Talk:2026 Iran war/Archive 8

Quick facts PROPOSED REFORMAT OF THE INFOBOX, Date ...

PROPOSED REFORMAT OF THE INFOBOX
Part of the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)
Locations struck by: United States and Israel Iran, Hezbollah, and PMF
Date 28 February 2026 – present (5 months and 6 days) Location West Asia[a] Indian Ocean Status Ongoing Assassination of Ali Khamenei and Iranian leaders, leading to the establishment of a ruling triumvirate followed by the succession of Mojtaba Khamenei Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz Various European countries send forces to defend Cyprus against Iranian strikes Hezbollah strikes on Israel trigger renewed wave of Israeli strikes on Lebanon
Belligerents
Israel United States Bahrain Iraq Kurdistan Region Jordan Kuwait Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Turkey United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Akrotiri and Dhekelia Azerbaijan Syria	Iran Hezbollah[b] Popular Mobilization Forces[1] Islamic Resistance in Iraq[2] Islamic Group[3] Hamas[4] Palestinian Islamic Jihad[5]

Close

My proposal is to have something like this for the combatants. The important point is that countries that host US military forces should not be simply described as "attacked by Iran". Willingly hosting a belligerent's armed forces and allowing your territory to be used for combat operations, makes you a belligerent. Shooting down missiles targeting a belligerent's military assets makes you a belligerent. This idea that, for example, Kuwait should only be mentioned in the context of being "attacked by Iran" is highly misleading. For that reason, I propose removing the "attacked by Iran" qualifier entirely. Countries that are hosting US military forces that have actively engaged in support of the US military should be understood as plain belligerents. Whether through allowing the US to engage in combat operations from their territory, or expending their own military equipment to defend US military forces, that is acting as a belligerent. Countries not willingly hosting US military forces (Azerbaijan and Syria) should be listed separately. So Azerbaijan, which hosts no US military assets, should not be listed as being on the same "side" as Kuwait. As for Syria, I don't see any listed attacks on Syria by Iran, so to list them in the "Attacked by Iran" category is simply false. The only attacks on Syria mentioned in the article is Hezbollah firing rockets at them. So they should also be listed as a separate faction. I've cut off the commanders, casualties, and other sections of the infobox, but they should also be adjusted accordingly.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have a Comment @JasonMacker. Yes, I believe that editors can add more statistical context data to the map. However, the infobox never says "Attacked by Iran," it says, "Struck by Iran, Hezbollah, and PMF." CostalCal (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

?

The infobox's combatant1 and combatant2 sections have sections titled "attacked by Iran" and "attacked by Israel." This is the current text:

{{Collapsible list ::|title = Attacked by Iran: ::|bullets = yes ::|1 = {{flag|Azerbaijan}} ::|2 = {{flag|Bahrain}}<!-- Cyprus itself has not yet been attacked or taken military action, only the British Overseas Territory on the island (see below). --> ::|3 = {{flag|Iraq}}<ul><li>{{flag|Kurdistan Region}}</li></ul> ::|4 = {{flag|Jordan}} ::|5 = {{flag|Kuwait}} ::|6 = {{flag|Oman}} ::|7 = {{flag|Qatar}} ::|8 = {{flag|Saudi Arabia}} ::|9 = {{flag|Syria}} ::|10 = {{flag|Turkey}} ::|11 = {{flag|United Arab Emirates}} ::|12 = {{flag|United Kingdom}}<ul><li>[[Akrotiri and Dhekelia]]</li></ul> ::}} ::{{tree list/end}}

and

{{Collapsible list ::|title = Attacked by Israel: ::|1= ::{{flag|Lebanon}}<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/03/03/israel-launches-ground-invasion-of-lebanon</ref> ::|2= ::{{flagicon image|Flag of the Muslim Brotherhood.svg}} [[Islamic Group (Lebanon)|Islamic Group]]<ref name=MuslimBrothers>{{cite web|url=https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-888730|title=Lebanon Islamic Group claims headquarters targeted by IDF strikes|work=[[The Jerusalem Post]]|author=Seth J. Frantzman|date=March 4, 2026|access-date=March 4, 2026}}</ref> ::|3={{flag|Hamas}}<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ali |first=Taz |last2=Fulton |first2=Adam |date=2026-03-05 |title=Middle East crisis live: Israel launches fresh strikes on Tehran; Iran claims to have targeted Kurdish groups in Iraq |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/mar/05/iran-war-latest-updates-canada-carney-trump-israel-tehran-strikes |access-date=2026-03-05 |work=the Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> ::|4={{flag|Palestinian Islamic Jihad}}<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 March 2026 |title=Palestinian Islamic Jihad armed wing says Lebanon commander killed in Israeli strikes |url=https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1496991/palestinian-islamic-jihad-armed-wing-says-lebanon-commander-killed-in-israeli-strikes.html |access-date=2 March 2026 |website=L'Orient Today |language=en}}</ref> ::}} ::{{tree list/end}} ::

(Bold mine) JasonMacker (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

My bad, I was looking at something else. I was confused about what where what you were talking about was. Thanks for clarifying. I believe that your statement is partially right in my eyes. Countries that have U.S. bases were ordered not to launch attacks against Iran from their territory. CostalCal (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Willingly hosting a belligerent's armed forces and allowing your territory to be used for combat operations, makes you a belligerent. Most of the countries hosting US bases, including Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UAE explicitly said prior to this war that they would not allow US to launch attacks against Iran from their territory, including the US bases in their territory. This is likely also true for Oman, which has a neutral foreign policy. Sources: , , Ecrusized (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not whether they said that they won't allow it. The question is, whether in the past few weeks, the United States has engaged in combat operations from those bases. All three of your sources are from before the war began. But, in terms of what the United States actually did, they did use and are currently using the airspace of multiple countries. For example, in the air disaster a few days ago, the US lost three F-15Es over the airspace of Kuwait. Even if you can find some Kuwaiti official from a few months ago saying they won't "allow" the US to use their airspace, the reality is that the US did use that airspace. Under the most basic understanding of belligerence, as explained in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), "permitting other states to use one's own territory to perpetrate acts of aggression" is itself belligerence. It's not like Bahrain et al. were oblivious to the fact that the US military assets they host can be and are being used for offensive purposes. And they are not protesting the US presence or calling for the expulsion of US forces. So, they are belligerents and under international law, Iran would have every right to treat them as such. This is the same standard used for listing Belarus as a belligerent in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). JasonMacker (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not talking about international law and what would fall under belligerency classification under international law. I haven't seen any evidence that any of the listed country has allowed US to use its territory to strike Iran. This is argument is speculative. Ecrusized (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Your focus is on de jure allowance. Sure, that could be important and something to note in the article itself. But the reality is that the US is in fact using those territories to conduct combat operations against Iran. But more importantly, that's not even the standard for international law. The mere presence of US forces that is with the consent of the countries is itself enough to consider those countries belligerents. It doesn't matter what some officials say. It matters what they are actually doing, which is serving as a host for a country that is conducting a war. Under international law (UNGA Resolution 3314), they are belligerents. Nuances should be in the main body of the article. JasonMacker (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

But the reality is that the US is in fact using those territories to conduct combat operations against Iran.

