P2

Just the biggest news in the world right now 👍

P2 - Yes

Rules:

"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"

"A qualifying agreement will be considered to have been established if either of the following conditions are met:

• [first one non-applicable]
• 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 adefinitive announcementthat a qualifying agreement has been reached will not count."Sources of definitive annoucementof a qualifying deal:**Secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council:**https://www.iribnews.ir/fa/news/5825218/%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%86-%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%85-%D9%BE%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AC%D9%86%DA%AF-%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%A7-%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D8%AF

"The honorable people of Iran are hereby informed:

[...]Based on the agreements reached, war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will end from tonight immediately and permanently; additionally, the naval blockade against Iran will end immediately and completely. The official signing of this memorandum of understanding will take place on Friday, 29 Khordad. Negotiations for a final agreement will be postponed until after the other side implements its commitments according to the memorandum of understanding.

The Islamic Republic ofIran thanks the Islamic Republic of Pakistan[trusted mediators] and thegovernment of Qatarfor their efforts."Gharibabadi, Iranian Foreign Minister:
"Based on the agreements made, two immediate measures must be implemented as ofthis morning. First,an immediate and permanent end to the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, which has been explicitly emphasized in the positions announced by the mediating parties.

https://www.yjc.ir/fa/news/9097603/%D8%BA%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A8%E2%80%8C%D8%A2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%86-%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%85-%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B6%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B2-%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%87-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%A6%DB%8C%D8%B3

(many others quote same and X)Shehbaz Sharif - Prime minister of Pakistan (mediator team)"Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED.Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon."

https://x.com/CMShehbaz/status/2066268332832194810?s=20

US President Trump:

"The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!"

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116750587569914985

"This Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region. Many presidents have tried to make Peace with Iran, and all have failed before me."

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116750814874397998

White house press email:

https://i.imgur.com/eye3RgR.png

P2

close and pay

P2.

Does not need a signature, the rules clearly state "either" a signature OR that

"Both the governments of the United States and Iran provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established," which has been met. The reported deal text includes a "permanent halt" to hostilities.

P2 - Yes

Both sides agreed to end the war on all fronts in a very clear manner

P2 - YES

I’ve been pretty firmly in the P4 camp, but after reading through the thread (especially Thonker’s post), I’ve softened on it. His breakdown of the the distinction between "permanent peace with conditions" vs. "temporary pause while we decide on peace" makes sense to me.

I still think there’s real tension with the "definitive … on a lasting basis" requirement and the 60 day structure, but I now lean towards YES rather than NO.

P2 - Yes

1. Every nation calls it a peace deal (Iran, US, Pakistan, Qatar, European States, Japan)

2. Overwhelming media consensus, e.g.:
   Al Jazeera - US-Iran ‘peace deal’ announced; Trump says Strait of Hormuz reopening3. First point of the agreed deal is literally "1. The permanent and immediate halt of war on all fronts, including Lebanon."

3. Rules require*"Both the governments of the United States and Iran provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established"*, which is given

P4.

There are two ways to resolve. The first is when a deal is signed, which hasn't happened yet. The second is if both the US and Iran clearly state that a qualifying agreement has been reached.

The US has not clearly stated that a permanent agreement has been reached. In fact, Trump has told the New York Times that the agreement is not permanent:

Mr. Trump also insisted that if Iran failed to reach a final nuclear accord with the United States — a process his aides say they expect will begin on Friday in Switzerland — he would restart military attacks on Tehran or make the United States “the guardian of the Middle East” in return for 20 percent of the region’s revenues.

Per https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/06/14/world/iran-war-trump-us

That is not a clear permanent deal. The rules state that "clear public confirmation" is required, and the US has not clearly confirmed publicly that a permanent deal has been reached.

The fact that Iran and Pakistan and certain media outlets are reporting it is permanent is not sufficient. The media outlets are basing it on the Iranian or other non-US sources, so they don't count to show what the US has "clearly" confirmed.

Many P2 commentors are claiming that the agreement itself is permanent. The text of the agreement has not been released and the US has not confirmed this. Many media outlets are referring to it as a ceasefire.

P2 - YES

Permanent end of war on all fronts. Arguments from No holders seem weak to me.
War can restart even after the final agreement.

P2 YesToday, US and Iran announced a permanent peace deal. This deal will end all military operations in all countries involved as confirmed by the mediators, Iran, US, and a consensus of credible reporting.

NBC: United States and Iran reach agreement to end war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deal-reached-united-states-iran-war-rcna350039

WSJ: U.S. and Iran Have Reached a Deal to Stop Fighting, Reopen Shipping.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-threatens-to-pull-out-of-talks-after-israel-strikes-beiruts-outskirts-d0390e22

BBC: US and Iran announce deal to end military operations

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj0grpyg4v1t

Per the rules, this market resolves to Yes when US & Iran announce a qualifying agreement has been reached:

Both the governments of the United States and Iran provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established

US announcements:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116750587569914985

Iran announcement:

https://t.me/farsna/442201

Iran clearly says the warpermanently ends.

