...or other articles about the 2026 Iran war. Thank you!
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions
RM, 2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran → 2026 Iran conflict, Moved, 28 February 2026, discussion
RM, 2026 Iran conflict → 2026 Iran war, Moved, 2 March 2026, discussion
RM, 2026 Iran war → Iran war, Not moved, 4 March 2026, discussion
RM, 2026 Iran war → Iran War, Not moved, 22 March 2026, discussion
RM, 2026 Iran war → Iran war (2026)/Iran war (2026–), Not moved, 29 March 2026, discussion
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Asia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahrain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Kingdom of Bahrain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BahrainWikipedia:WikiProject BahrainTemplate:WikiProject BahrainBahrain
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kuwait, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kuwait on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KuwaitWikipedia:WikiProject KuwaitTemplate:WikiProject KuwaitKuwait
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oman, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oman on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OmanWikipedia:WikiProject OmanTemplate:WikiProject OmanOman
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Qatar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Qatar-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.QatarWikipedia:WikiProject QatarTemplate:WikiProject QatarQatar
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyprusWikipedia:WikiProject CyprusTemplate:WikiProject CyprusCypriot
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2026 Iran war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page:
.ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request
You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
The status of the war is listed as a “stalemate?” Are we kidding? Iran’s government and military capabilities have been completely and utterly devastated. Nobody even knows who is running things anymore at this point. This is the most one-sided stalemate I’ve ever heard of, in terms of the ratio of losses from one side versus the other. Jmorley13 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
"Stalemate" is the most appropriate description for now, given the ceasefire condition and the "limbo state" of ongoing negotiations. All your other statements have no basis, are unsourced, and are obviously biased (not to mention, quite comedic). If you would like to propose a change to the "status" description, you must provide adequate reliable sources that corroborate your statements in wide prominence - we would then have to discuss it for consensus. Furthermore, even after doing this, you would have to explain why this sourced information would warrant a change of the "stalemate" description. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)<--- CU blocked, see SPI HarvardJock
Strategic Iranian victory would be more accurate, but that's probably a minority of sourcing at this point. entropyandvodka|talk 10:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
I would agree entirely with that phrasing - but obviously WP:UNDUE becomes the issue because of minority sourcing, as you're suggesting. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)<--- CU blocked, see SPI HarvardJock
I have a question: Does strategic victory in Iran refer to strategic defeat of US and Israel cuz as we can see Israel and US did somewhat pushed back the Iranian nuke program, successfully did much more material and collateral loss to Iran and are on verge of destroying Hezbollah? Kgeo2.0 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
A lot of analysts are probably waiting for the outcomes of the negotiations in order to conclude who "won" the war. The idea is that favorable outcomes for Iran (compared to what they had before the war) would count as an Iranian victory. But until then, it's too early to make a definitive assessment of who has "won" the war. Although, it seems increasingly likely that the terms will be favorable to Iran. Once that happens, reliable sources that describe a "Strategic Iranian Victory" should become numerous, and the status of this war can be changed accordingly. JasonMacker (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
I believe its time for us to declare the war as an Iranian victory as it seems that the Lebanon War is gonna go on for longer running parallel to the Iran War Kgeo2.0 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
No reasonable person would say this isn't an Iranian victory Jyffizz (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
More information Comment by non-extended-confirmed editor (ECP violation) ...
Comment by non-extended-confirmed editor (ECP violation)
To ~2026-35097-40: I agree. So as soon as you have a reliable source verify that frankly asinine figure of 300 billion you just pulled, come back and we can discuss winners and losers. ~2026-35379-65 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Close
More information Comment by non-extended-confirmed editor (ECP violation) ...
Comment by non-extended-confirmed editor (ECP violation)
"Strategic Iranian victory" PFFFFFT. Right, and the first guy's analysis was the "quite comedic" one. ~2026-34377-40 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Winners typically do not pay losers $300 billion —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35097-40 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Close
Remove the wrong title
Hi, remove the wrong title. Use the correct title for this article. Vivairan2 (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Which is? — Czello(music) 07:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
The title is wrong. For choosing the right titles you can use Wikipedia guidelines and look at news wbsites. Vivairan2 (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
@Vivairan2 The titles depend on the region where the conflicts takes place and how long these last. ~2026-35064-69 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
put the map here. Vivairan2 (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
We go off the WP:COMMONNAME to decide the title of an article. That means different war articles can have different naming conventions. — Czello(music) 09:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
'Related Persons'
Can this be removed, or can this be incooperated into the article itself or others (for example, put Brian McGinnis in an alinea/seperate article 'internal opposition in the usa against 2026 iran war'). In Jiang Xueqins article it is not even explained how he is relevant to this conflict, why even bother putting him in?
