Resolves YES if at the end of July, to my judgment, the consensus of reporting indicates that it is more likely than not that the Iranian nuclear site of Fordow has been put out of commission, through air strikes, sabotage, etc.
Inspired by @PeterWildeford ’s blog post:
and reporting from mainstream media such as Axios:
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/14/iran-nuclear-facilities-fordow-israel-strike
Update 2025-06-14 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): A commitment or deal to put Fordow out of commission is not sufficient for a YES resolution. There must be consensus reporting that the site is actually out of commission (e.g. "Fordow has halted centrifuges and is under UN monitoring currently").
Update 2025-06-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): A distinction is made between the plant being out of commission versus being temporarily paused during negotiations.
An example of what would likely resolve YES is reporting that it is “confirmed by UN inspectors that no enrichment is currently taking place”.
An example of what would resolve NO is reporting that “Iran has said they will pause enrichment while brokering a ceasefire”.
Update 2025-06-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In response to a question about a potential deal for Iran to dismantle the facility, the creator clarified:
There would be a high bar for a YES resolution in such a scenario.
A deal to stop using or dismantle the facility is not sufficient on its own.
Resolution requires literal reporting that the facility has been decommissioned.
Update 2025-07-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has stated they cannot extend the market.
The resolution will be based strictly on the consensus of reporting at the end of July, and will not consider information that becomes available after that date.
1,000People are also trading
Primary source stating destroyed and being repaired https://thehill.com/policy/international/5414085-iran-foreign-minister-nuclear-sites-destroyed/
@Magnify If what you mean by "full confirmation" is like, video from inside of inoperable centrifuges, then no, I don't think that's what's needed for Yes.
@Panfilo solid news/intelligence reporting at a minimum, which I have yet to see beyond biased speculation. I think the vision was it would be spoken about as part of some ceasefire/peace deal, but this has not happened either
@Magnify I would direct you both to the criteria:
"Resolves YES if at the end of July, to my judgment, the consensus of reporting indicates that it is more likely than not that the Iranian nuclear site of Fordow has been put out of commission, through air strikes, sabotage, etc."
@bens id point to this
But honestly if I were in your shoes I’d extend if I were able to. Under repairs means in commission, and it’s pretty impossible to assess from available factual information
Wikipedia also says damaged but not destroyed
@Magnify I cannot extend, the resolution criteria explicitly say that I will resolve based on the consensus of reporting at the end of July, not what happens after that.
@Magnify I wouldn't trust NYT for factual reporting on anything. But, yeah, the reason is the same - narratives instead of facts.
@ICRainbow yeah so many of these sources are the exact same. My other huge issue is that “out of commission” is a really high bar. “Damaged and under repairs” is not even close to out of commission, frankly even completely destroyed and under repair isn’t out of commission. If work is being done at fordow, it’s in commission and we have satellite imagery of work being done there right now, I’d rather that be used than “reporting consensus” lol
@Magnify that’s a totally reasonable thing to want a market for, it’s just not what this market is and not what people have been betting on.
@ChadCotty What they say publicly is always whatever they want people to believe. They're an state intelligence agency... I wouldn't believe the CIA if they told me my shirt was inside out.
A 1st principles engineering analysis indicating Fordow is probably destroyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3h_vnXc3PE
@PaulHabermas But see also: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/25/iran-nuclear-program-israel-damage-intelligence
“An Israeli official with direct knowledge of intelligence on Iran told Axios that intercepted communications suggest Iranian military officials have been giving false situation reports to the country's political leadership — downplaying the extent of the damage.”
The company says several excavators and bulldozers are seen moving dirt.
It says efforts are underway to repair the main access road to the nuclear facility.
Brett McGurk yesterday on the impact of the strikes: https://x.com/brett_mcgurk/status/1938647290916544560
How much damage would that amount of overpressure cause?
Found this: https://x.com/DanLinnaeus/status/1938015187321205227 very neat analysis. I'm discounting the structural advantages of Fordow which work to limit the effect of over pressure. The linear attack pattern at Natanz leads me to believe the US had a systematic understanding of the inside of the structure and the munitions were deployed in a way that maximized local overpressure effects to disable functional capabilities. Overpressure makes this a likely yes for me.
Do we have evidence of overpressure damage?
On the equipment directly? No. Can we infer it based off the discoloration from imagery? I think absolutely yes. Overpressure causes material to shoot out from the chamber. I suspect that's what the discoloration is caused by.
How much blast damage could that munition cause?
420,000 pounds of explosives across the total strike? That's a lot, but they shot it into a mountain. I've seen imagery from one of the sites that seemed to show blast effects across a 200m diameter. I don't think this is the primary destructive effect.
Do we have evidence of blast damage?
At Fordow? Tough to tell from imagery. Lots of discoloration.
What level of damage would be caused by destroying the ventilation shafts?
I think the primary purpose for targeting ghe ventilation shafts is that it's a route to the underground structure. I think potential destruction caused by obstructing them is kind of a bonus. I honestly don't know how their destruction would impact the other parts of the structure, but they surely built them for a reason.
Did American munitions hit their targets?
Seems like a clear yes.
Is Iran's 15,000 psi resistant concrete sufficient to limit all types of damage?
Well damn GBU's weren't even tested on concrete that can withstand that kind of pressure. Though, it sure looks like the US was able to throw munitions at exactly the same spot so I'm discounting the relevance of this concrete strength. Though it works against the likelihood a bit.
How fast would Iran even want to restart operations?
This is a hard one the answer. On the one side, Iran likely wants to do whatever it can to avoid continued conflict. They had a significant amount of their missile capabilities destroyed and I don't think they are eager for continued violence. Also, the promise of loosening sanctions on oil for sale to China seems not insignificant. On the other hand, hardliners in Iran were just handed a very compelling argument for why the country should pursue a nuclear weapon as soon as possible. I think these two competing points work this factor out to a wash.
How fast could Iran restart operations?
Well as much as building under a mountain makes a facility more secure. It also takes more time. They'll have to excavate at least some portions of the facility to get access. Also, there will likely be a decent chunk of time spent inspecting the facility to make sure they understand the structural damage. This question of course incorporates all the other questions. To see them up and running by the end of next month? I don't think so.
@lokihowl I don't think they'll want to restart Fordow as they have even larger and deeper brand new site on the south.