipedia is not changing the seems political. Politics be damn! This is an encyclopedia. We're supposed to put in articles factual things if there are multiple sources confirming it and there are literally multiple sources confirming that he is dead!!!! Nhajivandi (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters and Al Jazeera acknowledge that it is disputed whether he is dead as of now, with Israel and the United States insisting he was killed and Iran firmly disputingthat claim; all reliable sources cite Israeli officials or a Truth Social post by President Trump. For such a prominent political figure, it would be ideal to wait for independent verification of Khamenei's death; I have not found any such confirmation. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 23:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: removal of unconfirmed deaths of Iranian military officers

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

Add UAE response

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

Policy issues with the background section

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

I think the point is that the Wikipedia police states that only relevant information should be added. But it does not give any guidelines about what is relevant and what isn't. That's, apparently, up to the Wikipedia editors. The problem then is, however, that the Wikipedia editors have different perceptions of what is relevant and what is not, and especially those who think a certain piece of information is not relevant often delete it without discussion simply because they believe it's not relevant. That's the much bigger problem compared to adding information. And due to this a lot of information gets lost. So if you think a piece of information is irrelevant don't delete it right away but discuss it here and explain why you think it's irrelevant! If you personally think a certain piece of info is irrelevant you might still be wrong because it's your personal opinion. --Maxl (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's the other way around. Editors are expected to justify why content should be kept by providing a source demonstrating it is relevant to this specific article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sources on a current event will usually give background, it's that that should be used, otherwise us linking info to the event is original research Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those who want something deleted should explain why they want it. Otherwise it would be a reversal of proof. What you say, Thebiguglyalien, would give editors any right to delete just about everything only by claiming it isn't sufficiently relevant. --Maxl (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U.S./US

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

MOS:US Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:US would generally encourage use of "US". signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tehran residents rejoice over Ali Shamkhani’s death
Iranians in Switzerland rally against the Islamic Republic
Iranians in Finland cheer US-Israeli strikes with protest song
Iranians in Strasbourg cheer US-Israeli strikes with protest song
... ~2026-13216-22 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

United States Marine Corps involvement

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

Time of Trump video message and Katz announcement?

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

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

EST most definitely. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe Truth Social timestamps are given in the local timezone of the user reading the post; just confirmed with a German friend. AxelBoldt (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance templates

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

Speaking of which, should we reduce the auto archiving period down to 1-7 days? These discussions are getting bigger and bigger. EvanTech10 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not for now and let's manually archive the junk. Moxy🍁 20:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've started archiving some of the answered requests and posts that were not discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian strikes on US bases kill 200 servicemen — IRGC

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

TASS is known to publish misleading information and should not be used as a source (see WP:TASS). Case in point, the headline says "kill 200" but the article says "killed or wounded at least 200". We can add the information once more reputable sources confirm it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Centcom has disputed this, among other claims by Iranian organizations. Bravelake (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why not change the page to "2026 United States–Israeli strikes on Iran" or is the naming simply alphabetical?

Considering these strikes were led by the United States, why not change the title to "2026 United States–Israeli strikes on Iran?" Or in naming intended to be neutral because it is alphabetical? --Giacomo1968 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, alphabetical is the standard when two countries are listed in a title like this. But the name might end up being changed to something else entirely depending on how Talk:2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran#Requested move 28 February 2026 is resolved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the context and reasoning. Will wait and see. --Giacomo1968 (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Small typo in Hostilities section and Iran response subsection 2nd paragraph begining

"9 storey building" should be 9 story building Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the article uses Oxford spelling so storey should be fine Laura240406 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed it to "9-story" instead of "9-storey". --Giacomo1968 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Storey" is standard British English. TheChestertonian (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I originally changed it to "storey" for that reason. Kelisi (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jurf al-Sakhar strike color on map

@Hohum:, you undid an edit where I removed the orange icon for the strike on Jurf al-Sakhar, Iraq, to show that it was not struck by Iran, but instead by Israel. Your stated reason was "rv. orange = struck BY Iran". The sources given in the article, such as [7], state that it was indeed an Israeli attack on Iran-aligned forces. (As a side note, the infobox is probably not the best long-term location for this pushpin map, as the caption appears rather squished on my browser. It should probably be moved to the main body of the article.) --Leviavery (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

On marking people as "Assassinated"

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

Extended Edit Request


  • Purported Assassination -> Alleged Assassination
  • Why it should be changed: All other pages on the potential Khamenei assassination (including his biography page while has been admin-locked) have used or changed alleged instead of purported.

SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
epic, thanks SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NZ reaction

prolly not the right place to write this, but yknow. Can someone add in NZ's reaction to all of this. [1] .nzWoolyys (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Seems to be there, but i added youer source.Psephguru (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
cheers mate .nzWoolyys (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

Armenia/az

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

Oxford spelling

Something of a tug-of-war seems to have arisen over the variety of English to be used in this article. Whoever first introduced the variety tag used an unorthodox one that read "Use British English Oxford spelling". Then, somebody shortened that to simply "Use British English", which I thought unwarranted; so I changed it to "Use Oxford spelling", which I was sure what the original contributor was going for. So far, it still says "Use Oxford spelling". I am posting this message because I believe that some of my subsequent edits might, strictly speaking, violate the one-revert rule, but I think the edits are warranted if I revert any edits in which "—ize" or "—ization" was changed to "—ise" or "—isation" after somebody unwarrantedly removed "Oxford spelling" from the variety tag. I believe that such reversions should be an acceptable exception to the rule now that we seem to have settled on Oxford spelling. Kelisi (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 2025–2026 Iranian protests page has already settled on British English. I don't see why this page should use a compromise variant of English when precedent for Iranian matters favours British spelling conventions. Regards from a fellow Ontarian, lol — ConflictFan (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page about apparent succession crisis

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


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

Involvement of a minor Iraqi group.

Per this source a group known as the "Iraqi Guardians of Blood Brigades" carried out attacks on the US. JaxsonR (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence that this source is reliable? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Iranian opposition on infobox

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

Do we list them as part of "combattant1" or "combattant1a"? Doing the latter would put them in their own box like it was I'm a previous edit, similar to the defensive only box presently. ConflictFan (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the Iranian opposition nor the Iranian diaspora is an active combatant in the military conflict. All they can do or are doing is being a vocal supporter of the joint US-Israel operation. They, as a seperate party, can be a part of the protest articles though. Shaan SenguptaTalk 05:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Current last sentence of lead

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

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

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

The operation in Venezuela doesn't seem to be mentioned there, why would that be a problem? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that regime change seems to just be a plank of Trump's foreign policy rather than something he has to be convinced to undertake DiodotusNicator (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Wikieditor662: Understood, thanks. –Gluonz talk contribs 05:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Countries' reactions

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

I don't know the conventions here but this section is indeed absurdly long. DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to believe the average reader cares at all about the reactions of the Prime Ministers of Albania or New Zealand. Should we get Ja Rule on the phone too? DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2026_Israeli–United_States_strikes_on_Iran&oldid=1341068979"