These two markets frame the same outcome—regime collapse in Iran—but with radically different timeframes. Market A asks if it happens by May 31, 2026 (within two weeks from mid-May), while Market B extends the question to any point before January 1, 2027. The price differential—1% for the near-term event versus 17% for the longer horizon—reveals how traders assign probability to timing. Both markets hinge on the same underlying question: will the Iranian regime fall? But they measure different aspects of that question: the near-term urgency versus the broader likelihood within a full calendar year. The 16-percentage-point spread reflects traders' assessment that regime collapse is possible but highly unlikely in the next fortnight, yet meaningfully more probable if you extend the window to eight months. A 1% probability for May 31 suggests markets price regime collapse as roughly equivalent to a 1-in-100 event by that specific date—extraordinary volatility would be required. The 17% probability for before 2027 is still modest in absolute terms, but it's 17 times higher, indicating that enough conviction exists in that possibility within a full eight-month window to move the longer-dated market significantly upward. The two markets' outcomes would be perfectly correlated if regime collapse happens—if it falls by May 31, it automatically resolves YES for both markets. However, they can diverge significantly in the opposite direction. If the regime survives May 31, Market A resolves NO while Market B remains open, able to capture any subsequent collapse through year-end. This asymmetry matters: traders skeptical of collapse before May 31 can still be constructive on the longer-dated market if they believe the risk is non-zero but time-dependent. Conversely, someone deeply skeptical of regime collapse as a concept would short both markets, seeing the longer-dated one as offering slightly better odds but the same directional downside. Several catalysts could shift either market's probability. Internal political instability, economic deterioration, regional conflicts, or external interventions could accelerate the timeline and narrow the 16-point gap. A stabilization of domestic or international conditions could compress both probabilities further. The narrow May 31 window makes that market acutely sensitive to near-term geopolitical shocks; any significant incident could spike it dramatically. The longer-dated market has more capacity to absorb information over time and is less hostage to short-term volatility. Traders monitoring these markets should watch Iranian domestic politics, military posture, international relations, and economic indicators—material shifts in any domain could make the 16-point spread either tighter or wider.