Based on what? I haven't seen any evidence of this. Not even a single reference.

The mere presence of US forces that is with the consent of the countries is itself enough to consider those countries belligerents.

The United States has bases in over 50 countries across the world. I'm certain that not all of them are belligerents in this war. Ecrusized (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I support your proposed reformatting, as it appears next to this talk topic. Your reasoning makes sense to me. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

User:JaxsonR, care to explain why you reverted me? As I've mentioned here, it is factually incorrect to list Syria as "attacked by Iran" because there have been literally zero attacks by Iran against Syria in this war. It is also inacurrate to place Azerbaijan, which hosts no American forces, on the same side as the countries that do. --JasonMacker (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not see this discussion. Im fine with moving Azerbaijan and Syria but why did you move Non-state to the bottom? JaxsonR (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I moved them to the bottom so that the infobox can be organized in terms of state actors and non-state actors. Currently, for combatant1, we have state actors, non-state actors, and then state actors again. Why? List all of the state actors first, and then put the non-state actors at the end. And again, I raise the issue of the "attacked by Iran" category being a ridiculous categorization in the infobox. Israel and the United States have also been attacked by Iran, yet they're not listed as being "attacked by Iran." At the same time, the belligerence of those countries is not based simply on the fact that they were attacked by Iran. They are parties to the conflict between the United States and Iran, because they host US military forces. The fact that they have been attacked by Iran makes them notable enough to be listed in combatant1, but the hosting of US forces is enough to consider them a belligerent. And again, as you've noted, Syria has not been attacked by Iran. It was attacked by Hezbollah. So putting it in the "attacked by Iran" category is just factually inaccurate. Let the infobox list belligerents, and then the main text of the article can explain the nuances of each one. JasonMacker (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, Syria has been attacked by Hezbollah, but not Iran. JaxsonR (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• An infobox is not the place for detail or nuance. Trying to capture in the infobox the distinction between those that are combatants and those that have been subject to attack but are not combatants is nuance while a complete listing of those attacked tends to bloat the infobox with detail. In this case, we have a section in the body of the article that summarises attacks in tabular form and this section is readily identifiable in the TOC. On balance (the benefit and detriment of listing this detail in the infobox) I suggest that this should be omitted from the infobox - noting that MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is better. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

If Iran attacking only a US base in another country counts as that country being "attacked by Iran" then Isreal attacking a military installation in another country should count as "attacked by Isreal."

Either Iran hasn't actually attacked anywhere near as many countries as listed or the attacks by Isreal in Palestine and Iraq should be listed under "attacked by Isreal." This is a huge propaganda front by the US right now, the narrative is that Iran is a rogue nation attacking countless other nations but a lot of the attacks are actually retaliatory and targeted to third party military installations only. GlowingLava (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

What you're saying has been agreed upon before (assuming you're referring to the first paragraph), it just hasn't been acted upon. I updated it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad the article is getting better. It also seems like the double standard is applied in the infobox, but I'm not super familiar with how countries and groups are typically listed in these, does anyone have more insight into if this is uneven there? GlowingLava (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest creating a new talk page requesting it be removed from the infobox, and if nobody replies after a few days, you can probably remove it from there. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

A new talk page section sounds like the right procedure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Those two outlets have also posted videos of some people in Iran celebrating Khamenei's death and also later chanting 'Death to Mojtaba'. The sentence seems to be cherrypicking certain articles to promote a misleading narrative of opposing media viewpoints when it isn't really true. I believe Al Jazeera should be kept in the sentence though since they haven't published headlines only focused on Iranians celebrating Khamenei's death and in fact have published one video with the headline: "Iranians celebrate as Mojtaba Khamenei named new supreme leader".

Sources for AFP: "Cheers heard across Iran after reports of Khamenei's death | AFP" "Iranians chant vs new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei in Tehran – video"

Sources for RFERL: "Chaos and Celebrations in Iran after Trump claims Khamenei killed" "'Death To Mojtaba' Chants Heard As Iran Picks New Supreme Leader"

So how should this be fixed? Should we add a sentence saying these outlets report both pro-govt rallies and anti-govt sentiments? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This quote from Bloomberg supports an opening sentence saying that outlets in general have reported both pro-govt and anti-govt rallies/sentiments: Some Iranians took to the streets to celebrate the death of a leader blamed for decades of repression, but large crowds also mourned him and there was no immediate sign of the broad uprising that Trump has called for. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Citing Blomberg and FT to update the sentiment is fine and all, but my main issue currently is that AFP and RFERL are being cited to suggest they are not pro-regime change, when they have published headlines indicating the opposite. Maybe attributions to those outlets should be trimmed and moved to the Reactions sub-article where content on media coverage can be expanded.

The Daily Telegraph has also published content about "thousands of people" in Iran coming out to support the Khamenei govt after his death, so it's not like they are ignoring the pro-govt rallies either. The sentence referencing AFP and RFERL currently reads like misinformation at the moment. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. It seems like most outlets are acknowledging the existence of pro and anti-government protests. So maybe, as you say, we can trim the attributions. Let me know what you think of my attempt to do so. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Your trimming was good, problem's fixed basically. I personally also don't like the overreliance of Iran International as a source in this section and I plan to replace some of its duplicates with more mainstream outlets (Reuters, AFP, RFERL etc.) in the Reactions sub-article. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The civilian life in Iran section is almost exclusively sourced to Iran International, which needs to be resolved. It's giving a very one-sided view of events. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Australia has sent "defensive" assets to the Middle East, being a E-7A Wedgetail and some air to air missiles. As per international law, Australia is legally at war. ^[1] I am not sure if this should be added to the infobox, and if so, how. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC) Mitchsavl (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Should point out there's an earlier thread above already discussing this; titled "Australia" - . Imo, deploying assets alone isn't the same as going to war. A lot of countries can deploy assets without actually going to war. The nuance is that it's only there to defend UAE against a potential future attack, and not to enter a combat role; The deployment, ...is not intended to be part of the Israeli–US air offensive against Iran. Rather, the E-7A Wedgetail will help the UAE defend itself after some ground-based, long-range air surveillance radar systems were damaged in attacks from Iran. The gap in surveillance coverage will be partly filled by the RAAF aircraft. In a strict legal sense, Australia is now a party however it would be complicated to frame it in wikivoice as Australia as combatant going to war with Iran, if they don't actually battle, but provide support only.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/albums/72177720332397505/ Flickypedia and flickr2commons is giving me trouble, does anyone want to help move these images to commons? Victor Grigas (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@KGxHeretic: Israel has attacked Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government, in fact, Lebanese government appears to be cooperating with Israel against the presence of Hezbollah in the country. Lebanon should be removed from the infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

