These two markets track the same outcome—a permanent peace deal between the United States and Iran—but with different deadlines. Market A asks whether such a deal will be reached by May 31, 2026 (approximately 45 days from today), while Market B extends the timeline to June 30, 2026, giving negotiators an additional month. Since both markets measure the same diplomatic outcome, they are nested: if a peace deal is signed by May 31, both markets will resolve YES. However, they can diverge if a deal emerges in June but not before the May deadline—a scenario that would see Market A resolve NO and Market B resolve YES. The price spread between these markets is striking: Market A's 12% YES probability signals traders see a permanent peace deal as extremely unlikely within the next month and a half. In contrast, Market B's 33% YES probability suggests traders consider a deal more feasible given the extra 30 days. This 21-percentage-point gap reveals two key insights. First, traders believe the May 31 deadline is too tight for serious diplomatic progress—perhaps reflecting skepticism about how quickly complex geopolitical negotiations can move. Second, the bump in probability for Market B suggests that an additional month materially improves the odds, hinting that traders expect substantive talks to begin soon but require time to reach agreement. The relationship between these markets reveals trader expectations about negotiation timelines. If traders believed a deal was imminent, both markets would trade at similar prices. The gap indicates traders think any breakthrough is more likely a June event than a May one. Historically, major international peace agreements take months or years to negotiate, so a 45-day first deadline may be overly optimistic. However, modern diplomacy sometimes moves faster under concentrated effort—a sudden geopolitical shift could accelerate talks. The difference in pricing also suggests traders are hedging: they're skeptical of May but willing to assign meaningful probability to June, capturing the option value of unexpected diplomatic progress without betting heavily on a near-term surprise. Readers should monitor several key developments over the next 45–75 days. Direct US-Iran diplomatic signals—official statements, backchannel reports, UN mediation efforts—will be primary movers. Broader Middle East stability, particularly developments in Gaza, Lebanon, or proxy conflicts, often influences Iran negotiations either positively (creating pressure for comprehensive settlement) or negatively (escalating mutual hostility). Domestic politics in both countries matter: a leadership change or new foreign minister can reset diplomatic posture overnight. Finally, watch for announcements of scheduled talks or negotiation frameworks; if talks are formally scheduled before May 31, Market A's price may rise, while delays beyond June 30 would suggest both markets are overpriced.