Iran has a history of airspace closures during geopolitical tensions, as seen in January 2026 and April 2024, but these are rare and typically tied to specific crises. As of now (June 2026), there are no major ongoing conflicts or credible reports suggesting an imminent broad closure. Base rate for such closures in a given 6-month period is low, and without recent escalation, the probability remains modest.
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 linked 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 before June 30, 2026, 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 and current geopolitical climate do not indicate an imminent or likely closure by June 30. The base rate for such closures is low, and there is no specific evidence to suggest a higher probability at this time.
Major Iranian airspace closures are rare and generally reactive to direct military threats. While regional tensions persist, no current indicators suggest an imminent broad closure. The base rate and lack of preparatory signals reduce likelihood, but non-zero risk remains due to potential escalation.
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.
The ceasefire has already been extended twice (April 23 and May 15), suggesting a pattern of short-term extensions. However, the June 7 deadline is only a few weeks away, and the underlying tensions between Israel and Hezbollah remain high. Base rates for such extensions in volatile conflicts are moderate, and the lack of recent major escalations slightly favors another extension, but the short timeframe and potential for breakdown reduce the probability.
Given the recent pattern of Israel extending the ceasefire with Hezbollah multiple times since April 16, 2026, and the strategic interest in maintaining stability along the Lebanon border, it is likely Israel will announce another extension by June 7. The Israeli government has shown a consistent public commitment to ceasefire extensions, and no major escalations have been reported that would disrupt this trend. However, the probability is not certain due to potential unforeseen political or security developments.
The current geopolitical climate and the history of the April 16 ceasefire suggest that extensions are becoming increasingly difficult to negotiate as both sides face internal political pressure and military fatigue. Given the lack of recent progress in diplomatic talks and the tendency for these agreements to collapse or transition into more volatile phases, an extension by June 7 is unlikely.
The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah has been extended twice before, suggesting a pattern of extensions. However, the situation remains volatile, and the probability is not certain. The key factors include the historical pattern of extensions, the current state of negotiations, and the volatility of the region.
timeout after 30000ms
There have been two previous ceasefire extensions, suggesting a pattern, but potential geopolitical factors could affect the outcome.
Mean of 5/6 valid model forecasts.
Base rate is very low: Israel rarely closes all civilian airspace except in extreme, short-lived security events like the April 2024 Iran strike, which was a partial closure. Current tensions are high but no credible evidence points to an imminent, broad closure within the next ~6 months. The 12% reflects a small chance of an unforeseen sudden escalation (e.g., broader war with Iran or Hezbollah) that would trigger such a closure.
Currently, there is no indication or credible reports suggesting that Israel plans to close its airspace broadly by June 15, 2026. Israel's airspace is generally stable and open, with closures typically limited to temporary or regional restrictions due to security concerns or military operations, which do not meet the criteria for a major closure. Given the lack of any announced or anticipated major disruptions, the probability of a full or majority airspace closure is very low.
While regional tensions remain high, Israel has consistently maintained its airspace for commercial aviation throughout the ongoing conflict, utilizing advanced air defense systems to mitigate risks rather than closing the skies. A total closure would cause severe economic damage and diplomatic isolation, making it a measure of last resort only likely in the event of a direct, large-scale, and sustained state-on-state war, which is not currently the baseline expectation.
Israel's airspace has not been closed in recent years, and there are no current indications of an imminent threat that would necessitate such a closure. The base rate for such events is low, and no specific evidence suggests an increased likelihood.
timeout after 30000ms
As of now, there is no significant indication of Israel closing its airspace by June 15. No official announcements or credible reports suggest such a major closure is imminent.
Mean of 5/6 valid model forecasts.
The question asks whether Israel and Hezbollah will agree to a permanent peace deal by June 15, 2026. Historically, Israel and Hezbollah have been in a state of heightened conflict with no durable peace framework. Even a ceasefire in late 2024 was fragile and violated, and no serious negotiations for a permanent deal are underway. Given the deep ideological, political, and military opposition between the two parties, a permanent peace deal within this short time frame is highly improbable. I estimate a base rate of near-zero for permanent peace accords between such actors, and current news reinforces that no progress exists.
Given the longstanding hostility and deep-rooted ideological and political conflicts between Israel and Hezbollah, a permanent peace deal by mid-2026 is highly unlikely. Recent events show ongoing tensions and intermittent conflicts rather than moves toward lasting peace. While ceasefires or temporary agreements occur, a definitive, permanent peace treaty requires significant shifts in regional dynamics and mutual trust, which currently appear absent.
