This market will resolve to “Yes” if, by December 31, 2026 at 11:59 PM Pacific Time (PT), the Islamic Republic of Iran is no longer the governing regime of Iran.
This includes scenarios in which the regime is overthrown, collapses, or otherwise ceases to govern, and a fundamentally different system replaces it. Qualifying scenarios may include:
Revolution
Civil war
Military coup
Voluntary abdication of power
Establishment of a new constitutional order, provisional government, or revolutionary authority
To qualify, there must be a broad consensus among credible international media (e.g. Reuters, AP, BBC, NYT) that the core institutions of the Islamic Republic—such as the Supreme Leader, Guardian Council, or IRGC under clerical control—have been dissolved, incapacitated, or replaced, and that the regime has lost sovereign authority over the majority of the population within Iran.
1,000People are also trading
“A government spokesperson reportedly told Iranian media that the international internet would be shut off until at least Nowruz, the Persian new year, on 20 March.“
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckglee733wno
In a speech on Saturday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said thousands had been killed, "some in an inhuman, savage manner", and blamed the US for the deaths. [...] "Those linked to Israel and the US caused massive damage and killed several thousand," Khamenei said, quoted by Iranian state media. "We consider the US president criminal for the casualties, damages and slander he inflicted on the Iranian nation."
This is the least convincing blame deflection for quite some time, if Trump had actually done it he would be boasting
@skibidist dude I fucking hope, I understand all the regional forces want stability but if the regime doesn't fall you don't really get stability either unless all you care about is oil through the shadow fleet 😂
I pray for the Iranian ppl
@uair01 Q: isn't it the case that they cannot bomb well without a carrier in the area which will take a week to arrive? So any statements made until then are meaningless?
@skibidist I'm not sure what "bombing well" means, but that didn't stop Trump from bombing Iran's nuclear facilities last year.
@TimothyJohnson5c16 I'm thinking regime changing bombing will need to be more extensive than attacking point targets which was done using long range bombers. Experts on X say it's much riskier without a carrier nearby.
Will this resolvs NO if Khamenei is gone but at the end of 2026 the incumbent system is still recognized as Islamic Republic?
@PoliticalEconomyPK To qualify, there must be a broad consensus among credible international media (e.g. Reuters, AP, BBC, NYT) that the core institutions of the Islamic Republic—such as the Supreme Leader, Guardian Council, or IRGC under clerical control—have been dissolved, incapacitated, or replaced, and that the regime has lost sovereign authority over the majority of the population within Iran.
To me, this seems unlikely, so I really don't understand the Polymarket price at all, although I am hopeful I am wrong and such a change could happen relatively bloodlessly. Here are my reasons:
A true war with an occupation is the most surefire way for this to happen, however Iran is a country of 90 million people, double the population of Ukraine for comparison, and almost 3 times the size geographically. It would take literally millions of soldiers from the US to guarantee success. However, it seems extremely implausible that this would actually come to pass given that Iran hasn't attacked us, and the only country that would seriously help us, Israel, is far too small to do this on their own, and is probably wanting to resume killing Palestinians soon anyways.
A large-scale bombing campaign could kill a lot of top-level officials, but could also end the protests if done indiscriminately. It probably could not truly dislodge the regime, which has bone-deep support among maybe 15-20% of the population, unless you have a very loose sense of what the word "regime" means. I don't think Trump or Netanyahu really care about protestor or Iranian lives in any genuine sense, and that pretext for a war would fade rapidly in any bombing campaign that caused casualties higher than the protests already have. Historically speaking, large-scale bombing campaigns have almost never worked as a method for regime change (unless you start using nukes, which would hopefully never happen). Gaza is far, far smaller and much easier to bomb and it didn't really work there, so I don't know what people think is going to happen with Iran. See also: Cambodia, Vietnam, pre-nuke Imperial Japan.
The most plausible way this could come about is that there is some wide-scale rebellion that grows out of the protests, maybe emboldened by well-targeted attacks on particularly odious individuals in the Iranian regime. But I just don't think this is all that likely for a regime that is extreme enough to kill its own citizens, and has put down many similar protests in the past. I also think that Trump and Netanyahu are inherently psychopaths who simply lack the nuanced understanding the situation manage threading the needle on this. Even in the scenario where this did happen, I think it would take far more than a year and would end up looking a lot like the Syrian Civil War, which was objectively terrible for the Syrians.
Separately, I think Western ambitions are motivated by the complete and total fantasy that a democratic Persian state would be much less antagonistic towards the US and Israel. Just because a lot of people hate the regime doesn't really mean that they support the regime's enemies.
Would love to appreciate why YES holders think this analysis is incorrect. What sequence of events do they think that would actually arrive at a regime-change outcome?
@Balasar I guess one counterargument is that you could've written a very similar analysis on Venezuela just a few weeks ago
What sequence of events do they think that would actually arrive at a regime-change outcome?
1) Trump applies maximum pressure like never before
2) The whole house of cards comes crashing down fast and beautiful
@Balasar The regime effectively changed to an American-led government. Maybe in legal terms it is the same government, but can you really say it's a sovereign country right now?
@spiderduckpig It's the same government that is now acting under duress, which is not the same as being American-led. If the giant armada we've assembled just off its coast went away, I assume it would revert pretty quickly. Regime change implies some permanency.
@Balasar The entire country is permanently in America's backyard and covered by the strategic depth of its military. Poor Venezuela, so far from God and so close to the United States
@Balasar good analysis apart from the last bit. A democratic Persian Republic would be likely to focus relatively more (than currently) on internal growth, institution building, improving the lives of its citizens, etc., and less on orchestrating + supplying external networks of terrorism against Israel, the US, and the West generally.
It’s not that they would cease to view Israel/US as an enemy, it’s just that they wouldn’t expend as much effort and resources trying to cause any damage or inconvenience they possibly can.