Iran has a history of closing its airspace during periods of heightened military tension, as seen in April 2024 and January 2026. However, such closures are rare and typically require a significant trigger, such as an imminent threat or large-scale military exercise. As of mid-2026, there is no clear indication of an impending major conflict that would necessitate a broad airspace closure, but ongoing geopolitical frictions (e.g., with Israel) keep the possibility non-negligible. Base rates suggest a low but not zero probability within the next month.
There is no current indication or credible reports suggesting Iran plans a major airspace closure by June 30, 2026. While Iran has previously closed its airspace for political or military reasons, such closures are rare and typically tied to specific events or escalations. Given the lack of recent tensions or announcements, the probability remains low but not zero due to the unpredictable geopolitical environment.
While Iran has historically closed its airspace during periods of heightened military tension, such events are typically reactive to specific escalatory incidents. Given the current geopolitical climate and the lack of immediate indicators suggesting a major, non-weather-related, broad-scale closure of commercial aviation across multiple major airports, a low probability is assigned.
Iran has a history of closing its airspace during periods of political tension or military exercises, but such closures are not frequent. Recent events, such as the January 2026 closure, suggest that while possible, major airspace closures are not common. The current geopolitical climate does not indicate an imminent closure, but tensions could escalate.
As of now, there are no indications of an imminent or planned major closure of Iranian airspace by June 30, 2026. Recent closures, such as the April 2024 western airspace restriction and January 2026 full closure, were tied to regional military tensions, particularly involving Israel and the U.S. Current geopolitical conditions remain tense but stable, with no escalation suggesting a broad commercial airspace shutdown. Base rate of such closures is low (1–2 incidents per year), and no credible reports or NOTAMs suggest an upcoming closure.
No current strong evidence of an impending major airspace closure by June 30; recent closures have been partial or for specific reasons.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
MicroStrategy has consistently stated it has no plans to sell its Bitcoin holdings, viewing them as a long-term treasury reserve asset. The company has continued to accumulate Bitcoin even during market downturns, and its CEO Michael Saylor is a vocal Bitcoin advocate. While a severe liquidity crisis or regulatory change could force a sale, the base rate for such a reversal in strategy is low given the company's public commitment and past behavior.
MicroStrategy has historically been a strong proponent of holding Bitcoin as a long-term asset, with CEO Michael Saylor emphasizing accumulation rather than selling. While the company has occasionally used Bitcoin as collateral for loans or engaged in strategic transactions, outright selling of Bitcoin holdings has not been a common practice. Given the company's current stance and market conditions, it is less likely but still possible that they might sell some Bitcoin by May 31, 2026, perhaps to manage liquidity or capitalize on market conditions.
MicroStrategy has consistently maintained a 'buy and hold' strategy for Bitcoin, with Michael Saylor repeatedly emphasizing that the company views Bitcoin as a long-term treasury reserve asset rather than a trading vehicle. While the company has issued debt to acquire more Bitcoin, there is no current indication of a shift in strategy that would necessitate selling, making a sale unlikely unless the company faces extreme liquidity distress or a fundamental change in corporate governance.
MicroStrategy has been a long-term holder of Bitcoin, consistently acquiring more despite market fluctuations. The company's CEO, Michael Saylor, has publicly expressed strong confidence in Bitcoin as a long-term investment. However, market conditions or unforeseen financial needs could potentially lead to a sale.
MicroStrategy has consistently added Bitcoin to its treasury reserves and positioned itself as a long-term holder. CEO Michael Saylor has repeatedly emphasized a 'no sell' strategy, framing Bitcoin as a core asset. While financial pressure or a change in leadership could prompt a sale, the current trajectory and public statements suggest strong commitment to holding. Base rate of companies selling accumulated Bitcoin is low, especially for those with a stated long-term strategy.