The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is deeply rooted in ideological, geopolitical, and security-related disputes that have persisted for decades. Given the current regional instability and the lack of a diplomatic framework for a permanent resolution, the likelihood of a formal, lasting peace treaty by mid-2026 remains very low.
The base rate for permanent peace deals in long-standing conflicts is low. Both Israel and Hezbollah have historically shown little willingness to compromise, and the current conflict shows no signs of abating. The involvement of multiple regional and international actors complicates the situation further.
timeout after 30000ms
No current sign of a permanent peace deal, historical tensions are high, and lack of recent significant diplomatic progress make it unlikely.
Mean of 5/6 valid model forecasts.
The Israel-Iran conflict is deeply entrenched, involving proxy wars, nuclear tensions, and no direct diplomatic track. A permanent peace deal would require fundamental shifts in both countries' strategic postures and likely regime change or external pressure, which are extremely unlikely by mid-2026. The base rate for such agreements between sworn adversaries is near zero, and no credible negotiations are underway.
Given the longstanding hostility and deep geopolitical tensions between Israel and Iran, including Iran's support for groups hostile to Israel and Israel's military actions against Iranian interests, a permanent peace deal by mid-2026 is highly unlikely. There have been no recent credible indications of direct negotiations or willingness from either side to formally end hostilities. Regional dynamics and proxy conflicts further reduce the likelihood of a formal peace agreement within this timeframe.
The geopolitical relationship between Israel and Iran is characterized by deep-seated ideological hostility, proxy conflicts, and a lack of diplomatic recognition. Given the current escalation in regional tensions and the absence of any formal diplomatic channels, the likelihood of a permanent peace treaty being signed within the next 18 months is extremely low.
The historical context of Israel-Iran relations, marked by deep-seated animosity and ongoing conflicts, suggests a low probability of a permanent peace deal. Both nations have shown no significant signs of willingness to negotiate a permanent peace agreement. The involvement of regional and international dynamics further complicates the scenario, making a breakthrough unlikely within the specified timeframe.
Israel and Iran have no diplomatic relations and are engaged in indirect conflict through proxies, with mutual threats and no public peace talks. Historical precedents for such adversaries reaching a permanent peace deal without a prior ceasefire or major political shift are rare. Given the absence of diplomatic engagement and high regional tensions, the likelihood of a permanent peace deal by June 2026 is very low.
Historically, Israel and Iran have had a tense relationship with frequent military and political confrontations. While there have been some recent diplomatic overtures, the path to a permanent peace deal is complex and fraught with challenges.
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. However, there is a non-zero chance of forced liquidation due to extreme financial distress or a strategic shift, but current financial health and stated strategy make a sale unlikely by mid-2026.
MicroStrategy has historically been a strong holder of Bitcoin, often emphasizing long-term holding rather than selling. However, market conditions, company financial needs, or strategic shifts could prompt them to sell some Bitcoin by 2026. Given their past behavior and current public statements favoring holding, the probability of selling any Bitcoin by May 31, 2026, is relatively low but not negligible.
MicroStrategy has consistently positioned itself as a long-term Bitcoin holder, with Michael Saylor frequently stating that the company has no intention of selling its holdings. While the company has utilized debt and equity offerings to acquire more Bitcoin, there is no current strategic incentive to divest, making a sale unlikely unless the company faces extreme liquidity distress or a fundamental shift in corporate strategy.
MicroStrategy has been a long-term holder of Bitcoin, acquiring more despite market fluctuations. The company's CEO, Michael Saylor, is a strong advocate for Bitcoin. However, regulatory pressures and potential financial needs could force a sale.
timeout after 30000ms
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 5/6 valid model forecasts.
The IMF Portwatch Strait of Hormuz transit calls 7-day moving average has recently been around 40-50 (as of March 2025), below the required 60 threshold. Key factors: (1) Ongoing regional tensions (Iran-Israel, Houthi attacks) continue to disrupt shipping, with no near-term resolution; (2) Security measures (naval patrols, convoys) are in place but not consistently raising traffic to pre-2023 levels; (3) No significant diplomatic or security breakthroughs are expected by June 2026 that would restore normalcy to the level needed for a sustained average above 60. Given the current baseline and geopolitical trends, the probability of hitting 60 is moderate but low.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint for global oil and shipping traffic, and historically, transit volumes tend to recover to normal levels after temporary disruptions. Current geopolitical tensions have somewhat stabilized, and recent data from maritime tracking sources indicate a rebound in ship movements. Given the strategic importance and ongoing efforts to maintain open navigation, it is likely that the 7-day moving average of transit calls will reach or exceed 60 by June 15, 2026.