According to the agreements reached, the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will immediately and permanently end from tonight, and furthermore, the naval blockade against Iran will be immediately and completely lifted.

Per the rules, the market does not quire a signature to resolve. It can 1) resolve when the deal is signed OR 2) resolve when both parties announce the agreement.

Furthermore, both mediators announce the deal that ends the military operations:

Qatar:

https://x.com/MofaQatar_EN/status/2066285768742768961?s=20

Pakistan:

https://x.com/CMShehbaz/status/2066268332832194810?s=20

Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

P2 Yes

**From the most dumb reading of the rules.**A qualifying agreement has been reached.

Which satisfies Point 2

• Both the governments of the United States and Iran provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established.

Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED. Both sides have declared the immediateand permanenttermination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

https://x.com/CMShehbaz/status/2066268332832194810

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi confirms to Iranian state TV that animmediate andpermanentend to the war and military operations on various fronts, including Lebanon, will take place starting tonight

https://x.com/AlArabiya_Eng/status/2066284925301436630

TheDeal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith,authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow! President DONALD J. TRUMP

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116750587569914985

How do you argue against this? An agreement has been reached, there has been immediate execution of it, and it was announced by both governments. We have resolved countless of similar markets just like this before.

P2 Y

We already got confirmation from US Government, Iran Government, and dozens of MSM news sources for total permanent end to hostilities

P1 - No, Evidence #1 Official Positions:

• Trump: States a deal is reached to reopen the Strait, but the formal text won't be signed until this Friday in Switzerland.

• **Iran (SNSC):**Confirms an initial MoU framework, but explicitly defers the official bilateral signing until Friday.Global Media Documentation:

• WSJ: Iran threatens to exit talks entirely after Beirut strikes, proving the baseline framework is volatile and un-established.

• Bloomberg / Al Jazeera: Note breakthrough claims, but confirm a comprehensive resolution is not live and text is deferred to Friday.

• BBC News / Axios: Confirm current text is an initial "framework" for a temporary 60-day ceasefire extension to sort out final details later.

• Reuters: Iran’s Deputy FM states core structural terms (nuclear terms and full sanctions relief) must still be negotiated duringthat future 60-day window.* **AP News:**Calls it an initial, shaky ceasefire; full implementation requires Friday's formal, bilateral signing.

###Why Evidence Fails "Yes" CriteriaAs of June 15th, this completely fails the explicit rules required for a "Yes" market resolution:

1.**No Signed/Formally Adopted Written Agreement:**All sources confirm the formal, written signing remains a future, un-ratified event. No active text is in force today. Per WSJ, Iran is threatening to pull out before a pen even touches paper.
2.No Definitively Established Public Confirmation: Resolution rules strictly reject "statements of progress... which do not constitute a definitive announcement." Reporting uniformly confirms this is a preliminary roadmap, which cannot be "definitively established" while one party threatens to walk.
3. **Not a Permanent Peace Deal:**BBC, Reuters, and Axios confirm Friday's text merely opens a temporary 60-day window to negotiate. Core structural disputes remain unresolved. Rules explicitly exclude temporary ceasefire extensions.

###Conclusion

There is no active, formally adopted written agreement. Friday's text merely kicks off a temporary, highly volatile 60-day negotiation window that Iran is already threatening to derail following regional military developments. Sensational aggregator headlines do not satisfy the criteria for a definitive, permanent peace agreement

P2 Yes

Rules:

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.

Announcement of the agreement by Pakistan:

Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED. Both sideshave declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operationson all fronts, including in Lebanon.

Announcement of the agreement by Iran:

Based on the agreements reached,the warand military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon,will end immediately and permanently as of tonight, and in addition, the naval blockade against Iran will end immediately and completely.

AFP:

The United States and Iran agreed to a memorandum of understanding and an “immediate and permanent” end to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, signalling the apparent end to more than three months of war in the Middle East.

NBC:

United States and Iran reach agreement to end war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz

Times of Israel:

US, Iran reach deal to end war

BBC:

US and Iran announce deal to end military operations

CNBC:

The U.S. and Iran agreed on a peace deal to bring immediate and permanent termination to the conflict.

CBS (pre-announcement):

the terms in the draft memorandum of understanding include:

Iran and the U.S., together with their allies, declaring that all military operations on every front, including Lebanon, end immediately and permanently. They also commit not to start any war against each other and to refrain from threatening or using force.

P1 NO

Not permanent unfortunatly. The deal has yet to be signed, and anything could happen between now and Friday when the deal is expected to be signed. No confirmations from Iran that this will be permanent.

