Zeelin Us Iran Forecast

Collect, verify, and forecast war or geopolitical conflict developments using authoritative sources, cross-validation, and scenario-based prediction.

wlkqyang-star@wlkqyang-star

Install

openclaw skills install @wlkqyang-star/zeelin-us-iran-forecast

War / Geopolitical Conflict Intelligence & Forecast Skill

Purpose

Turn a request like:

“Collect the latest battlefield situation”
“Use authoritative sources”
“Give a more precise assessment”
“Predict what the U.S., Iran, Israel, or other actors may do next”
“Estimate likely end-state trajectories”

into a stable workflow that is:

fact-first
source-ranked
cross-verified
explicit about uncertainty
disciplined in prediction

This skill is for open-source intelligence style synthesis, not classified intelligence, not propaganda, and not fantasy war writing.

Core Rules

1) Separate facts from judgments

Every answer must be split into:

Confirmed facts
Assessment / inference
Forecast

Never present a forecast as if it were already confirmed reality.

2) War information is adversarial by default

In war, every side has incentives to:

exaggerate success
hide losses
shape public opinion
pressure allies and markets
trigger psychological effects

Therefore:

a single belligerent’s statement is not enough
strong claims require stronger verification
“destroyed”, “eliminated”, “full control”, “crippled”, “collapsed” should be treated as claims to verify, not instant facts

3) Use concrete dates and time windows

Do not write:

today
recently
just now

Write:

exact date
if needed, exact time and timezone
explicit forecast window such as next 24 hours / next 3–7 days / next 2–6 weeks

4) Precision beats confidence theater

Do not sound certain when evidence is thin. Prefer:

high probability
medium probability
low probability / high impact
too early to confirm
single-source claim
preliminary signal

5) Every forecast needs a trigger and a disconfirming signal

For each prediction, state:

what evidence supports it
what new evidence would strengthen it
what evidence would weaken or overturn it

What to Collect Every Time

For any armed conflict or fast-moving geopolitical crisis, collect at least these five buckets:

A. Battlefield / operational developments

strikes, missile launches, drone attacks, naval incidents
target sets
claimed damage
defensive interceptions
territorial / airspace / maritime control changes
underground or hardened facility status if relevant

B. Military capability changes

air defense degradation
missile inventory depletion
logistics and fuel strain
command-and-control damage
reserve mobilization
naval disruption capability
survivability of leadership and strategic assets

C. Political and diplomatic signaling

head of state statements
defense ministry / military spokesperson statements
legislative action
alliance commitments
mediation or ceasefire signals
red lines and ultimata

D. Regional and global spillover

shipping and chokepoints
oil and gas markets
refugee / humanitarian indicators
proxy fronts
neighboring states’ alert status
UN / IAEA / international organization warnings

E. Forward indicators

what would signal escalation
what would signal negotiated de-escalation
what would signal a shift in probable end-state

Source Hierarchy

Build the answer from the top of this hierarchy downward.

Tier 1: Core authoritative backbone

Use these first to build the main factual structure.

Reuters

Use for:

fast and relatively restrained reporting
official statements
battlefield + diplomacy + market linkage
shipping, oil, energy, sanctions, legislative context

AP

Use for:

live war updates
casualties and immediate developments
domestic political reaction
field-level narrative updates

Official primary sources

Use to confirm what an actor said, not automatically whether the claim is true:

White House
U.S. Department of Defense / State Department
Israeli PM office / defense ministry / IDF
Iranian foreign ministry / military / official state outlets
UN, IAEA, UNHCR, ICRC, etc.

Hard-data and system indicators

Use where available:

shipping traffic data
oil price reactions
public market data
satellite imagery reporting
port advisories
aviation / maritime notices

Tier 2: Strong supporting sources

Use to add depth, background, or insider context.

Financial Times / BBC / Wall Street Journal / New York Times

Use for:

deeper diplomatic context
insider sourcing
strategic framing
policy debates

Rule:

anonymous sourcing should ideally be checked against another reliable source

Al Jazeera and major regional outlets

Use for:

regional framing
Arab-world reactions
local political atmosphere

Rule:

do not rely on these alone for decisive battlefield claims

Tier 3: Cautious-use sources

Social media, Telegram, X, viral video

Use only for:

early leads
geolocation clues
timeline hints

Never treat them as settled fact until checked.

If using them, verify:

date
location
whether footage is old
whether credible journalists or organizations have corroborated it

Analysts / think tanks / military commentators

Use for:

force structure
campaign logic
weapons context
scenario analysis

Do not let commentary substitute for hard confirmation.

Mandatory Verification Labels

For every major claim, implicitly or explicitly classify it as one of these:

Confirmed
at least two reliable sources or one reliable source plus strong corroborating data
Single-party claim
one side says it; independent confirmation is missing
High-confidence inference
not formally confirmed, but several indicators point the same way
Unverified / preliminary
not safe to treat as established

Examples:

“State X says it destroyed underground missile infrastructure” → single-party claim unless independently supported
“Tanker traffic through a chokepoint collapsed” → confirmed if supported by Reuters plus traffic data
“Leadership is considering a ceasefire” → high-confidence inference or unverified unless solidly corroborated

Standard Workflow

Step 1: Establish the situation frame

Before details, answer:

What phase is the conflict in?
What are the most important events in the last 48 hours?
Is the conflict escalating, stabilizing, or fragmenting?
Are there any real negotiation signals?
What spillover risks are already visible?

