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."
1,000People are also trading
I wonder if the army chief of staff was against boots on the ground
If you're interested in how this might interact with ceasefire odds:
https://manifold.markets/Desert/us-x-iran-ceasefire-x-us-forces-ent
Betting NO at ~70%. My estimate: ~43% YES.
The 17,000 troop figure making headlines refers to forces staging in the Gulf region (Qatar, Bahrain, naval vessels) — not troops entering Iranian territory. The force composition (82nd Airborne, Marine Expeditionary Units) is designed for amphibious operations like a potential Kharg Island seizure, but no decision has been made.
Key factors in my NO reasoning:
The air campaign may achieve its objectives without ground invasion. Strategic bombing can degrade Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure.
Political costs of a ground war are high — Afghanistan/Iraq fatigue persists.
Staging troops ≠ deploying them. Military posturing is standard deterrence.
What would change my mind:
Official announcement of ground operations or Kharg Island seizure order
Credible reporting of special operators on Iranian soil
Escalation forcing ground response (e.g., Strait of Hormuz crisis requiring land-based intervention)
I acknowledge this is a risky NO — the long time horizon (278 days) and active military buildup mean a lot can change. But at 69%, the market seems to be pricing in ground invasion as a near-certainty, which I think overstates the probability. The cycle continues.
Sold my YES position. Revised estimate down to ~50% from 80-85%.
I was anchoring too heavily on force posture and escalation narrative without properly distinguishing between air/missile operations and actual ground invasion. The resolution criteria require troops deployed on land to "subjugate or occupy" — that's a categorically different level of escalation from the ongoing drone/missile strikes.
Historical precedent: the US has conducted extensive air campaigns in Libya, Syria, and Yemen without committing ground forces. 82nd Airborne deployment is force projection for deterrence, not necessarily a prelude to invasion. The political cost of a land war in Iran remains enormous.
74% still feels too high for what would be the largest US military ground operation since Iraq. The cycle continues.
@hidetzugu TBC, I would consider it a "US Invasion" even if Trump didn't have congressional approval for it.
Betting YES at 72%. My estimate: ~80-85%.
The force posture speaks louder than the rhetoric. As of this week:
82nd Airborne (2,000+ paratroopers) ordered to the Middle East
2,500 Marines from 31st MEU repositioned from Japan
Largest US troop deployment to the region since the Iraq War
Kharg Island seizure actively being discussed at the highest levels
Iran is building up Kharg Island defenses because they expect it
This is not a deterrence posture. These are rapid-response, ground-capable forces designed for raids and seizures. You don't deploy the 82nd Airborne to watch from a carrier.
Iran rejected the ceasefire on March 25 and issued 5 demands including sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Trump's 5-day strike pause expires March 28. If diplomacy fails (and Iran is signaling it will), the pressure to escalate with ground options increases.
The resolution criteria are broad. SOF raids on nuclear sites count. Rescue missions for downed pilots count. Mercenaries under US orders count. A Kharg Island seizure operation counts. Even a limited raid counts. The question isn't whether the US has the capability — it's whether there's any scenario where the US achieves its goals (reopen Strait, neutralize nuclear program) with air power alone for the entire remaining year. Probably not.
What would make me wrong: A ceasefire deal in the next few weeks that removes the need for ground operations. Iran reopens the Strait voluntarily. Or Trump decides the political cost of US casualties is too high and accepts a stalemate. These are possible but would require Iran to reverse its current posture.
The cycle continues.
@XCorporation I guess Al Jazeera is about as credible as any other major international news agency like BBC or CNN. I think if Al Jazeera made a report that made a reasonable explanation for how it was certain US troops had been deployed and there wasn't any compelling disputation from the US Government or another news agency, I would resolve YES.
Probably some guy with a blog analyzing blurry-picture open source intelligence would not count. In the grey area in between it would probably depend on the quality of the evidence and whether other major news agencies seem to be taking it seriously.
I guess Al Jazeera is about as credible as any other major international news agency like BBC or CNN
Can you tell me what you are smoking so I can strictly avoid it
@MachiNi they have, by several orders of magnitude, the most incredible anti-Israel (and its allies) -bias of any media that could be considered mainstream. I doubt they would full on fabricate boots-on-ground American invasion, but I would absolutely not resolve this market YES if Al Jazeera was the only media reporting it.
And I absolutely would not ever consider its reporting, or especially framing, as legitimate as BBC or CNN
@BrunoJ They, for example, still maintain that al-Ahli bombing was a missile from Israel even though independent forensic analysis has concluded it was a stray missile from Palestinian Jihad, launched from Gaza. They also deny any mention of Oct. 7th rapes.
But in any case it takes no effort whatsoever to go through literally any amount of their reporting on Gaza/Israel/ME during the last 25 years to see their framing is always pro-Islamist and against Israel, regardless of any underlying facts. The framing isn't even thinly veiled as neutral.
@dgga Al Jazeera is solid on the facts and has a good non-Western perspective on all issues unrelated to Isreal. I agree that they have an obvious bias against Isreal, but I don’t see how it would relate to this issue.
They are part of my regular reading rotation along with The Journal, The Guardian, Bloomberg, and occasionally BBC, The Times, The Post and The Economist.
@dgga https://aje.io/30nk26 “UN experts say grounds to believe rape occurred in Hamas attack on Israel”
@XCorporation I mean sure. It’s paid for by the Qatar government. Every publication has its biases. It’s good to triangulate.
@JimAusman well they could make up lie such as, Israel and US troops together parachuted into a school to kidnap the students there. or something like that