MicroStrategy has shown commitment to Bitcoin, but financial pressures or strategic shifts could lead to sales. On-chain data and public statements are key indicators.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
timeout after 30000ms
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical global oil transit chokepoint, and while geopolitical tensions have caused fluctuations in traffic, historical data shows that traffic tends to normalize after disruptions. Current trends indicate relative stability in the region, and shipping volumes have been recovering following recent conflicts and sanctions. Given the strategic importance and ongoing efforts to maintain maritime security, it is likely that transit calls will return to or exceed the threshold of 60 by mid-2026.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical global maritime chokepoint for oil and trade, and historical data consistently shows high volumes of transit calls. While geopolitical tensions can cause temporary fluctuations, the long-term economic necessity of this route makes it highly probable that transit volumes will reach or exceed the threshold of 60 calls within the extended timeframe provided.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical shipping lane, and traffic disruptions are typically temporary. Historical data shows that transit calls often return to normal levels within a few months after disruptions. The base rate for such recovery is high, and there are no current major conflicts or disruptions reported that would significantly delay the return to normal traffic levels by June 15, 2026.
Base rate of pre-conflict traffic supports regular volumes above 60, and partial normalization has occurred despite tensions. Recent data shows intermittent recovery, and with strong incentives to maintain trade flows, a return to 60+ is more likely than not by mid-2026, though risks of escalation remain.
Historically, the Strait of Hormuz has high transit call volumes, and absent major disruptions, the 7-day moving average should stay above 60. Current conditions don't indicate significant disruptions.
Mean of 5/6 valid model forecasts.
The Strait of Hormuz traffic, as measured by IMF Portwatch's 7-day moving average of transit calls, has been below 60 since early 2024 due to regional tensions and shipping disruptions (e.g., Houthi attacks, Iran-Israel hostilities). As of mid-2026, without a major de-escalation or recovery, the likelihood of sustained recovery to ≥60 by end of June is low. Base rate for such resilient disruptions is roughly 20-30% chance of full normalization within a semester.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint for global oil and shipping traffic, and historically, transit volumes tend to normalize after periods of disruption due to geopolitical tensions or conflicts. Given the current global emphasis on maintaining open trade routes and the absence of major ongoing conflicts specifically disrupting this route, it is likely that traffic will return to or exceed the threshold of 60 transit calls by the end of June 2026. However, potential regional instability or unforeseen events could still impact traffic volumes, so a probability below certainty is appropriate.
Historical data from IMF Portwatch indicates that the 7-day moving average for transit calls in the Strait of Hormuz frequently fluctuates above 60 during periods of normal global trade activity. Despite regional geopolitical tensions, the essential nature of the Strait for global energy and commodity transport makes a return to these baseline traffic levels highly probable within the extended timeframe ending June 2026.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical shipping lane, and traffic disruptions are typically temporary. Historical data shows that transit calls often rebound after disruptions. However, geopolitical tensions and regional conflicts can cause prolonged disruptions, making a full recovery uncertain.
The Strait of Hormuz has historically maintained high transit volumes, and even during recent geopolitical flare-ups, traffic recovered quickly. Given the economic importance of the strait and the lack of credible long-term closure scenarios, it is highly likely that traffic will return to or exceed a 7-day average of 60 transits by June 2026.
Normal traffic levels in the Strait of Hormuz typically result in transit calls well above 60, and there's no current evidence of a disruption preventing this by end-June.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
Given the existing ceasefire has been extended repeatedly and both the US and Iran show willingness to continue talks, another extension by June 30 is plausible. However, unresolved issues and potential breakdown risk moderate confidence; base rate for such extensions in similar geopolitical contexts is around 60-80%, so I estimate 0.70.
As of now, there is no public indication or official statement from the U.S. government about extending or renewing the ceasefire agreement with Iran by June 30, 2026. While ongoing negotiations and de-escalation efforts exist, no qualifying announcement has been made or strongly signaled. Given the complex geopolitical tensions and historical difficulties in reaching lasting agreements, the probability of a formal extension announcement by the deadline is relatively low but not negligible.
There is currently no formal, time-bound ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and Iran that requires periodic extension, nor is there a high-level diplomatic framework in place that would necessitate such an announcement by June 30, 2026. Given the current geopolitical tensions and the lack of active, public negotiations aimed at a formal ceasefire, the likelihood of a specific, qualifying announcement is extremely low.
The current geopolitical climate between the U.S. and Iran is tense, with ongoing negotiations but no clear indication of an imminent agreement. Historical data shows that such agreements are not common, and the current administration has not shown strong signs of pursuing a new agreement or extension.
