Talk:2026 Iran war

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.

There is no source that states the Iran war has ended. Just the fighting between the US and Iran has ended. That's not how wars work. Datawikiperson (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Point 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding between IR of Iran and US of America, signed by both sides:

"The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat obecause to future events that may require retroar use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph."

You sure? MazurTutejszy (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

There is plenty of military operations in Lebanon, so it is not clear it is over. Vpab15 (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a separate war. Specifically, the 2026 Lebanon war. JasonMacker (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@JasonMacker the Islamabad Memorandum clearly states that Lebanon is part of the ceasefire Renascitur (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The fact that Iran demands the end of another war as part of the US's capitulation doesn't change the fact that this war has ended. JasonMacker (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

My problem with saying the war is over is that Iran is already accusing the U.S. and (especially) Israel of violating the memorandum by attacking Lebanon, and per The Guardian, they're closing the Strait of Hormuz again because of it. Obviously that would have a potential to rekindle the war. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

A great number of things have "potential" to rekindle a war. But that's not our call. WP:OR. We go by what reliable sources say, and they say that (1) the war is over, and (2) Iran was victorious. JasonMacker (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@JasonMacker, that doesn't change the fact that if fighting does resume, we would need to replace the end date with "ongoing". In my opinion, only time will tell whether the war is truly "over", and if fighting resumes, we all must agree to either go back to present tense or start a new article. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

But that is not our decision; it would come down to what the reliable sources are saying. They might not characterize it as a continuation of hostilities, but rather hostilities within the context of a new conflict. Either way, we shouldn't be paralyzed in terms of what the article right now should state, simply because of future events that may require retroactive changes. Wikipedia is not paper, so we don't have to worry about releasing an edition that may become dated, because we can immediately change the live version accordingly. At the same time, we should avoid speculation about what will happen in the future. JasonMacker (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Newspapers don't have to worry about releasing outdated editions. Encyclopedias do. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Dewey Defeats Truman??? A Newspaper released an outdated edition so egregious that we still talk about it today. Clearly, they do have to worry about it. JasonMacker (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Today delegations were supposed to meet in Switzerland but it got postponed due to the Lebanese situation. The war is in a volatile state between being active and over which cannot just be determined now.

WAIT before putting an end date, and replace the current date with "Ongoing". VitoxxMass (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It's way too early to say the war is over when Israel is still attacking Lebanon, which was also included in the peace agreement. We should wait until a final peace deal (not an MOU) is signed and all of the fighting stops. Romanov loyalist (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

"Israel and Hezbollah agree to a ceasefire" — NBC News... — Raihanur (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

They agreed to a ceasefire a week or two ago, and it broke down in less than 24 hours. Again, it's too early to say. Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It has already been broken, check VitoxxMass (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

In what way is it in a "volatile state" when the terms of the memorandum (specifically, opening the strait of Hormuz, ceasing hostilities and mutual respect of sovereignty) are being enforced? MazurTutejszy (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Because there is no way to know if the ceasefire will hold or not. The world's largest maritime shipping company Maersk stated a few days ago that they will keep emergency restrictions in place for the Persian Gulf because the situation in the Middle East is "highly volatile", despite the US-Iran agreement. Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, too early to call the war over, especially since the ceasefire may not hold (as it happened last time), and tensions in Lebanon are still ongoing which may result in further hostilities between Iran and Israel.

In my opinion, we should wait for a proper peace agreement and actual end to fighting, as Romanov said. MySalsa22 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

"You sure?"

That's a primary source. It clearly alludes to "the final deal", which this memorandum is not. So yeah, pretty sure. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that Iran almost immediately accused the US of violating the MOU over Israeli operations in south Lebanon and pulled out of negotiations. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you back your claim of this not being the final deal when it aspires to cease hostilities and end the war once and for all? MazurTutejszy (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

See the source I linked to in my reply below, this MoU is being described as the "initial" deal and not the final deal:

Iranian officials did not travel as planned to Switzerland, insisting that the fighting in Lebanon must stop before the talks can take place, according to the two regional officials, an Iranian official and a fourth person familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations behind the scenes. U.S. Vice President JD Vance also postponed his trip.
The future talks are supposed to bring about a permanent end to the conflict.
On Friday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said consultations through mediators were ongoing regarding the next phase of negotiations to draft a final agreement.
Because the initial deal was signed digitally earlier this week, the talks in Switzerland were not urgent, and plans were underway to hold a meeting in the coming days, he said.

This is not the final deal and this did not end the war. We cannot say in Wikivoice that it's over.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you back a claim that it is a final deal? Saying anything other than that an agreement was signed is TOOSOON. Trump has not taken continued bombing off the table. This seems like a real effort to railroad a conclusion on day 1 of 0. ← Metallurgist (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

"You sure?" Part 1 of the memorandum states repeatedly that this deal is conditioned on Israel ending their hostilities in Lebanon and withdrawing from Lebanon's sovereign territory. Israel has not done this. Israel reportedly agreed to halt fighting with Hezbollah, but continued fighting anyways and vowed to remain in (i.e. violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of) Lebanon for as long as they see necessary . The memorandum is not being complied with.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

That is true. While the Israeli invasion of Lebanon is separate from the war on Iran, it is nevertheless tied with eachother through the way you have stated. MazurTutejszy (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Ceasefire has been renewed. Everything needs to calm down before a consensus can be reached for a final timeline/result. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/19/israel-hezbollah-renew-ceasefire-lebanon-us-iran-agreement Greatder (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Well let's see if this one can last more than 24 hours. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The situation is too fluid. We can only wait and see before deciding. Greatder (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Any conflict end should be judged with some time buffer. For Middle-East stuff, it should more than one news cycle, and in this case one S&P move up or down some bands. Six months at least, perhaps a year. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

No, it isn't over. The deal they signed opened a 60 day window for a final agreement. CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Almost everyone here has agreed that the war is not over. Is this a consensus to change it back to say the war is ongoing? Complicating matters is that there's a thread above where most everyone is agreeing to list the result of the war as an Iranian victory. It would seem contradictory to say that the war is still ongoing and that its result was an Iranian victory. How can this be resolved? Is it possible to describe the war as a strategic victory for Iran while also acknowledging that it isn't over?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  We could turn it as an as of claim, something like "many sources claim that the US scored an own goal", to keep with the spirit of the times, and express things in a way that nobody would copy before checking back the sources ;-) Selbstporträt (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Seems unambiguous to me that having a Result parameter at all depends on having consensus that the war is over. Otherwise we should have Status instead.

  Template:Infobox military conflict is explicit with Result to Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Status, meanwhile, is explicitly for ongoing conflicts. Which apparent consensus in this thread suggests is the right parameter here.

  Bearing in mind WP:ONUS and WP:STATUSQUO would agree here to wait before "updating to what's surely the final status of the war" given there's a reasonable dispute at all Placeholderer (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Heck, I just noticed that the Iranian Victory vs Inconclusive RfC is asking between two different options of "Result". I think that makes it a bad RfC anyways Placeholderer (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

WW1 ended on November 11th, 1918, in terms of the active fighting. But, the Treaty of Versailles was not signed until 29 June 1919. Wars end based on the cessation of hostilities, not the signing of a final agreement. Similar situation for WW2, where the war in Europe ended on 8/9 May 1945, but the Potsdam conference took place in July/August 1945. And technically, the actual, final document that officially ended the World War II in Germany was the Two Plus Four agreement that was signed in September 1990.

For this war, it has ended due to the cessation of hostilities between the United States and Iran. The subsequent negotiations do not mean that the war is still ongoing. JasonMacker (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Everything hinges on whether or not hostilities are ceased, as US/Iran seem to be saying currently (but not, AFAIK, Israel, the elephant in the room), or paused. We know retrospectively that the armistice in WW1 was in fact the end of hostilities. With this, we just don't know yet Placeholderer (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

But hostilities have ceased. They are not merely paused. These are two different terms with different meanings. 11 November 1918 was the end of hostilities, regardless of what happened in the following year, which, if hostilities had begun again, would have been a different conflict than ww1. Consider how the Turkish War of Independence is considered a separate conflict, and not a mere continuation of world war 1, even though it took place in that intervening period (after 11 November 1918, but before 29 June 1919). There is no longer an active state of war between the United States and Iran, and (consequently) this is not a mere pause within an ongoing war. Wikipedia should avoid trying to predict the future, and try to predict that this is a mere pause in some conflict. We work with what reliable sources are saying right now, which is that the hostilities have ended and not merely paused. The result of the war was an Iranian victory (as assessed by reliable sources), regardless of the specific terms of any future peace agreement. This is the same as how ww1 was an Allied Powers victory, regardless of the specific outcomes of the Treaty of Versailles. JasonMacker (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@JasonMacker, we simply don't know whether the memorandum will hold or not. It does appear to be on shaky ground, given what Iran did with the Strait of Hormuz, and given what Iran has said about Israel. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, my concern is that this might only be a temporary end to the hostilities, rather than a permanent one. If that ends up being the case, and if fighting does resume again, and if it appears to be related to what happened in 2026, then we must update the end date to "ongoing". Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

But that's the thing. We don't have to decide right now in a way that would be binding on the future. As it currently stands, this MOU is a de jure permanent end to the hostilities. The article should reflect that, because that is the current situation. But, should that change, we can change the article at the appropriate time to also reflect that new situation, in accordance with what reliable sources say. The idea is that we should avoid trying to predict the future, and instead focus on what is happening in the present. It doesn't matter if, in a hypothetical future, it turns out to be de facto temporary. That doesn't change what it is right now. JasonMacker (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has been written in 1918, it wouldn't have been able to say that the hostilities ended on November 11th, the very day we now came to know it did. It would report the main sources that said hostilities have ended, perhaps a week later with some luck. The best we would have is the Armistice of 11 November 1918 page, with a live template.

