$831.88K
1
18
$831.88K
1
18
Trader mode: Actionable analysis for identifying opportunities and edge
Donald Trump and the United States recently sent invitations to countries around the world, inviting them to join the US-led Board of Peace which will oversee conflict resolution in Gaza and elsewhere (see: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-names-rubio-blair-kushner-gaza-board-under-trumps-plan-2026-01-17/). This market will resolve to “Yes” if the listed country joins the Board of Peace by February 28, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”. A country will b
Prediction markets currently give India only a 16% chance of joining the U.S.-led Board of Peace by the February 28 deadline. This means traders see roughly a 1 in 6 likelihood. The market views this as unlikely, though not impossible. Across 18 related country-specific questions, traders have collectively wagered over $830,000, showing moderate interest in the geopolitical puzzle of which nations will sign on.
The low probability for India reflects its traditional foreign policy stance and current diplomatic realities. India has long championed strategic autonomy, avoiding formal alignment with blocs led by major powers. Joining a U.S.-conceived board, especially one reportedly involving figures like Jared Kushner and Tony Blair, could be seen as conflicting with that independent posture.
Furthermore, India maintains important relationships across global divides, including with Russia and many nations in the Global South. Publicly joining a Western-led initiative focused on Gaza could complicate these ties, especially if the board's proposals are perceived as favoring one side. Recent Indian diplomacy has focused on bilateral and regional issues, not new multilateral structures led by others.
The definitive deadline is February 28, 2026. Any official announcement from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs confirming or denying participation before then would settle the market. We should also watch for statements from U.S. officials or the Board of Peace secretariat naming initial member countries. A key signal would be if other major non-Western democracies, like Brazil or Indonesia, decide to join. If they decline, it would reinforce the prediction for India. If they accept, pressure on India might increase, potentially shifting the odds.
Markets are generally decent at aggregating geopolitical intelligence, especially on clear yes/no outcomes with a near-term deadline. However, this is a new type of diplomatic initiative, making historical comparisons tricky. The main limitation is that the decision rests with a small group of government officials. Their deliberations are private, and a last-minute political calculation could always surprise the markets. The 16% probability essentially captures that small but real chance of a strategic shift.
Prediction markets assign a low probability to most countries joining the US-led Board of Peace by the March 31 deadline. The most actively traded contract, for India, is priced at 16%. This indicates traders see a roughly 1-in-6 chance, viewing Indian participation as unlikely but not impossible. Other major nations like France (12%) and the UK (9%) show even lower odds. The market consensus is clear: widespread acceptance of the Trump administration's invitation is not expected. With $830,000 in total volume, these prices reflect a significant amount of traded capital, not just speculative noise.
Two primary elements suppress these probabilities. First, the Board of Peace framework, announced in January 2026, lacks detail on operational authority and membership benefits. Major nations are historically reluctant to join new international bodies without clear mandates, especially one so closely tied to a single administration's policy. Second, the geopolitical timing creates friction. Inviting nations like Saudi Arabia (22%) or the UAE (18%) to oversee Gaza conflict resolution directly tests their relationships with other regional powers. The 16% price for India signals that New Delhi likely calculates that formal membership could complicate its traditional stance of strategic neutrality in Western-led initiatives.
The odds could shift with a public commitment from a major US ally. If a country like Japan or Australia were to announce its intent to join, it would validate the board's credibility and likely lift probabilities for other fence-sitters. Conversely, a rejection by a key invitee, such as Saudi Arabia, would probably sink the entire market suite further. The most significant catalyst is the board's first concrete action or meeting before the deadline. If it demonstrates tangible progress on a specific issue, perceived utility would rise, making membership more attractive. Without such a demonstration, these low probabilities will likely hold or decay as the resolution date approaches.
This market is trading exclusively on Polymarket. The lack of a comparable market on Kalshi or other platforms prevents direct arbitrage analysis. This exclusivity may concentrate liquidity but also means the 16-22% probabilities for key countries represent a single ecosystem's view. The moderate liquidity on Polymarket suggests informed speculation but not overwhelming institutional interest.
AI-generated analysis based on market data. Not financial advice.
