MANIFOLD
Which nation will the US first stage military operations in before January 20th 2029?
19
Ṁ1.8kṀ18k
resolved Jan 11
100%83%
Syria
0.4%
Denmark
0.9%
Canada
1.1%
Mexico
1.1%
Venezuela
0.6%
Cuba
0.3%
North Korea
0.3%
Taiwan
0.4%
Yemen
7%
Somalia
0.3%
Libya
0.4%
Colombia
0.3%
Ecuador
0.5%
Panama
0.3%
Haiti
0.5%
None of the above
2%
Iran
0.6%Other

Market Description

This market resolves based on whether the US conducts military operations in the listed countries between now and January 20th, 2029. The question was created following the January 3, 2026 US military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro. For Venezuela specifically, only additional military operations beyond the January 2026 operation count toward resolution.

This market focuses on significant new military interventions rather than routine expansions of existing commitments. The intent is to capture unprecedented, possibly unilateral action by the US, not proxy operations conducted through local forces.

Resolution Criteria

A "military operation" is defined as ANY of the following conducted by US forces:

Qualifying Operations

  1. Direct kinetic military action - Any use of weapons, airstrikes, missile strikes, or bombings against targets within the country's territory

  2. Ground operations - Deployment of US ground forces (including special operations) for combat, capture operations, or seizure of territory/assets within the country

  3. Naval/aerial enforcement operations - Military boarding, seizure, or sinking of vessels/aircraft belonging to or operating under the flag of that country, when conducted within 12 nautical miles of that country's coast

  4. Space-based military operations - Any use of space-based weapons or destructive action against satellites/space assets belonging to the target country

  5. Cyber warfare operations - Publicly acknowledged cyber attacks by US military/intelligence services that cause physical damage to infrastructure within the country. Cyber attacks originating from the US but not officially claimed by the US government do NOT count unless there is compelling unofficial evidence of US responsibility (such as verified leaked communications from US officials acknowledging the operation).

Exclusions (these do NOT count as military operations)

  • Routine naval patrols or freedom of navigation operations

  • Joint military exercises with allied nations

  • Humanitarian aid deliveries

  • Evacuation of US citizens

  • Counter-drug operations against private vessels in international waters

  • Cyber operations that don't cause physical damage

  • Economic sanctions or diplomatic actions

  • Unclaimed cyber attacks without compelling unofficial evidence of US responsibility

  • Operations conducted by proxy forces (local militias, rebel groups, etc.) even if armed, funded, or directed by the US

Multi-Country Operations

If a single US military operation affects multiple listed countries, each affected country resolves YES.

Evidence Standard

Operations must be confirmed by official US government sources (DoD, White House, etc.) or credible major news reporting from at least two independent sources. For unclaimed cyber operations, evidence must include verified leaked communications or documents from US officials acknowledging responsibility (the standard reached by Signalgate pointing to US involvement would satisfy the question, and cause resolution of the target nation to "YES").

Market resolves YES for any country where qualifying military operations occur, and NO for countries where they do not occur by the deadline.

Additional Clarification Notes

Geographic Coverage

  • Denmark includes Greenland and other Danish territories

  • Canada includes all Canadian territories

  • Mexico includes all Mexican territories

Countries with Existing US Military Presence

This market excludes countries where the US maintains permanent military bases with over 500 personnel or formal Status of Forces Agreements as of January 2026. This specifically excludes: Iraq, Kuwait, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and similar established bases. Countries with limited advisory missions, temporary deployments, or small counterterrorism presences (under 500 personnel without formal basing agreements) are NOT excluded.

Russia and Cyber Operations

Note that while kinetic military action against Russia would be extremely unlikely due to nuclear escalation risks, cyber operations between the US and Russia likely occur regularly but are rarely acknowledged. The resolution criteria requiring either official acknowledgment or compelling leaked evidence means Russia could potentially resolve YES through cyber operations if such evidence emerges.

Palestine/Gaza

Operations in Palestinian territories would resolve this market, as the US does not currently maintain permanent military presence there.

  • Update 2026-01-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Resolution Method Change: This market will resolve to the first nation where qualifying military operations occur (if any), rather than resolving multiple answers. A separate market has been created to handle multiple simultaneous resolutions.

  • Update 2026-01-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Coordinated operations with host government may be excluded: Operations conducted "in coordination with" the host country's government (like the Somalia strikes) may be classified under the "Joint military exercises" exception and would not count as qualifying military operations for resolution purposes. This interpretation is still being reviewed by the creator.

