Talk:2026 Iran war/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about 2026 Iran war. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Why is MBS on “commanders” list? the only one from the gulf states?

If MBS is on the list of commanders beside U.S. Presidnt Trump, Israeli PM and their military officials, then why isn't the UAE and Kuwait's leaders there too? Putting only MBS up there from the gulf states makes it look worse on Saudi Arabia, as the other two leaders clearly have MUCH more involvement in the war. It implies Saudi Arabia struck Iran in ways that match the U.S. and Israel, which they did not(not saying Saudi didn't strike Iran, they just didn't do it at the level and intensity that the other two names did). If Saudi's level of involvement constitutes MBS's name being there, then by that logic the names of MBZ of the UAE and Sheikh Mishaal Al Sabah of Kuwait should also be up there, especially the UAE. otherwise, MBS's name should be taken off the list and it be kept the U.S. and Israel only.

I'm also aware that KSA is listed as belligerents in this conflict, but so are Kuwait and the UAE, which I think further strengthens the point im trying to make. Teteatyte (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, either UAE's president Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and Kuwait's Emir Mishal Al Ahmad Al Jaber Al Sabah be added to the listed names under "commanders and leaders" or Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud's name should be removed from it.

I think its misleading that from the 3 gulf countries (Saudi, UAE, Kuwait) that reportedly carried out secret strikes on Iran, only Saudi Arabia's leader is headlined on the list of commanders, I 100% agree with your point that it implies Saudi had a much more active role in the conflict. That should be changed. ~2026-30403-70 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, entries need to be supported by the body of the article. Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud is mentioned in the article but the others are not. Cinderella157 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested Move

Why don't we move the prelude of the 2026 Iran war to a new article that would be titled [[Prelude to the 2026 Iran war]]. Due to the size of the article this would help reduce its size. (Zakk😎) 13:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't have ECP yet, I cannot put the Requested move template at the top of the article yet. (Zakk😎) 13:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Prelude to the 2026 Iran war already exists. The prelude here is what was left after most of it was split. – Scyrme (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah. Well is there any other part of the 2026 Iran war we can Split? Also just noticed I said Move & not Split. That's my bad there. (Zakk😎) 14:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - I prefer leaving it as-is. The prelude is just as important as the actual war events. It would be better to have it here. There are other ways to trim down the article, I believe. Users have brought up other factors or items for removing. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Lebanon in infobox

I'm not sure we should put Lebanon in the infobox; it has technically been struck by Israeli forces, but that's part of a separate war, the 2026 Lebanon war, and its involvement is more nuanced (like that it's not on the side of either Israel nor Hezbollah, as documented in the Lebanon war infobox). I think we should remove Lebanon from the infobox entirely, since it doesn't have direct involvement in the Iran war specifically, and certainly not on the side of the IRGC and Hezbollah. Thoughts? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - it's fine as it is in the infobox. Lebanon is a key party relevant to the war. While this article is mainly about Iran, a brief mention of Lebanon in the infobox is warranted because this Iran article does discuss Lebanon, justifying its infobox inclusion per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The detailed involvement of Lebanon can then be found in 2026 Lebanon War as you pointed out. It's totally fine to include it here because of all this. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I still think it's misleading to put it in the same column as the IRGC. Could we add a clarifying efn note instead that also points the reader to 2026 Lebanon war? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

No objections to that, a simple efn that points to that article is fine. Let's see what other editors have to say first, though. The article already redirect to the 2026 Lebanon war article elsewhere too, I should add. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It redirects to the 2026 Lebanon war under Hezbollah, with an efn note similar to what I am suggesting. I'll wait to implement the change until we have a good consensus over exactly how to word it, since I think it's important to clarify that despite being put there Lebanon is not allied with either of the two sides. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Re adding attack on Diego Garcia under the British Category in the Infobox

I get the logic of not adding it, because it was alleged, but we already talked about re adding Turkey, Oman, and Azerbaijan along those same lines, and re added them.

Talk:2026 Iran war/Archive 12#Re-adding Turkey & Azerbaijan?

We "relabeled that part of the infobox simply to "other parties", no longer implying in wikivoice that they were definitively attacked by Iran." Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding this link if it is helpful to the conversation.

2026 alleged Iranian strike on Diego Garcia Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Going to pin these editors as the subject is similar to the Oman, Turkey, and Azerbaijan case:

DecafPotato

KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man

MWFwiki

@HarvardJock:🏫

@Surv1v4l1st: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Support - we have 2026 alleged Iranian strike on Diego Garcia to pull sources from. The British government confirmed they believe the missiles were targeting them. EFN to explain the finer points. — MWFwiki (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Support - This article already makes brief mention of it, so in accordance with MOS:INFOBOX it would be fine to include that in the infobox. Citing MWFwiki's reasoning, the main article of the event itself gives us some information on the topic and it's directly relevant to the war - in this light, I would support adding more to the article body too, if you choose, to further justify its inclusion in the infobox. A few more added sentences should be fine. Even if not expanded, I would still support it's mention in the infobox. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences to the main article. After a day or 2 can you re add it to the info box if we have consensus? I have trouble adding things in these template structure they have going. Coding is not my specialty. :D Historyguy1138 (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course, I'd be happy to. So far, there is one opposing editor - once he is convinced and/or drops the issue I will add it in, per WP:CON. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Yeah I would just give it like 24-36 hours at this point unless something changes. And thank you. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Right, I'll give it another few days before implementing any changes. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks friend. :D Historyguy1138 (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I think yoy can probably do it now when able. (: Thanks Historyguy1138 (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I've consulted with the only objector per WP:CON. Since this is a consensus discussion and not a vote, we need objectors to either flip to the Support side or drop the issue - or, at the very least, stop engaging with the matter. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I see. Are you sure that we need either of those 2 outcomes? You maybe absolutely right, but where does it say that? My understanding is that De jure yes it is not about voting, but De facto it is about voting they just call if polling. At least that is what I have usually seen.

In any case I think the snowball clause is likely in play here.

However if you disagree, should we seek out the Wikipedia:Village pump, or some other 3rd party options?

What do you think? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Consensus is not the result of unanimity but it's also not the result of a vote, as it explains on the WP:CON page. Typically, what one does in these situations is see if any objecting editors feel strongly enough about the issue to where they continue actively participating by objecting - in such a case, no changes are made until we solve the matter per WP:ONUS. Put simply, this means we don't make the change until the objecting editor drops the matter, goes inactive on it (ignores the thread), or flips to the support side. I've tagged the one objecting editor in this instance below. If he doesn't respond in the next little while, or responds by dropping the issue, I will add Diego Garcia to the infobox. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138 - I've taken the liberty of adding Diego Garcia in the infobox per our consensus achieved here. The sole objecting editor doesn't seem to have interest in this ongoing conversation, we can essentially treat that as him dropping the issue. Please check the infobox and let me know if you're satisfied with the addition - as it's your request after all. If you want anything adjusted let me know. In addition, I've also removed the efn saying "there's no evidence Iran attacked Diego Garcia" per our decision to include the island now that we reached this decision here. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (:

Question do you think we should change the name of the 2026 alleged Iranian strike on Diego Garcia to just 2026 Iranian strike on Diego Garcia? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Logically we should. However, to have a Talk consensus affect another page, the discussion here needs to be linked on that page to this page using Template:Please see, notifying any editors active on that page to partake in the discussion on this Talk page - otherwise, editors active on another page but unaware of this page would be unfairly affected without knowledge. It's too late to link now because this discussion is over and consensus was reached.

Would you like to change the title of that article? We can do it - but if any objecting editors undo the change, they have policy on their side and will be justified in undoing it. The WP:ONUS process would then restart. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes I would. Happy to work with you on it. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It's been done, 2026 Iranian strike on Diego Garcia. The page has been moved to reflect the new title. I have also removed all mentions of the "alleged" attack in the article body. Let me know your thoughts - and feel free to continue making any cleanup changes in the article text I may have missed that resulted from this move. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Very good. I will keep my eyes on it too. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Support per above Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose – Whereas there is video evidence of Azerbaijan being attacked, there is still much uncertainty about the alleged BIOT attack. I believe the current note is sufficient. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 03:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Nice4What - you seem to be the only editor opposing this change. Would you have any major objections if we proceeded to make the proposed addition? HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Support as per above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 00:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Link Iran International Wikipedia Page

This edit request to 2026 Iran war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the hostilities section, first week, 3rd paragraph, the new source "Iran International"'s article could be linked and is not. JJTJ2009 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Done --JasonMacker (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Would the rumored terms constitute an Iranian victory?

Hi, just looking for clarification over something that I could very easily see being politicized in the coming days. Al Jezera has reported that the US and Iran have agreed to terms for an end to the war that include Iran being allowed to continue enriching Uranium and tolling the Strait of Hormuz, while the IRGC remains firmly entrenched in power. Does this constitute a failure of America to achieve its military objectives? If reputable sources report this as a loss, will Wikipedia describe it as such?

