The $950m oracle: Did insider trading predict Iran ceasefire before the world knew? 
The reported assassination of Iran’s former supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has exposed a disturbing undercurrent within US and British digital platforms — markets where bets are placed on profoundly inhumane events. The issue came to light after The Washington Post published a report in early March detailing how traders on the Kalshi platform were wagering on whether Iran’s former supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would step down in March or early April.
Total wagers reached approximately $54 million. Following the news of Khamenei’s assassination, the platform froze trading, clarifying that it does not permit “death pools.” For context, Kalshi was officially licensed in late 2024 and operates under the oversight of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It is considered the first regulated platform to transform political event speculation into a recognized market. Its rejected betting markets on a potential Iran war reportedly resulted in losses estimated at $2.2 million.
This type of political prediction market is not entirely new. It traces back to the University of Iowa in 1998, where such activity was initially limited to US elections. In 2014, Victoria University of Wellington partnered with the PredictIt platform to launch the first hybrid academic-commercial model for forecasting political events. Individual bets were capped at $450 and permitted under US regulatory approval.
What began as an academic experiment evolved into a large-scale market involving thousands of participants. In 2020, Polymarket emerged, using cryptocurrencies for wagers — effectively opening the door for anyone worldwide, including in Arab countries, to bet on global events and wars beyond traditional banking oversight. In many of these countries, such activities are classified as gambling and are both religiously and legally prohibited. According to the Associated Press in April 2026, some Arabs have become involved in betting on regional conflicts. Personally, I reject such practices in principle and oppose the commodification of political conflict, given its immense human and financial cost.
Historically, this phenomenon is an evolution of older practices. In ancient Rome, citizens reportedly wagered in public squares on the identity of the next emperor. In 16th-century Italy, organized betting markets operated through banks whenever a new pope was to be selected. By the 18th century, London coffeehouses functioned as informal exchanges where bets were placed on the outcomes of colonial wars. At times, geopolitical betting markets have rivaled expert analysis in accuracy, as participants often rely on studied information, chance insights, personal connections, or professional access — though the latter cannot be generalized.
Despite the presence of several major platforms — such as Interactive Brokers and Omen in the US, and Betfair and Smarkets in the UK — Polymarket dominates the political prediction market. In this space, every question is converted into a financial contract, with unlimited wagering on political, military, and economic developments. According to The Wall Street Journal, bets on the timing of potential US military action against Iran exceeded $238 million. On April 7, 2026, traders reportedly wagered $950 million on a drop in oil prices just minutes before a ceasefire announcement — and they were correct.
Some bets border on the bizarre. During the Ever Given crisis in March 2021, wagers focused on when the ship would be freed from Egypt’s Suez Canal. Those who won based their predictions on tidal patterns — an insight others overlooked. Another case involved betting on the short tenure of former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who indeed resigned after just 45 days in office. There were also wagers on the most searched personality on Google in 2025; those who predicted accurately reportedly earned up to $1.2 million.
Research and brokerage firm Bernstein reported in April this year that trading volume in prediction markets reached $240 billion, with expectations to surpass $1 trillion by 2030. The most prominent betting areas include the timing of military strikes, assassinations, armed conflicts, monetary policy shifts, stock market fluctuations, oil prices, election outcomes, and negotiations — the list continues to grow.
In March, a group of US Congress members introduced a bill to ban prediction market betting on wars, terrorism, and events tied to intelligence or government information. The legislation remains under consideration and, in my view, carries significant merit. Gambling on human lives and their right to dignity constitutes a complete moral violation — one that should not be tolerated under any circumstances.
• Dr. Bader bin Saud is a columnist for Al-Riyadh newspaper, a researcher in media and knowledge management, a university professor and expert in crowd management and strategic planning, and the former deputy commander of the Special Forces for Hajj and Umrah in Saudi Arabia. X: @BaderbinSaud