Market context
Get
Ṁ1,000
to start trading!

🏅 Top traders

#TraderTotal profit
1Ṁ1,719
2Ṁ747
3Ṁ518
4Ṁ20
5Ṁ12
Sort by:
bought Ṁ100 YES

@inaimathi How does Syria resolve? It seems unilateral

@spiderduckpig seems unilateral to me too, but up to @inaimathi

@Mochi Link? Hm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_strikes_in_Syria

Article seems like a stub for now; let me read up on it.

@inaimathi I think this is the main part I’m having trouble understanding in the resolution criteria:

This market focuses on significant new military interventions rather than routine expansions of existing commitments.

To me this appears to be a continuation of operations against ISIS in Syria rather than a new intervention.

@Mochi I mean, yeah, based on what I'm reading this seems like a resolution.

1. This technically builds on existing anti-ISIS operations, but is bigger and more involved enough that I think it constitutes a discontinuity
2. This isn't routine patrolling or a minor security exercise
3. As far as I can tell, this isn't a joint operation with the Syrian government (not that it's entirely clear what a "Joint operation with the Syrian government" would cash out to at the moment).

I guess I'm resolving this as "Syria" and the other question as "Other" (no one had added Syria there), and Syria, and then adding a separate "Other" category.

@Mochi The X post by Central Command mentions “alongside partner forces.” https://x.com/centcom/status/2010089772120002721

@inaimathi The X post from Central Command mentions “alongside partner forces,” so wouldn’t that be a joint operation? https://x.com/centcom/status/2010089772120002721

@ChadCotty I don’t think the partner here clearly references Syria as a joint operation, unlike the other Somali strike that specified joint operations with Somali government. It may have been reported this way to be deliberately ambiguous

@ChadCotty unless it’s specified as a joint operation, then the base assumption should be that it was not a joint operation and doesn’t meet the exception criteria imo

@Mochi I think the “joint military exercise” exclusion has been misunderstood here. Neither of the operations in Syria or Somalia were military exercises. Exercises are for training and don’t involve kinetic action against adversaries, so that’s why they are excluded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_exercise.

@ChadCotty fair argument for military exercise definitions, however this should probably be brought up in previous discussion on Somali strike. The key difference here imo is still how specific Somali news was at calling out Somali involvement in comparison to the Syria strike where there was no mention of Syria governments involvement, and it was a much bigger and involved operation than before

@inaimathi you should probably close this market for trading now as this would just become a race to react upon your interpretation. My opinion is that this should resolve Syria as there is no news reporting this as a joint operation, or NA as the definition of joint military exercise exclusion may have been misinterpreted and should be clarified to “joint operation”

@Mochi @inaimathi The resolution criteria really doesn’t exclude joint operations, only joint exercises. And if the market is looking for this:

This market focuses on significant new military interventions rather than routine expansions of existing commitments.

I don’t see why a continuation/expansion of anti-ISIS operations in Syria would qualify when a continuation/expansion of anti-Al Shabaab operations in Somalia would not.

I’d be in favor of N/A-ing this market. There seems to be a lot of understandable confusion, and I’m not sure that clarifying and moving forward would work in this case without altering the original criteria.

one last msg as I ve yapped way too much, sources have reported Jordan as the partner force in the strike. I’d still be more in favor of Syria resolution but NA is understandable too. https://taskandpurpose.com/news/syria-airstrikes-operation-hawkeye-strike/

@ChadCotty I'm going to look into this in the morning, but on an initial skim, I'm inclined to sort this under the "Joint military exercises" execption. (The linked article starts with "In coordination with the Federal Government of Somalia...", so this isn't like the operations that seem to be gearing up in Mexico and Venezuela)

bought Ṁ50 YES

@inaimathi yea this should be in exception category tbh

@Mochi Yeah, every link I'm seeing about this makes it sound like something Somalia both asked for and supported, not unilateral military exercise by the US (and, based on the timeline I found, this operation belongs to a chain of operations plausibly going back as far as 2007).

https://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2026/Jan/204146/somali_us_forces_destroy_alshabab_explosives_factory_in_middle_juba_region.aspx

https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/lifestyle/us-and-somali-forces-launch-air-strike-on-militant-stronghold-in-southern-somalia/6gqc9j6

The wikipedia page doesn't list anything for this particular operation yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_intervention_in_Somalia_(2007%E2%80%93present) and I'm

not familiar enough with the other sources to know how accurate they are.


