Talk:United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Today is June 21

It didnt happen tomorrow lol 75.110.215.136 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It did happen tomorrow, due to time zones, but the announcement was announced tonight (the 21st). David O. Johnson (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The sources are incorrectly dated as well for June 22 2025 Jxhaelen (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 22 June 2025

Description of suggested change:
Countries were mistakenly swapped.

Diff:

−

The ongoing [[Iran–Israel war]] since June<span class="nowrap"> </span>13 have exposed Israel significantly after Iran striking its air defenses and military bases.

+

The ongoing [[Iran–Israel war]] since June<span class="nowrap"> </span>13 have exposed Iran significantly after Israel striking its air defenses and military bases.

Well very well (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. I have swapped it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 22 June 2025

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−

Shortly after the bombing, an upcoming speech by Trump was announced for 10 p.m. EDT on June 21.

+

Shortly after the bombing, Trump gave a speech at 10 p.m. EDT, June 21.

BigBoiWikiWhale (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Easier way to reference live updates for CNN

Hi,

I noticed that both of the CNN refs we have currently link to the landing page for the live updates.

An easy way to get a more specific link is clicking on the icon of the bottom half of a square, with an upward-pointing arrow. If you click on that, then the paperclip, you'll get a direct link to the specific post.

Hope it's helpful, David O. Johnson (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request: Better Background

At minimum the background section should link to (and summary of) the Iranian nuclear program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran) to provide essential background information. A summary would have to mention both the Non-Proliferation Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons) and the Iran nuclear deal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action). 2A02:8071:7311:9CE0:D927:8EDD:5387:9922 (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I've made a beginning stab at this, though further feedback is welcome. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Updating background info regarding Advisor's comments

> Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, warned against war with Iran and have claimed Iran is not considered to be building a nuclear weapon by the intelligence community.

Gabbard's comment was since updated. I believe this is important context which should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.116.48.237 (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the clarifying source. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Can add UK to international reactions

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq53l41gl8jo "Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat," Starmer added.

69.122.131.189 (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done It was added in this edit. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 22 June 2025

Description of suggested change: WP:DUH

Diff:

−

American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites (Iran)

+

American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites

174.138.212.166 (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done In my view, this addition is not completely superfluous within the context of a messy Middle Eastern conflict like this one. JBchrch talk 14:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Was Pak airspace used?

Please let us know if Pakistan's airspace was used for this bombing. If so, why have you not added it to this article?- 49.205.135.3 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a source, because there is no evidence of the US using any airbase in Pakistan. Tresspasser10 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Please rename 'Non-state actors' to 'Iran's sock puppets'

UN is arguably an exception (even though there is a big percent of Iran supporters), but the rest in the sections are undoubtly going to say whatever their Iranians master told them to say, so what's the point in the section? 217.132.129.69 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Such a descriptor is blatantly POV. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Name change: “Operation Midnight Hammer”

Given the (currently) very clunky title given to the article, the article may be better titled as “Operation Midnight Hammer”, the official name of the operation. This may help clarify what is being detailed in the article, too. BakedintheHole (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Support, in case a name change is proposed by other users in the very near future (within a week of this reply). EpixAndroid (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, no one knows it by this name right now and I sort of doubt people will in general. At minimum, wait and see what happens/what the press/public begin calling it. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2025

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as not moved per WP:SNOWBALL, oppositions are overwhelming. @EmmaCoop: and friends, I suggest you open another move request for your proposal. JBchrch talk 16:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

---

American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites → Operation Midnight HammerOperation Midnight Hammer – Official name of the operation.[1] "American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites" is not used anywhere. WP:COMMONNAME. Ecrusized (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Support EpixAndroid (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Operations names makes no sense but I agree to keep it in the title such as "American strikes on Iranian nuclear sited - Operation Midnight Hammer" 2605:A601:A6A0:F100:798B:FB1A:8C20:21F0 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, official name is not necessarily the common name. Some sources don't even mention the operation name, such as [2] [3]. I didn't know the name of the operation until I saw this request. Let us also wait a bit, because other attacks might happen and in that case the article should be about all the strikes on Iran, not just the one operation. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'd suggest "American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites - Operation Midnight Hammer" Alexdelara (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose the name isn't that common enough.--John123521_{t c} 15:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Support but wait til most sources start using it. while true that it may not be common name yet, it was literally just announced as the operation name. Generally US sources do use their governments official names and thus will become common name so they will soon enough call it that so may as well change it once they do Nkulasingham (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, these operation titles are almost never neutral and not recognisable to most readers. dom 15:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Wait. Information is still rapidly unfolding, as this is a very high-attention event that only happened hours ago. Until we have a clear answer on what the common name for this event is, we cannot conclusively come to a consensus. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 15:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - not widely known by the operation name. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per above not widely used yet, I'd be more inclined to make it more WP:CONCISE to American strikes on Iran as there is currently unnecessary WP:disambiguation as far as I can tell, and this is a well-used description/reference of the topic from reliable sources. Which American strikes on Iran are we disambiguating here? None I think, hence the redirect. CNC (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose but move to an alternative title, US intervention in the Iran–Israel war, making it consistent with US intervention in the Syrian civil war. I had brought this up in another discussion. Emma Coop · Talk · Contributions 15:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good too IMO Squawk7700 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as well. CNC (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Good suggestion. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Fails 3/5 WP:CRITERIA: Recognizability, Naturalness, somewhat Consistency Imo. Additionally I think the current actually fits WP:COMMONNAME; Most RS don't call it "American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites" yes but something along the US attacks Iranian nuclear sites see [4][5][6] Squawk7700 (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose —- let’s wait a bit to see what people start to use. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose not commonname yet. just wait for now. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose It is still too early to make a decision. If Iran responds and an attack is carried out, the name of the US operation will not be enough for the article. On the other hand, among the sources, "US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities" is more well-known.GolsaGolsa (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Too early as of right now and if additional strikes were to be conducted, they would be added to this page and would be outside the scope of that specific operation AstralNomad (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Could this even be a WP:SNOWBALL? Squawk7700 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2025 (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.

Is this the start of World War Three?

