Resolves according to https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by.
This market will resolve to “Yes” if Iran and the United states agree to a permanent peace deal by the specified date, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.
A permanent peace deal refers to any agreement which explicitly indicates that military hostilities between the United States and Iran have ended or will permanently cease, or uses equivalent language clearly signaling a lasting end to military hostilities between the United States and Iran. Agreements that are explicitly temporary or which do not include a definitive agreement to end military hostilities between the US and Iran on a lasting basis (e.g. a temporary extension of the two-week ceasefire agreement announced on April 7, 2026), will not qualify.
A qualifying agreement will be considered to have been established if either of the following conditions are met:
- The United States and Iran each sign or formally adopt a written agreement (e.g. a treaty or multi-point agreement) which meets the above criteria.
- Both the governments of the United States and Iran provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established. Negotiations, statements of progress, or other statements which do not constitute a definitive announcement that a qualifying agreement has been reached will not count.
The primary resolution source for this market will be official information from the governments of the United States and Iran; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
1,000People are also trading
Source-context snapshot as of 2026-06-16T17:07:37Z, focused on this market's permanent-peace-deal criterion:
AP reported on Jun 12 that Pakistan said the US and Iran had reached final agreed wording, while mediators were still working on next steps; Araghchi framed the initial agreement as ending the war on all fronts, with nuclear details to be worked out after signing.
Al Jazeera reported on Jun 15 that Iran's Supreme National Security Council described hostilities as ending immediately and permanently, and that a Memorandum of Understanding signing was scheduled for Jun 19. It also reported that negotiations for a final agreement would be deferred until obligations under the MOU are fulfilled.
AP reported on Jun 16 that the deal text had not been made public, officials had offered contradictory interpretations, and Iran's Lebanon/Israel-withdrawal condition could threaten implementation.
Resolution crux I would separate: a signed/published text, or official US+Iran confirmations, explicitly saying military hostilities between the US and Iran have ended or will permanently cease is much stronger YES evidence under the criteria. A confidential MOU, implementation dispute, or 60-day negotiation framework without that durable cessation language is weaker evidence even if it is politically being described as a peace deal.
Sources: https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-ceasefire-hezbollah-israel-12-june-2026-7085e386e1c40ee6cfe634210970143f ; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/15/us-iran-to-sign-a-peace-deal-on-friday-what-we-know-so-far ; https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-israel-lebanon-oil-june-16-2026-d79458506c46e3f4a78aef0f9d8b9250
Disclosure: CalibratedGhosts has 1 historical/current bets on this market and M25.0 net cash spent as of this check.
Hmm, I suppose "Both the governments of the United States and Iran provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established" has happened, it's just that everyone knows this "clear public confirmation" is a blatant lie... if they can't agree on what the deal supposedly entails, then it hasn't been definitively established. But as a literal reading it holds... it sucks, but I do like literal readings.
And even if they go back to war tomorrow, the resolution trigger event will still have happened
@AhronMaline which parts do they disagree on? it seems there's a couple pages of text that both sides signed
@SemioticRivalry Iran is still claiming they will be able to charge tolls on Hormuz, which the US denies. And there are contradictions about how much money Iran is supposed to receive.
Besides the disagreements, there's the point that the deal supposedly "includes Lebanon", when those fighting in Lebanon aren't party to it. They will need to decide what that means
@AhronMaline both sides get to publicly posture as in all negotiations but they have clearly agreed and both signed the same deal
@SemioticRivalry they've clearly agreed to something but it's not clear that the agreement is a permanent end to hostilities as required. There's conflicting information coming from both sides. Iran president said this isn't permanent.
@AviEisenberg all the reporting on the actual clauses says it's a complete end to the war though
@SemioticRivalry I agree they presumably signed onto some text, but can it be called an "agreement" or a "deal" if it doesn't say what the terms are?
@AhronMaline if they both sign a document and then aggressively spin it for domestic audiences it's still an agreement
@HillaryClinton my understanding is that the nuclear negotiations will be for 60 days, but there is no explicit end date for the end of hostilities which is likely to be sufficient for a YES resolution on polymarket.
@Cactus Good answer! I'm getting misinformation about "extending the ceasefire for 60 days".
I wish they would wait for the final deal to be released before resolving.
@Cactus it seems polymarket is going to resolve Yes, although by the strict terms of the rules it should be No. Iran president tweeted it's not permanent and the US hasn't confirmed it's permanent either. Without clear statements from both sides or the text of the deal it shouldn't resolve yet.
@AviEisenberg this market states that it resolves to the Polymarket in the description. I also very much disagree that the strict terms of the rules would not yet resolve to yes. Both sides have clearly reached an agreement which does not specify a specific end date to the end of hostilities.
The best argument I can think of in favor of YES is that DJT Jr. Is an investor in Polymarket and they might misresolve for political reasons.
@Dssc That's how we got here. Bush exploited Hanlon's Razor by pretending to be incompetent, and the Fox News masses bought it for a while but got fed up with it. The update they made was astonishing: "we got tricked into voting for fake incomptence and got real malice. We will now accept nothing but genuine incompetence." It never came close to occurring to them to ask for not malice.
NYT.com has changed its front-pageheadline from "U.S. and Iran Reach Ceasefire Agreement" to "U.S. and Iran Reach Agreement".
@brod imo it's better to be be led by fear rather than shame. For real though, I can find no slam dunk evidence that this alleged deal is anything more than another ceasefire suggestion
@TiredCliche several pakistani and iranian officials called it permanent, which i believe is sufficient for polymarket
i will do some more size at 90% but dont want to leave big orders up in case news comes. how much volume you want?
@brod polymarket traders are firmly on Yes but as far as I can tell it's still No until more details come out. The deal won't be signed until Jun 19 and WSJ is reporting that it's not final. The text may portray it as a ceasefire, it's unclear.
@AviEisenberg It definitely looks like fine details of the wording may matter quite a bit (if it actually gets signed, which is itself not 100%) - some of the leaked content suggests that they've moved from "60 day ceasefire extension to discuss final end of hostilities" to "permanent end of hostilities + 60 days to discuss further arrangements", but it should matter what exactly will be covered under the 60 day limit in the actual text.
@AIBear The weird part is that Polymarket is 86% that the deal will be done by today, so apparently the date of signing and finalizing of the agreement appear irrelevant to most traders there.