I have no intention of changing the article, but I would like to understand a little better how Wikipedia comes to determine “winners” and “losers” in a given conflict. JackHavisham (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Across the articles I've seen, generally, the result is summarised in terms of victory rather than loss. For example. War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) has the result Taliban victory with references. If reputable sources consistently describe the outcome as an Iranian victory, then Wikipedia may do the same. If reputable sources are very divided or the outcome is particularly complicated, then it may be appropriate to instead link to a section which discusses the outcome/aftermath of the war. For example, Iraq War has the result See § Aftermath, linking to a section. – Scyrme (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not determine "winners and losers", it reflects what independent reliable sources say about a topic. If sources say one side won and another lost, that's what will be said here. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Iraq's participation

Hi, I was thinking of adding Iraq to the belligerents. The Popular Mobilization Forces are officially part of the Iraqi state, the Iraqi state has given them permission to respond militarily without needing to pass the order through the central state. Alexgt2007 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Given the PMF themselves are a designation, I think the article is fine only having the PMF and not Iraq - it doesn't extend beyond that. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

🤔 mmmmm, that the Iraqi state practically gave them permission to do so, I think that in this case, the state lost its neutrality in the war and by having one of its units directly involved, I wouldn't link it to mere neutrality; I don't know what you all think. Alexgt2007 (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Sources stating Iraq is a belligerent? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Great question - this is the more important consideration. Alex, if we were to accept the inclusion of Iraq, we require some reliable sources overtly discussing Iraq as a belligerent in this conflict. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, if such sources are found, some explanation in the article body are warranted for justification of Iraq's inclusion in the infobox, as well. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This might help you:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/iraq-authorizes-iran-backed-militia-to-respond-to-attacks-on-its-positions/

https://alhurra.com/en/17039 Alexgt2007 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Be specific in the changes you want made. Lay out the precise text you want included in the article based on your sources so we can discuss your proposed addition. Please also inform us of the section you want the text included. Remember, to add Iraq to the belligerents, the information needs to be included within the article. I'm also tagging @Cinderella157 since the request for sources was his original reply to you - Cinederella, thoughts on his sources? HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Support(to Alex):- I fully agree with Iraqi involvement as belligerents in this war. Many sources have already been describing about the Authorization of National Security Council of Iraq state government to the Popular Mobilization Forces , where as of now PMF is not categorised as an insurgent group inside the country but as a militia unit which is not just backed by Iran but also considered a part of their armed forces . So as per attacks and retaliations from both US-Israeli sides and PMF sides it's important to mention Iraq alongside Iran in this war . ~2026-30897-20 (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say the Iraqi state is "neutral", I simply said the listing of the PMF is sufficient as far as Iraq is involvement as an active party in the war. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The relationship between the PMF and Iraq is nuanced and, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not a place for detail or nuance. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You can make notes in the infobox. Alexgt2007 (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Still, a note on the PMF discussing Iraq's role would need justification under MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, as Cinderella and I have described to you. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

If an entry needs qualification or explanation, it probably doesn't belong in the infobox (per INFOBOXPURPOSE). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait's entries have an explanation. Alexgt2007 (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2026

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

Could someone add to article the fact that the Parchin military complex was bombed on March 11? It seems quite significant: , --Davidhiestand (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It could be briefly mentioned - but please, write out the exact text you would like included and under what section. For edit requests, you should be very specific in the content you want added. Furthermore, aside from the two sources you provided, are there other reliable sources that have picked up this fact? The more you have to support your claim, the better. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll make a more specific edit request below.Davidhiestand (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2026

Infobox image

Supported By category

Both US and Israeli casualty figures on "Casualties by Citizenship" table appear to be entirely fabricated

The table titled "Casualties by Citizenship" lists 8,621 injured Israeli citizens according source 740 and 538 US citizens injured according to source 742.

Source 740 "Israel reports nearly 700 soldiers wounded in Lebanon operations": Related to Lebanon and does not contain a total count of casualties for the whole war, certainly not a number like 8,621.

Source 742 "A US military refueling plane crashed in Iraq": Discusses a plane crash which killed 4 US soldiers. Again no reference to a total casualty number or the number 538.

There may be other reliable sources that make these claims but if so the reference needs to be changed. Dekadoka (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I've also checked the 2 sources and both don't mention that number

this also seems to be an issue at Casualties of the 2026 Iran war where there are more sources for the 8,631 figure but all of those also don't mention that number

the number in that article also seems to be incremented from time to time without changing anything about the source

one of the users incrementing it, i.e. User:Whitesin21, seems to have at least some history of doing that without citing sources: Laura240406 (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I was able to find these sources as of May 25:

"Number of injured since start of war tops 5,000, Health Ministry says"

So apparently Israel is claiming 5,045 as of today, but the Wikipedia article is claiming that Israel claims 8,631 in the side bar on the top of the article as well as using the figure in the table.

Daily Report: The Second Iran War – March 22, 2026 (18:00)

"Since the beginning of the war, 18 civilians have been killed in Israel, and more than 4,564 people have been injured to varying degrees as a result of direct hits, falling interception debris, and secondary damage."

US-Israel attacks on Iran: Death toll and injuries live tracker

The highest estimate I could find. Al Jazeera (funded by the Qatari government) claims "26 killed, 7,791 injured" confirmed casualties and deaths as of May 20th. I'm not sure how reliable this is, given they don't cite any additional sources or methodology. Also claims "13 soldiers killed, 381 injured" for the US, so again no reference to the 538 figure. Dekadoka (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Everything I post has a source to back it up, none of these numbers are fabricated actually. Whitesin21 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Every source listed clearly points to these numbers, there's nothing fabricated. Whitesin21 (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The sources you are looking for are listed in the Israel section of the Casualties of the 2026 Iran war page and not on the table. One example, https://www.gov.il/en/pages/17042026-02 here you can see 7,834 civilians injured and not 5,045 as you say and you are also excluding military injuries. Here, israeli source giving the 28 civilian casualties number as well https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-894081. And here for the US injuries. https://theintercept.com/2026/04/01/iran-war-us-casualty-numbers-trump-hegseth/. Like I said, everything has a reliable source, nothing is fabricated whatsoever. Whitesin21 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Great, if you have sources that support the numbers they should be cited in the article, not just here on the talk page. Currently this is not the case.

It seems the difference in numbers comes down to whether or not the sources think things like smoke inhalation (US) or having a panic attack (Israel) should count someone as a casualty - perhaps some discussion is warranted, rather than only including the highest possible number? Notably the 4,564 claim is for "injured to varying degrees as a result of direct hits, falling interception debris, and secondary damage." As the Times of Israel source states, "The ministry does not give a breakdown of the causes of injuries, and some might be sustained by people trying to reach shelter rather than as a direct result of missile fire from Iran or rocket fire from Lebanon." A newspaper article (opinion piece?) should also not be treated as inherently more valuable that official US government figures - both should be reported, and certainly a news article disagreeing with official figures should not be conflated with the actual official figures, as is currently the case in the side bar. Dekadoka (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

well official US government figures also give false aircraft losses numbers, because there are actually more visually confirmed losses, so I think both are equally important, these sources I posted, are also present in the Israel section of the Casualties page. Whitesin21 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you see my point about not using a newspaper article for "Per US" in the side bar? It disagrees with the official figure so it should listed separately, since "Per US" implies that the source is the US government. Dekadoka (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

How should we call it then? Internal sources? Or perhaps have a minimum and maximum number of casualties? In this case, the minimum number would be the one given by the US government? Whitesin21 (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2026

Even more sources

Can’t find where it’s mention Iran killed 20-40,000 protestors

Is the war over?

Add link to wiki-article about misinformation during the war in the See also section?

Possible new information for the already gigantic article.

Fixing Belligerents Other Parties formatting error

Edit request 29 May 2026

Should the infobox be uncollapsed?

In the simple question between a collapsed section or an uncollapsed section, there is a clear consensus that the section should be uncollapsed per MOS:COLLAPSE. However, a third option was presented halfway through the RfC to remove the information altogether from the infobox. This position was supported by arguments that only key information should be in the infobox MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. While it is a minority opinion, the fact it was introduced late (and therefore some people who !voted B might not have seen), and the strong policy arguments brings me to the conclusion that there is no consensus on whether to include the information to start with. Further discussion might result in a clearer consensus. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 09:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the § RfC about the label for countries struck by Iran discussion closed by Iseult, Iseult mentioned that there was negligible discussion about the collapsability of the others section. Two options:

Collapsed (status quo)
Uncollapsed

VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Why is this even a discussion? Jason's proposal, which ended up winning the RfC, does not involve a list that can be collapsed, but a link to a separate article discussing the war's impact. ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 19:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Iseult Could you clarify what you mean by "Option D" in the close? If you meant the wikilink version then this discussion is moot Placeholderer (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Placeholderer, this is the first I’ve read about Jason’s proposal being wikilinked. Going back through the RfC, Jason makes no mention of such a link; in the thread below, they don’t bring it up.

Zionni’s citation is to a talk page archive which I don’t think is linked in the RfC itself either. Well, this is what happens with insufficient RfC workshopping. In any case, Jason’s proposal by no means ‘won’ the RfC. It’s the flimsiest of temporary solutions until discussion can clarify matters. As I wrote in my close, there was no consensus for option D. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 21:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I directly mentioned what I meant in the conversation in the RfC:

My intent with Option D, "Others" is not that it serves as a label for countries the way "Attacked by Iran" currently does, but rather the actual word "Others" which can be a wikilink to an article (Impact of the Iran war) explaining the circumstances of various countries impacted by the war. That way, there will no longer be any edit warring regarding specific countries being added or removed from the infobox, and editors will be freed to discuss all countries and how they have been impacted, without needing to justify inclusion in the infobox. And, the infobox will not be cluttered by a bunch of countries that are clearly not directly involved in this war the way Iran, Israel, and the United States are (From here).

The problem with the RfC was that it was initially presented as a binary choice of just changing the label to "Attacked by X" or "Defensive only." I expressed my disapproval in my first comment. The main thing I'd update with what I wrote is that I'm okay with it linking to a section of this article, or some section of another article, rather than a new article. JasonMacker (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah. I absolutely missed that in my, like, six rereads. It was buried several replies deep and not mentioned in your !vote. I don’t think it’s reasonable for respondents to have seen that.