WP:NOTAFORUM. JBchrch talk 16:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Some people say so, some disagree, but what does everyone else here think? 2600:387:F:751A:0:0:0:A (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC) nah we'll be good, but bro the 'pedia isn't a forum. dom 15:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC) Depends on the headlines. kencf0618 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Medvedev on providing nuclear warheads

Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia since 2020 (and former President & Prime Minister of Russia) has posted on social media that a “number of countries” are ready to supply Iran with nuclear warheads. Jerusalem Post, UPI, etc. Should this be included in Russia's reaction? kencf0618 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks [7]. I guess we will see how much weight to give to this as the story develops. JBchrch talk 16:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

strike misleading trump stance sentence

Description of suggested change: "Donald Trump has consistently maintained that Iran should not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons since at least 2011" Is incredibly misleading, as it implies his stance on the subject has been stable. In 2013, he repeatedly stated that handling Iran should not require nuclear strikes from the US. Just strike this sentence, as it does not add value.

Sources

@realDonaldTrump I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face! Sep 16, 2013 · 9:23 PM UTC (twitter link: https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/379717298296086529)

@realDonaldTrump Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly-not skilled! Nov 11, 2013 · 2:55 AM UTC (twitter link: https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/399731975432728576)

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

2600:1702:68D1:220:BCE8:3C1:F4D5:D929 (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

What do those tweets have to do with his stance on Iran being permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon? Sounds like a discussion on what method should be used to prevent them acquiring it. Dekadoka (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what is your request here, or what these tweets have to do with it. JBchrch talk 19:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Include Uruguayan Government Reaction

Could somebody add Uruguay's reaction to the events? Thank you. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Include Brazilian Government Reaction

Here Thank you. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Bolivia Condemns US Attacks on Iran

Bolivian MFA Thank you. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Fighters used in the airstrike

The current description says that third and fourth generation fighters were used in the strike, but the USNI article cited for that segment states fourth and fifth generation fighters were used.

To my knowledge, the USAF and Navy don’t even have third generation fighters left. Zhanjack822 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thank you for pointing it out, Zhanjack822. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

World leaders' reaction summary

@Mb2437: Could you please point me to where in the body that sentence is verified? As far as I can tell, it's original research from the compilation of quotes at the bottom. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like WP:OR. Dekadoka (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I have copyedited it to read "several world leaders" rather than "world leaders generally"; I agree that was WP:SYNTH on my part. To meet due weight, a list of countries that have condemned the strikes should probably be added. MB2437 18:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: typo in India reaction

Currently the India reaction says 'amd' instead of 'and' Aadinrs (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I've just removed it. I struggle to believe that the opinion of the Times of India is due weight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Merging with Israel-Iran war makes sense

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

---

Otherwise, we can always merge with United States-Iran relations? Persian Lad (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Closed. We have already reached an overwhelming consensus on this topic: Talk:Iran–Israel_war#Merge_proposal. JBchrch talk 19:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@JBchrch: what about Iran-United States relations? Can't we propose for that?--Persian Lad (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Persian Lad: They are two completely different topics, and they each deserve their own article, so I see no way that there will be consensus to merge them. The resulting article would anyway have to be broken up anyway to comply with the WP:TOOBIG guideline, which expresses project-wide consensus. Think of the reader: the reader wanting information about this conflict will not necessarily want to scroll through the entirety of the Iran-US history, and vice versa. JBchrch talk 19:50, 22 June 2025 (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.

Citation error

Please get that fixed - it's embarrassing. Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:34BD (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Calm down G, calm down. But do you know what the reference is meant to be? I sure don't. Whoever put that there should sort it out. dom 02:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 22 June 2025

Mostly a Question; but would it be better to describe Hamas and the Houthis as Semi-state or Unrecognized State actors? 2600:6C52:7C00:7C4:ED3C:5AA7:93A4:E475 (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

My own preference is to have one prose "International" section that could include countries, non-state actors, NGOs, etc, but if the section is going to be lists, then "Non-state actors" is probably the best/most commonly used term to distinguish Hamas/Houthis (and include Hezbollah) Placeholderer (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

"The international community generally reacted with alarm and worry about Iranian retaliation and further escalation. "

Not sure if this is true or not but some citations would be helpful. The sources I have seen seem more mixed. Certainly no one seems to be worried about Iranian retaliation. How about this one: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/world-leaders-react-us-attack-iran-2025-06-22/ Dekadoka (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Link to Reuters to be used for reference: Pentagon board at the post-strike press-conference

https://www.reuters.com/world/israel-iran-live-trump-address-nation-after-us-bombs-nuclear-sites-iran-2025-06-22/?arena_mid=dJK17hOkP930qSnlSljv 78.81.123.235 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 22 June 2025

Description of suggested change: To add to the Strikes section of the article:

At midnight on Friday, transitioning into Saturday, several B-2 Spirit Bombers of the 509th Bomb Wing took off from Whiteman Air Force Base. The formation split into two elements: one flew towards Iran, while the other served as a "decoy" over the Pacific. The primary strike package included seven B-2s, which were escorted by a protection package of fourth-generation and fifth-generation fighter aircraft. The escorting fighters provided high-speed suppression and pre-emptive suppressive fire to ensure safe passage of the B-2s into Iranian airspace. As of 9:40 AM Eastern Standard Time (EST), there were no reports of Iranian forces engaging the aircraft.

In a Sunday, June 22nd briefing by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, it was confirmed that a U.S. submarine, stationed within the jurisdiction of United States Central Command, launched between 24-30 BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) targeting "key surface infrastructure" in Isfahan.

At approximately 6:40 PM EST (2:10 IT), the lead B-2 dropped its payload of GBU-57 MOP bombs on the first of several targets at the Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant. This was followed by additional B-2 and Tomahawk missile strikes on Isfahan and Natanz between 6:40 PM and 7:05 PM EST.

Post-strike satellite imagery of Iran's Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, taken on June 22, 2025, reveals significant damage following U.S. airstrikes. Images from Maxar Technologies show multiple large craters on the ridge above the underground complex, and a layer of grey-blue ash covers the surrounding area, suggesting extensive disruption to the site's infrastructure. Several tunnel entrances leading to the underground facility appear to be blocked with debris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giwaa (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done @Giwaa: While it could be valuable to integrate some of this information in article, the claims made in this article must be based on citations from reliable sources. Grateful if you could please provide reliable sources to back up the above information. Thank you. JBchrch talk 14:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Assistance at List of airstrikes during the Iran–Israel war

Can editors also assist with adding the American airstrikes to the List of airstrikes during the Iran–Israel war? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

14 GBU-57 MOP bombs used?

A Reuters report of press conference by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, states that 14 MOP bombs were used. Should this be changed?

