These two prediction markets probe distinct but interconnected geopolitical scenarios. Market A asks whether China will invade Taiwan by end-of-2026—a military action that would fundamentally reshape East Asian security and global trade. Market B questions whether the United States will invade Iran before 2027, a scenario rooted in decades of strategic tension and Iran's nuclear program development. While separated by geography, both markets track potential great-power military escalations with profound economic and security implications. Together, they represent opposite poles of a larger geopolitical risk landscape: one centered on Asian hegemony, the other on Middle Eastern conflict. The 23-point spread between these markets (7% China-Taiwan vs 30% U.S.-Iran) reveals striking asymmetry in trader conviction. The 30% probability on U.S.-Iran conflict reflects genuine policy debates within U.S. leadership, Congressional positions, and recent regional provocations—traders price this path as materially plausible within 18 months. By contrast, the 7% China-Taiwan probability suggests traders view military invasion as an extreme tail risk despite Beijing's military modernization and periodic rhetoric. This gap likely reflects mutual economic interdependence deterrence, Taiwan's defensive capability improvements, ambiguity over long-term U.S. commitment credibility, and Beijing's apparent preference for non-military coercion. The market is pricing a much colder calculation in Beijing than in Washington. These scenarios could diverge sharply or, in tail cases, interact. A U.S.-Iran conflict would redirect American military capacity from Asia, potentially emboldening Beijing in the near term. Conversely, a China-Taiwan escalation would lock U.S. Pacific forces into Asia, making simultaneous Iran operations politically infeasible. Economically, each scenario carries asymmetric ripple effects: Taiwan conflict disrupts semiconductor supply globally; Iran conflict spikes oil prices and insurance costs. Traders pricing these markets separately may be rationally assuming compartmentalization, yet geopolitical shocks historically accelerate cascades. Current odds reflect a world in which structural deterrence remains intact. Watch for convergence triggers: U.S. domestic political shifts, Iranian nuclear escalation timelines, Taiwan military readiness signals, or Chinese defense policy announcements. Intelligence assessments, leadership rhetoric, arms shipments, and sanctions escalation are leading indicators in both markets. The relative stability of these prices suggests traders believe deterrence holds—but that belief is vulnerable to surprise geopolitical incident or policy announcement.