Will Iran target Iraq by...?

According to the latest prediction market data for the query “Will Iran target Iraq by...?”, traders have formed a strong consensus.

Currently, September 30 is dominating the market with an overwhelming 56% chance of winning. The betting volume for this specific market has already reached $176.6K, reflecting intense industry interest.

To better assess where each potential outcome stands, the market can be segmented into three distinct trading tiers based on implied probability and contract pricing:

🥇 Tier 1: The Dominant Leader

• September 30 (56%): Currently commanding the highest probability, September 30 is heavily favored by the order book. Traders looking to back this outcome face a “Buy Yes” contract price of 56¢, signaling a high degree of market conviction. This contract alone has generated $169.4K in volume.

This market will resolve to “Yes” if Iran targets Iraq through a qualifying military action between market creation and the listed date, Arabia Standard Time (AST). Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.”

A qualifying military action refers to an air strike or a surface-to-surface missile strike, initiated by Iran, directed at Iraq. An air strike includes bombs, air-to-surface missiles, and air-launched drones. A surface-to-surface missile strike includes one-way attack drones and surface-to-surface missiles such as cruise or ballistic missiles.

The following actions do not constitute a qualifying military action:

Surface-to-air missile strikes;

Small-arms fire;

Ground incursions;

Cyber operations;

Naval gunfire and artillery fire;

Howitzers, artillery pieces, mortars, and rocket artillery (e.g. MLRS systems);

Minor surface-to-surface strikes, including short range loitering munitions, FPV drones, and ATGM strikes;

Any threat, authorization, or announcement of force that has not been executed.

Military action that consists primarily or exclusively of munitions that are intercepted before impact will still qualify if they constitute a qualifying military action during the specified timeframe; whether the munitions were intercepted, where the munitions landed, and whether damage resulted will not be considered.

A military action will be considered directed at Iraq if it is directed at the terrestrial territory of Iraq, including any internal waters.

Only military actions by Iranian forces explicitly claimed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, or confirmed to have originated from Iranian territory will count toward the resolution of this market. Attacks by proxy forces (i.e. Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.) will not count toward the resolution of this market.

The occurrence, attribution, and timing of a qualifying military action will be primarily determined based on a consensus of information available from the resolution sources. Where multiple sources conflict regarding the occurrence, attribution, or timing of a relevant military action, this market will remain open until the earlier of: i) the confirmation of the occurrence, attribution, and timing of the action based on a consensus of information available from the resolution sources or ii) 3 full calendar days (AST) from the date of the first credibly reported evidence of the action. If this period would extend past the end date, this market will remain open to allow for 3 full calendar days to pass. At the end of the third calendar day, if conflicting reports remain, the incident will be adjudicated based on the totality of information available from the resolution sources at that time. No single statement, denial, or presentation of evidence will govern where it is contradicted by the totality of information.

The resolution sources for this market will be official information from the governments and militaries of Iran and Iraq and a consensus of credible reporting.

While human consensus and speculative volume shape the broader prediction market, our quantitative algorithms offer a data-driven counter-perspective. By analyzing fundamental signals, underlying trends and historical distributions, our AI Valuation model calculates an independent “Fair Value” probability for each outcome.

Comparing this Fair Value against the current Trade Value uncovers major disparities — known as the Expected Value (EV) Gap. Contracts with a positive EV Gap represent statistically underpriced outcomes, whereas a negative EV Gap flags a potential market overreaction.

Top AI Alpha & Mispriced Arbitrage Opportunities

Based on the latest data model run, several key contracts stand out with significant deviations:

• The Most Overvalued Outcome September 30 currently trades at 56%, but our AI places its Fair Value at just 43.4%. This creates a large negative EV Gap of -12.6%, suggesting the crowd may be overhyping this outcome and driving the premium too high.