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-strikes-against-iran-nuclear-facilities-incredible-overwhelming-success-2025-06-22/ LunaticBFF58 (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Please clarify what should be changed, as this article currently claims that 12 MOPs were dropped on Fordow and 2 on Natanz, which checks out. JBchrch talk 14:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It is all fine now as the article at 21:51 UTC says that 14 were used now. LunaticBFF58 (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Should this page be called US-Iran War or should a new US-Iran War page be created?

Just asking. It's an act of war. Military action will be ongoing, last night will not be the end. The US participation started earlier by defending Israel against incoming Iran missile attacks. Or call it US-Israel-Iran War? Erxnmedia (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

In the event a broader conflict between the US and Iran began, there could possibly be such a page. However, we'll have to wait and see if that's the case. Additionally, it's likely that such a conflict would more generally fall into the ongoing Iran–Israel war for the reasons you already mentioned. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm just curious who ends up owning the war, but I can wait to see! For example, before the US owned it, the Vietnam War was the France-Vietnam War. Erxnmedia (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

More precisely the First Indochina War. As of this writing this is still the Iran-Israel War in which the U.S. has used its strategic air power in one operation, one strike. kencf0618 (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Iran

In an event that Iran strikes the US military bases in the Middle East. What will we do to this article? PopularGames (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

We'll argue for a bit and everything will get folded under the new Iran-United States war article. Bremps... 03:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

B2 Distraction

General Caine stated during the Sunday morning press conference with Secretary Hegseth that some B2s flew West to create a diversion and hide the purpose of Midnight Hammer ---Ari (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Too many congresspeople

The Reactions section is mostly a compilation of what members of Congress have said. Reaction sections often become indiscriminate lists of every party that appears in RS (e.g lists of 30 countries' reactions); I think it's probably even less helpful to have a huge list of semi-obscure US politicians.

Some congresspeople are particularly notable (like Mike Johnson, Hakeem Jeffries). Most aren't Placeholderer (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Removed vague comments by an activist and a former congressperson to start Placeholderer (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Short term having the list is probably more helpful for people using wikipedia to track current events. The US Congress has a constitutional role in declaring war and the President has limited warfare capabilities without their support. I would say that including large number of reactions from nations/significant politicians now is probably ideal. But that in six months or so, condensing the reactions into a summary would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7C00:7C4:ED3C:5AA7:93A4:E475 (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTNEWS applies. This is meant to be a lasting encyclopedia article, and encyclopedic standards apply from the start Placeholderer (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I propose removing congresspeople who aren't on any relevant committee and who aren't party leaders Placeholderer (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: The list was trimmed and the rest of the article expanded, so this is no longer a pressing issue Placeholderer (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I removed several of these. In addition to them being randomly(?) selected congresspeople, the ones I removed had citations only to primary sources. For an article topic where I would guess 435 out of 435 representatives have released statements, we really need secondary sources to give us an indication of which ones are important to note. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Nagourney New York Times reference

This reference to The New York Times' live coverage is used frequently in the article even though the individual stories can be linked to. I've replaced several of the references to this with more direct links, and I wouldn't be sad if others jumped in to continue the job. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Iranian reaction

For a more neutral point of view, the lead should include the Iranian response to the attack. In its first official response to US airstrikes targeting nuclear facilities inside the country, Iranian authorities stated early Sunday that the attacks caused no radiation leaks or risk to surrounding populations and confirmed that the structural integrity of the targeted sites remains intact.

Here are some sources:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/iranian-lawmaker-claims-damage-to-fordo-nuclear-site-minimal/

https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iran--minor-damage-to-nuclear-sites-after-us-attack--no-radi NabilLek (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Iran has also said that the damage was minor, which contradicts Trump’s stance. NabilLek (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Kowal2701 (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It was reported that at least half of the 10 million population in Tehran have left the city and most have headed to the northern parts of Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.197.30 (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Update Khamenei's position

Description of suggested change: Remove the section about "Khamenei hiding in an underground bunker" as it is not relevant to the topic and seems unneutral.

Diff:

−

As of June 21, 2025, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had not issued an official response, as he was in an underground bunker at the time of the strikes with no means of electronic communication, leaving Iran's definitive response unclear.

+

As of June 23, 2025, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had not issued an official response.

Amgadoz (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. It's New York Times factual reporting and the editing history shows that there is consensus about its relevance to the article: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/21/world/iran-israel-trump/348bca14-9bf0-5c49-91e9-d101ee0ecc12?smid=url-share. It's not clear why you think this is non-neutral. JBchrch talk 08:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Information about strength

Add information about 7 B-2 77.40.62.201 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Already done for the record. JBchrch talk 08:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Requested move 23 June 2025

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: not moved. WP:SNOW WP:RMEC (closed by non-admin page mover) HurricaneEdgar 11:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

---

United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites → US intervention in the Iran–Israel warUS intervention in the Iran–Israel war – I proposed this in an earlier discussion on the grounds that it is consistent with the article entitled US intervention in the Syrian civil war. Because there was some support for the proposed name, I have decided to put it forward as per JBchrch's suggestion. Emma Coop · Talk · Contributions 04:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: The scope of this article should be exclusively the strikes against the nuclear sites. This is more akin to April 2018 missile strikes against Syria than the far broader US intervention in the Syrian civil war. The US intervention has also been substantially broader than this single strike, including several days with multiple missile intercepts. If the conflict broadens, then there could be a separate article about American intervention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Wait: I think this is one of the better renaming proposals I've seen (by a lot), but it's too early yet to judge what the best title will be/what people are calling it. I feel we should wait a week or two to see what media is referring to this as. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

yes but change the "US" --> "U.S" JaxsonR (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Too early to judge whether the scope of the article will extend beyond simply these strikes and what can be covered in sections elsewhere. Per Pbritti above, if that scope does broaden, these strikes alone are notable enough for a separate article so I would support creating a new article under the suggested title (with whatever necessary changes for consistency) rather than moving the existing page; the US has intervened in the Syrian civil war for over a decade concurrently, so it's not really a case of inconsistency. MB2437 08:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: I think that the proposed page should be used for multiple events, keep this one separate dom 08:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: while I fully agree with Pbritti's argument, I have an additional reason.