We faced a similar situation with how to categorize Lebanon for the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon infobox. The Lebanese state should be listed in the infobox but it's stance as a separate actor should be recognized. JasonMacker (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, in the propper article of the 2026 Iran war is mentioned that "The Lebanese government reported that such Israeli preventive attacks reached Kfarkela and Qouzah, provoking the Lebanese army to do a redeployment from newly established border posts amid escalating Israeli activity in violation of the 2024 Israel–Lebanon ceasefire agreement". The Lebanese state is a third party in the context of the 2026 Hezbollah–Israel war, and also Ghanan soldiers of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (aiding the Lebanese) have been injuried by Israel attacks. Sr L (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Lebanon should be included as a third, enitrely separate belligerent. PaulRKil (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The hope is that we can keep the infobox as only having combatant1 and combatant2, avoiding how complicated it would get if a combatant3 is added. I do agree with the current listing of Lebanon as part of its own grouping in combatant1. For the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Lebanon was listed alongside UNIFIL in combatant3, but was moved to combatant2 with Hezbollah albeit with a separator. There's no equivalent to UNIFIL in this Iran war, but if combatant3 is added, then I think Azerbaijan, Syria, and Lebanon (each separated with dividers) would be good candidates for it. JasonMacker (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Why combatant1? Israel has apparently killed three Lebanese soldiers (). Hezbollah has threatened the Lebanese military, but there's no indication of actual violence. Barring any actual fighting between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah (which would likely be a disaster for the country overall and easily justify listing Lebanon as an entirely distinct combatant), I think Lebanon should be listed alongside Iran for the time being. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Because as stated above the Lebanese army and government have been acting against the interests of Hezbollah, banning any of their military actions, arresting individuals affiliated with it, cooperating with Syria on strenghtening border control against the organization. All of this is in this article and the 2026 Lebanon war article. VitoxxMass (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@VitoxxMass, none of what you have listed is tantamount to the Lebanese government being in a state of war against Hezbollah. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

You raise an important point here, which is that despite being in combatant1, Lebanon has been attacked by another combatant1 member. That was initially why I was okay with placing it in combatant2 but with a divider to make it clear it wasn't on the same side as Iran. But with the way it is going, it might need to be placed in combatant3, which could also be where Syria and Azerbaijan go. I'd love to hear input from other users on this. My main concern with having a combatant3 is that it might give them too much prominence, because they're not really major parties to the conflict. JasonMacker (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, I don't think the Lebanese state can be said to be in direct conflict with Hezbollah, at least not yet. It's unclear if it's even accurate to describe it as in conflict with Israel given that there's no indication that the Lebanese military actually responded to Israel's attacks. For what it's worth, I don't think we need to include most spillover in the infobox at all — many countries suffered from spillover of the Gaza war but the infobox of that article focuses on the primary theater in Gaza. Unless any of these states actually join Israel and the US in attacking Iran, having a complete list of all spillover countries is not essential to the reader's basic understanding of the overall war; infoboxes are meant to provide a broad, not exhaustive, summary of their articles. — An anonymous username, not my real name 05:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

You raise a good point, which is that maybe we could go in a much more restrictive direction in terms of who is listed as a combatant. Sure, there are some side characters involved, either because they got in the way of the line of fire, or they're intercepting missiles. Take for example listing Azerbaijan as a belligerent because what appears to be two drones that struck an airport in Nakhchivan, with no other hostile activity. The Iranian government denies that they were responsible for the drones, and Azerbaijan eventually opened their border with Iran and even sent humanitarian aid. Is that an important enough event to merit Azerbaijan being listed as a combatant/belligerent? I'm skeptical. It's not clear if Azerbaijan is even taking sides in this war.

One option is to just have Israel+USA on one side, and Iran on the other. And then similar to the World War I article, we can have "and others..." that goes to a separate article (Spillover of the 2026 Iran war?) describing how other countries have been directly affected. I'm just throwing out ideas atm and don't have definitive answers. JasonMacker (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be a great way to handle it. Conflict infoboxes always start out a bit messy, but I have hope for this one. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello all, I just wanted to share that there’s news on preliminary findings from an internal investigation by the US military into what happened at Shajarah Tayyebeh school. It pretty much confirms what everyone already knew: a US Tomahawk missile hit the school.

The Defense Intelligence Agency apparently supplied outdated information to US CENTCOM from which targeting data was created. And we know the rest.

Unlocked New York Times article here (Warning: there is a video where distraught family of the children are crying in despair digging through the rubble). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Adar 5786 15:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely warrants inclusion in my point of view if isn't there already, but I am personally unsure how to include it. PaulRKil (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added it under strikes and casualties entry. PaulRKil (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Cheers, I saw this “On 28 February a girls' elementary school was hit in American attacks on Minab, according to Iran.” and thought, “well it’s according to everyone who isn’t Donald Trump or Pete Hegseth now.” Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Adar 5786 20:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There's been a content dispute between @BasselHarfouch and I over how to represent the resumption of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in the lead. For the sake of concision and NPOV, I am in favor of simply stating that Israel and Hezbollah resumed fighting in Lebanon. I'll let Bassel speak for themself, but just to give a full summary of the dispute, they want the lead to say something to the effect that Hezbollah attacked Israel. I think this is a violation of NPOV, because Hezbollah clearly states that they view their March 2(?) strikes as an act of self defense against continued Israeli aggression.

The full quote given to Al Jazeera says “The resistance leadership has always affirmed that the continuation of Israeli aggression and the assassination of our leaders, youth and people gives us the right to defend ourselves and respond at the appropriate time and place,” the group said in a statement. “The Israeli enemy cannot continue its fifteen-month-long aggression without a warning response to halt this aggression and withdraw from the occupied Lebanese territories.”

