Resolution criteria
This market will resolve to "Yes" if, by 11:59 PM UTC on July 31, 2025, there is credible reporting from reputable news organizations confirming that Iran has conducted a direct military attack on U.S. military bases located in the Middle East. The attack must be initiated by Iranian state forces and result in physical damage or casualties. Indirect actions, such as those carried out by proxy groups, will not count towards resolution. Verification will be based on reports from established news outlets like Reuters, BBC, or The New York Times.
Background
Iran has previously threatened U.S. military installations in the Middle East. In April 2024, Iranian leaders warned that U.S. bases would be targeted if the U.S. participated in Israeli strikes against Iran. (defencesecurityasia.com) Additionally, in July 2024, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq resumed attacks on U.S. forces, indicating a pattern of hostility towards U.S. military presence in the region. (iswresearch.org)
Considerations
While Iran has a history of threatening U.S. bases, actual direct attacks by Iranian state forces are less common, with proxy groups often being used to carry out such actions. Traders should consider the distinction between direct state actions and proxy activities when making predictions.
Resolution criteria
This market will resolve to "Yes" if, by 11:59 PM UTC on July 31, 2025, reputable news organizations report that Iran has conducted a direct military attack on U.S. military bases located in the Middle East. The attack must be initiated by Iranian state forces and result in physical damage or casualties. Indirect actions, such as those carried out by proxy groups, will not count towards resolution. Verification will be based on reports from established news outlets like Reuters, BBC, or The New York Times.
Background
Iran has previously threatened U.S. military installations in the Middle East. In April 2024, Iranian leaders warned that U.S. bases would be targeted if the U.S. participated in Israeli strikes against Iran. (defencesecurityasia.com) Additionally, in October 2024, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq threatened to target U.S. bases if the U.S. joined any response against Iran. (arabnews.com)
Considerations
While Iran has a history of threatening U.S. bases, actual direct attacks by Iranian state forces are less common, with proxy groups often being used to carry out such actions. Traders should consider the distinction between direct state actions and proxy activities when making predictions.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ15,000 | |
| 2 | Ṁ893 | |
| 3 | Ṁ729 | |
| 4 | Ṁ547 | |
| 5 | Ṁ543 |
People are also trading
“Qatar confirmed Monday evening that one Iranian missile struck the US’ Al Udeid Air Base on Qatari territory without causing casualties or damage”
“The second wave consisted of 11 missiles, with only one hitting the base without casualties or material losses;”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/23/world/iran-israel-ceasefire-trump
"A U.S. military spokesman said that the remaining missile had been allowed to land harmlessly."
https://news.sky.com/story/iran-trump-us-strikes-israel-tehran-netanyahu-nuclear-fordow-latest-13382979?postid=9784786#liveblog-body
"But little more than an hour later, he finally addressed the Iranian attack on a US base, which Washington said caused no damage."
The definition of damage requires "loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation". But this question isn't even about just damage, it's "physical damage" in the criteria.
I'm still annoyed about this. It's ridiculous. Like if I had a market on whether there would be "physical damage or casualties" to a naval port, and it resolves YES after all the missiles are shot down but one which lands harmlessly on a rock in the sea - but OH hang on, actually that rock is technically inside the area of the port and is a protected area, so, sorry, but actually it did cause 'physical damage', to a rock in the sea, which was in the area of the port when marked on a map. It's absolutely absurd.
Here's another example, Iran fires missiles at the houses of parliament, a market is created that says "will there be physical damage or casualties in London due to Iranian strikes". All of the missiles are shot down except one, which is allowed to land in the Thames. The market resolves yes because actually, it made a crater in the riverbed - which has absolutely no impact on anything whatsoever. Maybe a fish died, is that a casualty, too? Should the market resolve yes for that as well?
To give some more context, as far as I am aware, this is essentially the boundary of the Al Udeid air base. It's absolutely massive. This market has resolved YES on an dubious report that a missile damaged something in this area, we don't even know if it's in this boundary or not.
But taking an entirely literal viewpoint, any of the many huge areas of open desert that are technically "within" the base's boundaries could be the place the one missile, which was allowed to strike, impacted. Until we have more information, it's not possible to say that there was "physical damage", unless you truly believe that damage to some sand dunes is "physical damage".
@LukeShadwell I'm going to leave it here, I hope that the mods take a look at this and we can wait for more information/ come to reasonable agreement on what actually qualifies under these criteria. I very much appreciate the attitudes of everyone else who has commented here, whichever way they bid, putting proper resolution first, thanks.
This is an entirely premature resolution, in response to @OP's comment, Trump's quote says "hardly any damage was done", it does not say that the damage he is referring to relates to the US military base.
You're posing this as though it discredits the Qatari source saying 'a building outside the base was hit', which is disingenuous as 'hardly any damage was done' is exactly what you would expect Trump to say if an unrelated building was damaged - it would be insensitive to say otherwise.
This question was set to resolve at the end of July, I don't see any reason why it needed to be resolved now, immediately, when we have at best speculative information and at worst extremely vague statements being presented as specific.
I already said below that one of the missiles was not intercepted, and quoted the Qatari source. Even the source below says it was not intercepted because it was not going to hit it's target. I believe strongly this is a mis-resolution by the criteria of the market.
It's also not "anonymous axios source". The Qatari defence ministry themselves say that none of the missiles struck the base. Per NYT:
Even Wikipedia is summarising this as the remaining missile being allowed to crash because it was "off target" - difficult to see how that would mean it caused damage to the base.
