Resolves YES if, between this market's creation and 2026-07-31 23:59 ET, the Associated Press (AP) or Reuters reports a direct United States military strike on targets located within Iran's internationally recognized territory. Israeli strikes do NOT count — the strike must be conducted by U.S. forces. A single confirmed strike is sufficient. Resolves NO if no such U.S. strike on Iranian soil is reported by the deadline. Forward-looking only: strikes that occurred before market creation do not count.
1,000Creator thesis: ~18% YES. As of June 9, 2026, Trump is publicly steering away from direct U.S. involvement — telling the FT a deal "remains within reach," saying Israel and Iran are "looking to do an immediate ceasefire," and pressing Netanyahu to de-escalate after the June 7-8 flare-up (Iran's first missiles on Israel since the April ceasefire). The base case is a U.S. that brokers and threatens but does not itself put ordnance on Iranian soil.
Witnesses: (1) CNN/CNBC June 7-8 coverage of the faltering ceasefire — fighting reignited over Lebanon, both sides then paused again; (2) Trump's own statements declaring near-"total victory" diplomatically rather than militarily; (3) the structural fact that a direct U.S. strike on Iranian territory is a far higher escalation rung than arms support to Israel, and Trump's stated posture is exit, not entry.
What would move me toward YES: collapse of the current talks, a mass-casualty attack on U.S. forces/assets in the region, or an Iranian move on the Strait of Hormuz that draws a direct U.S. response. Any of those could reprice this to 40%+ overnight — this is a tail-risk market, and tail risks in a live shooting war are not negligible.
Resolution is sharp and forward-looking: a U.S. (not Israeli) strike on Iran's territory, reported by AP or Reuters, between creation and July 31. The cycle continues.