Build this first with Reuters + AP + official primary sources.

Step 2: Build a dated timeline

List at least 5–10 major events with:

exact date
what happened
why it matters
source confidence level

Format:

2026-03-05 — Israel signals a “second phase” focused on underground missile facilities.
Why it matters: target set shifts from visible assets to survivable strategic capacity.
Status: reported by Reuters.

Step 3: Disaggregate actor goals

Always separate what each actor wants.

U.S. usually cares about

degrading opponent military capability
protecting forces and allies
maintaining deterrence credibility
avoiding politically costly quagmire
limiting oil-price and market damage
preserving coalition support

Israel usually cares about

maximizing long-term reduction of hostile capability
degrading missile, nuclear, proxy, and command networks
converting battlefield opportunity into strategic depth

Iran or similar regional state actors often care about

regime survival
preserving retaliatory capacity
raising cost on adversaries
using missiles, drones, proxies, and chokepoints asymmetrically
turning a military disadvantage into a political/economic endurance contest

Do not merge these into one “allied side” goal.

Step 4: Identify constraints

Prediction quality depends on knowing not just intent, but limits.

Check:

munitions stockpiles
air superiority status
survivability of underground assets
shipping chokepoint control
domestic political support
legislative constraints
coalition cohesion
proxy readiness
economic pressure
humanitarian blowback

Step 5: Forecast by time horizon

Never give one undifferentiated prediction blob.

Horizon A: next 24 hours

Look for:

immediate retaliatory patterns
strike tempo
naval incidents
emergency diplomacy
casualty shocks that change behavior fast

Horizon B: next 3–7 days

Look for:

campaign phase shifts
strikes on harder strategic targets
proxy front activation
widening to nearby states
backchannel mediation

Horizon C: next 2–6 weeks

Look for:

sustained limited war
negotiated freeze
regionalization
internal instability
strategic exhaustion

Forecast Template

For each forecast, use this structure:

Conclusion

Example:

“Over the next 3–7 days, the U.S. and Israel are likely to intensify strikes on hardened and underground missile infrastructure.”

Why this is plausible

List the supporting signals:

public rhetoric remains escalatory
evidence of air-access advantage
campaign messaging indicates a second phase
strategic logic favors reducing residual retaliatory capability

Constraints

List what could slow or limit this:

munitions expenditure
oil price pressure
domestic political pushback
escalation risk to shipping or bases
allied caution

Confirming signals to watch

more reporting on bunker-busting or underground target sets
repeated strikes on command-and-control nodes
expanded evacuation notices
intensified maritime protection operations

Disconfirming signals

public move toward talks
partial restoration of commercial shipping under de-escalation arrangements
legislative effort constraining operations
credible third-party mediation producing reciprocal restraint

End-State Forecasting

Do not write one cinematic ending. Use scenario trees.

Scenario 1: Limited-war advantage followed by ceasefire or frozen conflict

Typical signs:

one side achieves clear conventional military superiority
the other side is badly degraded but not collapsed
international pressure builds
both sides redefine victory politically

Scenario 2: Protracted regionalized conflict

Typical signs:

multiple proxy fronts remain active
shipping and energy disruption persist
strikes continue episodically
no side can impose a decisive settlement

Scenario 3: Internal regime or command-structure fracture

Typical signs:

decapitation or severe leadership disruption
fragmented control
growing elite splits
security apparatus inconsistency
rising uncertainty over strategic asset control

For each scenario:

assign rough probability
state why
state what would move probability up or down

Variables That Most Often Change the Outlook

Military variables

who owns the airspace
survivability of underground facilities
remaining missile inventory
maritime interdiction capability
resilience of command networks

Political variables

leadership rhetoric shifts
legislative constraints
coalition discipline
tolerance for casualties and economic pain

Economic variables

oil price trajectory
insurance and shipping disruption
domestic consumer price impact
sanctions tightening or leakage

Diplomatic variables

whether mediators are active
whether allies begin pressing for de-escalation
whether international watchdogs issue sharper warnings
whether a face-saving negotiation channel appears

Output Structure

Use this order:

1. One-sentence bottom line

Example:

“The conflict has moved into a deeper, more dangerous phase, and the near-term outlook favors continued escalation before any serious public ceasefire opening.”

2. Confirmed facts

Group into:

recent battlefield developments
political signaling
regional/economic spillover

3. Assessment

Explain:

what phase the conflict is in
which side currently has initiative
what each side is trying to achieve
what the key constraints are

4. Forecast

Split by:

next 24 hours
next 3–7 days
next 2–6 weeks

Within each, separate:

high probability
medium probability
low probability / high impact

5. End-state scenarios

At least three:

most likely
plausible alternative
lower-probability but high-risk

6. Watchlist

Give 3–7 indicators that would change the assessment fastest.

Common Failure Modes

Failure 1: repeating propaganda as fact

Fix:

attribute clearly
verify independently
downgrade confidence where needed

Failure 2: focusing only on kinetic events

Fix:

always include oil, shipping, politics, diplomacy, and humanitarian spillover

Failure 3: prediction without time horizon

Fix:

always separate near-term, short-term, and multi-week outlook

Failure 4: overconfidence

Fix:

use probability bands
include disconfirming evidence
show what would change your mind

Failure 5: actor-blending

Fix:

separate U.S., Israel, Iran, proxies, Gulf states, and other actors where relevant

Final Discipline Checklist

Before delivering, verify:

One-line operating principle

Be slower than propaganda, but more accurate than hype.