This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States military provides in-air refueling to Israeli aircraft as part of operations involving strikes on Iranian territory by 11:59 PM ET on June 30, 2025. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No." Strikes must be confirmed as targeting sites within Iran, and the refueling must be directly associated with those missions. General military cooperation, joint exercises, or unrelated refueling operations will not count. The resolution source will be a consensus of credible media reporting.
This resolution is bullshit
[link removed]
They already voted no
And sadly i think there is no way do appeal it
There should be a way to appeal it, just this article is enough for a yes
IS THIS NOT BIG ENOUGH???
Times of Israel article clearly states it
The U.S. joined decisively: defending Israel from Iranian missiles and drones, refuelling Israeli jets, deploying B-2 bombers with MOPs and launching attacks on Fordo and Natanz, and launching Tomahawk missiles on key Iranian targets, such as Isfahan a critical uranium conversion facility tied directly to weaponisation.
From the Times of Israel: [link removed]
[link removed]
When review?
I don’t get it, the US actually did refill Israelis jet fighters end of June, this Israeli planes then hit Iran multiple times so these is no debate the answer is a YES.
I guess in the end the idea is that - even if an even obviously happened - 1 single source only work if that source is of high quality, and that newspaper that said it happened was a bid of a rag
Is it always this case of not getting into consensus and not updating the users?
who won
Noone
Still in voting phase. And yes, we will :) Some think "media consensus" means POTUS must confirm it, but that's not true. It means: 1. Credible sources (like Reuters, AP, WSJ) 2. Consistent reports across outlets 3. Info not debunked or refuted Strikes must be confirmed in Iran, and refueling must be part of those missions. Not just general cooperation. If that standard is met, this resolves Yes. Media consensus != official statement
why are you lying? there is a good reason no is worth 0.1c and it's not because you're about to win. it's too late to bring up arguments lol
Why are you acting like market price decides UMA resolution? This market has clear criteria, and every condition for a "Yes" outcome has been met: - US refueled Israeli jets - The refueling supported strikes on Iran - It happened before July Media reports (Israel Hayom, AntiWar) confirm this. If we are following the written rules, this should resolve to "Yes", not based on market price or trader sentiment.
I'm saying the UMA resolution - happening right now - is influencing the market price. You bought something you don't understand and your bag is forfeit.
who won
YESBROS, LET'S CELEBRATE!
Can you kindly tip me bro. I would be grateful
who won
it will take 24 hour for the vote to finish - but you lost and should sell for whatever penny your position is worth
what win yes or no
who win
shit son if you have to ask...
Is the market done
DO No us has confirmed.
what do y mean?
Sources confirming US refueled Israeli jets during Iran strikes: - "US refueled Israeli jets throughout Iran war" - Israel Hayom - "US Refueled Israeli Jets Throughout Iran War" - [link removed] - "U.S. Refueling Planes Aided Israeli Jets in Iran Strikes" - Yeshiva World News - "US prepares to aid Israeli strikes with aerial refueling" - CNN (via Iran International) - "U.S. bolsters Trump’s Middle East military options by moving refueling aircraft" - Reuters - "IDF: Over 600 mid-air refuelings conducted during campaign" - Times of Israel Consensus is clear. This fits the UMA.
[link removed]
Reuters is not explicit about it, but it helps provide context. All the planes sent to europe could be sent to refuel jets over the sky of siria in a matter of hours. Which seeing how they used the b2 is exactly what trump likes to do, go help and come back
The explicit ones are: Israel Hayom [link removed] Yeshiva World News
[link removed]
bro, you're fucked -- sorry
[link removed]
This should resolve Yes. Israeli outlets (Israel Hayom, YWN) and [link removed] all confirmed U.S. tankers refueled Israeli jets during Iran strikes. Reuters also tracked the tanker deployment. UMA only requires credible media consensus, not official gov confirmation. All conditions are clearly met.
All referred to the same article. Was debunked days ago and it would have changed the nature of the US involvement entirely. No big news outlet confirmed the involvement. Big NO
Debunked by whom?, and i saw more than 1 article
not to mention, the Israeli source doesn't even say that the refueling occurred during strikes on Iran. Let's assume that the article is true. Even with that, it's not enough to resolve this market to yes.
Israel did 700 refuels in Air while only having 7 planes for that and 250 jets on its Air force, Reuters confirmed 30 us tanker planes moved to the area before the atacked happened, the only thing that makes sense is that us planes helped israeli jets ton refuel in Air to atack iran, that besides all the articles that speak about it