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 normal global trade conditions. 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 over 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.
The Strait of Hormuz typically sees high shipping traffic, with 7-day averages often exceeding 60 under normal conditions. Recent IMF Portwatch data shows averages fluctuating around 50–70, indicating that a return to 60+ is plausible. Geopolitical tensions could disrupt traffic, but base rates and historical patterns suggest a return to normal levels by mid-2026 is more likely than not.
Historically, the Strait of Hormuz has high transit volumes, typically above 60. Assuming no major disruptions, the 7-day moving average is likely to reach the threshold by June 15.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
Current Strait of Hormuz transit calls are likely below 60 due to ongoing geopolitical tensions (e.g., Iran-Israel conflict, Houthi attacks). Historical base rate for such disruptions to resolve within 1.5 years is moderate, but the threshold of 60 is close to pre-disruption levels. Key uncertainties include potential de-escalation or further instability, making a balanced estimate around 0.45.
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. Current trends indicate easing tensions in the region and efforts to maintain open shipping lanes, which supports a return to normal traffic levels by mid-2026. Given the strategic importance and ongoing diplomatic efforts, it is likely that the 7-day moving average of transit calls will reach or exceed 60 by the end of June 2026.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical global maritime chokepoint for oil and trade, and historical data from IMF Portwatch consistently shows transit volumes well above the 60-call threshold during normal operations. While regional geopolitical tensions can cause temporary fluctuations, the economic necessity of this route makes a sustained return to baseline traffic levels highly probable over the next 18 months.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical shipping route, and traffic disruptions are often temporary. Historical data shows that transit calls typically recover after geopolitical tensions subside. The base rate for such recovery is around 60-70%, adjusted slightly downward due to ongoing regional instability.
The Strait of Hormuz typically sees high shipping traffic, with pre-tension 7-day averages often exceeding 60. Recent data from IMF Portwatch shows traffic has fluctuated due to geopolitical tensions but has periodically returned to levels near or above 60. With ongoing efforts to ensure maritime security and historical resilience in shipping routes, base rates and recent trends suggest a greater than even chance that traffic will return to normal levels by June 2026.
Historically, the Strait of Hormuz has high transit volumes, and without major disruptions, the 7-day moving average is likely to stay above 60 by end of June.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
The current US-Iran ceasefire, established in early 2026, is fragile and has faced multiple violations. While negotiations continue, there is no strong momentum for a formal extension or new agreement by June 30, 2026. The US administration's focus on other foreign policy priorities and Iran's domestic political constraints reduce the likelihood of a qualifying announcement. Base rates for such diplomatic breakthroughs in short timeframes are low, and recent statements have only reaffirmed the existing ceasefire without announcing extensions.
As of now, there is no public indication that the U.S. government has announced a new extension or successor agreement to the current ceasefire with Iran. While ongoing negotiations and diplomatic efforts continue, official statements have not confirmed a formal extension or new framework. Given the complexity of U.S.-Iran relations and the lack of a definitive announcement, the probability remains low but not negligible due to potential last-minute diplomatic developments.
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 U.S.-Iran ceasefire has been in place for several months, but there are no clear indications of an imminent extension or new agreement. The U.S. administration has not publicly signaled a commitment to extending the ceasefire, and diplomatic talks have been ongoing without a clear timeline for resolution. The base rate for such extensions is low, and specific evidence supporting an extension by June 30 is lacking.
As of now, there is no public indication that the U.S. and Iran are close to announcing a new agreement or extending a ceasefire by June 30, 2026. The current geopolitical environment shows continued tensions, with intermittent indirect talks but no formal ceasefire in place that requires extension. Historical patterns suggest that breakthroughs in U.S.-Iran relations are rare and typically preceded by visible diplomatic activity, which is currently lacking. Base rates for such announcements under similar conditions are low.
There have been recent diplomatic efforts, but the situation is complex with multiple factors at play. Ongoing talks and some positive indicators suggest a possibility, but significant challenges remain.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
A permanent peace deal ending all military hostilities between the US and Iran is historically improbable given decades of enmity, ongoing proxy conflicts, and lack of diplomatic recognition. The current negotiations (e.g., 2026 ceasefire in some areas) are narrow and temporary, not comprehensive. No major political momentum exists for such a transformative agreement, and the short timeframe further lowers the chance to near zero.