And once again, a memo is a just that: a memo. Making that an acronym doesn't promote its authority. That agreement initiates a 60-day window of negotiations. We can't present negotiations as the end of anything. At best it's the beginning of new negotiations. We couldn't even call it an armistice unless we have sources that call it that. But the spirit is similar. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The war is at least temporarily over for now. However, the war could resume, if there is no final Iran deal. Pachu Kannan (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pachu Kannan Is there precedent anywhere on Wikipedia for "reopening" a war article? "Temporarily over" is an oxymoron Placeholderer (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong in using that wording. Pachu Kannan (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

But have any military conflict articles been deemed "over" and given a Result, and from later developments deemed "ongoing"? (Having the Result in the infobox replaced with a Status?) Placeholderer (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Israel just bombed Lebanon.^[1] TurboSuperA+_[talk] 13:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• It's over: Israel bombing Lebanon is simply the 2026 Lebanon War. It's related to that one, yes, but it's still a separate war. This one has ended. — Raihanur (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Iran just announced they are closing the Strait because of Israel's violations of the ceasefire. They also said that there will be further steps if Israel does not stop. This is exactly what I meant, we don't really know if it is over. Romanov loyalist (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

    Iran warned of retaliation against the USA coalition if the clause keeps on not being respected. VitoxxMass (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I suggest finding a few reliable, published sources that say "The War is Over" so that you can provide a legitimate citation, and then you're good. Otherwise this is NOR, SYNTH, whatever.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Council of Foreign Relations article: "The war ended with a deal that gives Iran sanctions relief, reconstruction funds, and the ability to charge tolls on the world’s most critical waterway. While the White House may call it a victory, the costs suggest otherwise." (Bold mine)
  • New York Times: "Trump Was Right. The War Ended With a Surrender." (Bold mine)

  There are also other articles if you look for them. I think this is sufficient for declaring that the war ended. JasonMacker (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  The war isn't over. However, Trump signed first, and then the Iranians. Had he won, he would have signed after the Iranians. Iran announced this afternoon the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in response to Israel's violation of the agreement with its raids on Lebanon. The nuclear issue has yet to be addressed in Witkoff's talks in Switzerland. It seems premature to me to talk about an Iranian victory, and on what basis? The $300 billion for reconstruction is currently only on paper. While the sunken ships and the thousands of dead Iranian soldiers are those that must be taken into account when deciding who won. They also decimated the officials and the supreme leader. I would put again "Ongoing" Rapidfirreee (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Iran achieved victory in the sense of not only preventing the aggressor nations from achieving their objectives, but also permanently altered the status quo ante bellum by gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz. You mention yourself that Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. That firmly establishes how Iran was victorious; Iran is engaging in actions that would have been unthinkable prior to the war. Sunken ships and thousands dead are not a direct measure of victory in a war. Nobody here is arguing that it was a flawless victory. Clearly, Iran did suffer in the war, but ultimately prevailed, as is stated in numerous reliable sources discussing the issue. The war is not ongoing, as there are no hostilities between the United States and Iran. In fact, Trump ended his belligerent action of blockading Iran (an act of war). JasonMacker (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  In fact, my first reaction when I heard about the document was that Trump had lost the war, not won it. But then I told myself, we shouldn't take sides here. We need to look at the facts, the reality. And reality tells us that Trump forced the Iranians to surrender, with very few casualties, sank ships and killed thousands of soldiers, annihilated part of the armed forces' command staff, and eliminated the Supreme Leader. But frankly, I don't understand the signature before the Iranian one. I have serious doubts about who to credit for the victory. I am waiting for the rectification of the peace treaty in Switzerland to give an opinion. You have to look at history; it's a conflict similar to the Roman one with the Parthians. It often remained inconclusive, and perhaps this seems to me to be the case. Rapidfirreee (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Your personal assessment as to who actually won is irrelevant. We go by the consensus of reliable sources. And they point to an Iranian victory. JasonMacker (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  @JasonMacker, I agree that the sources are saying that the war is "over", but (unfortunately) it doesn't mean it'll stay that way. Now, we are certainly NOT a crystal ball, but going by what some of these sources are saying, the MOU is on very shaky ground, especially because of what Israel is doing. Having said all that, I want to reiterate that IF fighting does start again: WE MUST go back to present tense OR start a new article. Good with either option. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  The first source is an Op-Ed by Nicholas Kristof. The second source is a post by Max Boot.

  Let's be serious, please. Selbstporträt (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  The rest of the content of the sources are not relevant, except for the part where these two individuals, one as an American journalist, and the other as an American editorialist, are saying that the war has ended. If your only response is an argument from incredulity, then my two sources stand without any substantive challenge. Feel free to present alternative sources that suggest that the war is still ongoing. JasonMacker (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Here's a secondary source that reports on the relevant primary source:

  NPR has obtained a copy of the framework agreement to end the war with Iran.

  https://www.npr.org/2026/06/18/nx-s1-5863027/us-iran-trump-memorandum-of-understanding-full-text

  "To end" implies that the war has not ended. The memo also contains:

  The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to negotiating and achieving the final Deal, in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.

  As I already said elsewhere, the final deal has yet to come. No editorial in a journal of record or think tank commentary can change that fact. They don't support a "consensus of sources", and they're not crystal balls.

  We should wait for the deal to materialize or something else to happen. Selbstporträt (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  This like saying that ww1 didn't end on November 11, 1918 because after the Germans stopped fighting, they were negotiating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles in the months afterwards. Wars end when the hostilities cease (as stated by reliable sources), not when a final agreement is in negotiation. Have you provided any source to explicitly states that the war is ongoing, and how do you weigh it against all of the sources that say the war has ended? JasonMacker (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  The CFR and NYT pieces use "ended" in a political/journalistic sense, not a legal one. An MOU doesn't formally terminate a conflict; it's a political commitment, not a binding agreement under international law. (edited) SupermarketCake (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Not only are the agreements in Switzerland fragile and seem more like pieces of paper than real pacts with Iran, but Trump is also triggering a diplomatic crisis with Italy, which has always been a staunch US ally in NATO. Rapidfirreee (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Obviously the diplomatic crisis with Italy is a story for another article. It’s not directly in the scope of this I don’t think. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm actually doing it in draft.

  Draft:2026 Italy–US diplomatic crisis Rapidfirreee (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Israel bombing Lebanon is simply the 2026 Lebanon War. It's related to that one, yes, but it's still a separate war. This one has ended - It doesn't work like that when one of the terms for ending this war is the ending of that war. They can't be separated.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Correct, it is not. The MoU is explicitly a temporary ceasefire agreement and interim truce with a 60-day expiration time, to ideally reach and finalize a peace deal. That may or may not happen. It is not the current outcome.

Paragraph 3 of the Memorandum:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to negotiating and achieving the final Deal, in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent."

The ambiguity in "allies", as in not naming the actual actors, may allow the US and Iran to keep core bilateral agreements active on paper, despite what violations might be happening on the ground. However the conclusion of the Lebanon conflict is an integral part and prerequisite for the fulfillment of the MoU.

Paragraph 1 of the Memorandum:

"1. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final Deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph."

The infobox should be kept strictly factual and neutral. Opinion pieces should not override the literal legal text of the MoU as per WP:WEIGHT and fact of ongoing conflict. WP:RECENTISM, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS should also be respected.

Proposal

Result: Temporary 60-day ceasefire per Islamabad MoU

Status: Ongoing; final-status negotiations underway.

TheMightyGeneral (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The current status of the war is "Ongoing; final-status negotiations underway". As about the Result, we do not know it yet. There will be many different results for the countries involved. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

That is very true. For now though, we have to wait for it to conclude at all. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs has stated yesterday "Iran Didn't Win the War" and The Guardian reported last week "So is the US war with Iran over? In a word: no". Active hostilities resumed today. "Ongoing" is the correct status of this writing.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 01:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That Foreign Affairs piece discusses the "outcome" of the war and talks about it in the past tense. The Guardian didn't report that, a columnist wrote that in an opinion piece, and you can find other opinion writers and editors at The Guardian, as well as reporting, that call it over. "deal to end the war" , analysis from the "peace deal" by their diplomatic editor, here's another opinion writer saying "Trump surrendered", and a third opinion columnist writing about the war in the past tense. —BrechtBro (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Active military operations resumed today and it is being reported everywhere, so "ongoing" is the correct parameter. If anyone has RS to the contrary on today's developments are free to add them. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

You need RS to support that the recent strikes = a return to active war as much as anything else. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't you need an RS to support the idea that the war is over? The status quo is that the war is over if you check the wikibox, and it doesn't make sense to me to change that status quo to imply that the war is anything but ongoing, when Iran and the US just bombed each other again - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 18:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

A deal to end the war != an end to the war; the IM is a 60-day ceasefire agreement intended to allow for resuming of trade and further negotiations of disengagement. Both nations have since violated the ceasefire, which was well-reported on today. The fact that it was declared in wikivoice that it was over less than 24 hours after the IM was signed is an embarrassing level of TOOSOON, as even the IM itself is not intended to be the final agreement.

There should've at the very least been a 14-day grace period before we could say that operations had entirely ended, but a 60-day one in line with the memorandum would've made even more sense; the exchange today was glaring evidence of this failure. On that note, I am going to restore the {{current}} tag, as its removal was similarly far too hasty. There is no reason for us to remove it for several weeks. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Nailed it. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Guess {{current}} does not have an expiry timer like {{current event editnotice}} does. Oh well. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The war is over and continues to be over, per reliable sources. The New York Times today reported: Whether the back-and-forth attacks since Thursday evening will undermine talks to reach a final peace agreement remains to be seen. Each side seems to be testing each other’s red lines and threats, analysts say, but for now, neither side seems eager to return to a full-blown war.. Claims based on ceasefire violations without sources stating the war has resumed, or at least a claim to a return to open or broader hostilities, are original synthesis and WP:CRYSTAL territory.—BrechtBro (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, this and other RS say that two sides are still conducting negotiation during the actively ongoing war. Shooting the missiles and drones on each other is definitely a war. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

"Shooting the missiles and drones on each other is definitely a war" No, it's not. Even just in the background of this conflict, Iran and the US and Iran and Israel have exchanged fire without being in a state of war. Limited exchanges of fire are not war. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

You're citing a live feed. Latest update mentions:

The United States struck more targets in Iran early Sunday morning local time, the latest barrage in a flare-up of tit-for-tat hostilities that began on Thursday and has threatened to undermine negotiations to end the Iran war.