I think it would be better (and at least more consistent) to use the same naming conventions as seen in, for example, List_of_military_operations_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001-2021) (where coalition operations are referenced as well as US-only operations, but by battle location or Ops names), which has been in use for, say, the WW2 and Vietnam era conflict events as well. I thus have a strong preference for the more factual and concise "Operation Midnight Hammer" and therefore would (also) oppose the current proposal. Mfhulskemper (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose no reason to go from a precise title to this more general one. The current title reflects perfectly the article's scope. Super Ψ Dro 09:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose makes no sense, the current name of the article perfectly encapsulates the strikes, and renaming it would only serve to create confusion. President Loki (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. This title is fine enough. And if it had to be changed to that title, "US" should be "United States", as in "United States intervention in the Iran–Israel war". LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Snow. Recommending snow close, similar to previous RM. I realise it has only been a matter of hours but given the unanimous oppose/wait so far, I don't think we need to drag this one out any further. There was reasonable support in previous RM for this title, but clearly not in this discussion so far that's hasn't received any support. Not convinced WP:UPHILLBATTLE applies here. CNC (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2025 (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.

Rename page to Operation Midnight Hammer

Description of suggested change:

As the title goes, I would like to suggest that this page be renamed to Operation Midnight Hammer. Military engagements in Wikipedia, with a known codename, are referred to as such. Apart from convention, it also is more recognizable and mentally perceptible than a mundane, technical title.

Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. See also the prior discussion at Talk:United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites/Archive 1 § Requested move 22 June 2025. Referentis (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

TruthSocial posts

Are these notable for anything other than reactions by someone with a propensity to hyperbole and lying? In other words, is there anything of substance in what he posts, that we would give prime real estate in the lead section, versus other more substantial and verifiable information from the military and reliable sources. His reactions are notable for the article, but probably not that notable. -- GreenC 15:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

To caps or no caps?

Trump made a post after the conference. Originally, I simply directly quoted this statement, including typography Trump used (i.e., all caps). The section now reads "Trump posted on Truth Social in all caps saying that 'Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.'" I personally feel this removal of the all caps directly from the quote diminishes the tone of what was said, though I agree the all caps is jarring in the article. I'd like to hear broader thoughts about this, as I do genuinely believe it significantly changes the tone here to somewhat 'hide' the all caps nature of the quote. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No caps. I think the caps give undue weight to the tweet, and disrupt the reading experience. I think these two considerations are more important than accurately reflecting the tone of the tweet. JBchrch talk 20:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

MOS:CONFORM is the policy here. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

So, to make it more explicit, the relevant excerpt is: "Underlining, spacing within words, colors, ALL CAPS, small caps, etc. should generally be normalized to plain text. If it clearly indicates emphasis, use italic emphasis ({{em}}) ..." Whether Trump's all-caps clearly indicate emphasis or are just his more or less normal way of posting is, however, anyone's guess. In this case, since the whole quoted passage was originally in all-caps, I'd see no reason for italics (which might be useful for fragments of a longer quote). Gawaon (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No caps. We never use all-caps, and there's surely no good reason to make an exception here. Gawaon (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I added a notice to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital_letters#Current.

MOS:CONFORM indicates that it should be italicized, though Trump's use of all caps is sufficiently part of his social media writing style that I can see making an exception, as occurs in the earlier quote from him. If you look at RS news reports quoting this specific Truth Social post, some MSM kept it in all caps, and other MSM put it in sentence case. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No caps: Gawaon above quotes our Manual of Style. That's what we should do. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia absolutely should use ALL CAPS when quoting Donald Trump's use of ALL CAPS. The dude is an idiot who doesn't know how to use capitalization. Wikipedia should quote him in his full ignorance. CAVincent (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Having a view that someone is "an idiot" isn't a reason to allow all caps when quoting that specific person. Fantastic Mr. Fox 13:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Just noting the discussion was briefly blanked by @Giwaa and has since been restored. Fantastic Mr. Fox 15:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Background section having old sources that precede the strikes

The background section currently has sources dating to 1990. 2009, 2015, 2016, 2023. These are sources that could not have mentioned the 2025 U.S. strikes. The purpose of the background section is not to litigate or illuminate the entire history or conflict between Iran and the United States. The purpose of the background is to summarize what reliable sources discussing the strikes identify as the background to the strikes. As such, please try to use content and sources from after the strikes. Thanks. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I've seen someone say this somewhere else before, but I have no idea what policy it refers to. The idea seems very overly restrictive Placeholderer (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Placeholderer: - well, in a sense, it's whether X detail is WP:DUE. If editors cannot find a source that discusses X detail together with the strikes, is X detail important, relevant, WP:DUE? The outdated sources do not prove any of those. starship.paint (talk / cont) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Starship.paint I think it's definitely true that not every detail before an event is worth including, and whether or not sources discuss the background as background can be a good justification to keep certain details, but editors can use common sense to gauge what's useful/relevant background information. Some background sections I've written have depended heavily on preexisting sources. IDK what details prompted this discussion though—I'm not necessarily arguing to keep those details.

TLDR I just disagree with blacklisting preexisting sources for use as background Placeholderer (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Disagree; purpose of background is to contextualize for the reader. It is blatantly obvious that a strike on nuclear sites in Iran might benefit from some context on Iran's nuclear program and why this is of international interest; it is also blatantly obvious that there is context to be drawn from Iran-Israel and U.S.-Israel relations. Right now the situation is so new that most news sites are simply reporting what little is known about what has happened and have not yet started analyzing it; this does not mean we should provide no context to the reader. It is very possible to provide a NPOV summary of basic contextual information and link to the pertinent articles. I tried to keep it relatively short so that it was not bogging down the article. In the future hopefully we can transition to sources which analyze this action in the context of prior actions instead of pure reporting, but this is not possible yet because this happened yesterday. It is not original research to connect this in line with clear context. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I am reinstating below a comment that was removed when I had to rollback the page, pinging Starship.paint JBchrch talk 15:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC):

• @Nerd1a4i: - please take note above. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Nerd1a4i: - I've already managed to find two recent sources discussing the background. I have started including the content. There's content out there and there will be more as time proceeds. starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• I found a third recent source and added that. There's now much more content than what you wrote originally, Nerd1a4i. starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ... and added content from a fourth recent source. [8] starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

