Will Iran kill atleast 5 more American soldiers by end March
Resolution criteria
This market resolves YES if six or more U.S. service members are killed in Iranian attacks by March 31, 2026. It resolves NO if fewer than five additional American soldiers are killed by that date.
Resolution will be determined by official statements from the U.S. Department of Defense or U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) regarding confirmed American military deaths attributed to Iranian military action. Deaths must be officially confirmed and attributed to Iran-directed attacks.
Background
As of March 5, 2026, six U.S. service members have been killed in the military operation that started early Saturday with U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. At least five of the six U.S. service members, all of them Army reservists, died when a drone struck a port in Kuwait on Sunday. Iran has launched 500 missiles and 2,000 drones during the first four days of hostilities, and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps says it has launched attacks on at least 27 bases in the Middle East where US troops are deployed.
Considerations
Both Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump have said that more casualties are likely. Trump has said his administration expects the conflict to go on for "four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that". The question asks whether Iran will kill at least 5 more American soldiers beyond those already killed, meaning the threshold is 11 total deaths by end of March.
This description was generated by AI.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ2,240 | |
| 2 | Ṁ855 | |
| 3 | Ṁ790 | |
| 4 | Ṁ665 | |
| 5 | Ṁ621 |
People are also trading
@JeffAD As best I can tell, this resolution is incorrect, for the reasons documented in the comments below. Please provide clarification on the resolution decision, including sources, or I will re-resolve it.
@JeffAD As best I can tell, this resolution is incorrect, for the reasons documented in the comments below. Please provide clarification on the resolution decision, including sources, or I will re-resolve it.
@mods @mods
The resolution is absolutely wrong, there's absolutely no evidence IRAN killed 11 US soldiers in epic fury as of now. The resolution clearly states that what counts is american soldiers killed by Iran. The market agreed, as evidenced by the closing probability of 6%.
"The question asks whether Iran will kill at least 5 more American soldiers beyond those already killed, meaning the threshold is 11 total deaths by end of March."
Every single source says 13~15 died, but 6 were in a refueling accident not related to combat in friendly Iraqi airspace. Another soldier died due to helath conditions. Ie no more than 8 were killed by Iran in total, 6 had already died before the creation of the question. Even the Intercept, which claims the US is covering up deaths, only claims 15 deaths.
Screenshot of official US database:
Official US govt sources:
https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/conflictCasualties/oefu/deaths
News outlets:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly0d510yz3o
https://theintercept.com/2026/04/01/iran-war-us-casualty-numbers-trump-hegseth/
Iranian state media quoting intercept:
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/04/03/766256/Pentagon-hiding-US-casualties-war-against-Iran-Report
@HenriConfucius @mods @mods
Not only were the traders of this market pissed at the resolution, but apparently the market creator has a habit of resolving markete unfairly, given his average score of 0.25 stars and another market that had to be forcefully reopened by an admin
People pissed at this market:
People pissed in another market:
@Gabrielle Jeff A.D attacks again with his delusional market resolutions
@HenriConfucius 0.17 stars now
At some point such accounts should either be banned or else just restricted so that they can't create new markets
Or for a more caveat emptor approach, display the market creator's resolution rating fairly prominently to people who want to trade
...I say all that as someone who held 'YES' in this market
I think it's time for the @mods to do something.
@mods Not sure what happened here. The burden of proof should lie on the "something happened" party, and we're all left scratching our heads now.
If @creator was preparing a writeup to justify the decision, it has been over 30 minutes since resolution, and that seems like a reasonable amount of time for it to have come up by now.
Yes, and all available evidence, as well as market consensus, pointed towards a NO resolution.
True, this is the only thing that holds me back from betting with confidence on low american losses. As I didn't see any invasion happening anytime soon by end of March (due to movement time, logistics, need to concentrate forces), I felt confident to put some mana here.
Not so much in other markets. For example, 500 american casualties by end of year is very very plausible if you consider invasion of islands/mainland, attempts to open hormouz, terrorrist attacks, etc.
@notreally hah I guarantee it is. the question isn't phrased as "will 5 more soldiers be dead due to Iranian action", though it's fair if the creator wishes to interpret it that way.
the act of killing is separate from the time of death is almost all circumstances (see: attempted murder cases where the victim later dies of the wounds and the charges are upgraded to murder). if someone ends up in the hospital for a couple weeks and then dies, we still say they were killed, and their time of death doesn't change the date of when the attack happened. take the simplest example relevant to this market: say some soldiers are attacked in the late hours of March 31st, then rescue operations bring them back and they're declared dead in the early hours of April 1st.
did these hypothetical soldiers die on the 31st or the 1st? my argument is that it doesn't matter: the killing action happened on the 31st. this is the common definition of "killing", however, and certainly not of "dying", and this is the kind of clarification that is best had before we need it. I'm fine with going either way, but I don't want reality's coin to land on the edge and have to debate it after-the-fact.
I'm also not suggesting that this kind of definition means we wait months for one single coma patient to recover or pass away (it would be icky to ride on one specific person's life like that, anyway), just that it would make sense to wait at least a couple weeks into April for final reports to be publicly available.
@Stralor I agree.
However what does this mean for whether we count the soldier killed as a result of action on 1 March and dies on 8 March after question created on 7th March?
Yes he is killed and it is more because he wasn't dead when question was created?
or was he killed on the 1st so it isn't more as in he was already killed at time of question creation just that we didn't know it then?
Either interpretation seems somewhat paradoxical, and I don't mind what the creator decides.
If there are 5 relevant soldiers either killed or in critical condition then waiting seems sensible.
If there are just 2 or 3 with critical injuries and a few more with "serious but not life threatening injuries" then do we need to wait long for further info? Probably not going to get it resolved before the season ends so a couple of weeks doesn't seem unreasonable if there are 4+ critically injured.
Nowhere in the resolution criteria is that said. On the contrary:
".. meaning the threshold is 11 total deaths by end of March."
The threshold is 11 deaths by the end of March. If someone dies in april - even if he was wounded in march - he doesn't fill the "11 deaths by end of March" treshold.
@HenriConfucius
"are killed by that date" may look like it supports your position but it is still ambiguous because of how different people are interpreting "killed". Is it date of action or date of death? Normal is date of action - a person can die later and still be considered killed on the earlier action date.
However the yes clause is much more persuasive:
"are killed in Iranian attacks by March 31, 2026" seems clear and specific to me that it is the Iranian attacks have to be by the end of March.
Once that is set by the yes clause "killed by that date" is just natural language that follows so we should look to the yes clause to understand this and that seems clear to me.
That's irrelevant, as it says 11 DEATHS by the end of March in the end of the resolution criteria. It doesn't matter how you interpret being killed, as a death occurs at the moment life ceases, not by when the attack happened - even if the definition of "killed" is potentially more fluid and debatable with a lousy interpretation.
If someone dies in April, he didn't die by the end of March. Period. This settles it beyond doubt. Its not my problem if someone didn't read the full resolution criteria, or can't accept he lost a bet.
@HenriConfucius That is not in the Resolution criteria heading it is under considerations heading. So it is clearly only providing context that 6 had been killed at market creation. The question is clearly about 5 more not total of 11.
@HenriConfucius chill. idgaf about winning or losing, I've got a mere 300 mana here. the AI is rambling garbage and we all know it. my point is that this could be a critical clarification. it probably won't be, but reality has a way of messing up all our plans and I don't wanna see this market N/A because folks decide to have this fight after the fact.