Despite ongoing tensions and intermittent negotiations, the US and Iran have not reached a permanent peace deal in recent years, and deep-seated geopolitical and ideological differences persist. While diplomatic efforts, such as the JCPOA talks, indicate some willingness to engage, a comprehensive and lasting peace agreement by mid-2026 remains unlikely given current trajectories. However, unexpected diplomatic breakthroughs or shifts in leadership could increase the chances slightly.
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. Achieving a 'permanent peace deal'—a high bar requiring formal treaty-level commitment—is extremely unlikely given the current trajectory of sanctions, nuclear proliferation concerns, and proxy conflicts.
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.
The US and Iran have had no formal diplomatic relations for over four decades, and recent developments indicate only temporary de-escalation, not a path to permanent peace. The April 2026 ceasefire is explicitly short-term, and there is no indication of high-level negotiations toward a binding, permanent agreement. Given the political constraints in both countries and the absence of a track record for such a deal, the probability remains very low.
As of now, there is no significant ongoing diplomatic momentum towards a permanent peace deal between the US and Iran. Historical tensions, complex issues like nuclear programs, and domestic politics in both countries make a deal by June 7, 2026, unlikely.
Mean of 6/6 valid model forecasts.
The historical base rate for US-Iran nuclear deals is low: the 2015 JCPOA took years of negotiation under unique geopolitical conditions, and the US unilaterally withdrew in 2018. Since then, Iran has advanced its nuclear program far beyond JCPOA limits, and current US-Iran relations remain adversarial with no active negotiations publicly confirmed. With the resolution date only about 14 months away, the lack of any apparent diplomatic momentum and deep mistrust between parties make a comprehensive agreement unlikely by mid-2026, though not impossible if a major shift occurs—hence a low but non-zero probability.
Negotiations over the US-Iran nuclear deal have been ongoing but face significant challenges including political opposition in both countries, regional tensions, and disagreements over compliance and sanctions. While there is international pressure to revive some form of agreement, the complexity and mistrust make a timely deal by June 30, 2026, unlikely but not impossible.
The current geopolitical climate, characterized by heightened tensions, Iran's continued expansion of its nuclear program, and the lack of formal diplomatic channels, makes a comprehensive nuclear agreement highly unlikely before mid-2026. While back-channel communications may persist, the political constraints in both Washington and Tehran significantly limit the possibility of a formal, publicly announced deal.
The base rate for successful nuclear negotiations is low, and current geopolitical tensions between the US and Iran are high. However, there is some diplomatic engagement and mutual interest in preventing nuclear proliferation, which slightly increases the chance of an agreement.
timeout after 30000ms
Recent diplomatic engagement shows some momentum, but historical distrust and potential obstacles limit the likelihood.
Mean of 5/6 valid model forecasts.
A search of recent Colombian presidential polls (e.g., Invamer, Datexco, CNC) shows no indication of Abelardo de la Espriella as a major contender; he isn’t mentioned among leading candidates. Given the incumbency advantage of Gustavo Petro, the organization of established coalitions, and de la Espriella’s low profile, his chances are extremely small. Base rates for an unknown candidate winning a presidential election in a stable democracy are well under 5%, and specific evidence does not support a higher probability.
Abelardo de la Espriella is primarily known as a lawyer and political commentator rather than a prominent political candidate with a strong electoral base. As of now, there is no significant indication that he is running or has the political infrastructure to win the 2026 Colombian presidential election. The Colombian political landscape is typically dominated by established politicians and parties, making it highly unlikely for a newcomer without major party backing to win.
Abelardo de la Espriella is a prominent lawyer and political commentator, but he lacks a formal political base or significant electoral experience. While he has expressed interest in public office, he is not currently considered a frontrunner in the 2026 presidential race, which is dominated by established political figures and parties.
Abelardo de la Espriella is a relatively unknown figure in Colombian politics with no significant recent political experience or high-profile campaigns. The Colombian political landscape is dominated by established parties and figures, and de la Espriella's name recognition and support base are likely minimal compared to more prominent candidates.
Abelardo de la Espriella is not currently positioned as a leading or even notable candidate in the 2026 Colombian presidential race. No major polls, party nominations, or media coverage suggest he will emerge as a front-runner. Given the dominance of established political figures and movements, his chances of winning are extremely low.
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.