International reactions

Once again, we see an important article being bloated by the inclusion of a "reaction" from every nation that puts out a message, no matter how meaningless or platitudinous. Reaction comments should be limited to the actors in the conflict, nearby (and possibly affected) Middle East nations, and international groups like the UN. And don't get me started on the flags! WWGB (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. We can replace this long list with a paragraph summarising reactions. Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The list continues to grow, and there are requests to add yet more reactions. How to proceed? Placeholderer (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Someone needs to write a guideline on this, like WP:TRIVIA. It's ridiculous, I don't know why people do it. -- JFHutson (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash here's the discussion Placeholderer (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Skitash reverted my removal as "undiscussed," so let's discuss. Why should there be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of reactions? -- JFHutson (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support removal of the list and starting country reactions from scratch (as prose), for lack of better options Placeholderer (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and collapse for the time being. I completely agree with the sentiment that it's trivia and bloat, but I see no way to manage this better than as a (collapsed) list for as long as the article is front page news. The fact is that when the prime minister of Westeros is going to come out with a statement, about 15 different editors are going to push to add it to the article, and it's going to be painful and difficult to prevent them. And we risk ending up with something unreadable like the fourth paragraph of the lead of Iran–Israel war. JBchrch talk 21:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  What’s painful and difficult about DELETE? — JFHutson (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thé 1RR restriction. JBchrch talk 22:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding collapsing, it must follow MOS:DONTHIDE. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and collapse per JBchrch. Including international reactions is consistent with how nearly every article on similar events are structured (see Killing of Yahya Sinwar, Rafah offensive, October 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran). I see no reason why this article should be an exception. Skitash (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

How about splitting the section into "Support for US and Israel", "Support for Iran" and "Neutral" (not necssarily that wording)? Then we can write it in prose what the countries have said, giving prominence to reactions based on coverage in sources. This would get rid of the list and flags. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 03:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• There's a strong argument that this sort of content is mostly (but not entirely) cruft. I'd really like to see a guideline that says something like this: "International reactions are limited to one executive or legislative leader in a country. If the country's leader has not issued a statement, one from their foreign minister or foreign ministry may be substituted."
  That said, I suspect we're the only ones on the internet that are tracking this sort of thing at this scale, and there's probably some future archival value to it. It's also not really much of a problem for readers if it's automatically collapsed for them—they can view it if they want, and don't have to if they don't. Anyway, per the suggestions above I collapsed the list. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Keep and collapse all information is consistent with previous Wikipedia articles, and it's necessary to showcase what each country has said. Keep it to heads of gvt./state or FMs obviously, but maintain the information regardless. A collapsable list is a good solution.--Lucky102 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not an archive for the statements of heads of state and foreign ministers. This stuff has zero encyclopedic value. A paragraph from a secondary source summarizing the reaction of global leaders is all that should be included. -- JFHutson (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think it could be valuable to keep in-depth coverage of reactions—but at this scale it could make more sense to do that in a separate "Reactions to ___" article Placeholderer (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Though I think it's way too soon to create such an article Placeholderer (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

strike misleading trump stance sentence that now has invalid source

"Donald Trump has consistently maintained that Iran should not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons since at least 2011.[9]"

Not only is this statement incorrectly implying Trump has had a consistent stance on Iran (which he directly contradicted use of force in 2013 - 1 2), the current source is not relevant to supporting ANY stance of his prior to 2025, as it does not reference or cite any comments he made prior to February 4, 2025. Just remove this sentence, it does not add value. Portalscience (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Learn what context is. 69.118.244.151 (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, don’t we have a rule against referencing accounts of people who have been banned? And also don’t we have a rule against original reporting like someone making a statement themselves? We’re citing Al Jazeera? 2601:140:9200:C090:E98D:3FDA:7D57:1F57 (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2025

I recommend adding this response to the article in the reactions section for the United States.

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton praised Trump for the decision. 2603:6010:3100:E87E:A915:9B8D:7FB3:9E79 (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Added to the page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Requested move 24 June 2025

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing the discussion, as this has already been discussed, and there is no consensus for such a move. JBchrch talk 14:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

---

United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites → Operation Midnight HammerOperation Midnight Hammer – Military strikes with a known codename are reffered to as such, eg. Operation Barbarossa. In this regard, I believe this page should be renamed to Operation Midnight Hammer. HeyThisIsARandomGuy! (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural close. This exact proposal was WP:SNOW-closed at this discussion less than 48 hours ago. Yeoutie (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per common name. Preferred name is not common for now. Fade258 (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and closed, discussion snowball closed already, most operation name titles discouraged per MOS:OPNAME - this name does not meet the notability to warrant a move • CompassNNE (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2025 (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.

Delete South Korea's response to this incident

The document cited in South Korea's response was released on June 13, so it was not a response to the US airstrike. Andersonwu2000 (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the previous statement and added a new one with an updated reaction. 9ninety (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Missing Cruicial information - funding Iran

It is misleading not to include the money sent by Obama and Biden to Iran that helped Iran fund their uranium enrichment program. Had Iran not been given the money, the sanctions would have held and Iran would be bankrupt today.

https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/blog/5-times-obama-admin-insisted-cash-way-pay-iran/

https://mast.house.gov/2023/11/biden-handed-over-16-billion-to-iran 149.97.253.22 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It could be worth including more information about JCPOA-era policies, but House/congresspeople publications aren't independent sources. Would you mind finding sources more consistent with WP:RS? Placeholderer (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2025

ABC News reported that the American and Israeli militaries had conducted a practice run of this attack during a training exercise in mid-2024 during the Biden administration.[51] Axios reported that the top Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence panels were not given advance notice of the attack, while the top Republicans were.[52] This was later proved to be incorrect as Chuck Schumer(D) from New York confirmed getting a short phone call from the executive branch. (https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/21/politics/republicans-democrats-iran-strikes-briefings) 192.223.232.154 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done: The proposed addition (This was later proved to be incorrect as Chuck Schumer(D) from New York confirmed getting a short phone call from the executive branch) is original research, namely inappropriately combining sources to reach a conclusion not found in either source. Chuck Schumer is not the top Democrat on either intelligence panel. Schumer's phone call doesn't contradict the Axios report. However, I've added mention of Schumer's notice from the Axios report Placeholderer (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

No talk of the ceasefire?

