general · 4 h ago
This directly prices the story’s leaked nuclear-deal claim by asking whether a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal is reached before 2027, which includes a deal by 2026-12-31.
This directly concerns a U.S.-Iran agreement, but the deadline is June 15, 2026, so it does not match the story’s by-2026-12-31 claim.
Same as above, it is about any signed agreement between the U.S. and Iran but only through June 30, 2026, not year-end 2026.
It concerns a U.S.-Iran agreement, but the cutoff is July 31, 2026, which is earlier than the story’s year-end deal claim.
This is about U.S. acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment, a specific negotiating point relevant to the leaked deal but not the broader question of whether a deal is reached.
A permanent peace deal would be related to a broader U.S.-Iran deal, but this market specifically requires a lasting end to military hostilities, which is narrower than the story’s leaked nuclear/broader deal claim.
This is the same permanent-peace-deal ladder as 2155052, but the July 31 deadline is less precise than the year-end market and still not the nuclear/broader deal claim.
Same permanent-peace-deal ladder, but the June 15 deadline is earlier and the market is narrower than the story’s broader deal claim.
This is on the same U.S.-Iran permanent-peace-deal ladder, but the October 31 deadline is less precise than the year-end deal market.
Same ladder and topic, but the August 31 deadline is not the story’s year-end date and it still only covers a permanent peace deal.
It prices any U.S.-Iran agreement by June 22, 2026, so it is related context but not the story’s year-end deal claim.