Why would we need negotiations to end the war if the war already ended? Selbstporträt (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Why should we be asserting that the war is over when the memorandum that implemented a ceasefire (!) was stating that both sides were supposed to be looking forward to a final peace agreement, AND when the ceasefire is actively being violated? It is far too soon to assert that the war is over ESPECIALLY when they've started bombing each other again. And it does not look like these strikes are any more limited than the strikes we've seen during the whole war are.

The memorandum was meant to implement a ceasefire and pave the way for a final peace agreement to definitively end the war. The war is not definitively ended yet, so don't make a change that is WP:TOOSOON and WP:blatantly incorrect - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 16:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: replace the first sentence with "Since 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel have been engaged in armed conflict with Iran and its regional allies." This avoids the talk about "war" vs. "no war" — which is more true to reality anyway, since none among the U.S., Israel, and Iran have at any point formally declared war. And "armed conflict" is certainly ongoing — the U.S. just bombed Iran on Saturday, and Iran launched missiles at U.S. bases on Sunday. CircleAdrian (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Previous occasion no one replied, so I'm trying again. How is US support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War mentioned in the body of the article, while Israeli (and US) support for Iran during that same war is not mentioned at all? I'm talking about these articles basically:

• Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq War
• Iran–Contra affair.

Both were significant aspects of the conflict and are very much relevant. Omitting the latter presents a selective, one-sided account of the historical record. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is an overview, not a lecture of the history of the Middle East. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 19:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not against adding it - but the article is already super long and we need to keep things like that concise. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 19:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Grilledcheeseisgreat:

• "This article is an overview, not a lecture of the history of the Middle East."

I agree with that, but I don't think it justifies presenting only selected aspects of important events while omitting other vital ones. An overview should still provide a balanced summary. This wouldn't require a major expansion–just a brief mention.

The first sentence of the second paragraph currently reads: "During the Iran–Iraq War, the US supported Iraq." I'd suggest revising it to: "During the Iran–Iraq War, the United States supported Iraq, but also provided covert military aid to Iran through the Iran–Contra affair; Israel likewise supplied aid to Iran."

This keeps the sentence concise while reflecting the complexity of the period. Thoughts?

- LouisAragon (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

That sounds good. I think we should trim the background in general though before we add it though, because it wouldn't be good if someone reverted the edit over size concerns. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 00:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

They're significant aspects of the Iran-Iraq war, but are they both (or either) significant aspects of this war, which is the subject of this page? Is Iran-Contra mentioned in any reliable sources that discuss the 2026 Iran war? In what way are these "vital" aspects of the background?

The US support is relevant because it tracks heightening Iran-US tensions leading to US attack on Iran's navy and the downing of Iran Air 655, both of which are mentioned in sources discussing the origins of the 2026 war. However, even the current text is likely too much detail for the summary style. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Several users are unilaterally changing the infobox. Please understand that as per MOS:VICTORY:

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

The result of RfC is clear—It should be "Iranian victory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2026_Iran_war#Iranian_Victory_vs_Inconclusive

These users should be warned not to repeat this again: @TheMightyGeneral https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2026_Iran_war_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1360397538 @Miki1234568 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2026_Iran_war_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1360408561 @Fantastic Mr. Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2026_Iran_war_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1360407942 @Cockfightermaster1969 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2026_Iran_war_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1360401845 Hu741f4 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Well considering the conflict is in a similar state to the Yemeni civil war (2014–present), should it be rephrased as "ongoing"? A poorly worded RFC followed by an overcomplicated NAC from @Feeglgeef that occured when active discussion was still occuring which is in favour of Iranian victory being used but also.. isn't?

Furthermore, it is worth noting MOS:VICTORY is a guideline, and can be altered by consensus. Fantastic Mr. Fox 14:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Trump is threatening to bomb Iran again and the Strait of Hormuz, which is considered a front of the Iran war, is still closed by Iran. The peace agreement's terms for Lebanon are not being followed. I think it's too early to say that the war is over. If the MOU does actually end the war over the next 60 days on its terms, then I do think that would be an Iranian victory (just like the war in Afghanistan was a Taliban victory even though the US killed far more Taliban than it lost American soldiers), but it's too early to say that at this stage. Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we should do an RFC on whether or not to include the |result= parameter. I'd strongly recommend including an X-day moratorium as a secondary option for !votes to consider. I'd suggest recommending at least a 30-day moratorium for the sources (and this event) to settle down. If we do an RFC, can we at least wait a couple of days before closing it unless it's a true WP:SNOW close (which I don't think the one above was)? I'd say a week would be ideal unless discussion slows to a crawl. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 15:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll note that Template:Infobox military conflict says "Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." 9ninety (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Very poor comparison. What do sources say is more important. Yemeni civil war isn't over according to majority of reports and analysts. It was modified as "Iranian victory" based on wide range of sources. Hu741f4 (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You have bolded "what do sources say" and sources say outside a flare-up in late 2025 between the STC and Hadi government, which then stopped, there has been a de facto ceasefire since around 2022. The exact same logic can be applied to this situation, since the Islamabad Memorandum is considered a part of the peace process, not THEE peace treaty, as per sources such as https://www.parleypolicy.com/post/the-u-s-iran-islamabad-memorandum-of-understanding-explained?hl=en-GB#:~:text=On%2014%20June%20in%20Washington,settlement%20of%20the%20conflict%20and . Fantastic Mr. Fox 16:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"Yemeni civil war isn't over according to majority of reports and analysts."

What would be your three most authoritative sources that say the current war is over? Selbstporträt (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Are we really going to have another discussion about this? Let the consensus be respected for at least a week. We should know by then of additional developments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

There was never, never, ever any broad consensus here to switch to a Result parameter. That was a hat trick. The process here has been catastrophic. The RfC presupposed consensus that didn't exist, closed the discussions that would have decided that consensus, instructed people to "vote" as talk page views rocketed to 31,000 amid canvassing, and somehow bypassed WP:STATUSQUO and WP:ONUS to prop up/implement a major proposed change amid even that ongoing discussion Placeholderer (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Were there a consensus that the war was ongoing or inconclusive, I doubt the RfC would have had a strong majority of editors saying "Keep", which implicitly includes the war being over. entropyandvodka | talk 18:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The RfC that instructed people to Vote by writing either Keep or Change (i.e |result being "Iranian Victory" or "Inconclusive") is not indicative of consensus to switch |status for |result. Placeholderer (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Editors, are, and were, free to dissent from the framing of the RfC. Some did just that. Others qualified their opinions with caveats, "weak keep" etc. It's entirely possible for this war to start up again, but the consensus of editors, supported by RS, is that it ended with an Iranian victory.

Also, with regard to canvassing, while the talk page was linked in the Reddit thread you mentioned, likely accounting for the spike in traffic, the post doing so was not in any apparent way attempting to influence the outcome, which is part of Wikipedia's definition of canvassing. This was pointed out to you when you initially made the claim of canvassing, but I haven't seen any evidence of canvassing. A link to a publicly viewable discussion, absent any encouragement or context urging participation to influence the discussion's outcome, does not qualify as canvassing. The post, in fact, didn't encourage any participation at all, merely pointed to the discussion that influenced the outcome. It also mistakenly identified the RfC as the discussion that led to the change, when in fact those discussions had already happened. It's even referring to the discussion in the past tense. This is what the post said:

It was recently decided to change it from "inconclusive" to "iranian victory" [link]

And that was it. Moreover, the page was EC locked at during the entire RfC. I think we can dismiss the canvassing assertion. entropyandvodka | talk 18:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I find it distasteful to disregard so much of what I'm saying, here and previously, and instead focus on asserting that technically pinning a link (at a high-traffic and opinionated venue, r/SipsTea) to internal Wikipedia discussion that instructs readers to join in on a literal vote isn't canvassing. It "tastes" like what Larry Sanger is trying to pull off.

The RfC did not present any option other than having a Result parameter. It told people to vote on a Result parameter. There is no feasible way to contort that into "we switched away from a Status parameter in line with consensus at the RfC".

Since I don't want to keep talking to the same person over and over about the tangential point on canvassing I'll just bring this to AN for outside opinions. Placeholderer (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I think the closure of the RFC was a WP:BADNAC. WP:RFC says An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The closer also invoked WP:AVALANCHE (a stronger WP:SNOW), even though there was clearly disagreement, as well as disagreement with the formulation of the RFC itself (which presented as a false choice). SNOW implies a near unanimous consensus, and this wasn't that. RFC discussions shouldn't be closed while comments are actively being made, and this one was, and well before the 7-day minimum recommended at WP:RFC.

I think a better RFC would be a 3-part question: 1) Do we use the |result= or the |status=? 2) If we choose |result=, what result do we choose (the infobox suggests this should be either "X victory" or "Inconclusive"); "Iranian victory", "United States victory", or "Inconclusive"? 3) Do we want to have an X-day moratorium on future RFCs on this topic absent major developments?

Let the RFC run until there's either been no significant discussion for 48 hours or up to a week. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I was in the process of writing a pretty broad post for AN about this stuff, but this covers the problem with the RfC itself in a more focused way (and the 3-part suggestion would remedy the things I'm complaining about). Mind if I just copy/paste your reply over to there for a closure review? Placeholderer (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Go for it. =) —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

If someone uses my RFC language, I should have added that the opinions expressed should be based on the WP:RS, not our personal opinion on whether this event is over or our personal opinion on who the "victor" was (all of that would be WP:OR). —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just another reasonably experienced editor, here, seconding your and Locke Cole's points, and you may repeat that/the following. I was... rather shocked, to be honest, that the relevant RfC was a NAC. Their good-faith closure and closure argument was also a tad odd (they mentioned "change" supporters arguing NPOV... I think I saw that argument one time? "NPOV" was never mentioned by anyone. "Neutrality" was mentioned once? But I admit I could be misremembering) and smacked of a bit of NOTAVOTE. As I alluded to in my "change" opinion, we have a responsibility to get this (the discussion) right as, whether we like it or not, Wikipedia creates a Woozle/confirmation bias effect. Or rather, we have a responsibility to show that we have extensively done our due-diligence. I further take issue with the sources utilized for "Iranian victory" (not from a reliability standpoint, but a verifiability one), as I laid-out in My opinion. Regardless, I strongly second that this was not a SNOW vote. Besides; opinions arguing "well, I think X won/lost" should be discounted (and hopefully they were).  — MWFwiki (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily nullifying "Keep" side to the RFC, but there was a huge amount of "keep per others" and "keep per RS" votes and I was hard pressed to actually find what these sources were. Especially given the circumstances of the RFC being linked to Reddit, I find it rather concerning that a lot of editors were turning up to a Request For Comment to give a binary answer.