Very very obviously P2 Yes, it's only the biggest story in the world right now.

Spelling it out for those who live under a rock, since I'm pretty sure everyone else has heard of this, on June 14 the USA and Iran officially agreed to cease all hostilities between them, as requested by the rules.

• From the US side, the President of the United States explicitly refers to this as a "Peace Deal" that "ends hostilities".

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/817444472009785366/1515896346442465330/image.png?ex=6a30abfc&is=6a2f5a7c&hm=5b78acf4c9bb02e04bda7df09d723db5ce774ab64330e757157488be8ffae6a9&

• Likewise, from the official statement issued by Government of Iran:

" According to the agreements reached,the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will end immediately and permanently from tonight"

• We can also very easily add media consensus of credible reporting to the overwhelming heap, here's CNBC for example:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/817444472009785366/1515895572404375613/image.png?ex=6a30ab44&is=6a2f59c4&hm=f4dca34b239eddd1cef64d40fff78e3147da06840289bf6cd6bac132e3b22e2c&

P2

Absolutely all parties to the conflict confirmed that the deal had been reached within the market's specified timeframe.

Jun 14/19 = interim MoU / 60-day ceasefire extension, not permanent:

• Rule excludes "agreements that are explicitly temporary… e.g. a temporary extension of the … ceasefire" and requires a definitive establishment ("negotiations, statements of progress… will not count").
• Draft defers permanence itself:"The final agreement will confirm the permanent cessation of the war"; Clause 3:"reach a final agreement within 60 days."

I get it — everyone wants the positive headline and the payout. But this resolves on the rule text, not on optimism: the deal is interim and permanence is still pending the final agreement.→ Too early. P4.

P4 Too Early -> P1 NO

We are on the phase where:

• Politicians are strutting around in social media to their followers how they've achieved peace.
• Various media outlets are explicitly calling it a "preliminary deal" or "interim deal" or "framework towards deal".
• We do not even know the contents of what are to be signed.
• There are no official statements.

This is at the very least a P4 (too early to say), and with near certainty a P1 (No) for June 15.

We're effectively just clinging on to politicians' social media ambiguity. That does not constitute as anything definitive.

Clear P2 Yes

Both sides announced agreement has been reached on an MoU who’s first term is a permanent end to hostilities. Biggest story on the planet right now.

P4 -> P1

The MOU establishes a 60 day framework to agree on a future permanent peace deal, and it has not even been signed.

'The two countries said on Monday that they had an interim peace agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days. Delegations from both sides are set to hammer out the details in Qatar this week, with a memorandum of understanding expected to be signed in Switzerland on Friday.' Bloomberg

Official Positions:

• Trump stated a deal is reached to reopen the Strait, but the formal text won't be signed until this Friday in Switzerland.
• Iran (SNSC) confirmed an initial 60-day MoU framework, but explicitly defers the official bilateral signing until Friday.

P2 - YES

Both sides announced agreement with clear reference to permanent end to hostilities.

P2 Yes> IRANIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER:THE IMMEDIATE AND PERMANENT END TO THE WAR AND MILITARY OPERATIONS ON VARIOUS FRONTS, INCLUDING LEBANON, WILL BE ANNOUNCED STARTING TONIGHT

Prime Minister of Pakistan Sharif: "After intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that a peace agreement has been reached between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran.Both parties have declared an immediate and permanent cessation of military activity on all fronts, including in Lebanon. The official signing ceremony will take place on Friday, June 19, in Switzerland."

Both Pakistani and Iranian statements confirming the agreement clearly indicate a permanent end to the war, directly satisfying the phrasing required by the market.

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

We also have a wide swath of credible reporting that affirms an end to the war.

The US and Iran have agreed to end their four-month war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. As ever, ending wars is not as easy as starting them. -Reuters

The US and Iran have agreed a deal to end the war, which mediator Pakistan says will be signed on Friday in Switzerland - BBC

An agreement has been reached between the United States and Iran to end fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, according to President Donald Trump and Iranian officials. -NBC

https://polymarket.com/event/us-iran-nuclear-deal-by-june-30

The US-Iran nuclear deal market with similarly stringent rules also already resolved YES. There is no world where the nuclear deal (which requires an agreement) resolves YES and permanent peace somehow does not.

