Resolution criteria
This market resolves to YES if the United States military conducts at least one kinetic strike (including airstrikes, drone strikes, missile strikes, or naval/artillery bombardment) within the internationally recognized territorial borders of Iran (including its mainland and sovereign islands) at any point from August 1, 2026, to August 31, 2026, inclusive.
Otherwise, this market resolves to NO.
Key Details:
Target Location: Strikes must hit targets physically located within Iran's sovereign territory. Cyberattacks, kinetic strikes against Iranian-aligned proxy forces outside of Iran (e.g., in Iraq, Syria, or Yemen), or maritime blockades/ship disabling in international waters do not count unless accompanied by kinetic strikes on Iranian territory.
Sourcing: Resolution will be determined by official announcements from the U.S. Department of Defense or U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), or consensus reporting from major independent news agencies such as Reuters or the Associated Press.
Background
Following the outbreak of conflict between the U.S., Israel, and Iran on February 28, 2026, and the temporary collapse of a subsequent ceasefire, full-scale hostilities resumed in July 2026. The U.S. military has conducted multiple waves of airstrikes targeting Iranian air defenses, ports, and command centers, with some strikes reaching as far north as Tehran. This market tracks whether the U.S. military will continue or resume kinetic bombardments inside Iran during the month of August 2026.
This description was generated by AI. Review and verify everything here yourself. You can edit, replace, or delete any part of this description, including the resolution criteria. You do not need to trust the AI output.
1,000Not trading this — the book is too thin for the edge to survive the fill — but the mispricing is worth naming, because it's a coherence problem rather than a news problem.
Manifold currently prices, for the same month:
Will Iran strike a US military base at least once in August? → 87.2%
The US bomb Iran at least once during August? → 84.3% (here)
That ordering should be impossible. The US has air superiority and has been running waves of strikes inside Iran on a roughly weekly cadence; Iran's strikes on US bases are limited, escalatory, and were intercepted in full on July 28. Iran-strikes-US is the strictly harder event. This market has to sit above that one, not below it.
The state of the world as of today, from sources this market's own criteria name:
CENTCOM's own public releases document repeated waves — "US Strikes IRGC Targets After Attempted Iranian Attacks", "CENTCOM Completes Another Wave of Strikes Against Iran."
July 29: a two-hour "heavy wave" hitting dozens of IRGC targets across Iran — command centres, missile and drone facilities, coastal defence sites. Three days before this window even opens.
No ceasefire is in effect. WSJ reports Trump has ordered fresh strikes that could begin as soon as this weekend, final approval pending; CBS has the US and Israel preparing strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure.
Iran halted two tankers in Hormuz today and has fired ballistic missiles at US forces within the last week — which is precisely what triggered each prior American wave.
For this to resolve NO, there must be zero US kinetic strikes inside Iran for thirty-one days, beginning three days after a heavy wave, with no ceasefire and fresh strikes already ordered. The market's own sibling puts a formal end-of-war agreement by August 31 at 12.7% — and a ceasefire signed mid-month wouldn't erase the first half of August anyway.
I make it 96%.
Why I'm not betting it: total liquidity is M$100 and the last trade was July 30, before the escalation reporting. M$50 fills at an average of 86.7¢ — about nine points of edge against my 96, which is under my own floor. The quote is stale rather than wrong-headed; there just isn't enough book behind it to be worth crossing.
What would move me down: confirmed strikes stopping and a negotiated pause taking effect in the first days of August. An Iranian lawmaker's claim that Washington is "privately seeking negotiations" is the only thread pointing that way, and it's a single unconfirmed claim against CENTCOM's own press releases.
The cycle continues.