Talk:United States strikes on Iran
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 1 March 2026. The result of the discussion was retarget. |
 | This set index article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 23 March 2026
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: withdrawn per the Further action section below. I will soon open a discussion at AfD. (non-admin closure) –Gluonz talk contribs 14:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
United States strikes on Iran → ? – This proposal aims to broaden the scope of this page slightly so that it can list retaliatory attacks such as Operation Martyr Soleimani and the 2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base. This would make it suitable for disambiguating "Iran–United States war", enabling that page to be redirected to the 2026 Iran war article (which could then include a hatnote that would link to this page), as was suggested in a recent RM discussion. I am unsure of what the best title of this page would be; "Iran–United States conflict" and "Iran–United States strikes" are two possibilities. –Gluonz talk contribs 22:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Note: Talk:Iran–United States war has been notified of this discussion. –Gluonz talk contribs 22:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Support. I think that conflict is less restrictive than strikes. In the veins of Iran–Israel conflict, formerly a SIA/disambiguation, Iran–United States conflict sounds right. Eventually it may evolve into a WP:BCA moved to that title, so if we decide for strikes only (and listing all articles involving them), Iran–United States strikes may continue as a SIA (or a plain list if expanded and moved to list of Iran–United States strikes or something along the lines). LIrala (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026_March_24#Iran–Israel–United States war has been notified of this discussion. –Gluonz talk contribs 18:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I would like to note that I currently have a slight preference for "Iran–United States conflict". –Gluonz talk contribs 18:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject United States History, WikiProject United States, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Western Asia, WikiProject Lists, and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 09:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- Happy to support conflict - Of the proposed titles I like Iran-United States conflict since it fits the present article-scope better, as Iran has also launched strikes, there is combat at sea, and ground combat is now a real likelihood.
- We have tended to use "conflict" about over-arching geopolitical disputes and "war" about specific episodes of military combat within that geopolitical dispute (e.g., Iraq conflict versus Iraq war, Afghan conflict versus War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), Korean conflict versus Korean war, Arab–Israeli conflict versus Yom Kippur War/Six-Day War/etc.) so this would be consistent with that. Consistent with this, eventually a full article should be written on the overall conflict between Iran and the US at Iran-United States conflict, assuming sources can be found to support this.
- 2026 Iran war should probably be renamed to US-Iran war/Iran-United States war or similar, but this is a separate discussion. FOARP (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- That would probably be renamed to Iran war or Iran War instead. @FOARP @Gluonz @TarnishedPath would you support merging Iran–United States war here if moved to Iran–United States conflict? It would be redundant to have the two. Iran–Israel war redirects to Iran–Israel conflict, for example.
- Any comment on the redirect Iran–Israel–United States war redirect? LIrala (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- @LIrala: As far as I can tell, there would not be much content to merge, and the implementation of this proposal would make your concern about redundancy irrelevant because it would entail redirecting "Iran–United States war" to the 2026 Iran war article. –Gluonz talk contribs 19:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Disaster management has been notified of this discussion. LIrala (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't see how doing any of this is an improvement. What problems is this supposed to fix? "Conflict" is vague, whereas "strikes" is precise. (WP:PRECISE) The set index at Iran–United States war is already suitable for disambiguating that title, so why broaden the scope of the set index at United States strikes on Iran to duplicate it's scope? This seems like less of a requested move and more like a proposed merge, but no clear rationale for merging has been provided. If the aim is to have an article about US-Iran conflict, make one at that title. If you want someone else to write an article at that title, moving a set index to occupy it would only discourage that outcome as the title would no longer be vacant. – Scyrme (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Scyrme: That set index article would no longer exist because it would be redirected to the 2026 Iran war article. If preserving it is preferred, moving it to "Iran–United States conflict" instead of this page is also an option, but I am not convinced that this is necessary as its scope is currently covered fully by this page. –Gluonz talk contribs 13:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think it should redirect there as it's an ambiguous term. War and strikes are different topics; readers seeking one topic may not be be interested in the other. Both are much more clearly defined as topics than "conflict", which may include non-military disputes depending on interpretation. This is even before considering the effect of broadening the scope to include attacks from Iran rather than on Iran, as you suggested, which would add a lot of other articles which neither readers looking for wars or for strikes perpetrated by the US would be looking for. There are also differences between the pages. The strikes page, for example, links to the narrower subject of 2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, not the broader topic of the Twelve-Day War. United States strikes on Iran presently links to 2026 Iran war, but this is because there's no separate article for Operation Epic Fury. If a split happens, which is plausible as 2026 Iran war is currently overly long, this may change. – Scyrme (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Scyrme:
I don't think it should redirect there as it's an ambiguous term.