P1 - NO Evidence:

• Reuters (Jun 14): Pakistan's PM - the MEDIATOR, not a party - announced a "peace deal" with "permanent termination on all fronts." This is the mediator's characterization, not a joint US–Iran declaration.
• Axios (Jun 14): US-sourced reporting describes the actual document as a 60-day ceasefire EXTENSION + Strait of Hormuz reopening + a framework for further nuclear/sanctions talks.
  https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1493152760139485206/1516068796908179627/axios-ceasefire-extension.png?ex=6a314c98&is=6a2ffb18&hm=50db3f04ea696595cc5e9cfd71e4161ba19c25bee6570d43a82f3df1ad269204&
• CNN (Jun 13): signing is planned for ~Jun 19 (after this market's deadline); the MoU text has NOT been made public.
• No statement from the US government itself confirming a permanent/lasting end of hostilities, so there is no joint confirmation from BOTH governments by the market's date.Rationale:
• The resolution criteria require a qualifying agreement that explicitly signals hostilities have ended or will permanently cease "on a lasting basis," and EXCLUDE a temporary extension of the existing ceasefire. Establishment requires either a signed/formally adopted written agreement, OR clear public confirmation from BOTH governments that such an agreement is definitively established — "statements of progress... will not count."
• What is reported is an INTERIM MoU explicitly framed as a step toward a later "final agreement." Interim instruments are by nature not definitive or lasting. The reported "permanent" wording inside it is (a) unconfirmed by the US in its own voice, (b) contradicted by credible US reporting (Axios) describing a ceasefire extension - the explicitly excluded type, and (c) contained in an unpublished, unsigned text (signing set for ~Jun 19, after the deadline).
• Therefore, as of the resolution date, a qualifying permanent agreement has not been definitively established by both governments. The evidence supports "no," not "yes."
• Noted in good faith that signing has not yet occurred. Also, renewed escalation before the signing could cause even the interim step to lapse.Moreover, it is not a "definitive" agreement, because there is only intention to make permanent peace on conditions. The "permanent" word inside an interim (tentative) agreement is only a wish, not a guaranteed definitive lasting peace deal. Even the Iranian PM says on his X account as a pinned message that this ceasefire agreement leads to final peace deal, which isn't come yet and the one that should be definitive and clearly lasting.

The market should resolve YES only if the following 60-day ceasefire was skipped and they would reach a final deal that definitively binds the parties to permanent peace.

If the market is ambiguous (because one says it is a ceasefire extension and another says it is already permanent peace and not just it's preparation phase), then it is not clearly signaling peace on a lasting basis yet and should resolve NO.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1493152760139485206/1516074337348747475/aljazeera.png?ex=6a3151c1&is=6a300041&hm=b55da352c90d9b6785b3b7d850950b892cbd3b0fdc4a932775a7de0aeb764802�https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1493152760139485206/1516078455513550869/financial-times-ceasefire_extension.png?ex=6a315597&is=6a300417&hm=510ff3393cf4e22d6eeef845787190c2aac0ed6464bc93aa9cc9b0d7211422d2�https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1493152760139485206/1516079690551660725/voennoedelo_com-ceasefire_extension.png?ex=6a3156bd&is=6a30053d&hm=41a6c3857cfd01989f29d59d4c83b57d4fc6f9be9cceb480caae07e5307f36fa

P4

Yes, both the us and Iran have reached an agreement... But what's in the agreement is still unknown and there is no credible consensus. News reports and statements have contradicted each other (see the post from @Viktor right above mine.

Until the text is released, we cannot know if this is a permanent peace deal or a temporary 60 day ceasefire extension.

P1 (NO) or at best P4 (TOO EARLY).

Conflicting reports from the USA and Iran as to what is happening, and the text of what is being agreed to is not yet public. News media report “temporary”, “stopgap,” and other language indicating a non-permanent agreement (See front page New York Times, Associated Press and Wall Street Journal.)

The thorniest issues — which precipitated the war — remain unresolved.

Ridiculous to resolve YES and say this is the permanent end of all hostilities.

P2 - Yes

Both Iran and the US frames it as a permanent end in military operations, enough to satisfy the rules.

P2

Both sides announced an immediate and permanent end to the war

P2 — YesThis market should resolve to Yes, but as always, the P4 arguments should not be dismissed out of hand. It is poor form and disrespectful to strawman anyone or to refute anything but the strongest arguments for a position. The bullying in #polymarket-review is getting extremely bad in this regard.

The US statements are at least marginally less strong, but what they have said supports there being a permanent deal.

The statements from Pakistan and Iran are pretty clear and unambiguous that the ceasefire was mutually agreed and started on the night of signing, which happened digitally on Sunday night.

This is one of the better articles on this matter that is more careful in how it words things:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/deal-is-reached-to-end-iran-war-and-trump-orders-stop-to-us-naval-blockade

"Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon," Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said, adding that mediators this week will facilitate meetings to "lay the foundation for the technical talks."

Broader negotiations on outstanding issues like Iran's nuclear program would continue over the next 60 days, two senior Pakistani officials said earlier Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. If the sides fail to reach a resolution within that time, the timeline could be extended.

