As of September 3, 2026, Polymarket prices “UNSC Resolution Endorsing Final U.S.-Iran Deal by December 31?” at 14% YES with $218K traded. 1 tracked wallet holds a position here; the dominant side is YES.
Prediction markets put the probability at 14%: UNSC Resolution Endorsing Final U.S.-Iran Deal by December 31. Currently, markets see this as unlikely (14% YES).
The diplomatic pathway toward a final U.S.-Iran agreement remains heavily constrained by the institutional legacy of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That resolution, adopted unanimously on July 20, 2015, created the legal framework for lifting nuclear-related sanctions on Iran once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified compliance—a milestone reached on January 16, 2016, when "Implementation Day" triggered the suspension of UN sanctions [Atlantic Council, May 08]. Any new UNSC resolution endorsing final U.S.-Iran deal by December 31 would require navigating the same five permanent members—Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States—plus Germany, a group whose unity has fractured significantly since 2015 over Tehran's ballistic missile program and regional proxy activities [ABC News, Jul 20].
The current 14% probability reflects deep structural obstacles, most notably the snapback mechanism embedded in Resolution 2231. Under that provision, any UNSC permanent member can demand the reimposition of terminated UN sanctions if Tehran is found in material breach of its commitments—a tool the United States attempted to invoke in August 2020, though the move was widely contested as legally dubious since Washington had withdrawn from the JCPOA in 2018 [War on the Rocks, Aug 31]. Analysts note that any new UNSC resolution endorsing final U.S.-Iran deal by December 31 would need to resolve the snapback dispute definitively, either by superseding Resolution 2231 or by incorporating explicit sunset clauses that satisfy both hawkish Western capitals and Tehran's demand for durable sanctions relief [Just Security, Aug 29].
The decisive factor will be whether Washington can secure consensus among the P5, particularly from Russia and China, both of which have deepened economic and military ties with Tehran since 2022 and have signaled reluctance to reimpose UN sanctions. The United States also faces internal friction: while the Biden administration has pursued renewed diplomacy, congressional hawks demand that any agreement address Iran's support for the Houthis in Yemen—an issue that previously blocked UNSC consensus, as seen in December 2018 when the U.S. abstained from a Yemen cease-fire resolution over the absence of explicit Iranian accountability language [VOA News, Dec 21]. With the IAEA reporting continued enrichment activities and the snapback clock ticking, the structural impediment remains the same as in 2015: a UNSC resolution endorsing final U.S.-Iran deal by December 31 requires unanimous P5 approval, and the current geopolitical rift over Ukraine, Taiwan, and Middle East escalation makes that unanimity historically improbable within the remaining calendar window.
See which tracked wallets hold this market (entries, size, P&L), the models’ fair value and entry targets — and get an alert within a minute when they trade.
Unlock PRO — $29/moTracked wallets are positioned YES, but 5/7 models estimate NO. Wallets and models disagree — no entry.
| Model | Says | Fair Value estimated fair price | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| MATH PIN Model | YES | 98c | — |
| MATH Compound Signal | NO | 65c | — |
| AI Claude Analysis | NO | 91c | 82% |
| AI DeepSeek Quant | NO | 88c | 78% |
| AI Grok Contrarian | YES | 42c | 55% |
| AI Gemini Flash | NO | 82c | 75% |
| AI Kimi Macro | NO | 88c | 78% |
5 of 7 models estimate NO fair value below market (65–91c vs 86c). Claude Analysis leads with 82% confidence.
Models estimate fair value of NO at 83c — market prices it at 86c. 3-point gap supports YES.
The single tracked wallet holds a concentrated YES position at 31c, indicating a prior conviction that a deal would pass, but the current 14c price shows the market has moved sharply against this bet. This entry suggests the wallet was early or misjudged timing, and its lack of averaging down or new NO entries implies either a wait-and-see stance or capital constraints. The absence of fresh NO entries from this wallet signals no aggressive bearish repositioning, but the stale YES position offers little directional guidance for future price action.
| Wallet | Category | Side | Amount | P&L | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0x0845..6f | MM | YES | $1.6K | -48% |
All YES holders are underwater, having entered at 31c while the market now trades at 14c, implying a 55% loss on their positions. With no NO holders in profit and no recent NO entries, there is no active profit-taking pressure from the NO side, but the YES cohort's losses suggest they may be trapped, potentially capping upside unless new catalysts emerge. The dominant YES side faces significant resistance at their entry price, as any rally toward 31c would likely trigger selling by those seeking to break even.
Polymarket prices YES at 14c with $218K in total volume. Our model estimates fair value at 17c. 3-point gap is within normal range — no significant mispricing.
| Platform | YES Price | Volume |
|---|---|---|
| Polymarket | 14c | $218K |
| Our Model | 17c | — |