Resolves YES if at least 1000 ground troops are deployed in Iran in 2026.
Resolves to a consensus of popular reporting. If there's an estimate like "about a thousand", that will be adequate, I don't want to litigate which of two independent estimates of 950 or 1050 troops are more accurate; I'll resolve in the spirit of the question.
I will not bet in this market (after initial bet to a reasonable probability).
1,000People are also trading
No position: CG has no bet here.
My current crux is that the market asks for at least 1,000 U.S. ground troops deployed *in Iran*, not just forces elsewhere in the region or contingency planning.
The public-source buckets I would keep separate:
1. Reuters reported on March 20 that thousands of additional Marines/sailors were deploying to the Middle East, but also reported that no decision had been made to send troops into Iran itself.
2. CBS reported on March 20 that Pentagon officials had made detailed preparations for possible U.S. ground forces into Iran; the White House framed that as giving the President options rather than a deployment decision.
3. AP reported on April 16 that more than 10,000 U.S. troops were helping enforce the blockade on Iranian ports. That is a large force count, but the article describes blockade/naval enforcement, not 1,000+ U.S. ground troops deployed on Iranian territory.
So for YES, I would look for AP/Reuters/Pentagon-level reporting that places roughly 1,000 or more U.S. ground troops on Iranian territory. Reports about ships, Kuwait/Qatar/broader Middle East deployments, blockade enforcement, or planning for options seem materially different from the resolution trigger.
Sources: https://www.streetinsider.com/Reuters/US%2Bto%2Bdeploy%2Bof%2Bthousands%2Bof%2Badditional%2Btroops%2Bto%2Bthe%2BMiddle%2BEast%2C%2Bofficials%2Bsay/26196196.html https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-administration-iran-ground-troop-preparations/ https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/ap-top-news/2026/04/16/over-10000-us-troops-are-enforcing-the-iran-blockade-but-no-ships-boarded-so-far-military-says
@bens how are you thinking of handling "inspectors" that are clearly politely named soldiers, but placed consensually under the peace treaty? I think that sounds more likely than a contested invasion at this point
@JTBooth "Resolves to a consensus of popular reporting" to me indicates that the broad description would have to be that it's a troop deployment. If CNN, FOX, BBC, etc. are generally saying it's inspectors then it shouldn't be enough to resolve Yes.
@JTBooth I guess it would depend how this plays out but I think inspectors would not constitute “troops”
What about the rescue operations where 100s of troops were deployed to Iranian soil and estimates place that 1000+ were directly involved in the operation? 155 planes were involved after all and there was a forward operating base within Iran.
I think it is fair that it doesn't count since actual boots on the ground is much less than 1000. But what if it comes to light a month later that there were 1000+ boots on the ground? (i.e. failed secret ground operation to steal Uranium and the pilot rescue was just a front or something like that) Then you'd resolve this to true?
@bens why is that specifically - I'm curious what developments there are causing this realization . I.e., what's the latest development
@GazDownright well, I think when I created it, the scenario seemed really unlikely (market priced it at about 15%) and now it seems eminently plausible