This is the statement from the National Security Council of Iran:

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, together with their allies in the current war, by signing this Memorandum of Understanding, declare the immediate and permanent cessation of this war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and pledge not to initiate any war against each other from now on, and to refrain from threatening to use force against each other.

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interference in each other's internal affairs.

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States commit to conducting negotiations and reaching a final agreement within a maximum period of 60 days, extendable by mutual agreement.

The statements from Pakistan and Iran support the interpretation under which this is an agreement topermanently end the war.This agreement hasconditions.— every agreement does. One of these conditions is that the nuclear issues will be sorted out within 60 days, or the deal is off, unless this negotiation period is further extended. This is materially different from the characterization of a 60 day pause that if it goes well will lead to permanent peace for reasons ofobligation.Both sides areobligated to come to an agreement within 60 days or the already-agreed-to permanent peace deal is off. When this is as described as a 60 day ceasefire to make a nuclear agreement, it's technically incorrect. For the lay reader, it makes no difference. If the nuclear talks fall through, the result is the same: war is resumed. But legally, and for market purposes, this is indeed a conditional, but permanent end. Both sides agreed to that. A subtle but easy to make slide is being made in interpretation when it is characterized as a 60 day ceasefire.

P2 - YES

Pakistani Mediator:

Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED. Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

P1 - NO

Everyone spamming the Pakistani Mediator tweet as proof for P2 (YES) is completely ignoring the actual resolution rules. The rule text is hyper-specific and states textually:

"Both the governments of the United States and Iran provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established."

Pakistan is a third-party mediator; they are NOT a government entity of the United States or Iran. A statement by an intermediary does NOT activate the resolution.

Furthermore, the official leaked text confirms this is just an interim Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for a 60-day window, which falls directly under: "Negotiations, statements of progress... will not count."

The US media either says it is a ceasefire extension (Axios, Financial Times..etc.) or citing middle east news outlets. So if it is ambiguous whether it is ceasefire extension or permanent peace under the MoU, then it is not clearly signaling, so it should resolve NO by the rules.

P2 - YES

The confirmation of the agreement by both parties clearly indicates the definitive end of the war, directly meeting market demands.

The biggest news on the planet right now.

P2 Yes

Pakistan, the US, and Iran all have confirmed a deal has been reached and all frame it as a permanent end to military activities in the region. Pretty big news, and while it may ultimately be dependent on issues that are still being negotiated, it is explicitly stated as a permanent peace deal.

P2 YesIran and the United states agreed to a permanent peace deal on June 14th, with both respective sides digitally signing the deal.

This deal is characterized by both sides as a lasting end to the conflict, with Iranian officials explicitly using “permanent” verbiage.


Excerpt from the statement released by Iran’s National Security Council:


“According to the agreements reached, the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will end immediately andpermanentlybeginning tonight.”


https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/2066296895073374421


Additionally in the initial announcement of the completion of the deal by the official mediator; Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan, he also included the verbiage of this deal being a permanent end to hostilities.

Excerpt from the statement released by Shehbaz Sharif:



“Both sides have declared the immediate andpermanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”

https://x.com/CMShehbaz/status/2066268332832194810


President Trump confirmed the completion of this very same deal on June 14:

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete.”

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116750587569914985


The US side has also described this deal as an end to the war and hostilities:

“The United States and Iran have signed a memorandum of understanding to end a near four-month war, senior U.S. officials said on Monday”

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-vance-irans-parliament-speaker-signed-mou-2026-06-15/


“Initial deal to end US-Iran war moves toward formal signing despite lingering questions”


https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-oil-june-15-2026-77406473da38c6c126818610a219dc20

P1 – NOThe requirements for a “Yes” resolution have not been met because there is no evidence of an agreement that satisfies the definition of a permanent peace deal as defined in the rules.

##1. No qualifying permanent peace deal existsThe rules require an agreement that explicitly indicates, or uses equivalent language clearly signaling, a lasting or permanent end to military hostilities between the United States and Iran.

No official US government statement or agreement meeting this threshold has been issued.

There is no publicly documented agreement indicating a permanent cessation of hostilities, nor any equivalent language clearly establishing permanence.

##2. No qualifying agreement has been established under either conditionA qualifying agreement must be established via either:

a written agreement meeting the above definition, or
clear public confirmation by both governments that such an agreement has been definitively established.

Neither condition is satisfied.

There is no signed or formally adopted agreement meeting the definition, and no bilateral public confirmation from both governments that a qualifying permanent peace deal has been established.

##3. No definitive establishment in official sourcesThe rules require “clear public confirmation” of a qualifying agreement.

Existing public statements (if any) do not constitute definitive confirmation of a permanent peace deal as defined in the market rules.

##ConclusionSince no qualifying permanent peace deal has been established under the definition provided, and neither establishment condition has been met, the market should resolve to No.The burden of proof lies in demonstrating fulfillment of the defined conditions for a Yes resolution, which has not occurred.

