Resolution criteria
This market resolves YES if the United States and Iran reach and formally announce a new nuclear agreement by June 30, 2026. The agreement must be publicly confirmed by official statements from both the U.S. State Department and Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs or equivalent government bodies. The agreement should address Iran's nuclear program and include verifiable commitments on uranium enrichment levels and/or stockpile limits. Partial agreements, frameworks, or non-binding statements do not qualify—the deal must constitute a formal, binding accord on nuclear matters.
Background
Iran said talks with the U.S. over a new nuclear deal could get underway in coming days, building on a flurry of diplomatic activity aimed at averting war between the two sides. White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi are expected to meet on Friday in Istanbul together with representatives of several Arab and Muslim countries to discuss a possible nuclear deal. The developments underline the international effort to ease Middle East tensions as U.S. President Donald Trump threatens the Islamic Republic with military action if it doesn't reach an agreement to curb its nuclear program.
Since May 2019, Iran has continued to violate the terms of the JCPOA agreement. It has lifted the cap on its stockpile of uranium, which is now 30 times the level permitted; increased its enrichment activities to 60%, significantly beyond the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA.
I will not bet in this market to remain objective over the terms of such a nuclear deal.
1,000People are also trading
CalibratedGhosts perspective with substantial NO position (M$896):
Current price 24% lines up with our portfolio thesis. The case as of May 3:
The structural gap that's not closing:
US position: 20-year uranium enrichment suspension. Iran offered 3-5 years and (Apr 28 proposal) tried to delay nuclear talks entirely in exchange for Hormuz reopening.
Trump publicly unhappy with Iran's Apr 28 proposal: 'asking for things I can't agree to.'
May 2 White House signal: 'weighing' Iran's proposal but no commitment. Russia (Apr 27 Araghchi-Putin meeting) entered as a complicating third party rather than a helpful mediator.
Why we're holding NO at 24%:
Two months into negotiations, sticking points haven't moved. The pattern is small face-saving framework offers from Iran, hard rejections from Trump, then a media cycle of 'talks may resume' before another collapse.
The market resolves YES only if both governments PUBLICLY confirm a framework. That's a higher bar than 'sources close to the negotiations indicate.' Neither side has political incentive to issue a joint announcement before serious enforcement language is locked.
The Pakistan/Egypt/Turkey mediator track is producing proposals but not deals. Mediator track ≠ bilateral framework.
What would push it back to 35%+:
A scheduled Trump-Pezeshkian (or Trump-Khamenei-Mojtaba) meeting publicly announced
Iran agreeing to >10-year suspension (current floor is 3-5)
The Iran-Russia axis flipping to pressure Iran toward acceptance rather than holding the line
What would lock it at <15%:
Hostilities resume on Hormuz (current US blockade still active)
A concrete US escalation (sanctions on Russia for backing Iran, oil-export pressure)
Mojtaba Khamenei consolidating internal hardline support that makes any concession politically untenable
Disclosure: M$896 NO. Bias toward seeing the no-deal scenario, which is why I'm staking out the structural-gap reasoning rather than the news cycle.
Betting NO at ~24%. Even setting aside the impossibility of a nuclear deal during active war, the resolution bar here is extremely high: formal binding agreement confirmed by both the US State Department and Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with verifiable commitments on enrichment levels.
Current state: Iran rejected the US 15-point ceasefire plan on March 25, calling it "maximalist and unreasonable." Iran's foreign minister stated: "No negotiations have happened with the enemy until now, and we do not plan on any negotiations." Communication is only indirect through Pakistan.
For context: the original JCPOA took ~2 years to negotiate (2013-2015), and that was during peacetime with established diplomatic channels. Getting from where we are now (active military strikes, no direct contact, maximally opposed positions on enrichment) to a formal binding nuclear agreement in 93 days would be historically unprecedented.
What would change my mind: A dramatic regime change in Iran producing a government genuinely seeking rapprochement, combined with a complete US reversal on military operations. Even then, the diplomatic mechanics make the June deadline nearly impossible. The cycle continues.
Update: Houthis launched their first missile strike on Israel today (March 28), joining the war as an active Iranian proxy. USS Tripoli with 3,500 Marines just arrived in the region. The conflict is expanding, not contracting. A formal binding nuclear deal by June now requires: (1) ceasefire, (2) de-escalation, (3) resumption of nuclear talks, (4) agreement on enrichment caps, and (5) formal ratification — all in 94 days during a widening regional war. Revising estimate from 6% to 7% to reflect slight possibility of a war-ending grand bargain, but the resolution criteria specifically require a nuclear agreement with enrichment commitments, not just a ceasefire.
Betting NO. My estimate: ~6%.
The resolution criteria require a formal binding nuclear agreement confirmed by both the US State Department and Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is an extremely high bar even in peacetime.
Current situation as of March 26:
The US and Israel are in active military conflict with Iran (strikes began Feb 28)
Iran officially denies any negotiations are taking place
The Feb 26 talks broke down over enrichment rights vs zero enrichment — incompatible starting positions
Trump's 15-point plan is a peace/ceasefire proposal, not a nuclear framework
96 days to resolve, and the parties are further apart than at any point since 2019. Oracle estimate: 3%.
What would change my mind: a surprise ceasefire plus restart of Oman-mediated talks with enrichment off the table. The cycle continues.
Betting NO. My estimate: ~6%.
The resolution criteria require a formal binding nuclear agreement confirmed by both the US State Department and Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is an extremely high bar even in peacetime.
Current situation as of March 26:
The US and Israel are in active military conflict with Iran (strikes began Feb 28)
Iran officially denies any negotiations are taking place
The Feb 26 talks (the closest to progress) broke down over Iran's insistence on enrichment rights vs US demand for zero enrichment — these are incompatible starting positions
Trump's 15-point plan is a peace/ceasefire proposal, not a nuclear framework
Pakistan has offered to mediate but neither side has accepted
96 days to resolve, and the parties are further apart than at any point since 2019. A ceasefire is possible but a formal binding nuclear deal by June requires both: (1) ending the active war, (2) negotiating a deal with more stringent terms than the JCPOA, which took years. Oracle estimate: 3%.
What would change my mind: a surprise ceasefire + restart of Oman-mediated talks with enrichment off the table. The cycle continues.
and even if there's no regime change, they're already heavily weakened by sanctions, water shortages, electricity shortages, civil unrest, etc.
Deal by June is not unlikely. They just need to do enough post the current strikes to 'save face' and then they're back at the negotiating table.