Also I will note that I first learned of the RFC via a Threads post that appeared when looking at Instagram. Fantastic Mr. Fox 20:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

During the RfC, I pointed people multiple times to the (then) Aftermath section. Another user has moved that to another section since (Diplomatic Efforts, section "June 2026 Memorandum of Understanding", second paragraph, though I don't agree with this move), but the text is unchanged as far as I'm aware. I don't agree with that move, but these are the sources supporting that paragraph, and the summary "Iranian victory" result:

BBC

Foreign Policy

The Atlantic

The Independent

NPR

Sydney Morning Herald

The body of the article, as currently written, reads:

The BBC, Foreign Policy, and The Atlantic described the outcome of the war as a "defeat" for the United States and Israel. The Independent said that America had lost the war, and called Iran's now-proven ability to close of the Strait of Hormuz a "weapon of mass economic destruction of unique power" and "far more useful option than any nuclear device." Robert Kagan said the deal was "a total victory for Iran and a total defeat for the United States," citing major US concessions, and characterized increased Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz as "a major blow to the United States' position in the region, and it's also a major blow to Israel's security going forward." American diplomat Richard Haas described the deal a "a massive victory for Iran," pointing to the failure of the United States to topple the Iranian government, Iran's keeping of its drone and missile arsenal, deferral of issues regarding its nuclear program, continued ability to support groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, sanctions relief and future reconstruction fund, and a commitment from the United States not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs. He also said US-Israel relations were badly damaged, and that Israel's "freedom of action has been significantly curtailed." Paul Musgrave, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said the deal indicated that "the Iranians had greater strategic patience, greater strategic leverage and the ability to shape a deal that was always going to be more favorable to them relative to the Americans." Susan Rice described the MOU as "a jaw-dropping, horrific surrender document complete with hundreds of billions in reparations." entropyandvodka | talk 23:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It is quite possible for two parties to lose a war. From your last source:

"If you’re looking at the outcome of a war," says Paul Musgrave, associate professor of international relations at Georgetown University in Qatar, "it is actually perfectly possible for both sides to lose."

Musgrave is also the author of the FP piece. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually hadn't added that source to the article body, but in that, he states that it's possible for two parties to lose, then goes on to frame it as an Iranian victory. The source also cites several other individuals. Using that source to make a "both sides lost" argument would be misrepresenting it.

On a side note, it also says, "Other than Israel, Middle East countries and the rest of the world broadly welcomed this week’s deal, if only because it marked an end to the war and a return to something resembling normal maritime trade." (Bold added by me) entropyandvodka | talk 00:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That said, I'd actually be fine dropping the Musgrave portion from the SMH source and keeping it with Susan Rice, since, as you pointed out, Musgrave wrote the FP piece. entropyandvodka | talk 00:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Instead of dropping Musgrave, we could own that the "game" we're describing isn't zero-sum. Which means we can't infer that Iran won because the US lost. That's classic OR.

We could also make clear that this isn't our call: not only we need many "X says P", but we need many "A majority of X's say P". Ideally, we should be able to find "the consensus is that P" without having to say it in wiki voice. If we can't, then perhaps we should consider that wars aren't battles and should not be judged as such.

For now, it might be a little too soon to speak of a victor. What are the wiki conventions on that? The template and the MOS don't shed much light. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The Atlantic piece reads:

Humiliation, however, is distinct from defeat. Only the United States was humiliated; both countries have experienced a catastrophic loss. The defeat for the United States is the more obvious of the two: a loss of standing and the confirmation that even a rich country cannot force its will on a poor but determined one. For Iran, the defeat is subtler. Bordering countries once considered it a problem neighbor and now know it to be an outright threat. They are arming themselves accordingly and seeking ways to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s economy has been a disaster for about 15 years and is now a total wreck. Sanctions relief will help, but who exactly will want to invest in a country whose government is sustained by brutality and ruled according to the whims of a junta led by a mangled religious fanatic?

Looks like another 0-0. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could archive it (and the FP article), as it's paywalled. From the portion I can see, the summary right under the title reads: "Officials in Tehran got the United States to sign a document that even Americans described as degrading, mortifying, a total capitulation." Hardly a 0-0, as you put it. entropyandvodka | talk 08:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, "that even Americans described as degrading, mortifying, a total capitulation" only implies that US lost. To write "Iran won" we need a claim that Iran won, not that US lost. You really should read back about synthetizing information.

There are ways to bypass paywalls. We can't cite WP:ATODAY. Selbstporträt (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: The RfC has reopened following this discussion at AN: RfC closure review at Talk:2026 Iran war. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The result of the RfC is not clear by any means. The only thing that’s “clear” is a continuing divide in opinion among both editors and sources—until that’s settled it should remain ongoing/inconclusive. WD45 (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Here would be something we would be able to say: Robert Kagan said "it's pretty much a total victory for Iran and a total defeat for the United States", with a citation to the NPR piece. To emphasize or clarify Kagan's position, it could be in a paragraph for those who say it's 0-1. Then there could be a paragraph that says the US lost. For instance, we could also say that Jeremy Bowen said that the US lost the war, and cite the BBC commentary. If there are other pundits we want to include, that information could be compacted. Then there could be a paragraph that says the US and the Iran lost. We already have two sources for that. Then there might be opiniators who say that the US won. This could include those who say it's 1-0, and those who say it's 1-1, if there are any. We should not say "all agree that P" or "the US lost so it means Iran won" unless we have a source that says it more or less explicitly. At least that's what I would do. I know this sucks, but we can't go above what our sources say. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are 10 opiniators with 10 opinions:

• James G. Stavridis said the US did not win much, but it's still early to tell
• Jim Townsend said everyone lost
• Michael O'Hanlon said it's a win-win, with the US on top
• Brian Carter from AEI said Iran won overall but the US also won some
• Mark Cancian from CSIS said they both won a little, with the US on top
• Burcu Ozcelik from RUSI said nobody won
• Melanie Garson from UCL said Iran can more easily claim having won (note the phrasing)
• Yossi Mekelberg from CH said Iran lost less
• Fawaz Gerges from LSE said there's a consensus that Iran won and the US lost (which shows he wasn't in the same panels as the first 8 opiniators)
• Lisa Daftari from the Foreign Desk said that Iran is on top

https://www.newsweek.com/who-won-iran-war-10-military-experts-explain-12084896

Gerges offers editors a chance to jump on something like VICTORY. I am taking the commentaries at face value and do not consider Newsweek's staffers summaries, because WP:NEWSWEEK. While we find better sources for these opinions (opiniators tend to opine a lot, it should not be hard), we could add these costs:

• $29 billion on the US side
• 3,636 lives on the Iran side
• $2.2 trillion for the total cost on everyone
• 1 million Lebanese people displaced

https://time.com/article/2026/06/21/the-toll-of-the-u-s--iran-war-by-the-numbers/

Perhaps editors should be reminded that war isn't exactly a game. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Here could be a source for Gerges' opinion, which was already formed in April:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/23/donald-trump-iran-war-tehran-strait-hormuz

Make that what you will. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:OR, as well as the concept of attributed statements vs Wikivoice. If you review the paragraph I mentioned in the article body, the conclusions of Kagan, Rice, Musgrave are presented as attributed statements. Same with the The Independent's editorial piece, which reflects the views of their staff broadly. I stayed away from inclusion of that Newsweek survey of 10 experts, in small part because the Newsweek-ish clickbaity way they slapped a clear result over each expert opinion's statement (though that aspect could be disregarded if there was a particular point we wanted from a particular quote or quotes), but mostly because the amount of space each expert view was presented with was pretty minimal.

About the 'both sides win and lose some' way of looking at it, I'd note that this is true of all wars. There is quite a bit of available commentary about the cost of the war to the belligerents and the rest of the world, and the 'everybody loses in war' sentiment has been around forever. Cost and damage metrics are relevant in determining qualifiers like "pyrrhic victory" (which our discussions aren't concerned with, per MOS:MILRESULT), but it's the political outcome that's determinative. To summarize how several analysts put it during the war: for the US and Israel to win they need to achieve Iranian regime change, or extract other major concessions; for Iran to win, all they have to do is survive. This piece framed that issue pretty well. entropyandvodka | talk 16:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No need for any mealy-mouthed pyrrhic victory. As the MOS says, "it may also be appropriate to omit the "result". More so that the war has not ended, contrary to what you just implied elsewhere.

The point of quoting Musgrave was to show that we can't infer that a side wins when the other loses. To make that inference is synthesis. To use Musgrave to support that inference shows the source hasn't been read. We know know why: you don't have access.

Cost and damage metric are relevant to show that all this infobox shadowboxing is quite tasteless. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In any event, here's how I see it. We only have one claim that supports that there's a consensus that Iran won: Fawaz Gerges'. That's not ideal, both in quality and in quantity. I could search for sources about that, for treasure hunting is what I do best.

Still, we should not be saying "Result", but something like "See Analysis" (to borrow from "See aftermath" (or similar)" in MOS. I'm willing to write that Iran won myself if I find three reliable and authoritative sources that says there's a consensus Iran won.

Would that work? Selbstporträt (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd be against the See Analysis idea for several reasons. Principal among them is that Iranian victory does best describe the result in real life, and is supported by multiple RS citing various expert opinions and mainstream publications. Another is that this article's Analysis section is an excerpt from another article, which mostly focuses on the legality of the war. Note that this article did have an Aftermath section, but another editor moved it to a subsection of Diplomatic efforts, which doesn't seem a good fit to encompass everything that was in the Aftermath section.