P1-no
Iranian Pres: it is the start of the discussions, not complete (screenshot attached)
Vance: It is about a page and a half, a very general document, part of the conversations we've had with the iranians.

Every news outlet echoes this. it is a framework to start discussions on the end of the war.

Important to note: there was explicitly 2 markets. one which was for an agreement to be signed--any. the second was for the market "definitive and final". this is a uniquely different market with the very specific instruction that you have to have had no more "ceasefires" or "making progress." this is unambiguous. they're still talking.

Conclusion:
This is insane to even talk about. no one is saying this is the final agreement.

P1 (NO)

No US government source has confirmed that this deal is permanent. Neither Trump, nor Vance, nor any US Govt source I can find say anything whatsoever about permanence, and all parties are refusing to release the details of the MoU.

Meanwhile, Trump has threatened further military action as reported in multiple outlets on 6/15. He refers to the deal merely as "promising" and continues to make military threats.

NYT: "He (Trump) also warned Iran, in an interview with The New York Times, that the US could restart military operations"
PBS: "Trump is hailing the Iran deal as promising, but not a guarantee. "Hopefully we get along," he says. "If we don't, we go back to where we started."""

There is no clear statement on permanence from the US, and Iran's statements are contradictory. **This fails the "clear public confirmation" bar of the market rules. The rules clearly state "BOTH the governments of the United States AND Iran provide clear public confirmation that a QUALIFYING agreement has been made.**Furthermore, almost EVERY media outlet is reporting it as a ceasefire on 6/15, not a permanent deal. All headlines reporting a permanent deal are from 6/14 and merely quote the Pakistani PM in a rush to push out headlines quickly. The Pakistani PM is not a member of either the "Governments of the United States AND (or) Iran".

While some Iranian sources have used the term permanent, others including the President of Iran have specifically said it is only an "important step", clearly non-permanent language.

https://x.com/drpezeshkian/status/2066576320138555575**This fails the "qualifying agreement bar", as agreements that "are explicitly temporary or...ceasefire agreement" do not meet the market's rules.**

6/15 direct quotes from consensus reporting:

*NPR: "The text of the deal was not immediately released but has been widely described by U.S. and Iranian officials and in media reports. The agreement extends the current U.S.-Iran ceasefire for 60 days."

BBC: "The deal will extend a ceasefire for another 60 days"

CBS: "tentative agreement extends the ceasefire"

Atlantic Council "The US and Iran just announced an interim peace deal."

NBC: "Trump and Iran reach tentative deal"

CNBC: "The agreement would extend the ceasefire for 60 days"

PBS: "The United States and Iran reached an initial agreement Monday that would extend their shaky ceasefire"

ABC: "The U.S. and Iran reached a tentative peace deal to extend a ceasefire"

Australian Broadcasting Corp: "This memorandum amounts to a real ceasefire so that in the subsequent 60 days the details can be negotiated."

FOX: "Vice President JD Vance said Monday that President Donald Trump would not hesitate to resume military strikes against Iran"

AP — "An initial agreement between the United States and Iran to extend their shaky ceasefire"

WSJ - "Gold Edges Higher, Extending Gains After U.S.-Iran Ceasefire"*

6/15 must be properly resolved to NO, as the deadline has already passed. Dates after 6/15 should be TOO EARLY.

P2 Yes Rules: > A permanent peace deal refers to any agreement whichexplicitly indicates that military hostilities between the United States and Iran have ended or will permanently ceaseText of the signed memorandum of understanding (MOU):

Paragraph 1 of the MOU is said to state thatIran and the US, “and their allies in the current war…declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operationson all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now onnot to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and torefrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.”

Announcement of the agreement by Pakistan:

Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED. Both sideshave declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operationson all fronts, including in Lebanon.

Announcement of the agreement by Iran:

Based on the agreements reached,the warand military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon,will end immediately and permanently as of tonight, and in addition, the naval blockade against Iran will end immediately and completely.

Announcements of the agreement by Trump:

The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete.

This Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region. Many presidents have tried to make Peace with Iran, and all have failed before me.

Announcement of the agreement by the White House:

President Donald J. Trump has announced a historic**peace agreement with Iran -- ending decades of hostility **

P: 4 - too early

Evidence:

1. Iranian Deputy FM Kazem Gharibabadi (Tasnim News, June 15): Confirmed that the text is currently just a draft MoU and the official signing ceremony will only take place on Friday, June 19 in Switzerland. He stated this initiates a "60-day verification and talks" period.
2. President Trump Interview (NYT, June 15): Explicitly stated that the peace framework is conditional, warning that if the 60-day nuclear talks fail, "he would restart military attacks."

