This event has ended. Showing historical data.
$4.97M
1
12
$4.97M
1
12
Trader mode: Actionable analysis for identifying opportunities and edge
This market will resolve according to the first country against which the US initiates a drone, missile, or air strike on the soil or any official embassy or consulate after the time of this market's creation. For the purposes of this market, a qualifying "strike" is defined as the use of aerial bombs, drones, or missiles (including FPV and ATGM strikes as well as cruise or ballistic missiles) launched by any United States operatives, including military forces, intelligence agencies, or other U
AI-generated analysis based on market data. Not financial advice.
This prediction market focuses on identifying the next country where the United States will conduct a military strike using drones, missiles, or aerial bombs. The market resolves based on the first country targeted after the market's creation, with strikes defined as attacks launched by U.S. operatives including military forces or intelligence agencies against targets on foreign soil or at official diplomatic facilities. The topic sits at the intersection of U.S. foreign policy, military strategy, and global security dynamics. Interest stems from the United States' ongoing military engagements against non-state actors and its strategic competition with state adversaries, which create multiple potential flashpoints. Recent years have seen a pattern of U.S. strikes in regions like the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, often conducted with minimal public disclosure until after they occur. Analysts and observers track diplomatic tensions, military movements, and intelligence reports to assess where the next kinetic action might occur, making this a subject of intense speculation in policy circles and among those monitoring international conflicts.
The United States has conducted military strikes in foreign countries for decades, but the post-9/11 era established new patterns. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan marked the beginning of prolonged air campaigns. The use of armed drones expanded significantly under President Barack Obama, with the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command carrying out hundreds of strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia between 2009 and 2016. A notable precedent for strikes on diplomatic facilities occurred in 2019, when the U.S. killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani with a drone strike near Baghdad International Airport, which is not sovereign Iraqi soil but raised similar sovereignty issues. The legal framework often cited is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which presidents have used to justify strikes against terrorist groups globally. More recently, the Biden administration has relied on Article II constitutional authority for strikes not explicitly covered by the AUMF, such as those against Houthi forces in Yemen beginning in January 2024. This history shows an evolution from large-scale invasions to targeted, often remote, kinetic actions.
U.S. military strikes have immediate human consequences, often resulting in civilian casualties and destabilizing local communities. According to monitoring groups, U.S. actions in countries like Somalia and Yemen have killed non-combatants, creating humanitarian crises and fueling anti-American sentiment. These strikes also carry significant geopolitical weight. A strike on a new country could escalate regional conflicts, draw in other powers like China or Russia, and trigger retaliatory attacks on U.S. forces or allies. For financial markets, sudden military action can spike oil prices, disrupt shipping lanes, and increase volatility. Domestically, strikes often reignite debates about congressional war powers, executive authority, and the transparency of casualty reporting. The decision of where to strike next reflects broader U.S. strategic priorities and risk tolerance.
As of mid-2024, the U.S. maintains a high operational tempo in several regions. In the Middle East, U.S. forces continue periodic strikes against Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and Syria, though at a reduced pace compared to early 2024. In Yemen, U.S. and British forces intermittently strike Houthi military capabilities in response to attacks on Red Sea shipping. In Africa, the U.S. supports Somali government forces with occasional airstrikes against al-Shabaab. Diplomatic tensions with Iran over its nuclear program and with Russia over Ukraine create additional scenarios where miscalculation could lead to kinetic action. The U.S. military posture remains one of distributed assets, including carrier strike groups and drone bases, enabling rapid response to perceived threats.
The U.S. government primarily cites the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for strikes against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. For actions outside that scope, such as strikes against state actors or new groups, presidents have claimed inherent constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief under Article II. These legal justifications are often debated in Congress and challenged in court.
Based on recent activity and ongoing conflicts, analysts often point to Yemen, Syria, Iraq, or Somalia. These countries host non-state armed groups that regularly clash with U.S. interests. A less likely but high-impact scenario could involve a strike on Iranian soil if tensions escalate dramatically, though this would represent a significant policy shift.
Target selection involves a multi-layered process. Intelligence agencies identify potential targets, which are then reviewed for legality under the laws of war and policy guidelines. A high-value target often requires approval from senior officials at the National Security Council or the President himself, especially if the strike risks civilian casualties or geopolitical escalation.
The primary difference is oversight and disclosure. Military strikes conducted by the Department of Defense, often under Title 10 authority, are more likely to be publicly acknowledged. Covert strikes by the CIA, conducted under Title 50 authority, are often not officially confirmed. Both use similar technology, but the CIA's role allows for greater secrecy and deniability.
The U.S. has not been recorded striking another nation's official diplomatic facility as an act of war in modern times. The market's inclusion of embassies likely refers to a scenario where U.S. forces strike militants who are attacking or besieging a U.S. embassy in another country, which would be a defensive action on diplomatic soil.
Educational content is AI-generated and sourced from Wikipedia. It should not be considered financial advice.
12 markets tracked
No data available
| Market | Platform | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Poly | 92% |
| Poly | 4% |
| Poly | 0% |
| Poly | 0% |
| Poly | 0% |
| Poly | 0% |
| Poly | 0% |
| Poly | 0% |
| Poly | 0% |
| Poly | 0% |
| Poly | 0% |
| Poly | 0% |
No related news found
Add this market to your website
<iframe src="https://predictpedia.com/embed/smsl9a" width="400" height="160" frameborder="0" style="border-radius: 8px; max-width: 100%;" title="Next Country US Strikes"></iframe>