Will the U.S. invade Iran before 2027? ↗

Price rose 7.5pp from 30.0% to 37.5% over 13.5h (spike), then reversed. Now at 35.5%, down 2.0pp from peak, 0.5h after the peak.

Semantic Polarity: YES = a U.S. ground invasion/entry into Iranian territory before end-2026; NO = no U.S. invasion (airstrikes/blockade/threats/talks do not satisfy “invade”). Trend is UP, pricing in the YES-World. Momentum check: E=2, D=3, L=0 (R=0 unverified). Incremental only: E=2, D=3 (priced-in: E=0, D=0). Self-check: no change.
Theta direction: DOWN
Price move direction: UP (from 30% to 38%)
Alignment: OPPOSITE
Theta: DOWN — opposed
Logical Divergence: Price rose while net incremental signals lean de-escalatory (talks set/mediator pushes extension/Trump says a deal is possible), so the move is divergent rather than supported. The headline drivers (U.S. carrier positioning and blockade/tanker seizure; Iran talks “uncertain”/Vance travel delay) are not invasion-specific and fail the settlement threshold (threats to resume bombing or maintaining a naval blockade ≠ invasion; no U.S. ground deployment/ultimatum to invade/active planning revealed). Process-only churn around talks vs. non-extension of a truce can reprice general war risk, but a 7.5pp spike toward “invasion” on no invasion-adjacent E7/E8 is likely an overshoot. Expect some mean reversion from the spike’s peak.