Plenty of room to debate the merits of Hezbollah's claim, but the lead should not come down on one side of the disputed issue of who "started" the current hostilities in Lebanon when that issue is contentious. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Assuming Bassel's view is accurately represented: Is there a specific reason to give one belligerent more weight? My view is that most of both sides in the Arab–Israeli conflict would view their own actions as one long line of "self defence" since roughly 1948. A statement of the facts suitable enough for the lead is that "fighting resumed". Fighting resumed between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. If it was anywhere other than the lead, I'd strongly lean towards trying to say what the sources say. 🔥Komonzia (message) 23:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This might be just me, but it looks rather clunky. This infobox is already bloated enough, why add an extra category that, from what I've seen at least, no other war infobox has had? ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 21:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

What I found is that sometimes they are listed as "Proxies" (e.g. Iran–Israel proxy conflict) and or under a heading that the grouping of actors have taken on (e.g. 2024 Iran–Israel conflict where they are collectively called Axis of Resistance). This is something more unique to the articles involving Iranian supported proxies. Closest historical parallel might be some Cold War related wars where backing multiple proxies was common to avoid direct confrontation. 🔥Komonzia (message) 22:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

All the non-state actors on the Iranian side are part of the Axis of Resistance, aren't they? Why not refer to them as such here?

To be fair, 2024 Iran–Israel conflict also uses supported by which is currently deprecated (although it may not be soon, depending on how this RfC turns out), so it isn't exactly the best role model. ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 23:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Two things concerning Template:2026 Iran war infobox:

1. Since a recent edit, the symbols used in the caption ( for US+Israel and for Iran etc.) are no longer those that are used in the map. I don't know how to change that myself, but it probably should be changed.

2. The map doesn't show all strikes. There is one near Sri Lanka (Sinking of IRIS Dena) that is outside the map region. Maybe we should zoom out a bit? Renerpho (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree on both points but not tech savvy enough to change it myself. I would advocate for perhaps something more color-blind friendly for the pin correspondence -- perhaps an ✖️ for US+Israel and an ⭕ for Iran? or is that a little too WarGames ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 00:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Also considering the fact that most strikes are in the same region I feel that the Sri Lanka one would look better in an inset. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 01:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The bold white circle https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+1F786 is not displayed correctly for me in the caption, likely due to lack of font support. Does anyone else have the same problem? Renerpho (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@OmegaMantis: Can you choose a different symbol please? Some systems don't support the current one. Renerpho (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC) This has already been done! Sorry for the ping. Renerpho (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, turns out I'm more tech-savvy then I thought -- I changed the map pins to have the Xs and Os, and, like you asked, I changed the symbols in the captions from the bullets. I'm not sure how to make an inset for Sri Lanka -- I think simply expanding the whole map size would show too much of empty, non-bombed space. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 03:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

mw:Extension:Kartographer is somewhat limited, I don't believe its possible to make an inset. Ecrusized (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

As we approach the two week mark, it's becoming less and less realistic to have a subsection for every day of the conflict. We might consider turning it into weekly subheadings, limit each week to a few paragraphs, and move all but the most essential events to Timeline of the 2026 Iran war and List of attacks during the 2026 Iran war (and sometimes to more topic-specific articles like 2026 Lebanon war or articles for individual countries). Other suggestions are welcome if there's a more efficient way to keep the article manageable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, and if the specific day is so important, any sentence can name it. By the way, would you support doing this for the first week as well? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that daily subheadings remain where a single day has a relatively high amount which has occurred, and events of moderate importance, but not so much to justify its subheading elsewhere. The first month can then have weekly subheadings, and after that it could become monthly.

Another option is to trim it down a lot, as this largely overlaps with the timeline of the Iran war article, as you have suggested above. In conflict, there will always be some particularly notable day, in respect to others which have fewer major developments.

As I'm writing this, the prose size is 11,879 words, which is creeping up on the WP:SIZERULE.

Mitchsavl (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I have also wondered what to do if the exact day when something happened cannot be identified. I suggest to also note that because of the large time zone difference between Iran and the United States, the date when something happened in Iran will often be different from the date that it happened in the United States. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the approach used in Gaza war will work once the war becomes distinguishable into phases, and is covered as such in RS. For now, I think we're kind of in limbo where no broader categorizations are being made in the media beyond "here's what happened today". Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there a specific GA or a FA article you can show as an example for how this should work? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I would support this. Even at this point the war is getting really long to have a day-by-day heading. For the six- or twelve-day war it made sense, but this is already at two weeks and counting, I think it's time to do it week by week instead and have a {{See also|Timeline of the 2026 Iran war}} tag at the top. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: I changed it from daily to weekly, and perhaps in the future this may be condensed even more. Since there's now more information per section, hopefully it will be easier to trim the current information from each of the weeks. Any help with that would be greatly appreciated. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a much better skeleton for the article, but of course each section is now rather WP:PROSELINE-ish. The next step is to shift it toward more of an overview style where the main developments of the week are summarized and details that didn't change the dynamic are moved to subarticles. Organizationally, I wonder if we might need to retain level-4 subheadings for the first week since there were so many developments as each theater of the war opened up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to farther condense so much information beyond removing the clearly WP:NOTNEWS information... do you think you're up for it? If not, I could certainly try. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

A sentence from a paragraph in the lead reads In January 2026, Iranian security forces killed thousands of protesters during the largest protests since the Islamic Revolution. however, no indication in the lead is given to how this is relevant to the rest of the events. Should it be removed from the lead? Or changed?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

§1 says "starting a war aimed at regime change". But §3 says "President Donald Trump and other US officials offered varying and shifting objectives for their attack", and that is followed by a list. These statements are incompatible. As far as I can see it is the second which is correct. Deipnosophista (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I've removed that bit from the first sentence for now. The third paragraph as more details. Also, even Israeli sources now say that Israel didn't start the war to achieve a regime change: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/12/israel-iran-us-attack-no-plan-for-regime-change-security-sources Cortador (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Deipnosophista The reason(s) for the war is important and belongs in the opening. —BrechtBro (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the any of the war goals explained in the third paragraph are incompatible with regime change. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. There is nothing in the article or the sources that makes the stated aims/reasons "conflicting" as the article states currently, for some reason. Bravelake (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Monk and Brecht. Even though there are other reasons, the later lead does explicitly mention that it is aimed at a regime change. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

All this says is that it's a warning, can the file info be translated? thanks! Victor Grigas (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Home Front Command

Rocket and missile fire

Nesher (lit. Eagle/vulture, but based on context probably means the city)

Time to reach shelter -- minutes. (n.b. seems to be missing an actual timespan)

Enter the shelter

Sent at 10:10:34, 28/02/2026 _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Victor Grigas (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the lead, which describes strikes from both sides, has become both unbalanced and inaccurate through a series of cuts, no longer describing the scope of the strikes in Iran. It has also been largely static, becoming out of date and no longer accurately describes the article. The paragraph discusses only the initial airstrikes from the US and Israel, then it conflates the initial Iranian response with later strikes, while also conflating strikes on US bases with strikes on US/Israeli allies. That there are strikes over the rest of the two weeks is only implied, especially on the US-Israel side, and mentioning later attacks from only one side (i.e., Azerbaijan) is NPOV. While these initial strikes may merit weighting in the lead, the graf needs a major update/rewrite that provides an overview of the major developments. —BrechtBro (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of changes being made multiple times a day to the belligerents listing of the infobox without a discussion. I propose a consensus be reached here so that the list can stabilize.