With regard to sources specifically stating there's a consensus Iran won or the US capitulated, I'd argue it's sufficient to cite some amount of expert opinion and major publications (both of which we have), but there's nothing wrong with going further. Here's a piece from Time stating roughly that. Quote:

The signing of the initial agreement between Washington and Tehran by Trump left unaddressed the massive arsenal of intact Iranian missile launchers, permitted the continued Iranian possession of enriched uranium, granted Iran the right to levy passage fees in the Strait of Hormuz. The agreement did nothing to stop Iran from continuing funding its proxy terrorists—Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah—while promising to work with regional partners to raise reconstruction funds of $300 billion for Iran. And Trump left the repressive, militarist theocratic Iranian regime intact, a combination widely seen as a stunning American capitulation.

There was also a poll widely reported that 92% of Israelis believe Iran won the war, though I'm not sure how relevant that is and would prefer for now to stick with experts. entropyandvodka | talk 20:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have read the Sydney Morning Herald source, start to finish, more than once, which explicitly quotes Musgrave in the article body. It's the FP source that's paywalled, which doesn't quote him by name in the article body (nor did I write the portion of the article that did cite that piece). entropyandvodka | talk 19:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

"Principal among them is that Iranian victory does best describe the result in real life, and is supported by multiple RS citing various expert opinions and mainstream publications."

Once again, I don't think *we* can decide that. Since what you infer from the "signing of the initial agreement" quote clearly indicates synthesis, I'll address one last thing and then stop before hitting the stone wall. SHM cites Susan Rice, Dan Shapiro, Roger Wicker, Ian Bremmer, Vali Nasr, James Acton, and Paul Musgrave. The first three are politicos, Bremmer is only mentioned because he said that a dropping Bibi could be a good thing for Israel, Nasr talks about JD, and Acton contradicts any idea that the MOU is solid enough to declare anything, i.e. my own position. The best you can get out of this piece is the fall:

For Musgrave, the short-term winners of this war are clear: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Netanyahu’s political rivals, and anybody involved in the transition to green technology. “But overall, the losers are the entire world.”

Note that he hasn't said "Iran". So even there that's shaky at best.

I started to gather some notes, and will revisit the page from the start. It should be at a slow pace. Take care. Selbstporträt (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the SMH piece is fine for citing attributed statements to those individuals (which as far as I know is all the article body does with that reference). I don't believe we'd disagree on that. Did you get a chance to look at the Time reference? entropyandvodka | talk 01:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a page on Reactions to the 2026 Iran war, a page on the Islamabad Memorandum, a page on the 2026 Iran war ceasefire, and a page on Analysis of the 2026 Iran war. I see no reason to duplicate that effort.

The excerpts from these pages are way too big for our page.

The Time piece is an infomercial for a book. Search for "In our new book, Trump's Ten Commandments". It has been written by a professor of management and a director at the The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Why should these two dudes be our war referees? Selbstporträt (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Referee would be a strong term, as opposed to two voices among many that we might consider. I suppose it depends if you think affiliation with a think tank is disqualifying as having a relevant opinion. While the article does plug their book, the commentary in the article itself seems still of use. entropyandvodka | talk 05:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It's of little use. Even if we accept the idea that you can cite a few authorities to support that infobox (which I don't) they need to be authorities. They're pundits:

https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/state-department-yale-soms-jeffrey-sonnenfeld-and-steven-tian-brief-foreign-press-impact

The best we got so far is Gerges. He's the only one who said there was a consensus. The problem is that he simply waved his arms. Which is perfectly normal, considering that he's not writing an encyclopedia.

Think about what this page should look like in two years. This should tell us where to cut. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

How exactly are you defining an authority in this sense? entropyandvodka | talk 15:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Consensus statements

I don't need to define authority for the same reason I don't need to define pornography. I'm not here to play elenchus games. Been there, done that.

Look. We want to claim there's a consensus by those who study these things. This is similar to a scientific consensus, but for historians. How can we know that the sources we cite constitute a consensus?

We can't. We can't check everywhere. We can only cite people who did, and report on that. Here's what a consensus looks like:

The world's leading association of genocide scholars has declared that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63o

Or this:

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

If you look at the citations, you won't find four dudes who said "I tell you: Jesus existed". What you will get is quotes such as "The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt." What we're looking for are statements of consensus like that. And just like authority, I don't need to define consensus.

Find statements of consensus. Win. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

1. The government of Iran and USA are still standing. 2. Neither Iran or USA are occupied by an invading force. 3. There is no mechanism in the short term for either government being toppled.

In situations like this, historians go back and forth who "won" the conflict with endless debate since it's not clear. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

??? The United States and Israel waged a war of aggression. They failed in their aggression, and this even resulted in the defending party gaining territorial control as well as massive concessions. As stated by a plethora of reliable sources, and basic common sense, the defending party won. I don't understand this novel interpretation of a defender fending off an attack, and consequently gaining territorial control & concessions, as not being a victory. This is not original research. This is literally what experts are stating:

the Newsweek assessment: "Iran's regime survived, giving it a strategic win"

the ASPI assessment: "The regime’s survival is, in itself, a meaningful victory for Tehran"

Richard Haas, CFR's assessment: "massive victory for Iran"

FP assessment: "Iran’s Victory Is More Pyrrhic Than It Looks"

Nevertheless, there is still a minority that either take the position that it was "inconclusive," or that the US was victorious. But combining these takes, there are very few, if any, that insist that the war has not ended. Otherwise, how can they assess who won? At best, they would say which side is currently winning. But we don't see that. Instead, we see experts primarily using the past tense for assessments of the war. JasonMacker (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A few more for good measure:

Middle East Eye "Iran has won the war." "But however tortuous the path, and even if this deal fails and Trump decides to attack Iran for a third time, it is brutally clear that the US has just lost another war in the Middle East - its sixth in 25 years."

Foreign Affairs "Put plainly, U.S. President Donald Trump lost both the war and the negotiations to end it."

Asia Times "Iran won in the sense that matters strategically: it preserved the regime, demonstrated the resilience of its military and industrial capacity, neutralized the political will of its adversaries to continue the campaign and emerged with enhanced legitimacy at home and elevated prestige across the region. It survived the decapitation attempt. It reconstituted its missile forces faster than anticipated. And it now, in practical terms, controls the Strait of Hormuz in a way that gives it leverage over the global economy that no amount of American naval presence can easily negate." entropyandvodka | talk 15:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Newsweek's journalists won't decide who won the war. And if you look at the ten opinions, you'll see that you're running away with the headline.

ASPI is a think tank. So is CFR. And Richard Haass is that Richard Haass.

Your FP link leads to a commentary by Menahem Merhavy, and the meaning of Pyrrhic victory is "a victory gained at such a cost to the victor that it is tantamount to defeat".

We're not looking for occurrences of the word "victory" in the press. We're looking for evidence that there's consensus that Iran won the war in the sense that we need to build an encyclopedia. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Following up on the "good measures: David Hearst is the founder of MEE and former Grauniad lead writer. Nate Swanson is at the Atlantic Council and his commentary, instead of telling why Iran won, explains why Iran may end up losing. FWIW, Hearst's editorial is more interesting. But that's just that: an editorial. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

how are think tanks and other foreign policy and international relations experts not credible here? What's the alternative, exactly? JasonMacker (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The alternative is to get statements about consensus. We don't get to judge if there's a consensus. Those we cite do. Search for "Consensus statements" on the page for examples.

Asking me follow-up questions while ignoring what I'm saying doesn't look quite productive. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

We literally have that, as cited in the Newsweek article: "There is a relative consensus worldwide, even in the United States, that Iran has won the war and President Trump lost this war," added Fawaz Gerges, a professor in international relations at the London School of Economics." https://www.newsweek.com/wikipedia-lists-result-iran-war-as-iranian-victory-12094762 JasonMacker (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• I think the issue here is not the winner (this is clearly Iran at this point), but the ending date of the war (17 June 2026 in the infobox). There is no consensus of RS that the war has ended, and it can easily continue for quite some time. Even the existence of ceasefire (as outlined in the MOU) is debatable given the recent military actions in Lebanon that had happened after June 17. I suggest removing the end date of the war from the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

How about we let this issue rest for 60 days, and avoid RfCs while it is all still up in the air. The MoU will expire by then and we'll know if the war is over or not. Editors have rushed into this, when there is no rush. It's better to be late and correct than early and wrong.

Q: Should there be a moratorium on the result/outcome discussion for two months (until 22 August 2026)? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been watching the above RfC evolve, and the AN discussion with interest. I would support a moratorium in principle, although I believe Placeholderer has already proposed opening a new 3 part RfC that would provide an option not to include a result parameter at this stage. This seems to have attracted some support over on the AN and they may be working on a draft RfC already. I would suggest mentioning this proposal over in that discussion too, so as to make sure there are not two concurrent proposals which could complicate matters more! Dfadden (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ I support both the 3-part RfC or a moratorium on changes for the time being. Leaning towards the latter right now. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The 3-part RfC would include a question on whether to have a moratorium. I think the current RfC should be closed somewhat promptly as "bad RfC" and this question should be addressed in the new RfC Placeholderer (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the current RfC should be closed somewhat promptly as "bad RfC"

That is exactly how I !voted in the RfC. I also think we should revert to the long-standing version of "ongoing" and wait a bit. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with changing it back to "ongoing." I agree with a moratorium as well, but I wonder if two months is too long. We have no idea how fast things might change in the near future. I would prefer one month or maybe even until August 1. Either way, if "ongoing" was the status quo ante, it should be reverted now pending the outcome of this RfC. Slava570 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - This really seems like a backdoor into voiding the results of the RfC, especially if it's going to be changed to "ongoing" without regard to the results of the RfC.--JasonMacker (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  The policy per WP:ONUS is that it should be the status quo ante until the RfC decides on a new consensus. I just changed it to ongoing apparently at the same time as your comment here, but of course it's not without regard to the RfC, but pending the outcome. Slava570 (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's simply inaccurate, and I have addressed this above:

  There was a discussion on the talk page, which is why the Status parameter got replaced with the Result parameter, in this edit back on 18 June 2026. Then, this RfC was started in 19 June, asking what the Result parameter should state. As should be obvious from what has happened in this discussion, there are a large number of editors that support keeping it as "Iranian victory" rather than changing it to "Inconclusive". So, the status quo of this RfC was that the result parameter stated Iranian victory. The "dispute" as to whether to even use the Result parameter began after the initiation of this RfC.