The Board of Peace is a proposed international body initiated by the United States under the administration of President Donald Trump. According to a Reuters report from January 17, 2026, the board is designed to oversee conflict resolution efforts, with an initial focus on the Gaza conflict. The plan involves sending formal invitations to various countries to join this U.S.-led diplomatic initiative. The board's stated purpose is to mediate and manage peace processes in Gaza and potentially other global conflicts, representing a significant shift in American diplomatic strategy toward multilateral conflict management. The invitation process and the board's formation are central to Trump's foreign policy agenda for his current term. Public interest stems from the potential realignment of international alliances and the board's authority to influence major geopolitical disputes. The specific question of which countries will accept membership by the deadline of February 28, 2026, is a subject of intense diplomatic speculation and analysis.
The Board of Peace proposal emerges from a history of U.S.-led multilateral initiatives and the specific context of the Gaza conflict. The most direct precedent is the Middle East Quartet, established in 2002, which included the United Nations, European Union, United States, and Russia. That body aimed to mediate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process but achieved limited success. The Trump administration previously broke from multilateral norms by brokering the Abraham Accords in 2020, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states through direct U.S. diplomacy. The Gaza conflict itself has a long history, with major escalations occurring in 2008, 2014, and 2021. The October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli military campaign created a protracted crisis, with over 30,000 Palestinian and 1,200 Israeli fatalities reported by late 2025, according to UN and Israeli sources. Previous ceasefire and hostage negotiations involved mediators from Qatar, Egypt, and the United States, highlighting the lack of a permanent international mechanism for this specific conflict.
The formation and membership of the Board of Peace could reshape diplomatic engagement in the Middle East and beyond. A successful board with broad membership may marginalize existing institutions like the United Nations Security Council, where the U.S. faces opposition from Russia and China. It would signal a new model of American-led, ad-hoc multilateralism. For the Gaza conflict, the board's composition will directly affect the perceived neutrality and effectiveness of any proposed resolutions. Membership decisions by Arab nations, for instance, will indicate their willingness to engage in a U.S.-framed process separate from the Arab Peace Initiative or the Palestinian Authority. Economically, countries that join may gain influence over reconstruction contracts and aid distribution in post-conflict Gaza, which the World Bank estimated in 2025 would require tens of billions of dollars. The board's authority could also extend to other conflicts, setting a precedent for how the U.S. manages great-power competition and regional disputes during the remainder of Trump's presidency.
As of late January 2026, the United States has issued invitations to potential member countries. The Reuters report confirms the appointments of Rubio, Blair, and Kushner to leadership roles. No country has publicly announced its formal acceptance or rejection of membership as of this writing. Diplomatic observers are monitoring responses from key Middle Eastern nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and the UAE, as well as from traditional U.S. allies in Europe and Asia. The February 28, 2026 deadline for countries to join creates a short timeline for diplomatic consultations and decisions.
The Board of Peace is a proposed international conflict resolution body launched by the U.S. under President Trump in January 2026. Its initial mandate is to oversee mediation and peace processes for the Gaza conflict, with potential to address other global disputes.
Traditional U.S. allies like the United Kingdom, Japan, and Gulf states that signed the Abraham Accords are considered likely candidates. Countries that have acted as mediators in Gaza, such as Qatar and Egypt, are also key targets for membership, though their participation is not guaranteed.
The board is a selective, U.S.-created initiative rather than a universal membership organization like the UN. It is designed to operate without the structural constraints of the UN Security Council, where the U.S., Russia, and China have veto power.
The board's authority will depend on the mandates given to it by participating nations and the parties to specific conflicts. It is envisioned as a mediating and oversight body, but its ability to enforce decisions will rely on the political and economic influence of its members, particularly the United States.
The initial Reuters report did not specify invitations to non-state actors. The Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in parts of the West Bank, is a central party to the conflict but may participate as a subject of negotiations rather than as a full member of the board itself.
Educational content is AI-generated and sourced from Wikipedia. It should not be considered financial advice.
18 markets tracked
No data available
| Market | Platform | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Poly | 14% |
| Poly | 8% |
| Poly | 7% |
| Poly | 6% |
| Poly | 5% |
| Poly | 5% |
| Poly | 4% |
| Poly | 3% |
| Poly | 3% |
| Poly | 3% |
| Poly | 3% |
| Poly | 3% |
| Poly | 2% |
| Poly | 2% |
| Poly | 2% |
| Poly | 1% |
| Poly | 1% |
| Poly | 1% |
No related news found
Add this market to your website
<iframe src="https://predictpedia.com/embed/aQYBm8" width="400" height="160" frameborder="0" style="border-radius: 8px; max-width: 100%;" title="Which countries will join the Board of Peace by March 31?"></iframe>