I suggest that the listing of belligerents1, only includes: US and Israel, and then the countries whose territory (not bases) have been attacked by Iran, with a title saying Attacked by Iran:. I don't believe Arab separatism in Khuzestan, Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan or other separatists should be included yet, because its giving them undue weight in what has largely (so far) been an US/Israeli, Iran war. For belligerents2, only Iran, Hezbollah and PMF should be included imo. Ecrusized (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There are already multiple talk page sections discussing this. This framing of "without a discussion" is incorrect. Your suggestion of "attacked by Iran" has already been rejected, for multiple reasons. The United States and Israel have been attacked by Iran. Why should they be excluded from such a label? In addition, what is so special about being "attacked by Iran" that it deserves to be specifically mentioned in the infobox? Should we also list "attacked by Israel" and "attacked by the United States" as well? The whole idea of listing belligerents in an infobox is that they are either being attacked or engaging in attacks themselves. So "attacked by Iran" is weird selective POV, but also redundant. JasonMacker (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Casualties section should have separate tables for military and civilian casualties Bird244 (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I am surprised the french soldiers aren't included either. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

They are. Kind of just in a mess at the bottom. That seriously needs work. It’s a jumble atm. I know WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, but can we at least give everyone equal footing there?

Update: it’s definitely better with the addition of flags, but what is the country order based on? I’m not entirely seeing what the order is. Alphabetical according to the Latin alphabet (given English names) makes the most sense and is the most neutral. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5786 04:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The casualties for the UAE are persistently wrong. Guys, see MOD on Twitter for the accurate number. There have not been 12 people killed, don't know where this number comes from. Even if the people in the Strait of Hormuz are counted (which they are not), that would not add up to 12. Please be more careful when updating stats and just use this one source as it should be the most accurate, I've noticed many inconsistencies in the number of killed and/or injured. jolielover♥talk 08:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Monk of Monk Hall in this edit you made what does OTG mean? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

On the Ground -- I don't think the hostilities section should be filled with the statements of US officials going back and forth on a ground invasion, threatening big strikes, etc. That section should just describe events as they actually happen. Statements from leaders should only be in Hostilities if they had a clear, immediate impact on events OTG. Make sense? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, hostilities doesn't all have to be of instances of direct physical violence, and Hegseth saying Iran is going to be hit with the most intense attacks since the start of the war does sound pretty significant, doesn't it? And it's related to hostility. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It sounds significant, but did it happen that day, or didn't it? Presumably we found out, and it would be better to report the strikes that actually happened, rather than the ones Hegseth said would happen. Once we know what strikes actually happened for the day, Hegseth's statements are no longer due compared to information on the actual events imo. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The point is that it's referring to things that haven't happened yet, and I think it's very important to know whether officials are saying the war will end soon or continue for a while. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree that what officials are saying is important in some sense. However, I think it's inappropriate to include it in the timeline summaries. It significantly increases the maintenance burden of this page to constantly have to review those sections for obsolete statements. I think it's perfectly fine to include ephemeral statements in the timeline article, where more detail can be expressed. However, on this page it would be better to deal with these statements in the aggregate. For example, finding a source that says that US officials have repeatedly cycled between supporting and disavowing a ground invasion, rather than writing separately about every mention of one at the time at which it occurred. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Would it better belong in a different part of the article, perhaps? Although it may help to know when this happened. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The only good reason I can think of to include statements in a timeline would be to check the claims of leaders against the record of facts on the ground. For example, let's say Hegseth says the strikes today will be the biggest ever, and then they're not, juxtaposing the statement with reality could be informative. That stuff absolutely should be included in the timeline article. However, I think this level of detail is too fine for the summary style of the hostilities section.

If we can put together some solid RS reporting on the credibility gap between official statements and OTG facts about the war, I think it would merit a section under the analysis heading. But this material should take the form of a summary, rather than a list of examples. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal had a wee report that US officials and a Syrian diplomat claimed Hezbollah fired shells toward Syrian military positions on the border. The Syrian diplomat and a US official said that the Syrians didn’t return fire. A Hezbollah official denied that this took place saying, “We already have an open front with the Israelis,” the official said. “Why would we open another with the Syrians?”

What to make of this? Hezbollah is 0:0 on smart strategic decisions in the last two wars, but this does seem suicidally stupid. I feel like additional reports are needed? Thoughts? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 23 Adar 5786 22:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't this already reported by the article, and the map even? VitoxxMass (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

If you check the sources for those, only two relate to the actual attack. The NYT article and the Syrian one in the timeline of strikes. The rest are videos of people standing around an Iranian rocket in the ground (including in the infobox) and reports about Iranian drones in Syria with no mention of Hezbollah shelling. So, the sourcing is quite sloppy.

The article also doesn’t mention Hezbollah denying involvement, nor does the NYT article given it was before Hezbollah issued the denial. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Adar 5786 17:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This happened in the US - IDK where it fits in the article currently: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/rotc-students-old-dominion-university-credited-stopping-deadly-classroom-shooting/ Victor Grigas (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this fits in the article anywhere, while it suggests the attack may be inspired by the war, the gunman's involvement goes back before the war. [...] a former Virginia National Guardsman who had served several years in federal prison for trying to support the terror group ISIS. The article has also exceeded the 12000 word mark, so even if this is confirmed to be directly inspired by the war, it probably would then only belong in some other article, and not the main one. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

There have also been multiple attacks on synagogues and Jewish day schools with one directly linked to this war (the one outside Detroit), but idk. Possibly Violence Inspired by the 2026 Iran War as a separate article? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Adar 5786 13:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

There's List of attacks during the 2026 Iran war and there's a discussion to move List of Iranian officials killed during the 2026 Iran war to Casualties of the 2026 Iran war. These could be appropriate places for attacks that are confirmed by sources to be directly motivated by the war. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been seeing many reports online of an intensified USAF-IAF bombing campaign against the Iraqi PMU militias. Should we make a standalone article for those specific air raids as what was done with the IDF operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Iranian strikes in Iraqi Kurdistan? Randomuser335S (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I would not be against it, sincerely. It would alleviate the length of the article and would allow for a larger encyclopedic documentation of such strikes.