But let’s split the baby. The operative word is can, so the wikilink is optional. I did not understand option D to include a wikilink and don’t see indications in the RfC above that many D-!voters did either. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 22:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That was a clarifying comment. My initial comment made it clear that my intention was something similar to the World War I article's infobox. The basis of my point is that too many countries have been impacted by this war, and so, just like ww1, we should not try to place every impacted country in the infobox, even with collapsible lists. JasonMacker (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I see. I also see that several !votes cited your argument, so those might be counted as support for a wiklink. The trouble continues though with a distortion of your option D in the addition to the RfC options and subsequent misunderstandings of it through that addition (e.g. the proposer of this RfC). What a mess. One workshop could have worked all of this out.

Let me think about how to go about this. In the meantime, I’m open to suggestions. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 22:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the close, this was more complex than I realized, at least we're moving forward. At Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present), this is handled with a wikilink to Axis of Resistance and footnotes following "other..." (not seeing a discussion there about the "self-defense only" label...), and while I supported JasonMacker's proposal in spirit, I don't support it in practice because I don't believe we have good targets for such WLs yet.

It seems to me there was at least a weak consensus for "others..." given that the overlap in argumentation for both D and E. In the spirit that perhaps I should have stuck to my guns that the previous RfC was not ready for primetime, it seems this new RfC is also jumping the gun by not identifying the scope of the question at hand, which is how, if at all, they are to be listed, of which collapsed vs not collapsed is just one subset of options, just like the label question, and these differences need to be parsed out for participation to be clear otherwise we'll keep seeing comments going for an option that is about the larger question, rather than the narrower one. —BrechtBro (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

We should not get hung up on what the correct WL is. It's a fundamental question of whether the infobox should only directly mention the main belligerents, like in the World War I infobox (and others, such as Korean War), or should it try to list everyone, like in the Kivu conflict infobox (and even that infobox isn't exhaustive, and offers a WL to a full list). If the answer is yes, only main belligerents should be directly mentioned then the others can handled accordingly, whether it is through a single wikilink, or with a footnote that provides multiple wikilinks, or multiple wikilinks, or multiple footnotes, some combination of these, or something else. Asking what the appropriate WL is, or whether other countries should be in a collapsible list, misses that main point.

The main point is that per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "An infobox is unsuitable for nuance or detail and should generally avoid prose or prose-like statements. If information cannot be simply stated in an infobox without explanation or qualification, it probably doesn't belong in the infobox." The nuance of exactly how much each Persian Gulf country has been affected, whether they host US forces or otherwise allowed the US to use their land, sea, or airspace for combat operations, whether they activated their air defenses, etc. etc. is exactly what needs to be excluded from the infobox. This conflict, the Iran war, is primarily between Iran and the Axis of Resistance, and Israel and the United States; the infobox should clearly represent that. Listing a whole bunch of countries whose only claim to fame is that they host US bases and got attacked, despite themselves stating that they want to stay out of the conflict, is useless clutter for an infobox. JasonMacker (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely missed that For the record I did the exact same thing :[ Placeholderer (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Placeholderer and JasonMacker: I see two options. Either we scrap the first RfC, still reading consensus against options B, C, E, and no subtitle, or I'll try to magic my way into an option D variation bartender. If bartender, the interim solution will most likely end up as option A, which is identical to scrapping. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 23:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the RfC might need to be scrapped/treated like a "no consensus", but I'm not confident in that. I do think there'll probably need to be a dedicated discussion on whether or not to keep the other countries listed under Belligerents (maybe three options: list; link; don't list or link).

Thankfully this is, I'd say, a pretty low-stakes issue as far as infoboxes go. Though there does seem to be consensus below against collapsing Placeholderer (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

In my view, scrapping the RfC or reverting to the original status quo option A would be the least good way forward. Any variation of D, collapsible, uncollapsible, "Others" linked to a section or article if/when one exists, is far less problematic than option A was, and option B would have been. A separate discussion/RfC about whether to have the Others list at all sounds more productive than relitigating "Why not Option A", which was opposed by a majority of participants. entropyandvodka | talk 01:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, seeing as wholesale removal has been brought up yet again below, we might be in a situation where consensus can and will change through a series (ugh) of clarifying RfCs.

Thanks, entropy and Place, for your comments. They are well-taken. I will ask that, in the future, when we have discussions with heavy non-veteran editor participation, that we all be more willing either to advocate for workshops or for the listed options to be accurate. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 02:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I have to say, as someone who participated in that RfC and supported option D, I did not support a wikilink. I was not aware of anything like that as it was not part of the options listed by the RfC, and no attempt was made by the RfC to indicate that the proposal had been edited or that D referred to Jason's suggestions. I'm not really comfortable with the idea of having my support for D taken as support for the wikilink as I haven't even considered the matter. I would not be surprised if others felt the same. I have understanding that it may be frustrating for some of the editors involved here, but it would honestly be highly inappropriate to consider people supporting D to be anything other than "D. Others" and whatever the comment(s) they made during the RfC discussion says. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 02:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That was a problem with the RfC, where the OP didn't formulate the options correctly. Note that initially, it only had options A and B. I posted my initial comment saying I reject both A and B, and the OP responded by adding "Others" as an option, even though it wasn't intended as a "label" the way A and B were. The RfC played out with many choosing D, but some interpreting it as the WL option, but others interpreting it as the label option. JasonMacker (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment - This is a waste of time. Considering this one ended with more confusion than before it, what we need now is a new RfC on with clear "Remove" attack by Iran from Ib or "Not remove". --౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: the RfC has expired and a bot has removed the active RfC template. This discussion can now be closed. – Scyrme (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Survey

B, as nom VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
B per MOS:COLLAPSE: Moreover, content in an article should not be collapsed by default. Collapsing navigational elements like navbars and sidebars is fine, but an infobox is a summary of content and thus should not be collpased by default. – Scyrme (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
~~B with caveat~~ A C There shouldn't be any collapsed lists of countries in the infobox, but any countries that are not Iran, Israel, or the United States should be listed as Others or other parties. Non-governmental belligerents can be either placed in a collapsed list or listed as Axis of Resistance. If those other countries are going to be listed, they should be in a collapsed list.--JasonMacker (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
B as it looks good how it is. That's my main reason. MOS:COLLAPSE would also be relevant, as another user pointed out. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
B I concur with @Scyrme. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
B Uncollapsed. I'd be fine with anyone going ahead and making this change, now that the RfC is over. I don't imagine doing so now would be controversial, though keeping it as is is problematic. entropyandvodka | talk 20:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
B per Scyrme. And probably WP:SNOWCLOSE. (summoned by bot) Cadddr (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
C massive trim as per Wikipedia:Infobox too large....cuddle infoboxes data overload ... an example of what not to do.Moxy🍁 22:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
C: Remove Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a summary of key facts from the article. It is not a place to try to capture detail or nuance. The key fact as to those that are belligerents are those doing the attacking. There are many countries that have been attacked making this detail and, when they have not reciprocated and become an active belligerent, this is nuance. The infobox should be kept short and simple. The infobox is a summary. Not everything from the article should or must be reported in the infobox. In this case, the TOC provides the reader with a quick link to where attacks have been made. Furthermore, if it is considered appropriate to collapse something in an infobox then it doesn't belong there in the first place. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
B. Things really ought not to be collapsed in an infobox unless absolutely necessary. That is the common practice and I agree with it. Also I'm not considering C here as the previous RfC already ended up with loads of options and lack of clarity (what would "trimming" be here?) that caused issues for the close. I want to see options workshopped before RfCs and added to them from the start, not workshopped as the RfC is ongoing (obviously this is a one-sided criticism of those who want C as they didn't get much of a chance to workshop anything before this RfC started, but perhaps that could go ahead and be done in a new thread under this one). ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 05:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
B. Uncollapsed. See MOS:COLLAPSE. Guz13 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
B. with a WP:SNOWCLOSE nod. A could be workable, but reasoning for B is pretty clear. (Wholesale removal of key information is an absolute no-go.) --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 01:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iran president resignation

what exactly are the Wikipedia rules for naming wars?

Us and British soldier killed in "training accident" in Iraqi Kurdistan

Iran Attacks Kuwait - June 3

Outdated table

Israeli and US support for the IRI during the Iran-Iraq War

Edit request 8 June 2026

Lebanon's position

Created Draft:June Escalation of the 2026 Iran War

Names of the war

Syria and Jordan

Helicopter shoot down

Azerbaijan and Bahrain as belligerents?

There is a report from The New York Times that missiles were fired from Bahrain at Iran early on in the war. It says that it's not clear if it was the US military or the Bahrain Defense Force, but either way it was fired from Bahraini territory. (NYT) (AA)

Azerbaijan, according to a CNN investigation, allowed Israeli personnel to attack Iran early in the war from its territory, and one of these attacks allegedly killed an IRGC senior officer on March 4. Based on these reports, Azerbaijan and Bahrain should both be added as belligerents. I wanted to see what other editors think; I'm not sure if either of these has been brought up on the talk page before. (Al Jazeera) (CNN) Romanov loyalist (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think either of these warrants including Bahrain and Azerbaijan as belligerents. For Bahrain, it's unclear who was responsible, so it makes no sense for Wikipedia to state definitively that Bahrain has been directly involved as a belligerent party. There's insufficient evidence to state that.