I feel like the OP of this question has resolved due to pressure from those who voted YES on a knee jerk reaction, but didn't actually check the evidence before doing so, pressuring them into resolving it as such. @mods @IanPhilips
@LukeShadwell agreed it wouldn’t have hurt to wait longer, until we find out what this ‘damaged building’ actually is, or another attack occurs. But it’s unclear if that was even the OP’s consideration.
The description by the OP just says ‘damage’, not ‘to the base’. The title added by @IanPhilips additionally specifies that the damage must be to the base itself. But is the OP bound to resolve it according to IanPhilips’ title, instead of his own description?
The crux of the question seemed to be more about whether Iran would attack a US military base, rather than the success or not of that attack. The requirement for ‘physical damage’ seems to me to be a way of warding off a cyber attack or economic attack. That would support a broader reading of ‘damage’.
@OP I agree that it’s certainly possible the original intent from the creator was for any attack at all - but the criteria clearly say physical damage or casualties, something that only makes sense to have as resolution criteria if, in my view, the market is about a successful attack, not just any attempt.
There’s sort of precedent for this in terms of a market discussing whether missiles would strike tel aviv, for example (which has now happened). Where before the recent strikes many missiles hit areas of tel aviv & the surrounding areas that their defence system deemed to not be a threat - they were intentionally not shot down. It seems disingenuous to me to resolve a market which is based on physical damage being done to a target as YES if that damage wasn’t seen as having any impact whatsoever by the targeted entity and was allowed to pass - even if it hit, for example, a patch of grass within the base bounds.
I would agree with a YES here if it turns out that Qatar, for example, just didn’t have the capacity to shoot down that missile and tried to save face by saying it wasn’t going to hit its target, or that the missile hit a military building within the base which is necessary for the operation of the base.
@OP yeah I think it's fine to let the creator's resolution stand. I interpreted their description and edited the title but looks like they went with any damage at all.
@ian its not confirmed that the damage was to the base, the last i checked. but i get it. in fact, there is basically no information whatsoever on where this single missile hit, and what if any damage it caused
@LukeShadwell
the creator has another unresolved question that’s almost identical, except it specifies damage to base infrastructure as a criteria. The approach taken seems to be consistent with this question just being ‘damage’ and the other being ‘damage to the base’.
https://manifold.markets/adhamsoliman/iran-bombs-us-military-bases-in-mid?r=T1A
@ian I accept that you've made a decision on it, and will accept that, but I would like to register my disagreement and say here that I completely disagree with the market creator that the criteria were met. There is absolutely zero definitive evidence that an Iranian missile struck a U.S. military base, there is even further no evidence whatsoever that an Iranian missile caused any notable damage whatsoever to any structure owned by any country or person.
This was a long term market, and the resolution depended on evidence of something happening, not evidence that it did not happen. All I had asked for is that the market be reopened until there is actually evidence to prove that. If, at the time the market was scheduled to resolve, there was still no evidence, that is when this discussion should have happened. It should never have been resolved this early with no definitive evidence.
I would expect that in the coming days, satellite imagery of the base will be made public & more in depth analysis released. If it does come out that there was no damage to any structure, in the base or outside of it, then this resolution has been made entirely incorrectly. The fact that's a possibility is what I have a problem with, when there was no urgency to resolve the market in the first place.
I also want to say that while the title was changed to say "and damages", it doesn't change the meaning of the resolution criteria. They have always said "result in physical damage or casualties".
I also want to refer to the definition of 'damage' in all of the main English Dictionaries:
Merriam Webster
"loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation"
Cambridge
"to harm or spoil something:
be badly damaged Many buildings were badly damaged during the war.
It was a scandal that damaged a lot of reputations."
Collins
"To damage an object means to break it, spoil it physically, or stop it from working properly."
Reuters reporting Trump saying the base was damaged.
"I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed and hardly any damage was done," Trump wrote. "Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their 'system,' and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE," Trump wrote.
“Hardly any damage” means “at least some damage”.
POTUS and Qatar > anonymous Axios source.
BBC reporting Qatari and US officials saying that not all missiles were intercepted.
Iran launched missiles at al-Udeid air base on Monday evening. Both Qatari and US officials said nearly all were intercepted and there were no casualties or injuries.
Qatar said one of the missiles hit the base
@adhamsoliman Should be confirmed based of this. Qatar confirming direct hit of one of the missiles on the base is sufficient to resolve to Yes.
@willMay 4am my time, gonna go to sleep. Seems like you've got much more on the line so you'd better get crackin ;)
@willMay yeah this is unclear, saw it posted on the other market. havent seen the direct quote from qatar but i know the Axios article said it hit a building outside the base
@LukeShadwell The White House said: " There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was “set free,” because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. "
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1937242266772340778
@JPD yeah I mean this is another supporting quote. Once again says that it didn’t do any damage… as I said in my older messages. We already knew about the one missile which wasn’t intercepted. If it didn’t hit anything important then it hasn’t damaged the base
@LukeShadwell yeah, I totally agree - and also agree with your thoughts regarding a premature resolution.
(I didn’t mean to tag the comment at you directly, I think the interface auto inserted a tag when I hit reply to the thread, and I forgot to remove it)
@ian I disagree with this phrasing as I explained here: https://manifold.markets/adhamsoliman/iran-attacks-us-military-bases-in-m#e7xh2p54iol