Alternatively we could have an "Iraq in the 2026 Iran War" page, where both attacks on PMU and US aligned forces and bases are described due to the peculiar complexity of the conflict specifically in Iraq. VitoxxMass (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I also second the opinion of creating an article for it as well. The USAF-IAF airstrikes against the PMU militias have greatly escalated this past couple of days and are quickly becoming a conflict of its own. Here is a link to a placeholder draft I've made for a potential separate article. It's very broken at the movement, as I'm not very experienced with infoboxes and I simply copypasted the infrobox from the attacks on US bases during Gaza article due to the overlapping combatants for brevity. Randomuser335S (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I am pinging some from the move discussion above who opposed "Iraq in the 2026 Iran war". @Zemen, Kowal2701, PawWiki2, 9ninety, IJA, and Memer15151: Braganza (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Braganza@VitoxxMass I submitted the "2026 United States-Israeli conflict with pro-Iranian Iraqi militias" draft after adding more events and conflicted related incidents to its timeline. Don't know it's properly cited or has enough sufficient content for a published article yet, but I'm planning on adding more to it. Randomuser335S (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I would also be open to creating a separate article about the US strikes on Iraqi militias. I also think that 2026 Iranian strikes on Iraq should be moved to "Iraq in the 2026 Iran war", where the US strikes on PMU militias could be summarized and linked to the main article (also for the Kurdistan Region or other specific regions/incidents within Iraq). PawWiki2 (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

When we exclude the Kurdish groups, we should exclude them too. Braganza (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

We exclude the Kurds because reports of an offensive haven't been fully confirmed yet. Simple as. ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 04:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@ZionniThePeruser and why are they included? Braganza (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

They attacked an IRGC base and from what they've said, they plan to take advantage of the war to strike more. This article only includes one English source, but Arabic sources seem to have reported on it more - Kul Al-Arab, Enab Baladi, Al Araby Television Network, Al Mashhad Media ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 21:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Extended Confirmed Users and Admins

These templates, while essential to the article, I feel should be moved to the article namespace, {{2026 Iran war/infobox}} as per WP:DL, since currently the templates have only 2 transclusions. What do ypu sll think RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 09:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

No, having them in the template space ASTONISHes less than putting them into the main space -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Guerillero But the thing is that templates that have only 1 transclusion are deleted Hence the best decision is that we should put them in the article namespace RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 10:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

They can be deleted, it is not a sure-fire thing -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand, but I’m just paranoid about it being listed for discussion. You see there’s this user there who is persistently listing 1-transclusion templates. RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 01:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I assume it was moved to its own template to alleviate how busy this Talk page is, ie. by moving all infobox-related discussion to a dedicated separate template page, while this Talk page can focus on the main article content. For the moment, it seems practical to keep it this way. (Also, WP:DL is a list, and none of the pages listed seem relevant. What was the intended link?) – Scyrme (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait, do you mean merging it back into the article or making it a subpage of the article? As a subpage, it could still split infobox-related discussion to its own Talk page, so I suppose that could work, but there may be technical issues with that. Like if you try to transclude a mainspace page just using curly braces, it won't work at it will automatically insert the Template: prefix. (For example, the template link you gave also doesn't work for the same reason, not just because the subpage doesn't exist yet.) – Scyrme (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems transcluding from mainspace is possible using a colon by itself as the prefix. There may still be some technical issues though, I'm not sure. For example, linking to a mainspace page using {{tl}} doesn't work even if you use a colon, though this infobox actually uses {{navbar}} (not {{VTE}}) which does seem to work when using just a colon, so maybe it'd be fine? – Scyrme (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok how abouy this,,, Since that won't work, how about we leave a notice on the tempoate not to list for discussion, and provide amreason why RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 03:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I never said it won't work, only that I'm not sure if it would. It could work, since the template uses {{navbar}} not {{VTE}} to generate the navigation links, but there may be some other technical issues I haven't thought of. It's not usually done this way, so I'm not sure.

I don't see a problem with adding a notice in the template documentation and its Talk page to explain why it's been split off as a template rather than kept within the article. Could use {{Ombox}} in the documentation and {{Tmbox}} on the Talk page. Something like:

This template may have very few transclusions or even only one. It has been intentionally split from 2026 Iran war to provide a dedicated place for focused discussion regarding the Infobox and reduce congestion of the main article's Talk page. Please do not list the template for deletion. It may be merged back into its main article at a suitable time, when the main Talk page can handle the additional activity.

How's that? Too wordy? – Scyrme (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed the template's Talk page redirects back here anyway, so none of this is relevant. If it hasn't been split off to provide a more focused place for discussion, I'm not sure why it's not just in the article. Perhaps we should undo the redirect? – Scyrme (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I thnk It's ok. Maybe just put that box in that template page for now? How about saying this template is to reduce clutter and for easier editing in the main page of 2026 Iran war? RAPTOR7762^{Whats up?} 01:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts DRAFT OF BELLIGERENTS, Date ...

DRAFT OF BELLIGERENTS
Part of the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)
Locations struck by:    United States and Israel    Iran, Hezbollah, and PMF
Date 28 February 2026 (2026-02-28) – present (5 months and 6 days) Location West Asia[c] Indian Ocean Status Ongoing Assassination of Ali Khamenei and Iranian leaders, and the accession of Mojtaba Khamenei Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz Various European countries send forces to defend Cyprus against Iranian strikes Escalation between Hezbollah and Israel leads to the 2026 Lebanon war
Belligerents
Israel United States Others	Iran Axis of Resistance Others

Close

"defensive only": The problems with this label are multiple. First, it is original research to group all of these countries together and apply this label to them. Second, willingly hosting the military forces of a belligerent country in a conflict is not a "defensive only" posture, under the most basic interpretation of international law. Third, not all of these countries should be grouped together. Azerbaijan and Syria do not host United States forces and are clearly separate from both each other and the NATO members or non-NATO allies. Lumping them all into one group is just factually inaccurate.