What is this, North Korean news? 73.141.81.131 (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I just added some info about the ceasefire Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Britian's ivolvment has been left out? MI6 and the coup of 1953

npov 205.174.22.25 (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You will need sources for either and how this would be incorporated into the article/how it is relevant. Fantastic Mr. Fox 08:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Iran assessment

Iran assessment shows quite severe damage. Not superficial in the summary at the top 2600:387:F:221:0:0:0:7 (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Please provide WP:reliable sources if you would like that information to be added to the article. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2025

The “Analysis” section ought to be expanded. While I understand it’s still too early for definitive statements, it’s odd that the lede presents the early conclusion that the campaign may have failed to achieve its goals, yet the section of the article actually dedicated to the analysis of the operation says nothing of the sort. As things change and more is learned, nothing stops the article from being updated, regardless of where the updated information is presented. MexicanAvocado (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Please, feel free to write text that can be added to this article, and the WP:reliable sources that confirms the text that you have written, and we can see if we can add that text to the article. For now, I'll close your edit request as it is more a general comment about the article and not a specific requested edit. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

PS I agree with you that the lead should not have this early conclusion that the campaign may have failed to achieve its goals, so I moved it out of the lead. Lova Falk (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

"Its efficacy has not been confirmed" in the lead

... should this sentence be included in the lead? It seems a little premature at best. GnocchiFan (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The leftist mods of Wiki will try to cast doubt on everything, without evidence 80.98.149.77 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Stuff without evidence should, in fact, have doubt cast on it Placeholderer (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Then again, are not some of the rightist attempting to cast doubt on the evidence from the leaked report? While some high placed people might attempt to deflect attention, does not the report indicate that the efficacy of the bombing attack has not been confirmed? 2A00:23C6:27AC:BD01:55D7:34AF:82FD:278F (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess the question to that would be: has the efficacy been confirmed? If not, it's an accurate statement. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Might be more precise to say something along the lines of "damage assessment is ongoing" Placeholderer (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point, let's go with that – I'll make that edit unless you've done so already! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but does not that statement downplay the findings of the intel report? 2A00:23C6:27AC:BD01:55D7:34AF:82FD:278F (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Rephrased the lead to describe damage assessments/mention report. (I don't think the fact of announcing the strikes on Truth Social was worth keeping in the lead) Placeholderer (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 25 June 2025

Description of suggested change:

Some sort of addition of Iran's Foreign Ministry saying their nuclear facilities have been 'badly damaged' by US strikes source (AP):

https://www.9news.com.au/world/iran-update-irans-foreign-ministry-says-nuclear-facilities-badly-damaged-by-us-strikes/1c33e394-76d1-4f6c-86a3-674b6ec9f430

Also should probably add the CNN / DIA leaked report saying that it wasn't badly damaged and only set it back a couple of months

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/24/politics/intel-assessment-us-strikes-iran-nuclear-sites

We may get contradictory info from US / Israeli intel later from the DIA report but Iran's statement is at least significant.

Nkulasingham (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nkulasingham, I added a sentence about Iran. The CNN article had already been added - I moved it out of the lead into "Strikes". Lova Falk (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Works, thanks. Nkulasingham (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 26 June 2025

This should be updated. "and has likely been involved in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.[31][32] Should say has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists. Article as reference. https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-nuclear-science-attacks-e298f00ba261debba4499a48c9df8b3d "

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

2600:1702:7530:510F:E9E9:DEE1:7998:88AF (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

add 2025 to page title

what it says 2603:8080:3D02:9CBC:7110:920F:723F:8AC9 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! There have been no other United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, so there is no need for adding the year. Lova Falk (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 26 June 2025

Description of suggested change: I recommend adding the following two responses to the article in the reactions section for the United States. I also think the section should have sub-sections organizing and separating responses by military officials (current, former), politicians, media and organizations for improved readability.

Retired General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark praised the operation noting “It was a brilliant operation. Brilliant in conception, obviously flawless in execution,”. In response to the leaked DIA assessment, Clark noted that initial assessments can be inaccurate and change over time

Retired General and former CIA Director David Petraeus agreed with the CIA’s assessment that the strike inflicted ‘severe damage’ to Iran’s nuclear program and noted that the initial leaked assessment’s drafters had ‘low confidence’ in their report. WCNo47 (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2025

Please change the spelling from "Per US" to "Per U.S." per consistency with all statements that use "U.S." name spelling. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done I think I got them all. They were many....! Lova Falk (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Iranian retaliation against the US

Aside from the Iranian airstrike on the US airbase in Qatar, it is important to mention concerns regarding potential sleeper cell threats, as Iran could retaliate within the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has increased the arrests and detention of undocumented Iranian nationals already in the country, in response to the sleeper cell memo that the DHS has published hours after the strikes.

Additionally, both Secretary Kirsti Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi have stated that the country is on high alert due to the evolving threat landscape. For the first time since the killing of Qasem Soleimani in 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) bulletin specifically concerning the threat from Iran. The bulletin highlights the possibility of Iran or its proxies conducting retaliatory attacks and will remain in effect until September.

Please try to add these updates whenever possible. Thanks cyrfaw (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Sources on the sleeper cell threat are published from FOX News, NBC News, The Hill, NewsNation, CNN, New York Post, etc. The White House is also aware of it and directed its agencies to heighten security. --cyrfaw (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi cyrfaw (talk). Would be very good to add this to the article. Go ahead! Lova Falk (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

What, go ahead and help to push what has every indication of being faked news? For have not the far right a nasty habit of using fear to spread their reactionary agenda? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:20D1:1093:704F:B091 (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead if reliable sources confirm sleeper cell threats. And go ahead with text that this is faked news, if that text also has reliable sources. Lova Falk (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Then again, set against the use of dodgy documents to sex up the case for war against Iraq, might not a little extra care be taken when it comes to using questionable 'evidence'? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:452C:5CD7:942D:DE9C (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course. Lova Falk (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

About infobox

Yo I just reverted an edit that changed the map in the infobox to an image of a B-2. Should it have an image there? I personally don't think so, I think it should be the map dom 13:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Good call! Lova Falk (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Name change without any discussion

Why the name of the article has been changed to ‘United State strikes on Iran’ from ‘American strikes on Iran’, without any discussion? It should have been changed after proper discussion. I think American was better, because it is an an adjective but United States is a noun, and in sentences like this where 'strikes' is the subject and noun, the word prior to it must be an adjective. Ku423winz1 (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The naming convention for country-related titles is to prefer a proper noun instead of an adjective. (e.g. History of Japan instead of Japanese history) In this case, "American" could incorrectly refer to the whole continent or nation, not specifically the government which is responsible for the strikes. All other articles follow the convention, such as China-United States Trade War, United States one-dollar bill, List of United States cities by population and so on. Apfelmaische (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I support the change. We wouldn’t want anyone walking around thinking that Mexico or Canada or some country in South America could do this. The United States did this. We did this. Point to us! 2601:140:9200:C090:E98D:3FDA:7D57:1F57 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

(also pinging @Apfelmaische) I'll remind us that this the English Wikipedia, and in the contemporary English language, American means from the United States. English speakers (even non native) don't generally confuse the term to refer to the whole continent.