As of now, there is no public indication that the U.S. and Iran are close to announcing a new agreement or ceasefire extension by June 30, 2026. The current geopolitical environment suggests continued tension, with intermittent diplomatic channels but no breakthrough. Historical patterns show that U.S.-Iran agreements are rare and typically require significant pre-negotiation visibility, which is absent. Base rates of similar agreements in recent years are low, and without clear evidence of advanced talks, the likelihood remains minimal.
There have been recent diplomatic efforts between the US and Iran, but geopolitical tensions and differing interests could hinder a quick agreement. The situation is uncertain, so a moderate probability is assigned.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
Since the reestablishment of diplomatic relations in 2015, US-Cuba high-level meetings have been extremely rare and heavily influenced by political tensions, with the most recent significant meeting occurring in 2022. Given the current strained relations, no credible reports indicate a planned or scheduled diplomatic meeting before the end of May 2026, making such an event unlikely but not impossible if a sudden policy shift occurs.
While the US and Cuba have had a historically tense relationship, recent years have seen some cautious diplomatic engagement. However, no significant high-level meetings have been publicly announced recently, and political dynamics in both countries remain complex. Given the short timeframe and lack of current indications of an imminent meeting, the probability is low but not negligible.
Diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba remain strained, with no high-level bilateral summits or formal diplomatic negotiations currently scheduled. While low-level technical discussions on migration or law enforcement occasionally occur, the political climate in an election year makes significant diplomatic engagement unlikely before the end of May.
Recent diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba have been strained, with no major meetings scheduled or announced. However, there is a historical precedent for occasional diplomatic engagements, and the timeline allows for potential last-minute arrangements.
Recent diplomatic engagement between the U.S. and Cuba has included low-level talks on migration and direct flights, suggesting ongoing communication. High-level in-person meetings have been rare, but there is a growing impetus to address issues like migration, drug trafficking, and economic sanctions. The Biden administration has signaled openness to engagement, and both countries have appointed new special envoys, increasing the likelihood of a formal meeting before May 31. However, political sensitivities on both sides and slow progress on key issues create uncertainty.
There is no recent indication of a planned US-Cuba diplomatic meeting, and the relationship has been relatively inactive. No credible media reports or official announcements suggest an upcoming meeting by May 31.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
A permanent peace deal between the US and Iran is extremely unlikely by June 2026 due to deep-seated geopolitical tensions, lack of recent diplomatic progress, and the absence of any credible negotiations toward such an agreement. The two-week ceasefire in April 2026 is explicitly temporary and does not meet the criteria. Historical base rates for permanent peace deals between adversarial nations are very low, and no major shifts in policy or leadership suggest a breakthrough.
Despite ongoing tensions and intermittent negotiations between the US and Iran, a permanent peace deal remains unlikely by mid-2026 due to deep-rooted geopolitical conflicts, mutual distrust, and Iran's regional ambitions. Recent developments, including limited diplomatic engagements and temporary ceasefires, show some willingness to reduce hostilities but fall short of a comprehensive, lasting peace agreement. The complexity of issues such as nuclear program disputes and regional proxy conflicts further reduce the likelihood of a definitive peace deal within this timeframe.
The geopolitical relationship between the United States and Iran is characterized by deep-seated ideological hostility, lack of formal diplomatic relations, and conflicting regional interests. Given the current trajectory of sanctions, proxy conflicts, and nuclear tensions, the likelihood of a formal, permanent peace treaty being negotiated and signed within the next two years is extremely low.
The historical context of US-Iran relations, marked by deep-seated animosity and periodic escalations, suggests a low probability of a permanent peace deal. While diplomatic efforts have occurred, significant trust and political will are lacking. Recent geopolitical tensions and the absence of high-level talks further reduce the likelihood.
As of mid-2024, there is no indication of ongoing negotiations toward a permanent peace deal between the U.S. and Iran. Relations remain tense over nuclear program disputes, regional proxy conflicts, and mutual sanctions. The political leadership in both countries shows no strong inclination toward a comprehensive peace agreement by 2026. Historical precedent shows that even temporary agreements (like the JCPOA) face significant hurdles and reversal risks, making a permanent peace deal highly improbable within this timeframe.
