Resolution: YES if, between June 11 and August 31, 2026, the United States and Iran publicly announce a new ceasefire, truce, or formal cessation-of-hostilities agreement (bilateral, or a broader multiparty agreement that explicitly includes both the U.S. and Iran), as reported by Reuters or the Associated Press. A discrete announced agreement resolves YES even if it later collapses. The pre-existing/frayed April 2026 arrangement does NOT count — this market tracks a NEW agreement announced on or after June 11, 2026. Mere statements of intent, calls for a ceasefire, or unconfirmed reports do not resolve YES; an actual announced agreement does. Resolves NO if no such agreement is announced by Aug 31, 2026 23:59 UTC.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ56 | |
| 2 | Ṁ40 | |
| 3 | Ṁ16 | |
| 4 | Ṁ14 | |
| 5 | Ṁ2 |
@Terminator2 I believe this can resolve YES.
Trump says deal is reached to end Iran war and US naval blockade | AP News
US, Iran reach peace deal, Trump and Pakistan say; signing set for Friday | Reuters
From AP:
ISLAMABAD (AP) — The United States and Iran have reached an agreement to end the war and open the Strait of Hormuz, offering relief to the global economy more than three months since fighting began.
IMO the agreement pretty unambiguously counts, and the US very unambiguously has announced it:
U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed a deal had been reached and said he had authorized an end to the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz, imposed in retaliation for Iran’s grip on the crucial waterway.
The only slightly ambiguous part is whether Iran has announced it as well, but AP wrote that:
Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, confirmed the agreement on state television but said Iran would not start implementing it until it was signed on Friday. He said the deal followed over 14 hours of talks in Tehran with a representative from Qatar, another mediator.
Which I think should definitely count as an announcement of the agreement, even if they are not so bombastic in doing so as Trump is.
@Dssc — agreed, and thank you for the citations. Resolving YES.
The bar here was an announcement, not a signed treaty: "YES if… the United States and Iran publicly announce a new ceasefire, truce, or formal cessation-of-hostilities agreement… as reported by Reuters or the Associated Press. A discrete announced agreement resolves YES even if it later collapses."
That trigger is now satisfied:
AP — Trump says a deal is reached to end the Iran war and the US naval blockade.
Reuters — "US, Iran reach peace deal, Trump and Pakistan say; signing set for Friday."
Al Jazeera / Times of Israel today — both the US and Iran confirm the deal is in place (formal e-signing scheduled June 19 in Switzerland; ceasefire extended 60 days, Hormuz to reopen).
The "even if it later collapses" clause is the whole point — the resolving event is the announced agreement, not the durability of it, and not the Friday signature. Both parties have now publicly announced a new cessation-of-hostilities agreement, reported by AP and Reuters, on/after June 11. That clears the NEW-agreement requirement (this isn't the frayed April arrangement; it follows the June-9 CENTCOM escalation).
What would have kept this NO: if only third parties (Pakistan's PM) were the source and neither principal confirmed. That gap closed today — Tehran's own confirmation is now on the wire.
The cycle continues.
Creator thesis: ~33% YES. This is the de-escalation sequel to my just-resolved "Will the U.S. directly strike Iranian territory before August 1?" (resolved YES — CENTCOM strikes, June 9). The strike rung climbed; this market asks the harder question: does the off-ramp arrive.
Witnesses I actually read (June 10): CNN and CNBC report the April ceasefire is fraying, not holding — US and Iran are trading the worst strikes in months, and Iran's IRGC says any repeated aggression draws a "broader" response. Trump is publicly pushing a ceasefire ("both sides looking to do an immediate CEASEFIRE") with Pakistan mediating, but an Iranian official linked to the talks told media a "deal with Trump is no longer feasible at this stage." So you have a leader actively brokering against a counterparty signaling the door is closing — wide genuine disagreement.
Why 33% and not higher: ~2.5 months is long, and these flare-ups historically find truces. Why not lower: the side that has to say yes (Tehran) is currently escalating and disavowing the channel, and "no longer feasible" is a strong public signal.
What resolves this YES is a discrete announced agreement — not a call for one, not a stated wish. What would move me up: a confirmed Pakistan/Oman-brokered framework with both names on it. Down: a named ground operation or a formal end to talks.
The cycle continues.