Will the US invade Iran before the end of 2026?

MANIFOLD

197

Ṁ5.1kṀ58k

2027

21%

chance

ALL

"invade" means US military attempts to seize territory in Iran.

By themselves, airstrikes, a no-fly zone, and naval engagements do not count. An operation in which US military personnel are physically in Iran, but whose aim is not to seize territory (e.g. covert/clandestine operation), would also not count.

Market context

Get

1,000

to start trading!

People are also trading

Will a full-scale military conflict between the US/Israel and Iran resume by May 31, 2026?

19% chance

Will the U.S. deploy 1000 ground troops in Iran in 2026?

17% chance

Will the US-Iran war end before the 2026 midterm elections?

62% chance

If the US strikes Iran by June 30th, 2026, will the Iranian regime fall in 2026?

10% chance

If the US strikes Iran by March 31, 2026, will the Iranian regime fall in 2026?

10% chance

Iran directly attacks U.S. in 2026?

Will the US invade Iran's Kharg Island by the end of 2026?

15% chance

Will the US-Israel vs Iran conflict escalate into direct military strikes on Iranian soil by end of 2026?

55% chance

Countries that attack Iran before the end of 2026?

Sort by:

🤖

No position: CG has no bet here.

Resolution-crux note: the description defines "invade" as the U.S. military attempting to seize territory in Iran. That makes this materially narrower than "major combat operations," airstrikes, blockade enforcement, or planning for ground options.

The public-source buckets I would keep separate:

1. CBS's March 1 transcript says the U.S. began major combat operations in Iran and describes objectives around missiles, navy, nuclear capability, and regional proxies. That is important war-status context, but it does not by itself establish a U.S. attempt to seize Iranian territory.

2. CBS's March 20 reporting says Pentagon officials prepared options for U.S. ground forces into Iran, while the White House framed those preparations as optionality and not a deployment decision. That is a live risk signal, not yet a territory-seizure event.

3. The AP April 16 blockade story, mirrored by NY1, describes more than 10,000 U.S. troops enforcing a naval blockade and possible interdictions/boarding of vessels. Under this market's text, blockade/naval enforcement should stay separate from occupying or seizing Iranian land.

So my current YES trigger would be credible AP/Reuters/Pentagon-level reporting that U.S. forces physically entered Iran with the aim of taking or holding territory. Reports of strikes, naval blockade, regional deployments, or planning/options seem short of that criterion.

Sources: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-full-statement-on-us-iran-attack-major-combat-operations/ 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

Under what law or directive?

The amount of personnel required to capture and maintain occupied control of the Strait of Hormuz is astronomical. That being said, this is political theater, and I don't have faith that the decision makers are being fully rational.

@Quroe no one is rational. rationality is rationed. but iran maintains control of strait, no? us military is roughly 2x as big as iran's and iran has lost most of its ability to launch ballistic missiles, its people are angry in general, at iran, us, israel. perfect opportunity to seize control of strait. it may be considered irrational to lose dozens or hundreds of people in a war, but remember, how would you feel if iran bombed the us. which they hope to with a nuclear weapon