The US and Israel launching attacks from Bahraini or Azerbaijani territory wouldn't make either belligerents in the war, unless you also want to argue that the UK is a belligerent because it has allowed US planes to take off from British Overseas Territories, for example. It makes them complicit, certainly, but it doesn't make them combatants. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Under international law, a state allowing another state to use its soil to attack a third state is an act of aggression, but the specifics are much more nuanced in determining whether that act makes them a de jure party to the conflict (belligerent). Here's an in-depth analysis that breaks it down. Legally, they might qualify as parties to the conflict, but it might also be WP:OR to add them solely with the sourcing available. entropyandvodka | talk 18:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hatting discussion started in violation of the Arab-Israeli conflict's extended confirmed restriction. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On June 22, 1941, Finland provided its airspace and wates for German troops to attack USSR, and despite some Soviets hesistation (see Red Army's General Headquaters Directive №2 to not to attack Finland without further orders), it became casus belli.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War#Finnish_offensive_phase_in_1941

In 2022, Belorussia provided its land and airspace for Russian troops to invade Ukraine and got immideate economic and political blockades from West. Average Encyclopedia Fan (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is part of the reason I brought this up. On the Ukraine-Russia war page, the consensus among editors was to list Belarus as a belligerent because it allowed Russia to use its territory to launch attacks on Ukraine back in 2022 (the military of Belarus has never attacked Ukraine, as far as we know). If that is the standard for a belligerent, then Bahrain and Azerbaijan both qualify (especially Azerbaijan). Romanov loyalist (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Finland became a belligerent after it declared war in response to retaliatory attacks by the USSR, and then engaged in sustained direct conflict with the USSR. Neither Bahrain nor Azerbaijan have taken the same course of action.

Belarus has actively provided direct logistical support for Russia, going far beyond anything described here. Additionally, Belarus is listed as a belligerent at Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) because, as explained by an accompanying note, there are sources which describe Belarus as a co-belligerent; it's not a judgement being made by Wikipedia's editors. The references provided here for Bahrain and Azerbaijan do not do the same. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

sources which describe Belarus as a co-belligerent - do you mean that articles in sources must have %country-name% + "belligerent" together to include this %country-name% into Wikipedia article's infobox belligerents section ?

Anyway currently Azerbaidjan is listed in infobox with reference only for Iranian strikes on Azerbaidjan territory, I think AZ in infobox has to have references to both items - IR strikes on AZ at the beginning period of conflict and reference to this recent news about Israel troops stationed in AZ. Average Encyclopedia Fan (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Bahrain is also providing logistical support to the US military, Admiral Cooper recently visited the king of Bahrain and thanked them for it. Azerbaijan allowed its territory to be used to launch attacks on Iran, just like Belarus did with Ukraine. As did Bahrain at the beginning. Romanov loyalist (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Status?

More information Comment by non-extended-confirmed editor (ECP violation) ...

Most comments here are not by XC users. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The status of the war is listed as a “stalemate?” Are we kidding? Iran’s government and military capabilities have been completely and utterly devastated. Nobody even knows who is running things anymore at this point. This is the most one-sided stalemate I’ve ever heard of, in terms of the ratio of losses from one side versus the other. Jmorley13 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

"Stalemate" is the most appropriate description for now, given the ceasefire condition and the "limbo state" of ongoing negotiations. All your other statements have no basis, are unsourced, and are obviously biased (not to mention, quite comedic). If you would like to propose a change to the "status" description, you must provide adequate reliable sources that corroborate your statements in wide prominence - we would then have to discuss it for consensus. Furthermore, even after doing this, you would have to explain why this sourced information would warrant a change of the "stalemate" description. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC) <--- CU blocked, see SPI HarvardJock

Strategic Iranian victory would be more accurate, but that's probably a minority of sourcing at this point. entropyandvodka | talk 10:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

~~I would agree entirely with that phrasing - but obviously WP:UNDUE becomes the issue because of minority sourcing, as you're suggesting. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)~~ <--- CU blocked, see SPI HarvardJock

I have a question: Does strategic victory in Iran refer to strategic defeat of US and Israel cuz as we can see Israel and US did somewhat pushed back the Iranian nuke program, successfully did much more material and collateral loss to Iran and are on verge of destroying Hezbollah? Kgeo2.0 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

A lot of analysts are probably waiting for the outcomes of the negotiations in order to conclude who "won" the war. The idea is that favorable outcomes for Iran (compared to what they had before the war) would count as an Iranian victory. But until then, it's too early to make a definitive assessment of who has "won" the war. Although, it seems increasingly likely that the terms will be favorable to Iran. Once that happens, reliable sources that describe a "Strategic Iranian Victory" should become numerous, and the status of this war can be changed accordingly. JasonMacker (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe its time for us to declare the war as an Iranian victory as it seems that the Lebanon War is gonna go on for longer running parallel to the Iran War Kgeo2.0 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The heads of all three branches of the Iranian government are alive and active in their positions. The supreme leader hasn't made a public appearance but there is no valid reporting suggesting he's dead. What do you mean by "Nobody even knows who is running things anymore at this point"? Rustttic (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we ought to chalk it up as an Israeli/US strategic failure… ~2026-35623-74 (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment by non-extended-confirmed editor (ECP violation)

No reasonable person would say this isn't an Iranian victory Jyffizz (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment by non-extended-confirmed editor (ECP violation)

To ~2026-35097-40 : I agree. So as soon as you have a reliable source verify that frankly asinine figure of 300 billion you just pulled, come back and we can discuss winners and losers. ~2026-35379-65 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment by non-extended-confirmed editor (ECP violation)

"Strategic Iranian victory" PFFFFFT. Right, and the first guy's analysis was the "quite comedic" one. ~2026-34377-40 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Winners typically do not pay losers $300 billion — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35097-40 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it is not a stalemate nor is it inconclusive, but it is most certainly not an Iranian defeat. Might I direct people to the article of the Suez Crisis with which this conflict shares many parallels. The "Aftermath" section there reads: "The conflict resulted in a military victory for the Coalition, but a political victory for Egypt." The same is applicable here. The US and Israel may have won a military victory, but politically they have very much been humbled. Victors tend not to pay losers with $300 billion in reparations. Moreover, Iran now has access to all assets and funds previously frozen by the US after the US agreed to completely terminate all of its sanctions (something it did not have before); the US agreed not to deploy any additional forces to the region; and the US will issue waivers for the export of Iranian oil. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz was a direct consequence of the war itself (it was not closed before the war, unlike the Suez Crisis which was precipitated by Egypt nationalising the Canal). Iran only reaffirmed officially it will not pursue nuclear weapons (which has always been its official line regardless of what it actually does), and the Islamabad Memorandum mandates Iran maintains the *current status quo* of its nuclear programme. The US has very clearly come away from this in a far worse political position than when it went in. The Atlantic, The Independent, and Foreign Affairs have all cast this an Iranian victory.(~2026-24595-09 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC))

And the definitely not pro-IRGC Wiki editors were clearly salivating at the thought of getting to label this an Iranian victory (not even "strategic" apparently, just "Iranian victory", as if militarily they inflicted any damage at all.)

Hey, I guess there had to be some way to cope after the death of that old creature Ali Khamenei. ~2026-35649-94 (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm very glad to take the destruction and damaging of over 42 US aircraft and every base in the region, plus damage done to the Isr*eli heartland, continued bleeding of the IOF in Lebanon, and Iran's growing hegemony in West Asia as consolation for the death of an 82 year old who was succeeded by his 56 year old son, thanks.

Have they even won a military victory? American bases in the region have been made largely unusable, much of American's strategic ammunition reserves have been depleted and they're lost billions of dollars of equipment that will take years to replenish. Rustttic (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The concept of it being “status quo ante bellum” is itself silly. The situation is not the same as it was pre war, and the consensus among observers is that the United States failed in virtually all of its major goals. K/D ratios do not decide winners(see Vietnam, etc). The United States has made multiple concessions. ~2026-35663-01 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/04/president-trumps-clear-and-unchanging-objectives-drive-decisive-success-against-iranian-regime/

can you point to one? ~2026-35520-18 (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

No. Nor have Iran, and their dead Supreme Leader, and their massively crippled stockpile of ballistic missiles, and their obliterated air defenses, and their crushed Navy, and the sad remnants of IRGC leadership hastily cobbled together off whoever survived the initial bombings.

This is not a "victory" or "defeat" situation. A peace deal was signed. The proper, factual, accurate term to use is the one it was just changed to: Status quo ante bellum.

Anything else is nothing but banner-waving. ~2026-35679-67 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Every branch of Iranian government has replaced its dead leaders with new leaders. The United States failed to topple the regime, failed to “eliminate” the nuclear program, failed to make Iran “give up” its ballistic missile program etc. Victors do not give the defeated oil sanctions waivers and agree to a 300 billion dollar economic package. Put down the chauvinism for a minute.

by what metric is it an American victory aside from kill ratios? None of their major goals were met. Iran’s goal was survival ~2026-35548-65 (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hell! American news outlets themselves say Iran decimated every base in the region! For God's sake, what is THAT except an example of an Iranian military victory?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35153-41 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

There’s a whole thread on here citing like 20 mainstream news sources calling it a Iranian victory, not sure why those are being given less credence than chest beating about “force depletion”, as if that was the major states goal of the Americans. This was a regime change operation that failed. ~2026-35548-65 (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

20 "mainstream" sources, one of which is The Atlantic (posted TWICE) and one is The Indian Express. Give me a break. More like a heavily pro-IRGC editor hastily cobbled together every link they could find even vaguely suggesting a peace deal somehow = victory. Tooli Mars (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah buddy, the winner is totally paying reparations to the loser. Hurrah up the Stars and Stripes. Whatever helps you sleep at night. The regime change failed, you can take your Bibi portrait down ~2026-35548-65 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

By launching into insults and losing your temper you're kinda proving my point. And also demonstrating the kind of people fighting so hard to label this a victory for their side. Tooli Mars (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hahaha ~2026-35548-65 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Close

'Related Persons'

End of War

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on June 14 2026

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2026

2026 Peace Agreement

Editors are reminded to read the bold-letter notice at the top of this page that states that the extended-confirmed editing restriction is in place on this Contentious Topic-covered article; non-XC editors may ONLY make properly formatted edit requests, they are not allowed to generally discuss the topic.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On June 14, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced a finalized peace agreement between the United States and Iran, bringing a permanent termination to military operations on all fronts.^[1] The conflict, which began in February 2026, lasted for approximately three and a half months before the diplomatic breakthrough.^[2]