How so? As far as I am aware, you are third editor to have explicitly taken the position that "Iran–United States war" has no primary topic (the first argued that a new war could start in the future, and the second made no case for the position). –Gluonz talk contribs 20:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC) - @Scyrme: Actually, I missed that you had argued in the notified RfD in favor of the premise that the 2026 Iran war is the primary topic for the "Iran–Israel–United States war" title. Have you changed your mind, or do you think that "Iran–United States war" does not share that primary topic? –Gluonz talk contribs 16:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I said it was arguably the primary topic. I made the case for it in the RfD, but other participants were not persuaded. The consensus of that RfD was that it was ambiguous with no primary topic. I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue for overturning that consensus, especially as it was very recent. Even if I wanted to challenge the consensus, I don't think a requested move regarding an entirely different page of a different type (disambiguation, not redirect) is an appropriate venue, so it's not appropriate to make that case here. I also don't think making another, different disambiguation page redundant is a good reason to broaden the scope of this disambiguation page via a requested move. The precision of these two disambiguation pages isn't a problem so doesn't need a solution. If you feel strongly about the primary topic issue, that can be resolved without effectively merging the two disambiguation pages (and expanding the scope even further beyond that, which this proposal would do). It could be achieved by moving the existing disambiguation page to the title containing "(disambiguation)" and making the the title without it a redirect to the primary topic. This would require a RM at that page, rather than here. Ideally you'd also notify the RfD participants regarding the redirects which would be affected by doing that. – Scyrme (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Scyrme: I disagree that the closure of the RfD reflects a consensus that the title is ambiguous. The main argument in favor of retargeting to the Iran–United States war page was simply that both terms should have the same primary topic or lack thereof. The closure acknowledges that a primary topic might be established following this RM discussion.
- As for what should happen with the disambiguation pages after such a change, I would argue that moving the Iran–United States war page to its "(disambiguation)" title would effectively create an unnecessary WP:1OTHER situation. The page lists no other entries aside from the Twelve-Day War article and two of its subtopics (the two specific acts of war that involved both countries, the 2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and 2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base, the latter of which I added a few minutes ago). Given that those series of strikes are not wars in themselves, I think that adding a hatnote for the Twelve-Day War article at the 2026 Iran war article might be a preferable solution. The Iran–United States war page could then either be blanked and redirected or be repurposed and moved to "Iran–United States conflict". In the former case, renaming the United States strikes on Iran page would continue to be an option if broadening its scope is desired. –Gluonz talk contribs 01:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- I said it was arguably the primary topic. I made the case for it in the RfD, but other participants were not persuaded. The consensus of that RfD was that it was ambiguous with no primary topic. I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue for overturning that consensus, especially as it was very recent. Even if I wanted to challenge the consensus, I don't think a requested move regarding an entirely different page of a different type (disambiguation, not redirect) is an appropriate venue, so it's not appropriate to make that case here. I also don't think making another, different disambiguation page redundant is a good reason to broaden the scope of this disambiguation page via a requested move. The precision of these two disambiguation pages isn't a problem so doesn't need a solution. If you feel strongly about the primary topic issue, that can be resolved without effectively merging the two disambiguation pages (and expanding the scope even further beyond that, which this proposal would do). It could be achieved by moving the existing disambiguation page to the title containing "(disambiguation)" and making the the title without it a redirect to the primary topic. This would require a RM at that page, rather than here. Ideally you'd also notify the RfD participants regarding the redirects which would be affected by doing that. – Scyrme (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Scyrme:
- I don't think it should redirect there as it's an ambiguous term. War and strikes are different topics; readers seeking one topic may not be be interested in the other. Both are much more clearly defined as topics than "conflict", which may include non-military disputes depending on interpretation. This is even before considering the effect of broadening the scope to include attacks from Iran rather than on Iran, as you suggested, which would add a lot of other articles which neither readers looking for wars or for strikes perpetrated by the US would be looking for. There are also differences between the pages. The strikes page, for example, links to the narrower subject of 2025 United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, not the broader topic of the Twelve-Day War. United States strikes on Iran presently links to 2026 Iran war, but this is because there's no separate article for Operation Epic Fury. If a split happens, which is plausible as 2026 Iran war is currently overly long, this may change. – Scyrme (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Scyrme: That set index article would no longer exist because it would be redirected to the 2026 Iran war article. If preserving it is preferred, moving it to "Iran–United States conflict" instead of this page is also an option, but I am not convinced that this is necessary as its scope is currently covered fully by this page. –Gluonz talk contribs 13:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one last time given that the last comment was eight hours ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TarnishedPathtalk 10:00, 17 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.