"Attacked by Israel": This label makes no sense. Iran has been attacked by Israel yet it is not included under this label. So what information does this label even communicate? It's redundant. JasonMacker (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the latter, but not the former. How is this different from the Twelve-Day War article, where Qatar is listed in such a category after intercepting missiles during the 2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base? ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 04:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm expressing disagreement with the concept of "defensive only" in a general sense. So why bring up another instance of something I think should change? Yes, that article is wrong too. Willingly hosting an offensive military's forces is not a "defensive only" posture. JasonMacker (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@JasonMacker and should Ukraine not be added in some capacity as they have apparently sent drone specialists to the Middle East? Saxmund (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Under the current standard, perhaps. I'm leaning more towards the infobox only listing the principal state actors of this war (Israel, US, Iran) at this point. Other countries and non-state actors can be mentioned in the infobox as "others." This is similar to the World War I infobox that doesn't have a laundry list of literally everyone involved, and instead has a "and others" link. I'll create a mock-up of what my idea is later today. JasonMacker (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion here other than to say that it is confusing to see these listed without any label (it's also confusing that there are notes for France and Italy but not the other nations). The question of belligerency itself is technical and legalistic, but these dozen countries are plainly not at war with Iran. Defensive only at least offers some clarity. It seems to me the claim that these countries posture is not defensive only is just as much, if not moreso, original research. There are other otherwise uninvolved nations that host US military bases which may be directly (i.e., Germany) or indirectly supporting combat operations, that doesn't make them belligerents. —BrechtBro (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've created a mock-up of what I'm suggesting. The target of the hyperlink for "Others," whether combatant1 or combatant2, can be changed accordingly, as appropriate.--JasonMacker (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the infobox should directly show the countries attacked by Iran. There has never been a conflict where so many countries were attacked by another country, since WW2, as far as I know. There is no other conflict comparable to this, neither Ukraine war nor the Twelve-Day War. Thus this war should be viewed independently. Russia has not deliberately struck any other country besides Ukraine during that war. During the Twelve-Day War, only country attacked besides Israel and Iran was Qatar. Ecrusized (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe there is a way to have both, which is to have the "Others" be a collapsible list? I'm not settled on any particular layout just yet. JasonMacker (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Weak support: to be honest, still prefer "defensive only" (mainly per @BrechtBro) but this isn't a bad alternative. To be honest, I'd be for anyway to declutter the mess that is this infobox. ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 21:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

There are POV issues with "defensive only" because is it really accurate to label a country as "defensive only" if they are willingly hosting a belligerent country's military forces? Belarus engaged in zero offensive action in the Russo-Ukrainian war yet it seems silly to list it with a "defensive only" label. JasonMacker (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Some key differences with Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian war: Belarus allowed Russia to stage a ground invasion through its territory and use Belarussian bases, and Belarus has not been directly attacked by Ukraine. I'm sympathetic to the argument, but until there are independent sources saying these nations are co-belligerents, I don't think they can be in the infobox without a qualifier. There are sources critical of UK French, and Australian gov't lines on the claims that they are "defensive only," but they stop short of making the co-belligerent claim (with the exception of an Australian quoted saying it). —BrechtBro (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The title of this topic is pretty slef-explanatory. Makes no sense to make an exception for Italy, especially since they didn't even act within defensive operations and are withdrawing from such base as we speak to avoid escalations. VitoxxMass (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

An Italian base was directly attacked, so it makes sense to include Italy imo. With regards to consistency issues, I don't think we should list the defensive deployments of Greece/Spain/etc, but in line with Italy I would be in favor of including France now that one Frenchman died (and others were injured) in an attack on a French base in Iraq. DecafPotato (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Yet more bases have been hit, such as Australia's, yet we have not added it. We either add all nations who's bases have been hit (which are quite some more then they are as of right now) or we add none of them.

It's interesting you bring Greece up since it's the only one you mentioned which actually persued active defensive actions, by intercepting two Hezbollah drones heading towards Cyprus. VitoxxMass (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I will highlight this conversation AGAIN. Given Italy and France were removed and then re-added. VitoxxMass (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see why Italy is there and France is not. Martin Mystère (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

A new death count figure from Hengaw Organisation for Human Rights has been released today:

"At least 4,300 people [in Iran] have been killed during the first ten days of the war [...], according to verified data compiled by Hengaw Organization for Human Rights. The victims include 390 civilians, accounting for 9.6 percent of the total casualties, while 3,910 were members of Iranian government military forces."

Hengaw appears to be an independent Kurdish-Iranian human rights advocacy group based in Norway, though its about page explicitly mentions the Islamic Republic as a violator of human rights. The numbers provided nevertheless still line up with other existing figures out there. I think it would be beneficial to show a third source for the death counts in Iran that is not directly tied to either the Islamic Republic or the US/Israel.

Would like to know what others think. Best, ConflictFan (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hengaw is generally reliable. Boud (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I've added the figures to the infobox 👍 ConflictFan (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The thing that stands out to me about these figures is the significant undercount of civilian casualties compared to the HRANA figures. I'm not aware of any previous discussions on the reliability of HRANA (or Hengaw) in this regard, but HRANA more thoroughly explains their methodology than Hengaw does in their respective linked sources. This and the rest of the information I'm aware of about HRANA makes me believe it is unlikely that they have over-counted civilian casualties, which leaves me wondering what the explanation is for the lower figure being published by Hengaw. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I do find the civilian casualties reported by Hengaw to be a bit low. On the other hand though, I feel that HRANA could be understating the number of regime and military deaths. For that reason I think it would be better to keep both for the time being in the same order. When the war ends we should have a more accurate picture ConflictFan (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to assume that both orgs are conservative in their counts: their numbers are those they consider sufficiently well confirmed. (I do remember at least one particular Hengaw report where the method - something like a minimum of two (or three?) independent reports? - was mentioned, but I don't have the URL handy.) Hengaw likely has better access to Kurdish areas; HRANA may have less access to Kurdish areas. This gives one credible explanation for the apparent disagreement: the military-to-civilian death ratio could be high in Kurdish areas while, inversely, the civilian-to-military death ratio could be high in other areas (which would explain the current numbers); this is just my educated guess, it's not something usable in the article. An alternative explanation is a matter of which witness/family/other reliable contacts each organisation has managed to get into contact with for civilians, and which military (or other) sources they consider reliable for military deaths (where "military" means any of the security forces). There are plenty of likely reasons why their sources are mostly different, and their numbers could differ significantly - both as lower bounds. Boud (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, definitely safe to assume all numbers involved are undercounts. However, this doesn't necessarily explain how Hengaw got a civilian casualty count much lower than HRANA, unless they consider the deaths recorded by HRANA not to be credible or civilian. My suspicion is that the difference in count may have to do with different definitions of a civilian, with Hengaw counting civilian members of the government such as police officers and civil servants as "regime deaths". Or, to your point, maybe the incidents being counted by each group do not overlap significantly with the other's. I think it's fine to have them both in the infobox, but I would be more hesitant to include other claims made by Hengaw in the article (such as that only ~10% of casualties are civilian) -- at least not without attribution. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that there's not much point quoting the percentages of casualties from either source, unless it's clear that this is just simple arithmetic based on the stated undercounts, with no claim to being a valid percentage in a statistical sense (fair sampling of both sub-populations). It's up to the reader to guess how complete each of the counts is. Hengaw only seems to claim this from ordinary arithmetic, and made a typo: 390/4300 \approx 0.09069767, not 0.096; it should be rounded to 9.1%, or rather 9%. Boud (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I highly doubt that it's a trustworthy source, it's a report from an NGO in Norway, focused on Kurdish minority rights, how do they collect their data? It's also an outdated source and very unrealistic when you look at the percentage of civilian casualties. Whitesin21 (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

This notice is to inform you of the discussion at Requested move 12 March 2026, proposed by Gluonz.