  The RfC was closed due to WP:AVALANCHE, but was reopened so as to stay open for longer, but let's not kid ourselves; we know how it will turn out. This idea that what will go in the infobox is still unknown or has failed to reach consensus is just a stalling tactic to delay the consensus reached by the majority of editors (which is due to the plethora of reliable sources affirming the majority consensus).--JasonMacker (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  If you're going to accuse people of stalling, Jason, you better stop stonewalling.

  Show me your "plethora" of reliable sources. The ones I looked at don't mean what you make them mean. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Im am reading news reports in the last few minutes that Iran has attacked a merchant ship and in response Trump has just bombed coastal radar sites in Iran. That certainly doesnt sound like a war that is over... it is far WP:TOOSOON to declare a result. Dfadden (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  But we do not "declare" a result, we summarize reliable sources. If reliable sources say the war is over (which they have, rather extensively, evidenced in the RfC discussion), the article should state the war is over, until reliable sources start saying otherwise. Anything else is original synthesis. —BrechtBro (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

As stated at WP:AS, "most leads of featured articles are 250–400 words". The current lead has North of 900. I'm not a fan of hard size limits, but perhaps we could think of trimming it down a bit.

There are 7 paragraphs. I don't see the point of the second one: we don't need that much background information. I don't see why we should emphasize Trump's declarations either. So the lead should contain 5 paras at most. Perhaps 4 with some effort, but that can wait. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The page has more than 17K words, and more than 1,2K citations. Dragon Lord have mercy. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Update. We're at 809 words. Still too much emphasis on what people say. Many citations in the lead don't even appear in the text. This looks like an old lead. Selbstporträt (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Update. We're at 700 words thanks to Tpbradbury! Selbstporträt (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The invoke template is sometimes used to invoke (duh) citations instead of the conventional citation schemes.

Any reason why? Selbstporträt (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If we didn't do that, the article would exceed the post-expand include size (PEIS) limit and some of the citation templates would not be transcluded. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Really not great to decide to bulldoze technical limits instead of cutting text that will be cut anyway. What is the highest number of citations a page can have?Selbstporträt (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Scratching my itch, @PrimeHunter: led me to WP:NewPP limit report. Here is the current page's limit report:

NewPP limit report

Parsed by mw‐api‐ext.eqiad.main‐78f6f5fb5b‐8nmv2

Cached time: 20260624200807

Cache expiry: 14400

Cache expiry source: Module:Portal (os.date(%k))

Reduced expiry: true

Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1, prevent‐selective‐update, vary‐revision, show‐toc]

CPU time usage: 6.805 seconds

Real time usage: 8.376 seconds

Preprocessor visited node count: 40647/1000000

Revision size: 437713/2097152 bytes

Post‐expand include size: 1746648/2097152 bytes

Template argument size: 29248/2097152 bytes

Highest expansion depth: 18/100

Expensive parser function count: 99/500

Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20

Unstrip post‐expand size: 3967470/5000000 bytes

Lua time usage: 4.076/10.000 seconds

Lua memory usage: 30676609/52428800 bytes

Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 1/500

Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)

100.00% 7371.790 1 -total

46.86% 3454.288 1 Template:Reflist

31.19% 2299.129 1 Template:2026_Iran_war_infobox

26.95% 1986.655 1 Template:2026_Iran_war_map

6.63% 488.624 154 Template:Cite_news

5.22% 384.566 6 Template:Excerpt

5.03% 370.889 131 Template:Cite_web

1.71% 125.821 34 Template:Efn

1.36% 100.603 3 Template:Sister_project

1.35% 99.768 3 Template:Side_box

The reflist, the war map, and the infobox are taking 70% of "post‐expand include size". 2K calls for a box looks a bit high. One citation per 14 words might be a bit too much. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning here , and was reverted here . The editor who reverted me gave no reasons why my edits were incorrect; in fact they backed up my reasoning. The CNN article does not back up the claim in Wikipedia voice that Trump, a living person, lied, it just says that his claims were incorrect. If you insist on keeping the sentence, then you can at least change it to "incorrectly claimed" which aligns more with the article. As for the Washington Post article, you'll notice the editor who reverted me never quoted that article. That's because it does not whatsoever back up the claim that Trump "manipulated the markets," which in this article is hyperlinked to the specific article on market manipulation. That's a very specific claim that has zero evidence in reliable sources. Trump said he was continuing the ceasefire because the markets supported it, which is reacting to the markets, not the other way around. The editor inserted their own original research to deduce that Trump is manipulating the markets, which goes against basic Wikipedia policy. There's also nothing in the body about this, so WP:SUMMARY? In one of the most viewed Wikipedia articles right now, we should be following some of the simple rules that editors agreed to. Bill Williams 17:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear why this editor isn't quoting the WaPo source directly, which is the only source for this claim, it says:

Title: How the stock market became Trump’s most favored adviser."

Subheading: The president says market gains helped guide his push to reach a deal with Iran, even as critics warn that stocks are an uneven measure of national interest.

[The following quotes are all from the body of the article.]

But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“[Trump said] I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe... If you kept this going, that could have happened, but all I know is every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shot up like a rocket ship."

Whether he grapples with war, the rapid advance of artificial intelligence or the economic fallout from his effort to remake global trade, Trump considers market reaction a key measure of success.

But Trump has been especially transparent that market feedback guides his foreign policy decisions — including at moments when at least some of his allies feel there is significant strategic downside to doing so.

Iranians “recognized how critical market reaction was to U.S. decision-making, and it gave them leverage, especially as the U.S. strategic reserves were approaching dangerously low levels,” said Suzanne Maloney, an expert on U.S.-Iran relations at the Brookings Institution.

Every one of these sentences is discussing Trump's reaction to the markets. Please read the hyperlinked article that the editor insists on including in the lead of this article, because it says "market manipulation occurs when someone intentionally alters the supply or demand of a security to influence its price. This can involve spreading misleading information, executing misleading trades, or manipulating quotes and prices." None of this is applicable to Trump's actions, and if you want to pretend like this is analogous to the CEO of a company, then you could argue that Trump is making decisions for the company in reaction to seeing its stock tank. That's not market manipulation, and it's irrelevant anyway, because the reliable sources do not make that comparison, they just demonstrate how Trump wanted the ceasefire because the markets wanted it. It's just an egregious example of WP:OR where an editor is making an analogy to a company CEO even though the reliable sources don't say that. Bill Williams 17:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally think that Trump is a clown and a liar, but I don't want his statements framed in a uniquely damning way in Wikivoice. Anyhow, that's irrelevant - I want neutrality more than I want my own agenda to prevail. Alas, Wikipedia has become an activist battleground, and I think it's largely become a lost cause as a result. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That's my general fear about the encyclopedia, too, alas. To get to the meat of the matter: Bill, you're right, per Mikrobølgeovn above, even if we might clash politically. XD — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree the sentence was in violation of at least MOS:Said and NPOV, and poorly written at that. One wouldn't claim that something supposedly was about to happen, the supposedly aspect thus undermining their claim. I made a couple adjustments, and to the adjacent sentence, though in my opinion I don't think the sentence adds anything important enough to be in the lead. Delineating the blockade, truce, strikes during the truce, then MOU seem relevant for summarizing the article's key facts (and even then, the dual blockade and MOU are the major events), and the lead is overly long as is. entropyandvodka | talk 06:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think Trump has been a bad president, and that the Iran war was unjust to wage. But neither of those mean that we should violate basic Wikipedia policy in the lead of the article. Our job is to present the facts based on reliable sources, even if we have stronger opinions than those sources suggest. Bill Williams 12:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the "admitted to market manipulation" claim was not supported by RS and did remove it at one point . I checked and it does look like this removal has stuck for the moment. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that, thank you for the edit. I also changed "falsely" to "incorrectly" for Trump's claims that Iran's military was destroyed and that the US was close to reaching a peace agreement repeatedly. The cited sources mostly do not claim that he "falsely" made these claims, just that these claims were incorrect. This is particularly important because Trump is a living person and "falsely claimed" was hyperlinked to all his other false claims, even though reliable sources are not making that comparison.Bill Williams 13:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"largely become a lost cause as a result" The political biases and inaccuracies of Wikipedia don't worry me most of the time, because they typically reflect whatever opinionated sources are used. What really worries me is that an ever larger number of users seem to only edit or discuss political topics, while articles about historical topics, the arts, social science, or palaeontology have not been edited or updated in a long time. Not much of an encyclopedia, when the focus is so narrow.Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to strongly second @Bill Williams' points. I was (and am) rather shocked at some of the content of this article. We have some mildly to moderately serious OR and NPOV issues, as they have already pointed-out. Whether we like it or not, larger, more important articles have more of a chance to cause a Woozle effect and we must place them under additional scrutiny (in an ideal world, all articles would be placed under this level of scrutiny... but if one only has limited time to devote to Wikipedia in a day, are you going to expend your energy on a major article or on something 6 people per day read? Many people choose the former). I digress; as I said, just wanted to second or third their contention.  — MWFwiki (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"expend your energy on a major article or on something 6 people per day read?" Personally, the second option. High-traffic articles translate to wasting time and energy so that someone can delete your text to present the POV of his/her favorite news-source. I find more obscure topics to be more appealing as a reader and editor. Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we need to start our story with the coup d'état in 1953. The "Iran nuclear issue" (no idea what that means) section starts in 2003 when there is so much to say about events that happened in 2025. No idea why are we talking about "Israel nuclear issue". The current division breaks chronology. Readers have to read three concurrent timelines. It gets very confusing.

We want readers to get to the war at some point. No need for more than 1,3K words for a basic setup. Those who want more context can go read Rationale for the 2026 Iran war and Prelude to the 2026 Iran war. We cite other more general pages too.

The Background should be: a very cursory introduction to the issue (very cursory), an excerpt from the Rationale page, the Prelude excerpt (the last para should be omitted at least), and that's about it. Selbstporträt (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

These sections have been previously discussed at length. You may wish to discuss drastic changes and seek consensus prior to implementing them, and to search the talk archives. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I won't. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You have provided no justification for the removal of these passage, which is well sourced and thoroughly discussed, which are easily found in a search of the talk page, other than that you don't like it and that you think it's too long. Starting at 2002 is entirely arbitrary and strips out all of the context up to that point, which there is established consensus on including in the article, including for NPOV reasons. There is no need to rehash this to satisfy you.