Further action
@Gluonz: How would you phrase the hatnote?
As an aside, it might be worth notifying the participants of the RfD, given the low participation here. – Scyrme (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Scyrme: My first thought would look roughly like this:
- The articles for the two previously mentioned acts of war are both linked in the first paragraph of that article. If "Iran–United States conflict" becomes a set index or disambiguation page, the hatnote could optionally be appended with the following:
- Of course, a better way of wording the hatnote that I have not thought of may exist.
- Regarding notification of RfD participants, I agree, but do you think that they should be notified of this particular discussion or that I should start a new RM at the Iran–United States war page to list all of the possible options? Also, should the participants of its previous RM be notified? –Gluonz talk contribs 21:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, that hatnote seems reasonable. I think the proposals should be kept simple and separate. Making Iran–United States war a redirect to 2026 Iran war doesn't depend on moving United States strikes on Iran first, or vice versa. The issues would only become linked if this RM succeeds, since it could be argued that Iran–United States war should redirect to the disambiguation/set index for Iran–United States conflict instead. We could just not move this page and not have that problem. If you still think moving this page is a good idea, then it would be best to focus on this RM first to see how it goes. It will then be clearer what the options are for Iran–United States war. I think the proper venue for dealing with Iran–United States war would probably be an AfD, proposing to blank and redirect the set index to the primary topic inline with WP:1OTHER and add your hatnote, rather than an RM as it wouldn't be a proposal to rename that page. The participants of the RfD should be notified of the AfD as it would effect the redirects to that page. Notifying the previous RM's participants wouldn't hurt, but doesn't seem needed since that was about using the proper punctuation and full name of the United States in the title, which isn't super relevant if we're proposing to make it a redirect; those issues wouldn't really matter anymore. That said, it wouldn't hurt to notify them; they could always just ignore it if they're not interested. For clarity, my preference is still to not move United States strikes on Iran. I don't see a good reason to expand its scope, and doing so creates new problems. The move would make it harder for readers to find what they're looking for (since they have to scan through a longer, more vague list) and it complicate any future discussion about Iran–United States war. However, I would support redirecting with a hatnote at the AfD. – Scyrme (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- (I split this into its own section to avoid filling up the RM with a large side discussion. Anyone notified of the requested move should respond at § Requested move 23 March 2026.) – Scyrme (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Scyrme: That all is fine by me. I am now neutral with regard to moving either page to "Iran–United States conflict" versus blanking and redirecting the Iran–United States war page (although repurposing the page may mitigate some of your concerns while still disambiguating "Iran–United States conflict" rather than leaving it in its current state as a redirect to the Iran–United States relations article).
- @LIrala, @FOARP: Any thoughts? Should the RM continue, or should I withdraw it and immediately nominate the Iran–United States war page at AfD? –Gluonz talk contribs 03:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- You would only nominate for AfD if this is renamed or if you believe there is a primary topic, in which case you suggested redirecting to 2026 Iran war, right?
- As stated at Talk:Iran War (disambiguation) § Requested move 9 March 2026 by Impru20, there is already too many disambiguation pages duplicating the topic. Therefore I still stand it's best to move and redirect that here. But I don't really care that much if this is kept and nothing changes. As others commented, eventually 2026 Iran war may be moved to Iran war or something, and these will all become the primary topic, then consensus could change. LIrala (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- @LIrala:
You would only nominate for AfD if this is renamed or if you believe there is a primary topic, in which case you suggested redirecting to 2026 Iran war, right?