The terms of the agreement mandate an immediate ceasefire from both nations, including a halt to military actions in Lebanon. As part of the deal, the United States ended its naval blockade on Iranian ports, while Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping.^[2] Following an electronic signature on June 14, an official in-person signing ceremony was scheduled for June 19, 2026, in Switzerland. The agreement also established a 60-day window for both nations to negotiate long-term issues, including Iran's nuclear program and the lifting of economic sanctions.^[3] Reed102 (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Better to say it is concluded when the signing has been confirmed to happen (June 19th), even if there are no clashes. Ebraali444 (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's remember that barring attacks in Lebanon, the Gulf, Iraq, and elsewhere, June 19th will not be a peace deal, but a pacification agreement, meaning a ceasefire with troops not withdrawing, and 60 days of negotiations on nuclear issues, the missile situation, US and UN sanctions, etc. So, for now, it's very, very early to call the conflict or crisis over; we'll have to wait for developments over the 60 days and diplomatic meetings on nuclear issues and other matters. For now, the only outcome is the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, barring any reconsiderations and unless Hezbollah or Israel launch attacks in Lebanon. I emphasize that there's no talk of withdrawing Israeli troops from southern Lebanon and the Beqaa Valley. ~2026-35090-14 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

[1]
Staff, CBS News (June 14, 2026). "Iran War Live Updates: US and Iran reach peace deal". CBS News. Retrieved June 14, 2026.
[2]
Staff, The New York Times (June 14, 2026). "Live Updates: U.S. and Iran Agree to End Conflict". The New York Times. Retrieved June 14, 2026.
[3]
"Diplomatic Breakthrough: U.S.-Iran Peace Deal Finalized". CBS News. June 14, 2026.

Remove the wrong title

Edit request 15 June 2026

"2026 Defection and desertion of Iranian security forces" listed at Redirects for discussion

Equipment losses?

Anti-Trump Administration and Pro - IRGC Propaganda

Editors are reminded to read the bold-letter notice at the top of this page that states that the extended-confirmed editing restriction is in place on this Contentious Topic-covered article; non-XC editors may ONLY make properly formatted edit requests, they are not allowed to generally discuss the topic.--JasonMacker (talk) (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone explain to me by what metric has Iran held off or "won" this war? There are countless strike videos on X showing their surface naval vessels, and aircraft being destroyed on the ground. Their conventional military assets have been decimated. All they have left; and it's still limited because of our strikes on their infrastructure - is asymmetrical warfare; which the US Forces have been successfully dealing with. I can't ask the moderators or editors of this topic to use any non biased anti Trump Administration articles, or articles written by authors that have Pro - Islamic Regime biases, or even better; ask the editors of this article to have any sort of integrity. Instead, they push one side of the story to better fit their agendas and gaslight the general public who still use Wikipedia. Elgreco2432 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Also: I am not asking to create a pro Trump, pro America echo chamber, but when I am reading through the entire article, it's as if the IRGC has a paid bot to write and source the entire thing from start to finish. Do better, it's supposed to be neutral. Elgreco2432 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The bulk of the article is sourced with mainstream Western sources, many of which hold biases against Iran, some overtly campaigning for Iranian regime change (like Iran International). The article summarizes what the sources say, within Wikipedia's parameters. That said, it's entirely possible, and has happened before, that a great power can lose an asymmetric war despite winning most or all of the battles (US-Vietnam, US-Afghanistan, etc). Iran's navy wasn't consequential in the outcome, nor were many other targets America and Israel destroyed. Their ability to manufacture and launch missiles remained intact, and with it so did their ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which put immense political and economic pressure on their attackers. The reality is that they repelled a conventionally greater force, which this week is capitulating, and strengthened their regional and global position in doing so. entropyandvodka | talk 01:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

As entropyandvodka puts, it is possible to lose every battle and still win the war - if the cost of winning the war is not worth it to those winning the battles. The key thing to look at in determining who wins a war is to look at what they had before, and then what they had after - its theoretically possible for both sides to win a war in this sense, but in this case its only possible to describe it as an Iran win and USA loss. Garfie489 (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note, User Elgreco2432 has made a grand total of 2 contributions to Wikipedia, both of them on this talk page (and this talk page section). This talk page is only for extended-confirmed editors.--JasonMacker (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 17 June 2026

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026 (6)

Replacing April 2026 Ceasefire with Regime change unsuccessful as a bullet point under results

Deferring any question on the result parameter in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we replace the bullet point for the April Ceasefire with "Regime change unsuccessful" instead? For all intents and purposes, the Islamabad Memorandum supersedes the ceasefire and given that the toppling of the Islamic Republic was a primary goal of the war effort and this war has effectively ended with them still in control, it is a notable outcome to put in the results. PaulRKil (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd like a more neutral way of phrasing it, but I do think the ceasefire is obsoleted by the memorandum, which includes commitments to permanently end hostilities. The other points in the memorandum would also be worthy of resultant bullet points, sanctions lifted, commitments to x y and z, etc. If and when those are executed on (as far as I know, the waiver for the sanctions already is in effect but the UNSC resolution hasn't happened yet), they could be more than commitments, but the commitments themselves are already materially relevant. entropyandvodka | talk 18:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I do think "unsuccessful" is more neutral than either describing it as a failure or describing the war as a victory for Iran but I'm open to other wording. PaulRKil (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@PaulRKil That isn't exactly supported by policy. And even then, we have numerous sources supporting an Iranian victory, see here. #"Result" parameter Noorullah (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally am more focused on the bullet points after the outcome but gut reaction is that this is an Iranian victory and I wasn't aware on that debate being settled. Even more so, I think notating the failed regime change and superseding the ceasefire with the memorandum helps support an Iranian victory. PaulRKil (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd also be open to possibilities like "Islamic Republic of Iran retains sovereignty". The term "regime" is a bit controversial in itself, though my earlier neutrality concern was more that it was framing the success/failure of a particular side's objective, where a bird's eye view of how to phrase it would be best, if we can hack one. The lifting of sanctions and reparations money also warrant bullet mentions. Any objections to their inclusion? entropyandvodka | talk 21:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:MILRESULT, dot points under the result parameter are not supported. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The time allocated for running scripts has expired

Paywalled sources

Bolded names

Combined section for edit requests regarding "Result"

"Result" parameter

An RfC has been opened to discuss the result parameter in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think it's far too early to toggle the Result parameter in the infobox (if ever), but perhaps we can start cataloging sources? I've started making a list.

Iran victory
- "But even before we have the details, it is clear that Trump has failed to achieve every one of the goals he put forward for this war of choice, and now he is determined to sign, seal, and deliver America’s capitulation as quickly as possible." The Atlantic
- "The Center for Strategic and International Studies offered a different lens ... While Washington’s goals evolved from ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions to broader political objectives, Tehran’s central objective was simpler: ensuring the survival of the regime. By that measure, analysts argue, Iran has so far succeeded." Indian Express
- "... Iran can plausibly make the case that it has won the war simply by not losing. It has withstood the pressure and held its ground." Engelsberg Ideas
- "The failure is enormous, the collapse is real, and Iran is the biggest winner." Avi Ashkenazi via Anadolu Agency
- "it is clear that Iran ... [is] going to be the winners and the US and its allies are going to suffer a pair of humiliating defeats." John Mearsheimer
- "Iran won this war without ever winning a battle. It’s a total humiliation for the US" Branislav Slantchev (Professor of Political Science at the University of California San Diego)
- "It's essentially surrender to Iran ... these are Iran's terms. They made one single concession - opening the Strait. And it's not even a concession because the Strait was open before the war! And now that Iran has proven that the U.S. can't stop them from closing it, their power expands." Chris Murphy
- "This is an Iranian victory over the U.S. and Israel." Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser, via New York Times
- Put plainly, U.S. President Donald Trump lost both the war and the negotiations to end it. - Nate Swanson via Foreign Affairs
- "Officials in Tehran got the United States to sign a document that even Americans described as degrading, mortifying, a total capitulation." Graeme Wood
- "Trump has achieved none of his aims in Iran." Sam Kiley — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-24595-09 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Inconclusive
- "The 2026 war produced no victor in the conventional sense." Small Wars Journal
- "Seen from a strategic vantage, the Iran War of 2026 ends in a stalemate." Times of Israel - op-ed by William Keenan
United States victory and/or Israel-United States victory
- ---

Chetsford (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC); edited 13:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC) to add one; edited 13:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC) to add one

"Inconclusive" may be a good choice for the time being when it is decided to proceed with the result parameter. It will likely take an extended period of time for the actual geopolitical outcome to become apparent, which may differentiate strategic from tactical outcomes. Platttenbau (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd disagree. Ongoing seems fine for now, until the agreements are signed and the dust settles, but the majority of the sourcing, as of the moment, indicates an Iranian victory in one form or another. I'd be fine with changing it to Iranian victory now, though it hasn't formally ended and the likelihood of some blow-up and resumption of hostilities is still high. entropyandvodka | talk 01:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Once the MOU becomes public on Friday (3 days from now), there is almost certainly going to be a barrage of news articles describing Iran as victorious, even more numerous than the ones we currently have. That said, there's no rush, so we can keep "Ongoing" until then. But, with the way Israel has been posturing, we may need a new article to discuss continued hostilities between Iran and Israel, separate from Iran and US hostilities. JasonMacker (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Further in the "Iran victory" column: "Iran is a bigger defeat than Vietnam" Foreign Policy — the headline is a pretty unambiguous opinion about the matter. Krinn DNZ (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Think the Iranian victory side is pretty dominant across the media at this point. Maybe "Ongoing Israeli conflict" or some such could be one of the bullet points under the result. entropyandvodka | talk 14:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Pretty clear what the sources say regarding the result, it being an Iranian victory. Noorullah (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chetsford FYI. I think somebody disrupted the quotes from the articles you cited. Numerous of them have been changed from what the in article citations actually say (to make Iran look like the loser). Noorullah (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Noorullah. I probably should have turned that into a un unsigned table so people could more freely add to it without it looking like it was originating with me. Chetsford (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that the above quotes (as of this reply) have been disrupted, and the quotes have been changed from what the articles actually show. Noorullah (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion about discussing a change in the Results parameter