Should I place myself, too as a related person because I live on the same earth as this conflict? ~2026-34624-95 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
tldr these persons are either not relevant at all to the conflict at hand or it should be more explained what the link is instead of dumping them on the bottom of the article ~2026-34624-95 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Done I removed the section entirely, which may have been added to promote the individuals in question rather than their relevance to the conflict. entropyandvodka|talk 14:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
End of War
Shahbaz Sharif declared that the war was over. ~2026-34830-76 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Source from IRIB ~2026-34830-76 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
The official signing ceremony will take place on June 19 in Switzerland. It is too soon to say the war is over. NiceBasher86 (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Given the war has been won around 30 times already, unless we intend to make a new section every time Trump claims to have won the war, then it is best to see if things actually hold. Several of the ceasefires were broken within days for example. Garfie489 (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
How can a war be won 30 times if there is one war? Randomperson122 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
And we need at least one or more candid sources that has the ability to prove that the conflict thereof has concluded. Randomperson122 (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on June 14 2026
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a typo in the lead sentence. The word in question is in bold and should be corrected to "authorized". "On 14 June, Trump and Iran announced that they had reached an agreement to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Trump also said that he had authorised the lifting of the US naval blockade. The agreement is expected to be signed on 19 June in Switzerland." TyronesEditsPages (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Done⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2026
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The War has ended. I added text below for the article:
Not done: This is premature. Sources do not say the deal is signed and the conflict is not over yet. EvergreenFir(talk) 05:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
2026 Peace Agreement
Editors are reminded to read the bold-letter notice at the top of this page that states that the extended-confirmed editing restriction is in place on this Contentious Topic-covered article; non-XC editors may ONLY make properly formatted edit requests, they are not allowed to generally discuss the topic.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On June 14, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced a finalized peace agreement between the United States and Iran, bringing a permanent termination to military operations on all fronts.[1] The conflict, which began in February 2026, lasted for approximately three and a half months before the diplomatic breakthrough.[2]
The terms of the agreement mandate an immediate ceasefire from both nations, including a halt to military actions in Lebanon. As part of the deal, the United States ended its naval blockade on Iranian ports, while Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping.[2] Following an electronic signature on June 14, an official in-person signing ceremony was scheduled for June 19, 2026, in Switzerland. The agreement also established a 60-day window for both nations to negotiate long-term issues, including Iran's nuclear program and the lifting of economic sanctions.[3]Reed102 (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Better to say it is concluded when the signing has been confirmed to happen (June 19th), even if there are no clashes. Ebraali444 (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Let's remember that barring attacks in Lebanon, the Gulf, Iraq, and elsewhere, June 19th will not be a peace deal, but a pacification agreement, meaning a ceasefire with troops not withdrawing, and 60 days of negotiations on nuclear issues, the missile situation, US and UN sanctions, etc. So, for now, it's very, very early to call the conflict or crisis over; we'll have to wait for developments over the 60 days and diplomatic meetings on nuclear issues and other matters. For now, the only outcome is the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, barring any reconsiderations and unless Hezbollah or Israel launch attacks in Lebanon. I emphasize that there's no talk of withdrawing Israeli troops from southern Lebanon and the Beqaa Valley. ~2026-35090-14 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think it's far too early to toggle the Result parameter in the infobox (if ever), but perhaps we can start cataloging sources? I've started making a list.