Rationale:
The YES camp (P2) is hyper-focusing on political rhetoric while completely ignoring the strict definitions of the Polymarket contract.

The rules explicitly state: "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... will not qualify."

The P2 thesis fails on three structural grounds:

1. No established agreement before deadline: As of the June 15 contract deadline, no document was signed or legally implemented. Deputy FM Gharibabadi confirmed the official signing is delayed until Friday.
2. Explicitly temporary framework: The Islamabad Memorandum is an interim 60-day framework agreement to conduct further technical talks, leaving core issues (nuclear, sanctions) completely unresolved.
3. Hostilities have not "permanently ceased": President Trump’s explicit threat to resume bombing Iran if the 60-day talks fail proves that a lasting end to hostilities was never definitively established.

Voting P2 is a direct violation of the market's clear textual constraints. The correct resolution must be P4 (Too Early) or P1 (NO).

P1 -> No
Explanation

The market requires a permanent peace deal, not merely a ceasefire or framework for future negotiations. Current reporting indicates that the parties have announced a ceasefire and a broader diplomatic framework, but several core issues remain unresolved and subject to additional negotiations.

Evidence

Reuters reports describe the agreement as including a permanent ceasefire, but also note that major issues such as nuclear restrictions and sanctions are still being negotiated.
Multiple reports characterize the arrangement as a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or preliminary framework rather than a finalized peace treaty.
The market rules explicitly exclude agreements that are temporary or do not definitively establish a lasting end to hostilities.

Rationale

A permanent ceasefire is not necessarily the same thing as a permanent peace agreement. The market wording requires a definitive agreement that military hostilities have permanently ended. If key terms are still being negotiated and the current arrangement functions primarily as a framework for future talks, then the criteria for a "permanent peace deal" have not yet been satisfied. Under a strict reading of the rules, this supports a NO resolution.

Sources

Reuters (peace deal / ceasefire): https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/iran-us-agree-halt-war-reopen-hormuz-sending-oil-prices-tumbling-2026-06-15/�Reuters (remaining negotiations): https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/iran-says-draft-us-deal-includes-oil-sanctions-waiver-nuclear-limits-asset-2026-06-14/�Polymarket market rules: https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by-june-15-2026-734-856-129

P2

Done deal and rule met.

P2 YES

The MoU was formally signed and adopted by both parties and includes explicit commitments from both sides to a permanent end of the war.

P1 - P4

The market rules explicitly require a "permanent peace deal" to be signed by both parties or a consensus of sources. Neither is currently true.
Logically it would fall under P1 - 'NO', cautiously under P4 - 'TOO EARLY".

Why it is not a permanent peace deal:
Multiple sources, as important and reliable than the ones announcing of a peace deal have reiterated how it is an interim step.
Both the sources optimistically citing peace (Pakistani PM) and the ones describing it as an interim step did so informally.
The only logical conclusion is that neither is to be interpreted as the whole source of truth, hence if the parties were intellectually honest, there is no way that YES would be considered the current correct resolution.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-us-iran-say-they-have-agreed-memorandum-end-war-2026-06-15/

Why there is not a consensus in the reporting:
Multiple sources, in fact most journalistic outlets, cite this as a preliminary/interim agreement, including:
"Iran's top negotiator Qalibaf to attend signing of interim deal with US"
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-top-negotiator-qalibaf-attend-signing-interim-deal-with-us-2026-06-16/?utm_source=chatgpt.com�US-Iran deal promises end to war but how it will work remains unclear
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-iran-deal-promises-end-war-how-it-will-work-remains-unclear-2026-06-16/�" The interim agreement would extend a tenuous ceasefire announced in April by another 60 days"

The deal will be signed officially on Friday the 19th, four days after the date of the 15th.
Until the signing we will not effectively have access to the text of the deal, which would satisfy most of the current unknowns.
It is, therefore, impossible to claim a definitive YES/NO answer before the text is made public. To propose a resolution so early is definitely premature and will guarantee that whichever answer is chosen will be done so blind to the actual facts of the matter.

P2

From the mou;

1. Iran & the U.S., together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this MoU an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and commit that from now on they will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other

Seems quite clear

P1 - NO

For June 15 as there was no agreement actually signed before June 19.

P2 for all later dates.

P1-no

After the Bloomberg report was published, this issue is no longer a quiet governance dispute — it has already become a public, media-driven controversy. The narrative is now in the open, and it is being discussed beyond crypto-native circles.

From this point onward, whatever outcome the UMA decision produces will be interpreted through a media lens.

If the final ruling is Yes, there is a high probability that Bloomberg — and potentially other mainstream financial media — will continue covering the story as a case of questionable oracle governance or market manipulation. This is especially sensitive because Polymarket is reportedly preparing for a potential IPO. At that stage, any perception of governance failure becomes a direct reputational and regulatory liability.