In the interest of processing a change or non-change in both an expeditious and orderly manner, would anyone object to us setting up a more formal, directed discussion immediately, prior to the MOU signing with the understanding editors seem to desire to wait for the signing prior to any change in status being recorded, or committing to a definite expression of opinion? The long-fought consensus in the conflict infobox imagines only five options with little room for customization: [Belligerent A victory], [Belligerent B victory], [Inconclusive], [See Aftermath], No Toggle of Parameter. A rapid, directed discussion (not an RfC) seems optimal given the limited options. Chetsford (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Despite the Agreement on Final Result thread starting, it was framed in a way where nuance was proposed along with the change, taking the discussion in the direction of whether or not to support the nuance rather than the change itself. There have been several other edits this morning further changing the result, including mine. I'd like to see a structured consensus form for the result options in line with the ones you mentioned, as there are currently six separate open topics about this, each lacking precision and focus. entropyandvodka | talk 18:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is it listed as Ongoing?

Why is it listed as Ongoing? The MOU has been signed! Are we waiting for the the 60 days negotiations in Geneva to be over? Mayukh Mitra 123 (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

We can at least wait to see if all parties honor the MOU for even a day. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Because that document is not a peace deal. Its explicitly an extended ceasefire agreement framework with expiration date, with the aim to find common ground and end the war before it expires. So the war is still ongoing. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion to toggle the results parameter

As per this thread and the infobox template documentation, I suggest we promptly toggle the Results parameter to one of the following, with the understanding we can always change it based on subsequent RS or events:

Iran victory
U.S.-Israel victory
Inconclusive
See Aftermath section

Pinging User:Platttenbau, User:entropyandvodka, User:JasonMacker, User:Krinndnz Chetsford (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

There already seems to be consensus to do so in multiple ongoing discussions. I'll go ahead and make the change. We also need to figure out what to do about the bullet pointed content below the result, which makes less sense under a determined result. It feels premature to declare the Hormuz crisis, global economic disruption and fuel crisis resolved. I'll leave that stuff alone for the time being. entropyandvodka | talk 14:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I did tweak the ceasefire to correct for the temporality of how it was referred to, but left the rest. The stuff in the MOU, lifting of sanctions, 300b reparations fund, etc, would make sense to include down the line, with some of the other current stuff going into an Aftermath link. entropyandvodka | talk 15:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Iranian victory is the best option based on the reports of reliable sources. I agree with User:Entropyandvodka that the key provisions of the MOU should be highlighted. JasonMacker (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026

This edit request to 2026 Iran war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change iranian victory to Status Quo Ante Bellum/Stalemate with Negiotiated Settlement Suitsers (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done The infobox documentation only permits one of these parameters in the results section: [Belligerent] victory, Inconclusive, See Aftermath section. The use of parameters other than one of these three, across Wikipedia, was decided against three years ago and customized terms (i.e. "Pyrrhic victory", "Narrow victory", "Conditional victory", etc.) requires local consensus based on demonstrated use in RS. Chetsford (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreement on Final Result.

So we know that the result of the war is for now an Iranian victory. But let us just make the results panel abit clear. First of all it should be Strategic Iranian Victory not just Iranian victory because there was much more collateral damage done to Iranian infrastructure, the regime continued but many of it's top tier leadership was sent to the afterlife and the new leadership is much more hardline and aggressive with the IRGC acting as a defacto junta. Anyways, we have to options here for the results. One is We just give the bullet points as:

Islamabad Memorandum
Escalation and continuation of the 2026 Lebanon War
Significant collateral damage to nearby states.
Escalation of the Arab-Iranian conflict(referencing the KSA,UAE, etc. strikes on Iran)

Or, the 2nd option of:

Brief US naval blockade of Iran amid the 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis
2026 Lebanon War erupts.
Both nations pledge to respect each other's sovereignty.
Establishment of Iranian-Omani control over the Strait of Hormuz
US sanctions against Iran are lifted and the US agrees to pay 300 Billion dollars in reparations.
Iran agrees to not develop nuclear weapons under the supervision of IAEA
Further nuclear talks to ensue.

Kgeo2.0 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Strong disagree. If we're going with a victory by Iran it should be "Iranian victory" unless a preponderance of RS actually use the term "Strategic Iranian victory" and we have some widespread consensus to adopt it. Per the MOS: "The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed.". This was the result of an extensive RfC about the use of qualifying terms appended to the word "victory" and shouldn't be relitigated here. Chetsford (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
In my reply below I wasn't aware of the infobox guideline or RfC you mentioned. My mistake. I agree with your comment. Even if a majority of sources called it a "strategic victory", that wouldn't be justify creating such a category for the infobox. entropyandvodka | talk 18:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we'd need sourcing for specially labeling it as "strategic" rather than simply Iranian victory, which seems pretty widely supported by the sources. Other wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc, don't feature a special label, and included massive damage to the parties that won. I do think updating the bullet pointed things you mentioned, sanctions lifted, further talks to ensue, etc, would be appropriate. entropyandvodka | talk 17:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your strategic victory perspective, but unless we get a wide consensus on this page to do that here per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules we would have to change Wikipedia military infobox policy to do that. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Strong disagree per Chetsford Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. Doesn't follow the MOS guidelines. Terms like "Strategic", or "Decisive" (just for example) are not appropriate to the infobox per MOS:MILRESULT. (The bullet points themselves are also not appropriate). Noorullah (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Strong disagree per Chetsford. As the term doesn't seem to have any consensus among several people, i will withdraw it unless challenged. (PS: Withdrawn before being written) MazurTutejszy (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strongly Disagree. Way too early to say who won, without a peace deal and all of the main issues like the strait and Iran, nuclear issues remaining unresolved. Media might be saying one thing, but considering the MOU was just signed yesterday, it is definitely premature to say with any certainty, the outcome of this war at this point. I mean the war could start back up tomorrow, all the MOU is a ceasefire agreement with some minor concessions. I don’t understand why people are jumping the gun at this stage. BigRed606 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Status of conflict

On the 17th of June, the United States and Iran, through Pakistani mediators, signed the interim Memorandum of Understanding. Among the primary terms of this MoU included the total cessation of hostilities on all fronts, effectively and formally "ending" the war/conflict. As per that particular condition, should we close and secure the conflict's timeline and remove its "present" status, finally providing the war its end date, or is that not the general concensus here? Cvmpatremeo (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support with a caveat

I am for it. We should extend the date if there are any hostilities in the near future. And take note if Hezbollah and Israel still fight. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that in the deal there are still nuclear agreement talks to "commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent", and Trump has threatened to go to war again if Iran does not agree to end its program. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I think if the US keeps out of hostilities, but they flare up down the road with Iran and Israel, that might need to be treated as a separate conflict, similar to how the Israel-Lebanon war has a separate page from this one. It seems like a reasonable fork if the US abides by the MOU but Israel does not. entropyandvodka | talk 18:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I could see that. In any case we could play it by ear. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Outcome

how can it be Iranian strategic victory if the war isn't marked as over yet? ~2026-18890-67 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026 (2)

This edit request to 2026 Iran war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: Result Iranian victory into Result Inconclusive ~2026-35645-14 (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I totally agree.Its certainly not a military Iranian victory and there are not any political or financial gains yet. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support War is a draw/inconclusive Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. Agreed. Anything else is POV and banner waving. Tooli Mars (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done: Not an uncontroversial edit request, which is all that is permitted under WP:ECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Certainly not an Iranian Victory

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I believe its not impartial to describe the war as an "Iranian Victory", its like following Iranian or anti Trump propaganda.Iranian navy and air force are heavily incapacitated, Iran's economy is severelly damaged, the Straits of Hormuz are open without tolls, Iranian latest missile attacks are all intercepted and IDF is still in Lebanon. Furthermore the deal forces Iran to forfeit its nuclear program thus loosing the possible nuclear power status under US pressure and with possible financial gains through co operation with the Gulf Oil Monarchies.Its like Iran sold his nuclear capability to gain money from its neighbours. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Describing it as an Iranian victory largely reflects Iranian propaganda. A more balanced assessment would be to call it a draw, or possibly a strategic victory for Iran combined with a military victory for the United States. Overall, however, a draw appears to be the most appropriate conclusion. ~2026-35656-41 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Iranian Armed Forces suffered significant losses with minimal US and Israeli damage done in comparison.Furhtermore, no strategic gains for Iran are made clear yet, straights are open without tolls and IDF is in Lebanon practically unopossed. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Iran retained 70% of its strike capabilities, decimated at least 11 US bases, successfully closed down the Strait of Hormuz, devastated Isr*el with multiple confirmed missile strikes to the extent that Eliezer Marom, a former Isr*eli naval commander, said in an interview to Maariv here https://www.maariv.co.il/news/military/article-1332153.