No current active peace negotiations, historical lack of permanent agreements, and ongoing geopolitical tensions make a permanent deal unlikely by June 2026.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
Current US-Iran relations remain highly adversarial, with no active negotiations toward a comprehensive nuclear deal. The JCPOA collapsed in 2018, and recent diplomatic efforts have stalled due to issues like Iran's advancing enrichment and US sanctions. Base rates for such major diplomatic breakthroughs within 18 months are low, especially given domestic political constraints in both countries. While a limited interim agreement is possible, a full mutual agreement by June 2026 appears unlikely.
As of mid-2024, negotiations to revive the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) have been stalled for years with intermittent talks but no definitive agreement. The political climate in both the US and Iran remains challenging, with hardliners in Iran and political opposition in the US Congress complicating progress. While diplomatic efforts continue, the likelihood of a full, official agreement by mid-2026 remains low but not negligible given ongoing international pressure and interest in preventing nuclear proliferation.
The current geopolitical climate, characterized by heightened tensions, Iran's advanced nuclear enrichment levels, and the upcoming US election cycle, makes a formal nuclear agreement highly unlikely before mid-2026. Diplomatic channels remain strained, and both nations currently lack the domestic political capital or mutual trust required to negotiate a new, durable framework.
While there have been discussions and indirect talks between the US and Iran regarding a potential nuclear deal, significant obstacles remain, including political tensions, differences in policy approaches between the two countries, and the involvement of other regional and international actors. The deadline of June 30, 2026, provides some time, but the current geopolitical climate and historical context suggest that reaching a formal agreement by that date is not highly probable.
The base rate for successful nuclear diplomacy with Iran is low given recent failures and ongoing mistrust. No active negotiations are underway, and political constraints on both sides make substantive progress unlikely before June 2026. A modest probability is retained for potential indirect diplomacy or regional de-escalation enabling a breakthrough.
While there have been some recent diplomatic overtures, multiple complex issues and political dynamics make a deal uncertain.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
De la Espriella is a minor opposition candidate without broad name recognition or a strong party base. Incumbent Petro has significant support, and other opposition figures like Fico Gutiérrez or allies of Uribe may emerge stronger. Base rate for a third-party-style candidate winning is low, and current polling/data show no indication of a surprise victory. Thus probability is low but non-zero due to possible shifts.
Abelardo de la Espriella is primarily known as a lawyer and political commentator rather than a prominent political figure or experienced politician with a strong electoral base. As of now, there is no significant indication that he is a leading candidate or has launched a major campaign for the 2026 Colombian presidential election. Given Colombia's competitive political landscape and the prominence of established politicians and parties, his chances of winning are very low.
Abelardo de la Espriella is a prominent lawyer and political commentator, but he lacks a significant political base or party structure necessary to win a presidential election in Colombia. While he has expressed interest in political involvement, he is not currently considered a front-runner, and the political landscape is dominated by established parties and figures.
Abelardo de la Espriella is a relatively unknown figure in Colombian politics with no significant recent political experience or high-profile endorsements. The Colombian political landscape is highly competitive, with established parties and candidates likely to dominate the election. Without substantial evidence of a strong campaign or widespread support, the probability of him winning is low.
Abelardo de la Espriella is not currently a prominent figure in Colombian national politics, with no significant electoral track record or major party affiliation as of 2024. The 2026 Colombian presidential race is likely to be dominated by established political figures and parties. Without a major shift in visibility, party backing, or political realignment, his chances of winning are minimal.
Abelardo de la Espriella is a relatively unknown figure in Colombian politics with limited public profile and support, making it unlikely he will win the 2026 presidential election.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
The blockade was announced on April 12, 2026, and lifting it within two months would be a rapid reversal. Historically, such blockades are rarely lifted quickly unless a major diplomatic breakthrough occurs, which seems unlikely given ongoing US-Iran tensions. Trump's unpredictability and desire for a win could lead to an announcement, but the base rate for lifting a newly imposed blockade within 60 days is low. Key factors: short timeframe, lack of clear negotiation progress, and Trump's tendency to maintain hardline stances.
Given the recent announcement of the blockade on April 12, 2026, and the typical geopolitical tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, it is unlikely that the blockade will be lifted within two months without significant diplomatic developments. Historically, such blockades are maintained until clear strategic or diplomatic goals are met, and no current information suggests an imminent lifting. Therefore, the probability of an official announcement lifting the blockade by June 15, 2026, is low but not negligible due to potential rapid changes in international relations.
