Resolves YES if the US invades Iran with ground troops this year.
Update 2026-03-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified how specific edge cases will resolve:
Pilot accidentally lands in Iran (e.g., bails out and is captured): Does not count — not considered "deployed on land"
Rescue team sent to secure area and extract pilot: Counts — team is intentionally deployed to ground positions
US advisors embedded with Kurdish forces making cross-border incursion: Counts — (depending on whether) the advisors are soldiers. Mercenaries would be considered soldiers, for example, but ambassadors would not be.
Non-active-duty Americans (mercenaries/volunteers) in same scenario: Counts — mercenaries/volunteers still qualify as soldiers
Key definitions used:
Ground troops: soldiers deployed on land rather than in the air or at sea
Invade: (of an armed force) enter a country or region so as to subjugate or occupy it
Update 2026-03-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If it is uncertain whether the facts of a scenario meet the resolution criteria (e.g., unclear whether individuals involved are soldiers), resolution will be based on the creator's subjective assessment of the balance of probabilities between YES and NO.
Update 2026-03-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Mercenaries and volunteers only count if they are acting under orders from an official part of the US government. A US citizen independently volunteering to join a rebel force with no government orders or approval would not count.
Update 2026-03-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market requires official US government orders for ground troops to enter Iran. A US citizen voluntarily joining a foreign rebel or military force without US government orders or approval does not count as "the US putting boots on the ground."
Update 2026-03-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Credible reporting required: If special operators are confirmed to be conducting ground operations in Iran, this would resolve YES, but only based on credible reporting — the creator will not assume this is happening without such a report.
Update 2026-03-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market will resolve YES even if Trump did not have congressional authorization for the invasion. Lack of congressional approval does not disqualify an action from counting as a "US Invasion."
Update 2026-04-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For a search and rescue (SAR) operation to count toward YES resolution:
Rescuers must physically exit the helicopter and set foot on Iranian ground
A rescue conducted solely by lowering a rope (without ground contact by rescuers) does not count
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ6,240 | |
| 2 | Ṁ3,642 | |
| 3 | Ṁ3,535 | |
| 4 | Ṁ2,241 | |
| 5 | Ṁ2,079 |
People are also trading
I keep getting screwed over by these technicalities. "Boots on the ground" like mate, there were "boots on the ground" for years (CIA, Mossad.) We all know what "BOOTS ON THE GROUND" actually means: infantry. There is no infantry in Iran right now.
@AlexanderKlos But there actually was infantry and quite a lot of it. Things are rarely clear cut and you have to draw the line somewhere and I think the creator provided one of the more defensible/easy to evaluate lines (though other similar markets chosen other lines). Also for broader context, this was an escalation, and it definitely put US at a high risk of being dragged into a larger operation if something went wrong, so I don't think this is too far from "spirit" of the question.
@AIBear The army went into Iran and started shooting? I don't think so.
"Rescuers must physically exit the helicopter and set foot on Iranian ground" - so literally anyone just set foot on the ground, not in the aim of any kind of military operation based on ground forces.
@Emanuele1000 Found a variant of this out the hard way (selling some at 79). It makes sense but it is weird
@BoltonBailey @mods video describes the forward air base inside of Iran. Pictures of the forward airbase after it was used for 1-2 days and then abandoned. FARP. Rescued Airman taken back by little bird choppers back the base. 100+ Us military personal inside iran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4K8381dCBc
https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/2040767344511721974?s=20
The right area is the makeshift landing strip where they landed 2 C-130s and had 4 MH-6 Little Birds. "One Little Bird flew to that mountain top area and rescued the WSO and brought him back to the landing strip. And of course the two C-130s' nose gears got stuck in the dirt. So after a few hours they had to bring in three AFSOC Dash-8s to fly out the rescued WSO and the 100 or so personnel involved in the op." 1/2
I have read the latest news items and have seen nothing which would point toward a resolution of this market as 'yes'. So I have placed an order for 'no' at 99%.
edit: actually, I read the most recent clarifications about this market which I hadn't caught up on yet and I think a 'yes' resolution is implied by them. But they're silly, so I'll keep my 'no' orders up just in case in this market justice prevails!
@mods @BoltonBailey The US flew in, built a secret US base, landed 2 C130s ran 35 miles to a distant mountain, rescued a severely injured pilot from the mountain travelling 35 miles back by foot across open plain, while engaged in massive night time fire fight. Tried to take off in 2 c130s that got stuck in airport. Kept battling until more troops came and took them away, then blew up the C130s in air.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/missing-u-s-crew-member-from-downed-fighter-jet-rescued-in-iran-sources-say/ seems to source this enough for the market:
> Two transport planes tasked with flying out rescue crews were unable to take off from a remote base in Iran. Those planes were demolished to keep them from being captured by the enemy, the officials said, and the commandos flew out on three extra aircraft that were sent in to fetch them.
Implies American transport planes on the ground to be unable to take off, American commandos on the ground to fetch with the extra aircraft.
@brianwang I don't think anyone went 35 miles on foot - the C130s were carrying some short range helos that got used.
Nonetheless, clearly some personnel from the rescue mission must have disembarked to the ground at some point, if only to unload the helicopters from the C130 planes...
@brianwang Ngl if I was an Iranian leader I'd be pretty demoralized learning that the Americans set up an entire temporary base with an airstrip in our country, sacrificed two 100 million dollar planes, and involved likely several hundred soldiers. All to save one man.
Though, it does continues the trend of weapons costing millions or tens of millions being used to counter some $250k thing the Iranians built
@mods sorry to ping you. I know it's too early, but the creator is inactive for a week and there is clear evidence in the comments. Around 330K mana is tied up in this market, so please resolve it.
@MachiNi yeah, technically they made a comment or two yesterday, but for the size of this market, they are effectively inactive.
@100Anonymous creators have some leeway on resolve time and instant resolutions shouldn't always be expected. looks to me like Bolton got to it promptly enough
In Iran, US Special forces had to establish a makeshift airstrip to carry out the evacuation of American Special Operations forces and the recovered pilot, two C-130 transport aircraft that had landed became stuck in the sand. As a result, U.S. forces destroyed the aircraft themselves. Three additional aircraft were deployed to extract the special forces personnel remaining in Iran, and the evacuation was successfully completed.
Lots of ground operation. Had to replace two planes. https://x.com/marionawfal/status/2040650379419959760?s=46