In that scenario, allowing a controversial “Yes” outcome to pass could be interpreted as a governance loophole being exploited under public pressure. The cost is not just the immediate market outcome, but a chain reaction of scrutiny

On the other hand, a No ruling consistent with the established rules would likely reinforce the credibility of the system. It would support the argument that decentralized prediction markets can operate independently of media narratives and external pressure, even under intense public attention.

So the real issue is no longer just the specific event outcome — it has become a test of whether the system can maintain rule-based integrity under global visibility.

justice may be delayed, but it does not disappea

P1 - NO

ExplanationThis market should resolveNObecause, as of the June 15 deadline, there was no finalized permanent peace agreement between the United States and Iran. The available evidence points to an interim framework, memorandum, or ceasefire arrangement with major unresolved issues deferred to future negotiations.Evidence

• Reuters repeatedly described the announced deal as a "preliminary agreement"and a"framework to end the war", not a finalized peace treaty.

• Reuters reported that the agreement leaves the future of Iran's nuclear program to further negotiations, meaning core elements of a long-term settlement were still unresolved.

• Reuters separately published an article specifically describing the document as a memorandumoutlining what the parties had agreed to, rather than a signed permanent peace treaty.RationaleThe market rules do not ask whether hostilities have paused or whether the parties announced a diplomatic breakthrough. They ask whether the United States and Iran established apermanent peace deal.

A framework for future peace is not the same thing as a completed permanent peace agreement. Under a strict reading of the market rules, the existence of ongoing negotiations and unresolved core provisions supports aNOresolution.Sources

Reuters – Preliminary agreement/framework: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-iran-reach-peace-deal-signing-set-friday-pakistan-says-2026-06-14/ Reuters – Interim deal details remain unclear: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-iran-deal-promises-end-war-how-it-will-work-remains-unclear-2026-06-16/�*Reuters – Memorandum to end the war: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-us-iran-say-they-have-agreed-memorandum-end-war-2026-06-15/* Polymarket rules: https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by/us-x-iran-permanent-peace-deal-by-june-15-2026-734-856-129

P1- NO

Polymarket's own Market Context, updated June 16, states: 'It does not constitute a comprehensive or permanent peace agreement.' This is Polymarket's own characterization of the underlying event. If the platform itself says it's not a permanent peace deal, UMA has no basis to resolve Yes.

P1 - NO

*�Evidence:

• �The sweeping claims that the deal "ends the war on all fronts" primarily stem from a social media post by Pakistani P.M Sharif (mediator) and Iranian side. It does not represent a unified, definitive public confirmation of a permanent peace from BOTH sovereign governments. US has not yet confirm Iran's announcement about that

• �Wide consensus across international news outlets confirms that the signed text is a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) establishing a temporary 60-day ceasefire window. This is structurally transient and inherently fails the criteria for a qualified permanent agreement

• While a digital signature was used to initialize the framework, signing a fundamentally temporary and conditional framework does not make it a final, permanent peace treaty* �Rationale:
  �An MoU is essentially the diplomatic equivalent of "let's talk about talking". It's not internationally recognized as a permanent peace treaty. The only way "YES" is justified here is if both US-Iran officially guaranteed that military action was permanently off the table, regardless of how the 60-day technical negotiations ended. �Instead, Trump told the New York Times that he would restart military attacks if Iran fails to reach a final nuclear agreement during the after the talk

Furthermore, Iran themselves have said that the war isn't over until Israel comply, which Israel refused and claims that they are not bounded by the MoU:

War not end yet.

It's all but a conditional truce. Since June 15 have passed without qualified deal, this should be NO

P2 Yes

Iran & the USA, declared upon the signing of this MoU an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and commit that from now on they will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.

P1, as MOU now being leaked in part:
Ravid: "If a final agreement is reached, US will withdraw forces within 30 days and lift all sanctions on iran. any final agreement will include a plan to establish a 300 billion dollar fund for Irans reconstruction."
This is exactly the point of this market--the differentiation between "talking" which Iran and the US always choreograph and have yet to ever finish, and actually being finished. US to grant TEMPORARY sanctions weaivers to sell oil during the negotiations.

Iranian Pres: it is the start of the discussions, not complete (screenshot attached)
Vance: It is about a page and a half, a very general document, part of the conversations we've had with the iranians.

Every news outlet echoes this. it is a framework to start discussions on the end of the war.

Important to note: there was explicitly 2 markets. one which was for an agreement to be signed--any. the second was for the market "definitive and final". this is a uniquely different market with the very specific instruction that you have to have had no more "ceasefires" or "making progress." this is unambiguous. they're still talking.

Conclusion:
This is insane to even talk about. no one is saying this is the final agreement.
This is P1 laid bare.