These two markets examine the same geopolitical question—whether the US and Iran will achieve a permanent peace deal—but on different timescales. Market A asks if this happens by May 31, 2026 (approximately 7 months from now), while Market B extends the deadline to December 31, 2026 (roughly 7 months further). Both markets define a "permanent peace deal" through similar criteria: a formal agreement addressing core disputes (nuclear program, sanctions, regional tensions) with credible enforcement mechanisms and broad international recognition. The relationship between these markets is hierarchical: any outcome that triggers Market A's YES resolution automatically satisfies Market B's YES resolution. This nesting creates a natural spread that traders use to price the probability distribution of when—or if—such a deal might occur. The 55-point spread between Market A (12%) and Market B (67%) reveals significant trader conviction about timing. If markets believed a deal was equally likely in any given month, we'd expect a much tighter spread. Instead, the wide gap suggests traders believe a May 31 deal is highly unlikely (12% implies roughly 1-in-8 odds), but a deal sometime by year-end is moderately probable (67%, or roughly 2-in-3 odds). This implies traders assign approximately 55 percentage points to a deal occurring between June and December 2026. In other words: most traders see peace talks as unlikely to conclude within 7 months, but reasonably possible within 19 months. The extreme discount for the near-term deadline reflects both structural political challenges and the typical pace of international negotiations. These markets are not independent. If you believe geopolitical conditions are improving rapidly—perhaps due to leadership changes, breakthrough negotiation milestones, or regional tensions cooling—both odds should rise together, though Market A would lag behind. Conversely, if tensions escalate or diplomatic channels freeze, both should fall, with Market A falling faster. However, they can diverge sharply if traders update on timing rather than feasibility: news that talks are progressing but slower than hoped could lower Market A while raising Market B. The two markets can also separate if traders believe an immediate deal is structurally impossible but a comprehensive agreement is likely after months of deliberation. Holding both markets allows you to express nuanced views—for example, "deal by year-end is likely, but I'm very confident it won't come in the next 7 months." Monitor diplomatic readiness and nuclear negotiations progress; breakthroughs in JCPOA restoration discussions, sanctions relief frameworks, or regional de-escalation efforts would lift both markets, especially Market A. Watch for geopolitical volatility—military incidents, leadership changes, or proxy conflicts—which typically compresses odds across both timelines. Track international mediation efforts by the EU, Qatar, or other parties; active third-party engagement often signals momentum. Finally, observe election cycles; US and Iranian political calendars can dramatically shift negotiation willingness and public support for peace accords. Any formal announcement of talks resuming would likely trigger an immediate Market A rerating upward.