Iran victory
"But even before we have the details, it is clear that Trump has failed to achieve every one of the goals he put forward for this war of choice, and now he is determined to sign, seal, and deliver America’s capitulation as quickly as possible." The Atlantic
"The Center for Strategic and International Studies offered a different lens ... While Washington’s goals evolved from ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions to broader political objectives, Tehran’s central objective was simpler: ensuring the survival of the regime. By that measure, analysts argue, Iran has so far succeeded." Indian Express
"... Iran can plausibly make the case that it has won the war simply by not losing. It has withstood the pressure and held its ground." Engelsberg Ideas
"The failure is enormous, the collapse is real, and Iran is the biggest winner." Avi Ashkenazi via Anadolu Agency
"it is clear that Iran ... [is] going to be the winners and the US and its allies are going to suffer a pair of humiliating defeats." John Mearsheimer
"Iran won this war without ever winning a battle. It’s a total humiliation for the US" Branislav Slantchev (Professor of Political Science at the University of California San Diego)
"It's essentially surrender to Iran ... these are Iran's terms. They made one single concession - opening the Strait. And it's not even a concession because the Strait was open before the war! And now that Iran has proven that the U.S. can't stop them from closing it, their power expands." Chris Murphy
"This is an Iranian victory over the U.S. and Israel." Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser, via New York Times
Put plainly, U.S. President Donald Trump lost both the war and the negotiations to end it. - Nate Swanson via Foreign Affairs
Inconclusive
"The 2026 war produced no victor in the conventional sense." Small Wars Journal
"Seen from a strategic vantage, the Iran War of 2026 ends in a stalemate." Times of Israel - op-ed by William Keenan
United States victory and/or Israel-United States victory
---
Chetsford (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC); edited 13:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC) to add one; edited 13:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC) to add one
"Inconclusive" may be a good choice for the time being when it is decided to proceed with the result parameter. It will likely take an extended period of time for the actual geopolitical outcome to become apparent, which may differentiate strategic from tactical outcomes. Platttenbau (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I'd disagree. Ongoing seems fine for now, until the agreements are signed and the dust settles, but the majority of the sourcing, as of the moment, indicates an Iranian victory in one form or another. I'd be fine with changing it to Iranian victory now, though it hasn't formally ended and the likelihood of some blow-up and resumption of hostilities is still high. entropyandvodka|talk 01:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Once the MOU becomes public on Friday (3 days from now), there is almost certainly going to be a barrage of news articles describing Iran as victorious, even more numerous than the ones we currently have. That said, there's no rush, so we can keep "Ongoing" until then. But, with the way Israel has been posturing, we may need a new article to discuss continued hostilities between Iran and Israel, separate from Iran and US hostilities. JasonMacker (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Further in the "Iran victory" column: "Iran is a bigger defeat than Vietnam" Foreign Policy — the headline is a pretty unambiguous opinion about the matter. Krinn DNZ (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Think the Iranian victory side is pretty dominant across the media at this point. Maybe "Ongoing Israeli conflict" or some such could be one of the bullet points under the result. entropyandvodka|talk 14:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Discussion about discussing a change in the Results parameter
In the interest of processing a change or non-change in both an expeditious and orderly manner, would anyone object to us setting up a more formal, directed discussion immediately, prior to the MOU signing with the understanding editors seem to desire to wait for the signing prior to any change in status being recorded, or committing to a definite expression of opinion? The long-fought consensus in the conflict infobox imagines only five options with little room for customization: [Belligerent A victory], [Belligerent B victory], [Inconclusive], [See Aftermath], No Toggle of Parameter. A rapid, directed discussion (not an RfC) seems optimal given the limited options. Chetsford (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Edit request 15 June 2026
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
Oman was not a belligerent on the side of the US/Israel. Also, Oman did not apportion blame of the drone attacks on its shores to Iran. In fact, as was widely reported, the source of said attacks more than likely came from Jordan and the UAE.
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. ~2026-35037-34 (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Oman has American bases and has also suffered attacks on land, killing two foreign workers and wounding 15. Several oil tankers have been attacked by Iran in Omani waters, and one flying a flag of convenience has been attacked by the US. Oman is allied with the Emirates and Jordan, as well as the United States, and is a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council, making it a target of Iran, along with other Arab states that have been at war with Iran since the 1979 Iranian revolution. ~2026-35090-14 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Note that the infobox currently does not list Oman as a direct co-belligerent of the United States, but as an "other party". Day Creature (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Anti-Trump Administration and Pro - IRGC Propaganda