That said, regarding the move, I agree with @Ku423winz1 that "American strikes" would be grammatically correct as opposed to "United States strikes" (compare for example "Israel strikes" versus "Israeli strikes"). 9ninety (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it’s actually not commonly accepted that America means just he United States. If that were true, Mexico wouldn’t be so upset about the inclusive effort of renaming the Gulf of Mexico the gulf of America, which would celebrate all the countries bordering it. 2601:140:9200:C090:1CFF:C3C2:28B4:86D9 (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to pitch in, it's true this is the English Wikipedia, it's also true that it's not the American English Wikipedia. In British English, American does not imply United States; it's implies America, similar to other dialects. CNC (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The article I linked about the word states "In contemporary English, American generally refers to persons or things related to the United States of America; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification." I'm not a native speaker, but I can say for sure that the usage of American to mean the United States is certainly not exclusive to American English.

In fact, I'm pretty sure it also applies to British English, contrary to your belief. Collins Dictionary, a British dictionary, states "American means belonging or relating to the United States of America, or to its people or culture." It also gives the definition in both British and American English, and the first listed definition is the same for both. 9ninety (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

That's debatable and why we're having this discussion. I don't have access to Oxford, but I imagine it's similar to Cambridge Dictionary, that of having more than one meaning. Collins is based on recentism. CNC (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you'd rather use a grammatically incorrect title (a noun should not be preceded by a noun; it's like "Iran nuclear sites" instead of "Iranian nuclear sites") instead of the demonym of the United States in English. The page is now move protected, so this must be resolved via RM. I'll open one soon; maybe a grammatically correct while mutually satisfactory alternative can be suggested ("strikes on Iranian nuclear sites by the United States"?). 9ninety (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC) Retracting my comment, I was wrong. 9ninety (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"It's unfortunate that you'd rather use a grammatically incorrect title". Careful now, I don't appreciate others user putting words in my mouth. Recognizing alternatives to your desired outcome is certainly a good enough reason to have an RM though. How about this. If an RM is snow closed in your favor, I will apologize for being overly cautious and unintentionally disruptive. Anything less than snow, you apologize. Fair? CNC (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth; I said that mainly because you requested the technical move to revert my move. However, I retract my previous comment, as I was actually wrong. United States can function as an attributive noun, which modifies a noun like an adjective. So the title isn't grammatically incorrect. I still think American strikes is better, but I apologize for being confidently incorrect. (I think I suffered from confirmation bias). 9ninety (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

No problem, we all make mistakes. Thanks for being reasonable :) CNC (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I also support the name change, because America is so much more than the US, but I also agree that this should have been discussed properly. Lova Falk (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 27 June 2025

Description of suggested change: The statement about a "leaked intelligence report" is seemingly unsourced and should either be sourced or marked as unsourced.

"...a final bomb damage assessment of the strikes is still ongoing, and a leaked preliminary U.S. intelligence report suggested damage was more limited" (paragraph 2). MN 7216 (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, all of this is discussed in the section Aftermath. Summarised statements in the lead do not need sources when the text is in the body of the article. So I won't add an "unsourced tag". However, I'll keep your edit request open, in case another editor comes along who disagrees with me. Lova Falk (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 26 June 2025

Description of suggested change: In the sub-subsection titled Oil Prices, it says that the oil prices rose sharply, which they didn't, they stayed below $70 per barrel. It's worth mentioning the Strait of Hormuz remained open. It also says the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is inconsequential, which is not true. This is a highly editorialized comment.

Diff:

−

On June 23, 2025, global oil prices rose sharply in the morning amid fears of potential disruption to energy supplies. On 23 June 2025, [[Benchmark (crude oil)|oil prices]] were below $70 again (7% lower than on June 20), indicating that the [[price of oil|oil market]] viewed the attack, and Iran's response (missile attack on US bases in Qatar, and the Strait of Hormuz remaining open), as inconsequential. Similarly, the [[EU]] price of [[natural gas]] dropped 14 percent on 24 June, as some of its LNG also comes through the Strait of Hormuz.

+

On June 23, 2025, global oil prices were not impacted because the [[Strait of Hormuz]], through which around 20% of global oil and gas flows, remained open as a result of diplomacy efforts and the cease fire agreement. [[Brent Crude|Brent Oil]] (and [[Murban_Bab_oil_field|Murban Oil]]) prices were below $70 again (7% lower than on June 20). On June 24th, the [[EU]] price of [[natural gas]] dropped 14 percent, as some of its [[LNG]] also comes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Final version with references:

On June 23, 2025, global oil prices were not impacted because the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20% of global oil and gas flows, remained open as a result of diplomacy efforts and the cease fire agreement. Brent Oil (and Murban Oil) prices were below $70 again (7% lower than on June 20). On June 24th, the EU price of natural gas dropped 14 percent, as some of its LNG also comes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Nauticalpenguin (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nauticalpenguin. I did most of your suggestions, except the last sentence, because I thought the sentence in the article was better than your proposal. However I cannot find the 7% mentioned in the text. My calculations are less than 5%. I have simply removed the percentage of the drop, I don't think it is important in the long run. However, if you would like to keep the 7% drop, please show me your calculation, as there is no mention of 7% in the source. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I made a small edit, changing "impacted" to "strongly affected." There was a price spike, but not large and not lasting. NPguy (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Israeli involvement and American relations with Israel

