Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by June 15?

The market is pricing this as a long shot, and the physical reality of the situation justifies that skepticism independent of whatever diplomatic signals are circulating at any given moment. The core problem isn't political will — it's mine clearance. Even if a ceasefire or agreement materializes tomorrow, the operational timeline for restoring commercial transit doesn't compress to weeks. Mine countermeasure operations in confined, high-traffic waterways are methodical by necessity. Rushing them creates catastrophic downside risk that no commercial insurer will absorb. The six-month estimate cited by U.S. officials and maritime underwriters isn't pessimism — it's engineering reality. That's the structural argument for NO that persists regardless of where diplomatic negotiations stand on any given day. A political resolution is necessary but not sufficient. The waterway has to be physically certified safe before Lloyd's and the major P&I clubs restore coverage, and without coverage, commercial operators don't move regardless of what governments announce. The Kalshi parallel markets reinforce this read. Normalization odds don't climb into majority territory until well into summer at the earliest, which implies the broader prediction market ecosystem sees late June as too early even in relatively optimistic scenarios. The June 30 contract is essentially pricing the tail of the tail — the scenario where both a political resolution and an accelerated clearance operation converge inside a narrow window. What would move this contract sharply toward YES: a verified ceasefire with immediate international mine-clearing deployment, combined with at least one major insurer publicly restoring coverage. Absent both conditions simultaneously, transit calls won't approach the resolution threshold in time.