List of Iranian officials killed during the 2026 Iran war → Casualties of the 2026 Iran war - This proposal aims to use this article as a vehicle to split part of the Strikes and casualties section of the 2026 Iran war article into its own subtopic article. This would allow for more in-depth coverage of casualties without an increase in the size of the parent article, which some editors have noted may be too long. The short existing table at this article probably does not require its own article but could still be included in a section of the article after its scope is broadened. This topic structure would also align with that of the Twelve-Day War, for which a dedicated Casualties of the Twelve-Day War article exists.

Labratscientist (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Arguably the defining crises of the Reagan administration and of Iran–United States relations generally were previously entirely omitted from the article. I would've assumed that was because of some previous consensus but "Contra" and "hostage" don't seem to show up on any of the six archives. It's fine if the present language I used gets adapted or requires separate sourcing (copiously available on our existing articles), but both the Iran hostage crisis and Iran-Contra scandal/affair should be clearly mentioned and linked from "United States relations with Iran" in some format. All the moreso as this article previously acted as if the US were entirely on Iraq's side during its war with Iran, when Reagan's staff played both sides against each other echoing Kissinger's "It's a pity both sides can't lose". — LlywelynII 17:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe the Iran-Contra affair is relevant to the background on the war as it contravened official policy. It's undue weight, too complex to explain in brief. A mention of it has been previously removed, as has a mention of the hostage crisis (which I had added, but I see the weighting issues). The wording following the revolution had been "adopted a hostile posture toward Israel and the US" which covered a lot of ground very quickly, before it was changed to "severed diplomatic ties" (I think hostile posture was a more effective summary). Words are at a premium because of the article length. We don't have the space to get into, yeah, the Reagan administration was secretly playing both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, but also the US sunk Iranian warships and shot down an Iranian civilian aircraft.—BrechtBro (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

"Adopted a hostile posture toward Israel and the US" is wp:weaselwords and, for the complexity, we have very well-sourced and wp:npov articles to link to... but which people looking at the conflict here won't see if we're censoring them. Pretending the Democrat-controlled Congress was the only legitimate authority in the United States during the 1980s is... one way of looking the situation, but even taken in the greatest of good faith not remotely a wp:npov one. Reagan's Iran/Contra actions were as official and relevant to Iran's relationship with the US as Churchill and Eisenhower's coup. In particular, claiming the US only supported Iraq in the 1980s as the article previously did... that's simply a wp:lie. We should avoid those. — LlywelynII 12:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

putting 100m in arms sales to Iran alongside billions of aid to Iraq in this brief summary is WP:FALSEBALANCE —BrechtBro (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

LlywelynII, do reliable sources about the lead up to the war typically describe it as a major factor? That's the only standard for inclusion, and it would be highly inappropriate for us to try to decide on our own. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not a section on the lead up to the war which—for Trump at least—seems to have come almost entirely out of left field in the space of a week or two. It's a section on the US relations with Iran. Yes, absolutely, every reliable source about US–Irani relations considers both of those major factors, both more recent and at least as important as Mossadegh.

We don't need to keep my suggested wording; we don't need to go into great or wp:undue length; but yeah we can't just openly lie and we should be mentioning and linking the fuller articles for readers only seeing the relationship and conflict from this page. — LlywelynII 12:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

every reliable source about US–Irani relations We can stop right there, as this demonstrates it's due for Iran–United States relations. This is not that article. You can't create some carve out where undue material can be included because it matches a section heading. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Here we go again: the Iranian government is not an RS on its own claims regarding the massacres, and its credibility regarding such claims has been repeatedly called into question by RS. Pinging @EvergreenFir who made this revert.

WP:CLAIMED: "To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question,"

"Calling a statement's credibility into question" accurately describes the reporting of many RS on this subject:

• Published by the UN Human Rights Council: Payam Akhavan, Professor and civil society representative, said the savagery of the past days was unprecedented. Authorities initially claimed that 5,000 had been killed but reduced the figure to 3,000 two days ago, which was a gross underestimate. Although the exact number may not be known due to the internet blackout, by any plausible estimate, this was the worst mass-murder in the contemporary history of Iran. Mr. Akhavan said that as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, he had helped draft the indictment for the Srebrenica genocide in which some 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were massacred during July 1995. By comparison, at least twice that number had been killed in Iran in half the time. This was an extermination.

I'm somewhat tired of wrangling sources to make the point that the Iranian government is WP:NOTRS in this context, but I would do so if requested. I'm interested in reading any argument as to why calling into question a statement's credibility is unwarranted in this context. The Iranian state is the direct perpetrator of the mass killing being covered, regardless of how extensive it was. DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I’ve begun working on AI Warfare— editors who are interested may want to contribute. 🐈Cinaroot   20:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks pretty nice so far! LS8 (ruikasa is 100% real) 13:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The article currently states "On 14 February, the US publicly began preparing its campaign", as the beginning of the US military buildup section, but the first carrier strike group was sent to the region in mid-January. DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

That's what the Timeline of the 2026 Iran war is for too. kencf0618 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The newly recorded Iranian strike in the West Bank is missing, aswell as the missile from Hezbollah that hit Inkhil. (for sources of the last two check the timeline article) VitoxxMass (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Change is still not in place. Especially the West Bank one seems pretty vital. VitoxxMass (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The list of countries of who have bases in the Middle East that have been struck is extensive. There are other countries aside from Australia have also made defensive deployments and are not listed (such as France). Why is Australia included in the "Attacked by Iran" section? Either they should be listed alongside other countries with similar involvement in the war or they should not be included at all. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 07:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I have removed them. Countries whose military bases have been attacked shouldn't be added as military bases aren't sovereign territory. The UK is the exception as Akrotiri and Dhekelia are sovereign, Overseas British Territories. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 04:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Youshouldchooseausernamethat see the above RfC about the label for countries struck by Iran —BrechtBro (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)