I'm going to leave this unresolved for now, but keep an eye on new evidence. in case it turns out this was more unilateral than I currently believe. I also currently have the impression that this is an extension of an ongoing commitment to disrupt ISIS jointly with the Somali government which would count against it being resolved.

@inaimathi I’m not sure I would refer to it as a joint military exercise (which is for training), but rather a joint operation.

bought Ṁ200 NO

@inaimathi But I agree this would not be a new intervention.

@creator this needs to be a set. Multi choice doesn’t work (only one answer can resolve yes)

@Jack1 Goddammit :| @mods, there a way we can salvage this or do I need to make a new question?

@inaimathi need to make new question

@Jack1 T_T

@Jack1 New question over at https://manifold.markets/inaimathi/which-nations-will-the-us-stage-mil-IslA2Sq8tl I'm going to keep this one open, but resolve it to the first

nation this happens in, if any.

Which nations will the US stage military operations in before January 20th 2029?
Market Description This market resolves based on whether the US conducts military operations in the listed countries between now and January 20th, 2029. The question was created following the January 3, 2026 US military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro. For Venezuela specifically, only additional military operations beyond the January 2026 operation count toward resolution. This market focuses on significant new military interventions rather than routine expansions of existing commitments. The intent is to capture unprecedented, possibly unilateral action by the US, not proxy operations conducted through local forces. Resolution Criteria A "military operation" is defined as ANY of the following conducted by US forces: Qualifying Operations Direct kinetic military action - Any use of weapons, airstrikes, missile strikes, or bombings against targets within the country's territory Ground operations - Deployment of US ground forces (including special operations) for combat, capture operations, or seizure of territory/assets within the country Naval/aerial enforcement operations - Military boarding, seizure, or sinking of vessels/aircraft belonging to or operating under the flag of that country, when conducted within 12 nautical miles of that country's coast Space-based military operations - Any use of space-based weapons or destructive action against satellites/space assets belonging to the target country Cyber warfare operations - Publicly acknowledged cyber attacks by US military/intelligence services that cause physical damage to infrastructure within the country. Cyber attacks originating from the US but not officially claimed by the US government do NOT count unless there is compelling unofficial evidence of US responsibility (such as verified leaked communications from US officials acknowledging the operation). Exclusions (these do NOT count as military operations) Routine naval patrols or freedom of navigation operations Joint military exercises with allied nations Humanitarian aid deliveries Evacuation of US citizens Counter-drug operations against private vessels in international waters Cyber operations that don't cause physical damage Economic sanctions or diplomatic actions Unclaimed cyber attacks without compelling unofficial evidence of US responsibility Operations conducted by proxy forces (local militias, rebel groups, etc.) even if armed, funded, or directed by the US Multi-Country Operations If a single US military operation affects multiple listed countries, each affected country resolves YES. Evidence Standard Operations must be confirmed by official US government sources (DoD, White House, etc.) or credible major news reporting from at least two independent sources. For unclaimed cyber operations, evidence must include verified leaked communications or documents from US officials acknowledging responsibility (the standard reached by Signalgate pointing to US involvement would satisfy the question, and cause resolution of the target nation to "YES"). Market resolves YES for any country where qualifying military operations occur, and NO for countries where they do not occur by the deadline. Additional Clarification Notes Geographic Coverage Denmark includes Greenland and other Danish territories Canada includes all Canadian territories Mexico includes all Mexican territories Countries with Existing US Military Presence This market excludes countries where the US maintains permanent military bases with over 500 personnel or formal Status of Forces Agreements as of January 2026. This specifically excludes: Iraq, Kuwait, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and similar established bases. Countries with limited advisory missions, temporary deployments, or small counterterrorism presences (under 500 personnel without formal basing agreements) are NOT excluded. Russia and Cyber Operations Note that while kinetic military action against Russia would be extremely unlikely due to nuclear escalation risks, cyber operations between the US and Russia likely occur regularly but are rarely acknowledged. The resolution criteria requiring either official acknowledgment or compelling leaked evidence means Russia could potentially resolve YES through cyber operations if such evidence emerges. Palestine/Gaza Operations in Palestinian territories would resolve this market, as the US does not currently maintain permanent military presence there.
© Manifold Markets, Inc.TermsPrivacy