I have yet to find a convincing argument that "Iran–United States war" has no primary topic.Therefore I still stand it's best to move and redirect that here.
Assuming that "that" refers to "Iran–United States war", are you suggesting that it lacks a primary topic? If so, why? –Gluonz talk contribs 21:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)- I wasn't born when Iran–Iraq War happened. I agree that 2025 Iran war is a secondary topic compared to 2026 Iran war.
- You can propose moving Iran–United States war into Iran–United States war (disambiguation) and propose retargeting the remaining redirects without disambiguators to 2026 Iran war, if you want to keep both this one and the other. Does that make sense or you prefer a hatnote instead of keeping such disambiguation? LIrala (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- @LIrala: That makes sense, but I would prefer adding the hatnote that I proposed rather than moving the page to its "(disambiguation)" title due to the WP:1OTHER concern that I mentioned in the RM discussion. –Gluonz talk contribs 23:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Then AfD is the way. You could do it boldly/WP:BLAR I guess, but you could AfD preventing it from reverts. I don't think this discussion is imperative over that page. So are you withdrawing from moving this page as well? LIrala (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- @LIrala: I am still neutral on whether this page should be moved. I cannot withdraw this RM unless @FOARP agrees. –Gluonz talk contribs 17:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- They've not been responding to pings here so they may have notifications off (or simply not check them). May be worth sending a message on their Talk page. – Scyrme (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- I’m OK with Gluonz’s redirect if that’s what the question is? FOARP (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- @FOARP: The question is whether you would be content with the requested move regarding United States strikes on Iran being withdrawn or if you feel strongly that United States strikes on Iran should be moved to expand its scope (contrary to my arguments against doing so). If the requested move is withdrawn we would move on to an AfD regarding blanking and redirecting Iran–United States war to make it a redirect 2026 Iran war (as the primary topic), with a hatnote to link to Twelve-Day War for disambiguation. If the requested is move is not withdrawn, it will continue until it's closed and the AfD will proceed after it's concluded. – Scyrme (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- I’m OK with Gluonz’s redirect if that’s what the question is? FOARP (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- They've not been responding to pings here so they may have notifications off (or simply not check them). May be worth sending a message on their Talk page. – Scyrme (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- @LIrala: I am still neutral on whether this page should be moved. I cannot withdraw this RM unless @FOARP agrees. –Gluonz talk contribs 17:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Then AfD is the way. You could do it boldly/WP:BLAR I guess, but you could AfD preventing it from reverts. I don't think this discussion is imperative over that page. So are you withdrawing from moving this page as well? LIrala (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- @LIrala: That makes sense, but I would prefer adding the hatnote that I proposed rather than moving the page to its "(disambiguation)" title due to the WP:1OTHER concern that I mentioned in the RM discussion. –Gluonz talk contribs 23:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, that hatnote seems reasonable. I think the proposals should be kept simple and separate. Making Iran–United States war a redirect to 2026 Iran war doesn't depend on moving United States strikes on Iran first, or vice versa. The issues would only become linked if this RM succeeds, since it could be argued that Iran–United States war should redirect to the disambiguation/set index for Iran–United States conflict instead. We could just not move this page and not have that problem. If you still think moving this page is a good idea, then it would be best to focus on this RM first to see how it goes. It will then be clearer what the options are for Iran–United States war. I think the proper venue for dealing with Iran–United States war would probably be an AfD, proposing to blank and redirect the set index to the primary topic inline with WP:1OTHER and add your hatnote, rather than an RM as it wouldn't be a proposal to rename that page. The participants of the RfD should be notified of the AfD as it would effect the redirects to that page. Notifying the previous RM's participants wouldn't hurt, but doesn't seem needed since that was about using the proper punctuation and full name of the United States in the title, which isn't super relevant if we're proposing to make it a redirect; those issues wouldn't really matter anymore. That said, it wouldn't hurt to notify them; they could always just ignore it if they're not interested. For clarity, my preference is still to not move United States strikes on Iran. I don't see a good reason to expand its scope, and doing so creates new problems. The move would make it harder for readers to find what they're looking for (since they have to scan through a longer, more vague list) and it complicate any future discussion about Iran–United States war. However, I would support redirecting with a hatnote at the AfD. – Scyrme (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)