Both markets ask about potential escalation between the US and Iran, but they frame very different scenarios. Market A focuses on regime change in Iran—specifically whether the Iranian government itself will collapse by April 30, 2026. Market B, meanwhile, asks a narrower question: will the US formally declare war on Iran by the same date. While both relate to US-Iran tensions, they are distinct outcomes. A regime collapse might result from internal instability, external pressure, military intervention, or a combination of factors. A US war declaration represents a specific, formal policy decision that typically follows or accompanies military hostilities. It's theoretically possible for the US to conduct military operations without a formal declaration, or for Iran's government to face collapse without direct US military involvement—though in practice, these scenarios are heavily interconnected. Both markets are currently priced at 0%, which is remarkable given the events' theoretical possibility. This reflects trader consensus that neither event will occur by April 30—a deadline just four days away. The zero-pricing is particularly significant for Market B (US war declaration), where traders are assigning essentially no probability to a formal Congressional declaration or presidential war authorization within this window. For Market A (regime fall), the 0% reflects skepticism that Iran's government could completely collapse in four days, despite any ongoing protests, sanctions, or geopolitical tensions. The uniform pricing of both markets at 0% suggests traders view these as extraordinarily low-probability events on such a short timeline, regardless of current geopolitical conditions. This consensus is worth noting: if either market were to move significantly, it would signal a substantial shift in trader expectations about regional escalation. The two markets could correlate or diverge depending on how events unfold. A major US military strike or full-scale war could theoretically destabilize Iran's government and accelerate regime collapse, creating a scenario where both markets move together. Conversely, these regimes could operate independently: internal Iranian political collapse might occur without US military action (perhaps from civil unrest or economic breakdown), while a US war declaration would likely depend on specific triggers like attacks on US assets or allies. The correlation between the two outcomes is complex—a formal war declaration often signals high confidence in military success, but regime change is a longer-term outcome that depends on ground conditions, international pressure, and internal Iranian politics. Traders analyzing these markets might expect them to move together in some scenarios or diverge sharply in others. Key signals that could move either market include: direct military confrontations or incidents involving US and Iranian forces; statements from US officials about military readiness or diplomatic escalation; Iranian government statements about existential threats; and regional proxy activity (Houthis, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias). Cyber attacks, nuclear facility concerns, or maritime incidents in the Persian Gulf could rapidly shift probabilities. For Market A specifically, watch for signs of internal Iranian political instability, economic collapse, or public unrest. For Market B, focus on Congressional activity, presidential statements, and whether traditional war-declaration triggers (direct attacks on US citizens or assets) materialize. The short four-day window means both markets require imminent, concrete developments to move from zero—routine geopolitical posturing is unlikely to shift either price meaningfully.