Editors are reminded to read the bold-letter notice at the top of this page that states that the extended-confirmed editing restriction is in place on this Contentious Topic-covered article; non-XC editors may ONLY make properly formatted edit requests, they are not allowed to generally discuss the topic.--JasonMacker (talk) (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone explain to me by what metric has Iran held off or "won" this war? There are countless strike videos on X showing their surface naval vessels, and aircraft being destroyed on the ground. Their conventional military assets have been decimated. All they have left; and it's still limited because of our strikes on their infrastructure - is asymmetrical warfare; which the US Forces have been successfully dealing with. I can't ask the moderators or editors of this topic to use any non biased anti Trump Administration articles, or articles written by authors that have Pro - Islamic Regime biases, or even better; ask the editors of this article to have any sort of integrity. Instead, they push one side of the story to better fit their agendas and gaslight the general public who still use Wikipedia. Elgreco2432 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Also: I am not asking to create a pro Trump, pro America echo chamber, but when I am reading through the entire article, it's as if the IRGC has a paid bot to write and source the entire thing from start to finish. Do better, it's supposed to be neutral. Elgreco2432 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
The bulk of the article is sourced with mainstream Western sources, many of which hold biases against Iran, some overtly campaigning for Iranian regime change (like Iran International). The article summarizes what the sources say, within Wikipedia's parameters. That said, it's entirely possible, and has happened before, that a great power can lose an asymmetric war despite winning most or all of the battles (US-Vietnam, US-Afghanistan, etc). Iran's navy wasn't consequential in the outcome, nor were many other targets America and Israel destroyed. Their ability to manufacture and launch missiles remained intact, and with it so did their ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which put immense political and economic pressure on their attackers. The reality is that they repelled a conventionally greater force, which this week is capitulating, and strengthened their regional and global position in doing so. entropyandvodka|talk 01:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
As entropyandvodka puts, it is possible to lose every battle and still win the war - if the cost of winning the war is not worth it to those winning the battles. The key thing to look at in determining who wins a war is to look at what they had before, and then what they had after - its theoretically possible for both sides to win a war in this sense, but in this case its only possible to describe it as an Iran win and USA loss. Garfie489 (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note, User Elgreco2432 has made a grand total of 2 contributions to Wikipedia, both of them on this talk page (and this talk page section). This talk page is only for extended-confirmed editors.--JasonMacker (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
"2026 Defection and desertion of Iranian security forces" listed at Redirects for discussion
Naval and aircraft losses are listed, but is there a way to add ground equipment lost by either side? Still too early to get a clear picture? ~2026-35240-21 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Edit request 17 June 2026
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
Insert a missing word.
Diff:
−
and Iraq War (2003–2011), which has also referred to as the "Second Gulf War (Gulf War II)".
+
and Iraq War (2003–2011), which has also beenreferred to as the "Second Gulf War (Gulf War II)".
DonePresident Loki (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Why is it listed as Ongoing?
Why is it listed as Ongoing? The MOU has been signed! Are we waiting for the the 60 days negotiations in Geneva to be over? Mayukh Mitra 123 (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
We can at least wait to see if all parties honor the MOU for even a day. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Suggestion to toggle the results parameter
As per this thread and the infobox template documentation, I suggest we promptly toggle the Results parameter to one of the following, with the understanding we can always change it based on subsequent RS or events:
There already seems to be consensus to do so in multiple ongoing discussions. I'll go ahead and make the change. We also need to figure out what to do about the bullet pointed content below the result, which makes less sense under a determined result. It feels premature to declare the Hormuz crisis, global economic disruption and fuel crisis resolved. I'll leave that stuff alone for the time being. entropyandvodka|talk 14:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I did tweak the ceasefire to correct for the temporality of how it was referred to, but left the rest. The stuff in the MOU, lifting of sanctions, 300b reparations fund, etc, would make sense to include down the line, with some of the other current stuff going into an Aftermath link. entropyandvodka|talk 15:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change iranian victory to Status Quo Ante Bellum/Stalemate with Negiotiated Settlement Suitsers (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Not done The infobox documentation only permits one of these parameters in the results section: [Belligerent] victory, Inconclusive, See Aftermath section. The use of parameters other than one of these three, across Wikipedia, was decided against three years ago and customized terms (i.e. "Pyrrhic victory", "Narrow victory", "Conditional victory", etc.) requires local consensus based on demonstrated use in RS. Chetsford (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Agreement on Final Result.
So we know that the result of the war is for now an Iranian victory. But let us just make the results panel abit clear. First of all it should be Strategic Iranian Victory not just Iranian victory because there was much more collateral damage done to Iranian infrastructure, the regime continued but many of it's top tier leadership was sent to the afterlife and the new leadership is much more hardline and aggressive with the IRGC acting as a defacto junta. Anyways, we have to options here for the results. One is We just give the bullet points as:
Strong disagree.If we're going with a victory by Iran it should be "Iranian victory" unless a preponderance of RS actually use the term "Strategic Iranian victory" and we have some widespread consensus to adopt it. Per the MOS: "The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed.". This was the result of an extensive RfC about the use of qualifying terms appended to the word "victory" and shouldn't be relitigated here. Chetsford (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
Done I removed the section entirely, which may have been added to promote the individuals in question rather than their relevance to the conflict. entropyandvodka | talk 14:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Not done: This is premature. Sources do not say the deal is signed and the conflict is not over yet. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