@NPguy Hello. In your latest edit, you removed a sentence stating that "[Israel] has consistently viewed the potential for regional powers to acquire nuclear weapons as an existential threat", describing it as an unsourced claim. However, this was actually supported by the Deutsche Welle article linked just after the next sentence. That source says, "A major security concern for all Israeli governments is the potential for regional powers to acquire nuclear weapons [...] For Israel, the idea of adversaries obtaining nuclear weapons poses an existential threat" and then goes on to describe cases where Israel targeted some of its neighbours / adversaries, such as Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. I think it is fine to highlight specific instances, but the original statement was intended to reflect its broader position. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Leaked Intelligence report was fake

Information about the “leaked” intelligence report that came out turned out to be a fabricated story and completely false. This article should mention sources that explain this. This also includes the lie that the damage was “limited” which turned out to be false too. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

How do you know this? What reliable source supports this claim? NPguy (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It’s come out that the CNN report was not accurate. What reliable source do you have that the report was legit? 46.110.31.130 (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Fox News reported on Trump’s and Hegeseths response to these claims and explained how they were wrong. You can even refer to Trump’s Truth Social where he makes remarks on these claims too. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Leaked Intelligence was not fake. It was a "low confidence" report that shouldn't be given much weight as there will be multiple low confidence reports created in every scenario.

I do think it's probably not worth an inclusion at this point, with multiple intelligence agencies (Israeli, Iranian, IAEA, US etc) assessing damage as significant

But that's not the same thing as completely false unless you have sources to the contrary. Nkulasingham (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ve given sources on this cite before but have always received backlash because others claim they’re not reliable. I guess you people only use left-wing sources, which are not reliable either. How ironic. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Generally Reliable sources/Perennial sources/ is pretty unbiased, there are a lot of well regarded conservative sources there eg WSJ, Townhall, Washington Examiner, Washington Free Beacon, Sky New Australia etc

Do you have a link to this claim? I can see if there are conservative reliable sites posting something similar. Nkulasingham (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Fox News reported on Trump’s and Hegeseths response to these claims and explained how they were wrong. You can even refer to Trump’s Truth Social where he makes remarks on these claims too. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah like saying the assessment is wrong and we should give more credence to official US sources is a valid argument and I don't disagree, but that is different from saying the report itself is fake.

The report is real but their assessment was wrong. I am in favor of removing it entirely tbh if it wasn't leaked, this would be just one of the many initial low confidence reports that the Pentagon / CIA does before finalising on a proper report with their official conclusions. Nkulasingham (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s fine, there is still a lot more information to come out so it’s probably best to just see what more credible sources say. All I wanted to point out was that we should probably cite sources from Trump or hegeseth themselves instead of an unverifiable claim from a news source. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, I want to mention that WSJ and Washington Examiner are left-leaning sources and are not moderate-leaning. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

U.S. government statements are reliable as sources of U.S. government views. NPguy (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Sources should come from Trump’s administration, not a random article’s opinion. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Please link to a source referencing the statement you want to add. If Trump or Hegseth called the report fake, that can be included with attribution, but only with a source to support that they said it.

(Social media posts can sometimes be used as sources, but it can help for policy reasons to also include a secondary source that refers to the social media post) Placeholderer (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I already mentioned that Trump made Truth Social posts about it, you can also watch the press briefings they made. It doesn’t really come from a single source, it’s just whoever was covering it. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not my job to hunt down the sources you're referring to. This is your edit request. Please help us out by linking to a source Placeholderer (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

But it’s not one specific link, Trump would post multiple sources on his truth social and lots of media outlets are reporting it. I can’t help someone who doesn’t want to help themselves, it’s so easy to find these sources, I don’t see why you’re opposed to looking for them. Again, it’s not one single link or source, there are many that say the same things I’m saying. It makes this article biased when you don’t include these other sources. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

There have definitely been statements of Trump administration officials saying the DIA report was outdated/wrong/etc, and some of those statements are already in the article. I haven't seen anyone say it was fake. Of course there have been calls of generic "fake news", and having looked around a bit I see more of those, but that's not saying the DIA report was fake. Is that what you're referring to? I can't know unless you show me what you're looking at.

I do want to address your concerns. Someone could have just closed this discussion from the start because it wasn't a properly formatted edit request, but (rightfully) other editors also wanted to address your concerns. It just makes everything easier in an edit request when people can look at the same information and discuss what to do with it.

Thanks for your interest in improving the article. I'm sorry if I come across as rude—I'm trying to readjust from another discussion that went way off the rails because of a lack of focus on edit request procedure (largely, dare I say, because of me) Placeholderer (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Ironically, I just came off another discussion so I can’t say that I’m not responsible for getting a little heated too. I think what you said is correct, my main concern was just a lack of information about the leaked information, however this is still an ongoing story with more information to be released in the coming days, so I think it’s for the best if we just leave it be for now and once more facts come out, we can make changes as necessary. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! If you come across any statements worth including, you'll know where you can send them :) Placeholderer (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought IP editors couldn't discuss in ARBPIA and were limited to uncontroversial edit requests.

Why are they allow to discuss these issues?

Clerks or admins should delete both this comment and every single comment by IPs discussing things. Gue101 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You calling my comments “controversial” seems more like a personal opinion than not. Plus, we’ve already resolved this issue, so no further comment is needed. 46.110.31.130 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Previous edit request

@WCNo47 Sorry I just missed your edit request before it got archived!

I've added Wesley Clark's assessment, though to Analysis and with different quotes that I thought captured more of his point. I also didn't see Petraeus's comments from the source. Is there anything I missed? Placeholderer (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry I think I copied the first source twice. Here's Petraeus's comments: US did 'severe damage' in Iran, ex-CIA director says | NewsNation

What did you think about my suggestion to create sub-categories for organization? WCNo47 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Added Petraeus!

I think the subcategories would make one mega-section for politicians and mini-sections for the others. I think this is a function of the fact that politician reactions don't add any meaningful information other than showing the political mood, and so can't be categorized as "Analysis". I recognize that I'm saying this after putting stuff into Analysis that was suggested to go into Reactions—my opinion is that these comments are meaningful analysis—but I think the Reactions section is too lopsided for the subsections. Though I was wondering if the Analysis section should be split into "Damage assessment" and "Ramifications" or something Placeholderer (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a Legality concerns section has been added, though Placeholderer (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)