You may wish to review the WP:Contentious topics policies and talk page guidelines. The discussions justifying the inclusion of this material are easily found and I'm under no obligation to rehash. I'll ask that you self-rv your rv, @Selbstporträt, thanks. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually did, there and here. By contrast, your "seek consensus" and "you may wish to peruse the archives" are totally unresponsive. Unresponsiveness is against policy.

See WP:FETCH for more on the transaction I won't be playing with you. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Your edit makes it appear that the origin of the war stems entirely the 2002 revelation of Iran's nuclear program, which is not only false, but a NPOV violation, as it essentially affirms the US-Israeli narrative. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Background information should certainly not be read as an origin story.

We can definitely cut the 2002 sentence. We could also cut the whole paragraph. This is not the place to lecture people about the Middle East. There are other pages for that. We have more than 10 subpages already. We are at 17K words, and most probably above 20K with the six excerpts. Sending edits more often than not hits the server limit.

The Rationale for the 2026 Iran war and the Regime change efforts in the 2026 Iran war are covered in the lead yet do not even appear in the page. So not only is the background section too long: it doesn't even cover what it's supposed to be covering. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

If you're referring to the hatnotes of the section, I would agree that those appear inappropriate for the section.

The purpose of the background section is to summarize the background of the conflict. According to reliable sources, that goes back to 1953. Can the section be shortened and better brought into summary style? Maybe! But removing entire grafs does not accomplish that. It's entirely in line with norms and not unusual for articles on wars, World War I#Background starts in 1848. —BrechtBro (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it.

1912 is nearer to 1848 than 2026 is to 1953, and we're talking about one of the two world wars we knew so far. There are three sources in that first paragraph. The Diplo piece mentions the 1979 hostage crisis. The second piece is Encyclopedia Britannica. Only the third one mentions 1953 is a News18 article. "The Long Road To US-Iran War" indeed!

So I'm not sure which sources you are relying on to suggest that the Iran war needs to be connected back to 1953. We could take 1979 as Hourcade provides the best analysis, but even then it's commentary: he uses the revolution to suggest that the collapse of the Islamic Republic was in the making from back then. In March, that could make sense. Now, I would rather wait that it does.

The second para has two citations for specific events. There is the Conversation that could do more work than it actually does. The rest is original research.

Then we reach 2002. The para contains an NYT timeline, a Monde piece about an assassination that is "too much information", the same News18 piece (we can't fight duplicates with invoke calls, which only makes citation overkill worse), and the same Conversation piece.

I am willing to grant that there are reliable sources for what we're saying, but what we got ain't it. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

That second graf, or at least most of it, was previously cited. There may be be better sources at this point, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on the war which traces background to 1953. Several sources do start their timeline at 79, but leaving out 53 presents a POV problem.

The section may go into too much detail for summary style, such as about the Iran-Iraq War, but there's a needle to thread with discussing not only Iran-US but also Iran-Israel relations and Iran's weapons programs. Imo the Iran Nuclear Issue subsection is the area that needs the most attention, not only with too much detail but with apparently unrelated, or at least tangential events, and an inappropriate update on inspections from this month, as if it's not background, ontop of some low quality writing (what's going on with that first graf?) that, as you've pointed out, breaks the chronology. —BrechtBro (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Good. Then let's thread that needle! My game plan is below. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

As was gone over in previous discussions of this material, the cursory introductions written by reliable sources at the start of the war (the Financial Times explainer comes to mind as one I personally read) largely began with the 1953 coup, as this is considered the start of modern US-Iran relations. The background section was entirely appropriate as-is, and I am sure there are other places where material can be cut. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Where's that FT explainer cited? There are 11 mentions of FT, all of them event-related. None of them seem to support the idea that we trace the war back to 1953. The NYT timeline indeed kicks things off there, but then that's just a timeline. No need to recite what readers can find at the Iran–United States relations page. At best the 1953 thing takes one sentence, and everything before 2022 is one paragraph.

If previous discussions missed this, then so much the worse for them. What I'm reading isn't quite relevant, sourcing is spotty, and it takes the space of what we are supposed to be talking about. We already have too much: either we compact information, or we cut. Just so we're sure: I'm not part of the V crew. I've dealt with them enough that we should not wait until one trawls through the page.

Anyone who understands status quo stonewalling would not handwave to old discussions right now. The page is so heavy it almost breaks the parser. I could make some blame runs if you insist, and I definitely don't like I feel like people don't WP:HEAR me. I'd rather not check. Let's keep talking instead. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources in the article have changed greatly over the months, so I'm not surprised the FT piece isn't cited anymore. Let me take a look through my past activity and see if I can find it. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Found it @Selbstporträt:

According to the FT, incidents essential to the background of US-Iran relations in the context of the war include:

1. The 1953 coup and return of the Shah to power

2. The 1979 revolution and hostage crisis

3. The Iran-Iraq war

4. The downing of Flight 655 (I believe this was already excluded from the status quo background text for brevity)

5. The Obama-era nuclear deal

That seems about right to me. The background section existed as it did because the FT was not the only source that gave roughly this chronology as background to the conflict. Another set of articles with much of the same background info are the February and March articles from Le Monde Diplomatique: . These were originally in the article when the background section was written. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Very useful. We could kick things off with our two timelines, presented as such, nothing deeper than that. Then the Diplo's pieces could buttress the convention, same as the Iran-US relations page. Citations could be useful over there too. In our case, it might be best to clean up what we have than to excerpt the lead from that page: it has been stretched a bit to make current events fit. Some of what we have might better served over there. The lead from this page would need love too.

The subsections on "nuclear issue" seem to work as dual narratives. If the story goes that Israel has nukes and so Iran wants nukes, then we should merge them. We should merge them even if that's contested, for now we have a subsection that has 6 paras next to one with only one. Good proportions for the whole Background section should be 3 subsections (US-Iran little history, the Nuke question, and Prelude) with 3-4 paras each, with 8-10 lines per para.

We should bear in mind that the page is actually twice the size the WP:AS patrol tolerate. If we delete one word out of three, it still will be have 14K words, assuming we're at 20K with the excerpts. More than 10K is fine, but more than 15K is not. The actual count matters less than the ballpark it gives us for the task at hand. I should be working a few hours every day on that. If there's an editorial line I'm crossing, just let me know through the edit. I'm not here to make any side look bad, things usually speak for themselves. The main objective is material: to solve the page issues; the reward is finding treasures. As long as we're moving forward and we remain faithful to the sources we have, anything goes as far as I'm concerned. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

"The lead from this page would need love too."

It's now under 400 words and it's more or less readable, so I consider it  Done for now.

That page contains a very big subsection with material that might of some use to us. This section should contain an excerpt from our lead. Will sift through the sources over there and act accordingly. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that merging the nuclear sections makes sense. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The last graf of the first Background section, beginning "In early 2026, Israeli prime minister" is prelude, not BG--less of a quick fix given the excerpting. The Iran nuclear issue section should also be reviewed for overlap w prelude. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Ditto the last two grafs of the Iran nuclear issue section ("In February 2026...") are not background and belong elsewhere. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Having looked further at the Iran nuclear issue section, some of this is off-topic and at best belongs in the prelude or rationale subpages, as it pertains to Iran's nuclear program and international relations in general, while the discussion of the impact of sanctions, etc, is more general background or about US-Iran relations than it is about anything nuclear, and there is not a neat dividing line between these two sub-topics that avoids repetition. To deal with the first, the tangential material be removed. For the latter, one solution could be to replace the topical subheadings be replaced with chronological subheadings (2018/JCPOA withdrawl is a good divider) and the text be incorporated chronologically, though this poses an additional challenge for discussing the Israeli nuclear context.

Perhaps this sentence from BG "Iran started a ballistic missile program to deter Iraqi missile attacks on Iranian cities and to compensate for its lack of a modern air force due to sanctions." could be integrated into a more clearly defined section on the weapons/nuclear issue that places less emphasis on chronology—BrechtBro (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Prelude is part of Background. Background is not an introduction to an introduction. It's just an introduction. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

what do you mean its an introduction? the subject of that graf is part of the prelude, not the deeper background —BrechtBro (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that Prelude is or should be part of Background. Background refers to historical context, while prelude refers to the direct build to war, and this is a divison that exists in many articles on war —BrechtBro (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind that way of thinking. To me, a background section may contain anything that comes before the main dish. This is a page on the 2026 Iran war: everything that comes before that is introductory. Sometimes the division you presume exists, but it's often for specific reasons. Here are a few pages I checked, in various states but mostly readable:

Peloponnesian War only has a Prelude. This makes sense as there's not much to say before that.

Balkan wars has a Background and a Prelude to the second war section. This makes sense as we cover events in between two wars.

World War I has a Background and a Prelude section. Both section are roughly the same size, three subsections each. It's a big war, with a clean distinction between back and foreground.

Irak War only has a short Background section.

Iran–Iraq War has a Background section. As it currently stands, it is wayyy too long. The whole page is.

Battle of Verdun has a Background and a Prelude section. The biggest, baddest battle in history might deserve that. There is also a clear cut reason: it distinguishes the political events from the preparation to the battle.

Here's how I see it. Let's posit Prelude is an excerpt or a summary of the Prelude to the 2026 Iran war page. If Background and Prelude are two main sections, they need to be of similar size. That means we could reduce the Background to around 400-500 words. Three paras of 150 words each, give or take 50 words. It's feasible. Let's see what happens if we keep what we got. Our sections look like this: Hostilities - 8.5K; Excerpts - 3K (guesstimated at 6 x 500 words); others - 2.8K; Casualties and damages - 2K; Background - 1.2K; Direct impacts - 1.3K; Reactions - 1.3K; Economic impacts - 1.2K. Let's say we want to reach 15K. That should give us:

• Hostilities - 6K
• Others - 2K
• Excerpts - 2K
• Casualties and damages - 1.5K
• Background - 1K
• Direct impacts - 1K
• Reactions - 1K
• Economic impacts - 1K

These cuts would make us 500 words short. Let's brush it off as margin of error.