Also, to say the IDF is 'practically unopposed in Lebanon' when Hezbollah just blew up 10 of them including a senior officer just today in a campaign where Isr*eli media has been announcing 'difficult security incidents in Lebanon' for several months is absolutely wild. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35153-41 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Latest Iranian strikes were largelly unsucceful, with up to 90 percent intercepted by Israeli Air Defence.US military bases suffered damage but far fron destroyed.Straits are open without tolls and during the entire campaing Israel and US Airforce had almost complete air superiority. Iranian aerial and naval capabilities are almost non existent. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

"Wild"- "Blew up" i can see the lack of objective thought and military terminology.IDF is in Lebanon and cannot be driven out by Hezbollah.Also using the term "Zionist" is a prime example of impartiallity.Iranian air force and navy are not in any operational capabillity and missiles alone cannot make up for luck of conventional military force.I am not a US or Israeli citizen adn i am really dissapointed by blind fanatisism. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, they're conventional military force blew up sensitive radar sites within Isr*el and damaged several airbases. Their ballistic missile programme is clearly more than capable of providing all the operational capability they need. Furthermore, claims of their airforce being destroyed is clearly bunk because we have visual evidence that Iranian jets still are in operations as recently as two weeks ago, you pathetic mental midget. As for Lebanon - oh that's rich. You said 'unopposed' and now you're moving the goalposts to 'they can't drive them out' - the Isr*elis themselves say they have no counter to Hezbollah's FPV drones. Katz said they'd be in Tyre months ago and they've barely advanced 10km. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35153-41 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

why are you censoring the word Israel? NiceBasher86 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Deranged pro-Zionist cope - the Fifth Fleet Naval HQ in the region, the most important naval base for US force projection in the Gulf, is officially being decommissioned, and we have intelligence reports in US media confirming other bases are 'inoperable or uninhabitable'. The Isr*eli claim of 90% interception is quite obviously nonsense, both on the basis of Marom's statements and the fact that anyone who's watched combat footage over the past several months knows Iran's missiles got through on numerous occasions.

Support conflict is a draw or inconclusive per war objectives Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Theres a myriad of sources that support an Iranian victory. See #"Result" parameter. Noorullah (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Iranian air defence is depleted, navy and air force significally damaged and there are not any visible strategic gains yet, since the straights of Hormuz are opened without tolls and no sactions are lifted. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Their air force is not depleted, they have 70% of their missiles, the Americans lost over 50% of their strategic munitions, and they get a waiver on oil and related banking sanctions for the first 30 days of the MOU. They won. Learn to live with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35153-41 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Israel and US Forces in the gulf states is comparatively smaller to Iran so, it makes sense that Israel lost more than Iran. Now I do agree that America didn't win but depletion on munitions is not an indicator of a win or loss. NiceBasher86 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The American war aims were not stated particularly clearly, but they have basically not been met. As for Iran, they get improvements relative to the pre-war situation such as more extensive sanctions relief as well as war reparations. The losses do not per se determine the outcome (plenty of other wars were won by the side who took heavier losses). Relative to the US, it's not baseless to call it an Iranian victory (as some reliable sources do), but it's also not unreasonable to call it inconclusive or even better to withhold final judgement. The descriptions of the specific outcomes better encapsulate the situation. Sakkura (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. Pro-IRGC propaganda does not decide truth. Tooli Mars (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Neither does Israeli cope-aganda bucko. Take the L ~2026-35548-65 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Both Iran and Israel are biased to their own side. Why are y'all arguing? NiceBasher86 (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Because evidently the "bucko" above me and those like him can't handle the notion that both sides are biased and seems to think neutrality is pro-israel. Wonder what that implies about Israel. Tooli Mars (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

That their elected leader is a formally indicted war criminal? Yeah I guess it does. ~2026-35548-65 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Case and point. Have a good day, bucko. Tooli Mars (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026 (3)

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This edit request to 2026 Iran war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Iranian Victory to Result Inconclusive ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done: Not an uncontroversial edit request, which is all that is permitted under WP:ECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026 (4)

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This edit request to 2026 Iran war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Since 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel have been at war with Iran and its regional allies. Active hostilities broke out after surprise US–Israeli airstrikes targeting a primary girls school in Minab, Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School, and military and government sites in Iran that resulted in the assassinations of Iranian officials, most notably, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. ~2026-35806-28 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done: Not an uncontroversial edit request, which is all that is permitted under WP:ECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not Impartial result description

Everyone in this section is in violation of the extended confirmed restriction on the topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Apart from regime survival there are not any factors that indicate an Iranian military victory in any front. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Aside from them striking Isr*el devastatingly, decimating US bases in the region, successfully maintaining their blockade over the Strait, destroying the early warning radar system that underpins Western missile defense in the region hence causing early warning sirens in Isr*el to drop from 5 minutes to under 1, successfully striking Isr*eli airbases, and performing well enough in battle that they got from 'complete unconditional surrender' to 'here's $300b dollars in war reparations', I guess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35153-41 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

First of all your fanatisism isnt even allowing you to write Israel properly.A simple AI research will show you that " Yes, official data and expert assessments indicate that Israel’s layered air defense network has intercepted up to 90 percent—and at times over 92 percent—of Iranian ballistic missiles and projectiles" IDF has a foothold in Lebanon and Hezbolah is unable to remove them, suffering severe manpower and infastricture losses.Also there is no part of the deal is about war reparations but loans and invesements by Golf monarchies, money nesserary for Iran because : The average consumer price inflation has soared to 68.9%, causing the cost of basic food staples like cooking oil and eggs to spike by several hundred percent. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe in censoring filthy words, so that's why. Seriously? 'AI researches'? This is your counterargument. I've already laid out the reasons why it's wrong above, but let me ask you - why, oh why, if the interception rate is 92%, does Eliezer Marom state in his Maariv Interview dated earlier this month, say that there is 'extensive damage in Isr*el that is hidden by censors'? Hezbollah's manpower losses clearly aren't significant given that they're more than capable of checking Isr*el's advance with FPV drones, something admitted to across Isr*eli media. As for your final point, in other words, reparations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35153-41 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As its clearly visible you are far for an impartial observer. IDF is advansing through Lebanon and Hezbollah proved unable to stop it.It has supreme firepower and total air superiority, and causing far more damage that it receives.Furthermore , the official Lebanese goverment restricted the shia paramilitary group to be called resistance force.I understand that it hurts you the fact that Israel defeated 3 different arabic coallitions , its the most powerful state in the middle east and a modern, western society , but blind fanatisism isnt a solution. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Whatever you need to sleep at night. I'm sure the Isr*eli rapists in the IOF feel very glad about their advances when a Hezbollah FPV flies in and seds them to Hell where they belong. Let's circle back when they make their inevitable humiliation march as they did in 2000 and 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35153-41 (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Please check the casualtes of IDF, Hezbollah and Iran and make up for yourself.Israel defeated Hezbollah twice before and now its back. You are a sad, blind fanatic. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thats why Israel its still in Lebanon and Hezbollah is just pushed back and beg Iranians to stop the IDF.Israel its a rich, western accepted state, Hezbollah are terrorists hated in their own country.Tell me again, which is the most powerful and infuential state in the middle east? ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Katz said they'd in Tyre by now and they're dying uselessly below the Litani still, I recognise venting on a talk page is necessary after your genocidal ethnostate's resounding defeat, but it wont change reality, friendo.

@~2026-35153-41 you're propogandistic description of Israel is repulsive on a site that attempts impartiality Parrot in search of knowledge (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Tell my what is propaganda?Isnt Israel a recognized state, with western values and a powerful military that defeated 3 arab coalitions in the past? ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a society that committed a genocide and murdered over 100,000 people, mostly under the age of 18. It's impossible to be a thinking human being and not hate them. ~2026-35153-41 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-35153-41 your propagandistic description of Israel is repulsive on a site that attempts impartiality Parrot in search of knowledge (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the Isr*elis and their American allies excel at massacring civilian targets, but Hezbollah seems to excel at gaining actual, substantive military successes if the level of wailing and gnashing in Isr*eli media is any indcator. Ditto for Iran.

Also, no, it lost twice, and now it'll lose to Hezbollah for a third time.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026 (5)

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This edit request to 2026 Iran war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

~2026-35632-78 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Totally agree.Either that or Result inconclusive. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

the result is no where near inconclusive

the original goals were:

regime change: FAILED

destabilisation: FAILED

securing the gulf: FAILED

failed, failed FAILED

america lost this war and most reputable sources (which is what wikipedia cares about) is saying the u.s lost Wikiportsmouthian (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Such cool headed approach to history and current event amazes me so much....You can read about current state of Iranian conventional aeronautical abilities, military and civilian infastructure and Iranian economy.Furthermore by giving away its nuclear capabilities in exchange for financial gains its an indication of the dire situation that the Iranian regime is facing.Lossing possible nuclear power status in exchange for economic aid and survival, while both USA and Israel have nuclear capabilities isnt a victory its survival. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You're a deranged idiot. The MOU literally preserves Iran's right to enrichment. They successfully managed to beat down the US and Isr*el, who were initially demanding ZERO ENRICHMENT, down to 'no nuclear weapons please', which is a position Iran has itself held since Ali Khamanei made his damn fatwa.

Can someone please IP ban this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35153-41 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

By insulting me and losing your temper you are just proving my point. Please learn to write the name of a UN recocnized state properly, understand that USA and Israel are nuclear powers and Iran is forefeiting its ability to become one and calm dowm. Israel is a western like modern state, defetaed 3 arab coalitions in the past and , trust me, no matter how angry you are it will continue to possess a modern, powerful military and remain the most powerful state in the middle east. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I dont remember Israel begging for a ceasefire.Also i dont see Iran in the nuclear powers list.By the way its written Israel. ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Clearly it isn't, given that it lost to Iran in June of 2025 by begging for a ceasefire and has similarly lost miserably today. Again, Iran can still enrich.