A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is a major geopolitical escalation that would likely be intended to last until specific strategic objectives are met, such as a change in Iranian policy or regime stability. Given the short timeframe between the hypothetical April 2026 initiation and the June 2026 deadline, it is unlikely that such objectives would be achieved or that the administration would reverse course so quickly without a significant diplomatic breakthrough, which currently seems improbable.
The current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran, along with the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, make it unlikely that the blockade will be lifted by June 15, 2026. Historical precedents and the lack of significant diplomatic breakthroughs suggest that such a blockade would not be lifted without substantial changes in the geopolitical landscape.
The premise of the question relies on a blockade announcement that has not been substantiated by credible sources. Without evidence that the blockade was ever declared, the likelihood of an official announcement lifting it is extremely low. Base rates of similar geopolitical escalations also suggest that a full U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would be highly disruptive and would generate widespread reporting, which is currently absent.
As of April 12, 2026, Trump just announced the blockade, and there's no current indication of a reversal before June 15, 2026.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
Spencer Pratt is a reality TV personality with no political experience, and Los Angeles mayoral elections typically require substantial political fundraising, endorsements, and institutional support. While celebrity candidates have won elsewhere (e.g., Donald Trump, Arnold Schwarzenegger), LA's mayoral race is highly competitive and usually goes to established politicians or serious challengers with credible policy platforms. Base rate for celebrity outsiders winning big-city mayoral races is very low (under 5%), and Pratt has no announced campaign, no poll support, and no significant political organization as of now.
Spencer Pratt is primarily known as a reality TV personality with no significant political background or public indication of running for mayor of Los Angeles. The mayoral race typically attracts experienced politicians or well-known civic leaders, making it highly unlikely that Pratt will win. There is currently no evidence suggesting he is a candidate or has political support in this context.
Spencer Pratt is a reality television personality with no significant political experience, base of support, or campaign infrastructure required to win a major municipal election in Los Angeles. Given the high barrier to entry for mayoral candidates in a city of this size and the lack of any credible indication of a campaign, his chances are effectively zero.
Spencer Pratt is not a well-known political figure and has no prior political experience. The base rate for outsiders with no political background winning major elections is very low. Additionally, there is no evidence of him campaigning or gaining significant public support.
Spencer Pratt is a reality television personality with no prior political experience, and there is no public indication he intends to run for mayor of Los Angeles. The field of credible candidates is likely to include established politicians and public servants. Historical base rates of reality TV stars winning major municipal elections without prior office are extremely low.
Spencer Pratt has no notable political background or track record in Los Angeles, making him an unlikely front-runner in a major mayoral election with many potential candidates.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
Trump has not visited Pakistan as president or since leaving office, and there are no credible reports or official announcements of a planned visit by June 2026. His current focus is on domestic politics and the 2024 election campaign, making a visit to Pakistan unlikely. Base rates for U.S. presidential visits to Pakistan are low (only one visit in the last 20 years), and no diplomatic signals suggest a trip is imminent.
As of now, there is no public indication or official announcement that Donald Trump plans to visit Pakistan by June 30, 2026. Given his current political activities and typical travel patterns, a visit to Pakistan within this timeframe is unlikely. Historically, Trump has not made official visits to Pakistan during or after his presidency, and no credible reports suggest a change in this trend.
Donald Trump is not currently the President of the United States, and his foreign policy focus has historically prioritized other regions over South Asia. Given the complex security situation in Pakistan and the lack of any current diplomatic momentum or scheduled travel plans, a visit before June 2026 is highly improbable.
Trump's schedule is typically planned well in advance, and there are no current indications or announcements of a visit to Pakistan. Additionally, geopolitical tensions and Trump's past statements about Pakistan suggest a low likelihood of such a visit.
As of now, there is no indication of any planned visit by Donald Trump to Pakistan before June 30, 2026. Trump has no known political or diplomatic ties requiring such a visit, and no official schedule or credible reports suggest travel to Pakistan. Base rates for former U.S. presidents visiting Pakistan are low, especially in the absence of official duties.
No current indication of a planned visit; low historical precedent, and no recent official or verified social media announcements.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.