This assumes that we can cut 30% of the Hostilities section, 50% of the excerpts, and 25% of Casualties. As you can see, there's a trade-off between trying to cover everything and describing the events and their effects as thoroughly as we can.

Whatever we choose, we need to cut. Best would be to make use of all the children pages we got. I said there were 20 subpages earlier. It was quite an underestimate:

Template:2026 Iran war

This page has become a hub for more than a hundred pages! Selbstporträt (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

If Background and Prelude are two main sections, they need to be of similar size. Why? They don't need to be. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

A large asymmetry between two introductory sections would indicate a lack of proportionality. If Prelude is much smaller, then it could be the first subsection of the Hostilities or the Background section. If Background is much smaller, then it's just weird.

We may wish to keep Prelude even if it's a very small main section because it's easier to access it through the table of contents, and because it's an excerpt. If Prelude does not say what we need it to say, then that's a problem to solve on the Prelude page itself. This leads to a coordination problem: our lead needs to reflect material on the page, material on the page depends on splits.

Sometimes, we juxtapose two ideas because they fit together. When one of the ideas is moved to a split, that reduces flow. This impacts two pages at once. Hence editors will tend to maintain the two ideas on the two pages. This works well until the two pages evolve and say two different things altogether.

When splits happen before the sections are well-proportioned, that effect gets even worse. We move stuff around just because there's too much of it, without realizing that some of what's moved is needed back. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

So first of all, the current value for the result parameter in the infobox, "Disputed; negotiations ongoing", does not belong in this infobox, that's just invalid. That's not that hard to understand. See MOS:VICTORY. Plus, the current RfC is based on assuming the Iranian victory as the current status.

@Slava570 and @Harizotoh9, So, what's your take here? — Raihanur (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:VICTORY doesn't explicitly exclude "Disputed; negotiations ongoing." It doesn't say that the options listed there are exhaustively enumerated and no other options are acceptable. Having said that, it doesn't matter anyway. The status quo ante was "Ongoing," so you if you prefer that, I would be fine with it. What it says in the RfC blurb is irrelevant. That was written by a single individual and it does not reflect any consensus. Slava570 (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

"Ongoing" can't be a "result".

+ MOS:VICTORY explicitly says: "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)." The only possible options are X victory, Inconclusive, See aftermath, or simply omitting the result parameter... — Raihanur (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@MazurTutejszy You just reverted the infobox again , but you said it can say Status is ongoing. It should be changed to that per WP:ONUS, since that is the status quo. I would do it but I have already reverted once today. Can you please undo your revert and redo it to say that? We should all stop edit warring and leave in the status quo until the outcome of this RfC is known. Slava570 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Repeating the same policy shortcut without addressing counterarguments does not help build consensus. We cannot selectively apply WP:ONUS only when it benefits a specific POV. If achieving a consensus is required for labeling an 'Iranian victory,' the exact same standard applies for labeling it 'inconclusive' or omitting the parameter entirely. That is the core principle of ONUS. — Raihanur (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying to put in inconclusive or omit the parameter (I made a mistake with my previous revert. Sorry about that.). I'm saying it should say status ongoing, which is the status quo. Slava570 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is the current interpretation of what ONUS means.

ONUS, like CON in general, is not a reason—it's a process.

Otherwise it's too easy to stonewall, and the encyclopedia wasn't built that way. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9, you've done the same thing again without participating in the discussion. — Raihanur (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Quite a number of countries are listed under "Other parties" implying that they are co-belligerents of the US. The criteria for inclusion is not stated and the common factor appears to be that they have been targetted by Iran at some point. Most of the entries are not cited and where they are, the cite appears to confirm solely that they have been so targetted. This makes them victims of this war, but in no sense "Belligerents". Many of the refereences relating to the UK are explicit that the UK has at no point supported this war and has only given limited permission for UK bases to be used by US to neutralise Iranian assets targetting British resources or those of Britain's allies. Other EU and NATO countries have adopted similar positions. The reference for Turkey explicitly states that NATO assets neutralised an Iranian missile which was aimed at Turkey. Again this makes Turkey a victim, but not a co-belligerent of anyone. Also, the involvement of most of these countries does not appear to be expanded in the body of the article of which the infobox is ostensibly a summary.

What are the criteria for inclusion and why is the involvement of each of these countries not expanded in the article body? In the past we listed 'Supported by"in the infobox, but that parameter was dropped as the level of 'support' varied between diplomatic help, being prepared to supply intelligence, weaponry or aid, through to actively putting planes in the air or boots on the ground, thus making the parameter virtually meaningless. The criteria here seem even vaguer. Every country paying more for fuel or fertilisers, every country with ships or citizenry embargoed by either Iran or US and every country which has been directly attacked is a victim of this war, but very few AFAIK have in any sense acted as 'Belligerents'.

IMO only those countries actively militarily involved should be listed as 'Belligerents'. If we want to list countries that have been targetted, we should in a way that is clear what the criteria are and that does not imply that they support either party in this conflict. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Other parties was settled on after an RfC about how they should be listed. Previously, there was an "Attacked by Iran" and "Attacked by United States" subfield on each side, which presented factual and neutrality issues, among other issues brought up in that discussion. Additionally, many countries allowed their territory to be used to launch attacks against Iran, which constitutes an act of aggression in International Humanitarian Law (though whether that makes one a belligerent/party to the conflict is more nuanced). Cases could also be made that countries which were struck and didn't strike back were nevertheless parties to the conflict, but that their relatively minimal involvement didn't constitute due weight for infobox placement as it wouldn't accurately summarizing key facts. "Other parties" ended up sticking as it offered a means of noting that they are involved parties, but without putting them in exactly the same category as the main parties to the conflict.

As a side note, being a party to the conflict (belligerent) is agnostic about whether that party is the aggressor or victim/defender, and determined by whether the party is neutral or not under IHL. Many modern conflicts have blurred the distinctions, and this is certainly one of them. entropyandvodka | talk 13:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou for the courtesy of a detailed reply, though it only confirms my suspicion that there is little alignment between inclusion criteria and text resulting in the info presented being muddled/misleading.

Territories "Attacked by Iran" is clear and aligns with those cites that are given, but listing "Other parties" as a subsection of 'Belligerents' makes no sense at all and is actively contradicted by some of the sources used (some of the UK ones are fairly explicit about UK not supporting US actions). Regardless of the niceties of international law, it is generally WP policy to only include in the infobox entities actively fighting under 'Belligerents'. Countries offering some level of support are ordinarily covered in text, since this info is too nuanced to be summarised in a list in the infobox. This was the result of an RfC some years ago I believe. In the case of Turkey, it has been attacked but has not itself instituted any reaction AFAIK (NATO systems based in Turkey have defended it). Pincrete (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Belarus is listed in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) infobox without an "Other parties" label, merely for hosting Russian forces and allowing Russians to use their territory for offensive and/or "logistical" actions. Using that same standard, there would clearly be listed belligerents alongside the United States and Israel without the "Other parties" label. I disagree with that label. I do, however, consider those countries to be in fact belligerents on par with the United States and Israel, when applying the same standard. My proposal was to not have an "Other parties" label, but instead have a "and others ..." wikilink that would direct users to an article that would explain the situation, simiilar to how the World War I has a "and others ..." wikilink in its infobox. JasonMacker (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Belarus did a lot more . Saying that, the list of other parties on US side indeed seem to be excessive. I would say only countries that became a target of significant attacks by Iran should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

To make the argument that Belarus "did a lot more," it's not enough to simply link to an article discussing the actions of Belarus. You have to make the comparison with the actions of the states in the Persian Gulf that host US military assets. So, what actions have they engaged in that leads you to conclude that Belarus did a lot more? JasonMacker (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not about the "niceties of international law" as you put it. Being a belligerent (party to the conflict) is a legal state in international law, in which one is either a party to the conflict or neutral. International law defines these states, what puts a state into either category, and legal obligations to stay in those categories. entropyandvodka | talk 20:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In “ traveling on Air Force One to Texas, authorised Operation Epic Fury.” - wiki link Texas SanDiegoEsquw (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The war seems to continue after Iran attacked British cargo vessel and USA just executed drone strikes on Iran. It would be better to consider the Iran war is inconclusive as there seems to not be an end to hostilities and it was to early to declare that the war was over. It would be wiser to state that the war has concluded after all peace negotiations have been complete as well as the implementation of the ceasefire being more "permanent". Yosef Caleb (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't help but laugh at all the editors who were so eager to declare that the war was over and that we had a victor, and could cite a myriad of reputable sources. Next time, let's take it a little easier. Reliable sources come and go, but the situation is still very much volatile. (For anyone who thinks that it is not a big deal, consider this: For several days, we misled millions of readers.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

You might like this essay for next time you wish to laugh without contributing anything else. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

My contribution is to suggest that we ought to learn from all this. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not enough to take this page as a forum, and that "we" only includes yourself if "all the editors" does, which looks like a stretch. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Wars end and restart all the time throughout history, nothing new. Noorullah (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that this post is an ECP violation. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Due to this war, Iran now occupies and claims sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. This increases Iran's total area. Should we add this info in the infobox just like, for example, in the Gulf War article? Crampcomes (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I've heard nothing about Iran extending its territorial waters, so probably no. (If Canada decided to obstruct shipping through the Northwest Passage, it would not represent a territorial change.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Iran claims sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, occupies and controls it. Since Iran is claiming sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, it is extending its territorial waters. Crampcomes (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:V. You have no source, i.e. you're asking us to violate basic Wikipedia policy by adding your own opinion that isn't backed by sources. Bill Williams 15:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The source provided reads "Tehran continued to claim Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz". Claiming sovereignty isn't enough to establish it. Sovereignty would need to be recognized somehow by the international community for being de jure; this is disputed for states themselves. We already say that it has de facto control here, elsewhere, and almost everywhere else.

There are lots of territorial disputes. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

No. Iran blocking and controlling the Strait of Hormuz would be a significant result of the war, but the war is ongoing, hence the result is not clear at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)