Not done: Not an uncontroversial edit request, which is all that is permitted under WP:ECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove "Iranian victory" and change "United States of America"

This edit request to 2026 Iran war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The war isn't yet over. Israel did not agree to ending the war and didn't participate in the Islamabad Memorandum. It is still ongoing. Also add United States of America as a beligerent until June 18th 2026 when the memorandum was signed. Aquafishy7 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran, is a memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran aimed at ending the 2026 Iran war. Israel is not a part of this memorandum. Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

(This comment was removed as a violation of the extended confirmed restriction in the following topic area: the Arab–Israeli conflict. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)) DawnTheFirst (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

(This comment was removed as a violation of the extended confirmed restriction in the following topic area: the Arab–Israeli conflict. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)) ~2026-35533-65 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done: Not an uncontroversial edit request, which is all that is permitted under WP:ECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Iranian victory, American victory, or Status quo ante bellum?

What is the verdict of who won the war, is it an Iranian victory, an American victory, or Status quo ante bellum? And what is the final end date for the war?

AGiantPulsatingMindisaTerribleThingtoWaste (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

For the Aggressor: Victory means successfully changing the status quo. Did they conquer the desired territory, force a regime change, or compel the enemy to alter their national policies?

For the Defender: Victory simply means survival. A defending nation can "win" a war without ever conquering enemy territory, so long as they maintain their sovereignty and repel the attacker's political goals. Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You're just spamming that copypaste on every single thread which raises the issue and it's not even accurate to wars resolved through negotiations, unless you think all peace deals = surrender deals. Tooli Mars (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

For now, stay with Iranian victory. Setarip (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

More information Comment by non-extended-confirmed editor (ECP violation) ...

Comment by non-extended-confirmed editor (ECP violation)

Considering Trump Promised regime change, an end to missile production, an end to proxies, and an end to the entire nuclear program(bigly zero enrichment!!), and is now backing down from all that, yes, he capitulated ~2026-35548-65 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Close

There's a myriad of sources supporting an Iranian victory, see the efn attached to the result parameter. As for the end date, that'd be with the MOU so far. Noorullah (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

One of them was the Atlantic posted twice as if it were multiple sources and another was the Indian Express. A "myriad" of basically random links that seems to have been pasted just so it can be said to exist for justification. (Pasting this since you're doing the same) Tooli Mars (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is this in the infobox? It is way too early to determine the outcome of this War. Why not wait until a potential deal is signed and a consensus has been made by the media, as we should be doing. BigRed606 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Stalemate. Iran suffered both major losses and major gains; its gains were more control of the strait of Hormuz (as in the article used to cite its victory), but some of its losses include major allies such as Qatar and Iraq due to its indiscriminate bombing of US bases and the countries' reactions. In addition, it also suffered heavy military losses in its air force, and their leader is in a coma. I wouldn't call this an American victory, but it's certainly not an Iranian victory either, so I vote stalemate. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 18 June 2026

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This edit request to 2026 Iran war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

Tooli Mars (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC) A peace deal is not a victory or a defeat, no matter which propaganda outlets attempt to sell it as such. ^[1] ^[2]

For the Aggressor: Victory means successfully changing the status quo. Did they conquer the desired territory, force a regime change, or compel the enemy to alter their national policies?

For the Defender: Victory simply means survival. A defending nation can "win" a war without ever conquering enemy territory, so long as they maintain their sovereignty and repel the attacker's political goals. Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

That CAN be how a victor is decided. Not always. Certainly not when a war is ended via negotiations. Should every single peace deal in history now be revised in Wikipedia's history on every single war page as a "victory" for the defenders because they weren't completely slaughtered? Is a "peace deal" tantamount to a surrender deal? If so, looks like we've got a lot of pages to go back and revise! Tooli Mars (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a myriad of sources supporting an Iranian victory, see the efn attached to the result parameter. Noorullah (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

One of them was the Atlantic posted twice as if it were multiple sources and another was the Indian Express. A "myriad" of basically random links that seems to have been pasted just so it can be said to exist for justification. Tooli Mars (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring the sources does not help your case here. Most of these are reliable WP:RS perrenial sources cited on Wikipedia. Noorullah (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

But in this case, the defender not only survived, but altered the status quo ante bellum. Iran gained control of the Strait of Hormuz as a result of this war, and the United States signed a MOU in the Palace of Versailles offering major concessions to Iran.--JasonMacker (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

whose not to say, that the final peace deal returns the strait to the status quo before the war, can we not hold off on saying who won, until a peace deal has been reached? Why jump the gun? BigRed606 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done: Not an uncontroversial edit request, which is all that is permitted under WP:ECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 18 June 2026

This edit request to 2026 Iran war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I believe that the result of the war should be edited as "unconcluded".No final agreement is yet reached, Iran is pressuring for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon but IDF is still there.

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
Why it should be changed:
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

~2026-35533-65 (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Not done: Not an uncontroversial edit request. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Iran won the war

Most sources say Iran won the war. Crampcomes (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Considering that the MOU was just signed yesterday and no final peace deal has been reached, i think it is premature to use any sources to say that Iran or US won. Anything can happen tomorrow the war could restart. Let’s not Jump the gun. BigRed606 (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Nothing stopping us from changing it to Ongoing if hostilities resume between Iran and the US. entropyandvodka | talk 21:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

If that happens and there are enough credible sources for that then we can always update the article, but at the moment almost all sources are claiming Iranian victory. Crampcomes (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it too premature without a peace deal and fully assessing the situation which will take weeks to draw a conclusion of who won the war. BigRed606 (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

~~I think truth should matter. Calling it an Iranian victory is pretty blatant propaganda. JohnnySalami12 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)~~ Struck comment made in violation of WP:ECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

We go by what most credible sources are saying. Crampcomes (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

After all the dust has settled it is perfectly clear, it is way too early, that is the point i am trying to make. BigRed606 (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Dust is already settled and the blockades have been lifted. Reason why so many credible sources are saying Iran won. Crampcomes (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Dust is already settled without a peace deal? The war could literally start hack up tomorrow. Most of the issues concerning nuclear, missiles and the longterm control of the strait has yet to be decided in the longterm. BigRed606 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As far as we can see it, many WP:RS sources are calling it an Iranian victory. If the war restarts it can be changed to ongoing, but the result thus far is pretty clear and a signed MEMO for a final agreement to follow. Noorullah (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As far as i can see, it remains to be seen who won, no final agreement has been reached, the longterm issue of the strait has not been settled nor has the issue of nuclear. I don’t know why people are treating the MOU as the final peace deal. BigRed606 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It is our job as Wikipedia editors to determine when the timing is write concerning issues such these, we aren’t beholden to media, and unlike the media we shouldn’t quickly draw conclusions as soon as major news event occurs. BigRed606 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with User:BigRed606 Newsweek shows a lot of different perspectives ranging from Iran Won, to Inconclusive, to the U.S.A. Won, moreover, the 60 Nucllur talks are not over, and according to Trump could resume the conflict. Which being that this matter is not resolved, would show me that the matter is inconclusive. https://www.newsweek.com/who-won-iran-war-10-military-experts-explain-12084896 Historyguy1138 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026 (7)

This edit request to 2026 Iran war has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

neither side had a victory ~2026-35752-94 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done: It's unclear what changes you want. Please write in the form of "please change X to Y". Thanks. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 22:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: "Result" or "Status" for infobox, if "Result", what value for result and should there be a moratorium on future RFCs on these topics?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedurally closed. See WP:RFC#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page which says to avoid discussion forks, they should not overlap significantly in their subject matter. Talk:2026 Iran war#Iranian Victory vs Inconclusive covers virtually the same subject matter; moreover, is still open, comments are still being posted there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Based on your assessment of the reliable sources and considering Wikipedia core content policies: 1) Do we use the |result= parameter (which implies the event has ended) or the |status= parameter (which implies the event is ongoing) for the infobox, or neither parameter? 2) If we choose |result= (event has ended), what result do we choose (the infobox docs suggests this should be either "X victory" or "Inconclusive"): Iranian victory, United States victory, Inconclusive or See Aftermath? 3) Do we want to have an X-day moratorium on future RFCs on this topic absent major source-supported developments (14-day, 30-day, 60-day, None)?

Please number your !votes to make it easier for the closer, the 2nd question can be included even if you !vote for "status" for the first question if you want to register an opinion if the consensus leans towards "result". —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment To be clear, if the consensus for #1 is |status=, then we would be using Ongoing as the description of the situation. We could also possibly use Memorandum of Understanding if that appeals to people in view of the WP:RS. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Updated per suggestion at WP:AN. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

#1: |status= as saying the war is definitively over is borderline WP:CRYSTALBALL.

#2: If the consesus is that the war is over, it should say See aftermath which is more complying with MOS:MILRESULT and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.

#3: 14-day moratorium. As @TurboSuperA+ said in an above discussion, [i]t's better to be late and correct than early and wrong.. However, due to the extremely fast-evolving nature of the war and negotiations, the moratorium shouldn't be long, and I think 14 days strikes a good balance. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 22:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Would it be better to have the result be a link to the Islamabad Memorandum and include bullet points for tangible developments such as “Regime change failure,” “Strait of Hormuz crisis ongoing,” etc ?

Otherwise it should say Iranian Victory PaulRKil (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No. The MoU isn't the final treaty or anything, just a framework. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 23:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy close I procedurally object to two ongoing RfCs at once to answer the same question. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survey

"Result" parameter

Discussion about discussing a change in the Results parameter

Why is it listed as Ongoing?

Suggestion to toggle the results parameter

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026

Agreement on Final Result.

Status of conflict

Outcome

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026 (2)

Certainly not an Iranian Victory

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026 (3)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026 (4)

Not Impartial result description

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026 (5)

Remove "Iranian victory" and change "United States of America"

Iranian victory, American victory, or Status quo ante bellum?

Edit request 18 June 2026

Edit request 18 June 2026

Iran won the war

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2026 (7)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks