The Iran war's nuclear dimension dominates today's outlook: strikes on Natanz and near Dimona are driving emergency multilateral diplomacy, information warfare around radiation fears, and a cascade of European energy policy adjustments — while the destruction of Iran's conventional military signals a long-term pivot to asymmetric cyber capabilities.

I assess P=0.87 based on converging institutional and factual evidence. The Skeptic's fact-check is decisive: the deal is already struck and Parliament has approved it, with only formal Council adoption pending. This is typically a procedural rubber stamp in the EU legislative process. The 90-day horizon is generous for what appears to be a nearly-complete legislative cycle. The Economist's DeepSeek model set P=0.90 while GPT set P=0.74; I weight the higher estimate more because the factual evidence (deal done, Parliament approved) overwhelmingly supports it. The Skeptic's critique correctly flags that 'implement' is ambiguous — I interpret this as formal Council adoption, not full entry into force, which slightly lowers complexity. The key risk flagged by the Skeptic — that hawkish member states might argue for stricter rather than looser storage — is real but minor given the supply-cost dynamics: with TTF prices elevated and Gulf LNG disrupted, forced summer buying at peak prices is economically punishing. The event chain for 'EU proposes lower gas storage targets amid Iran war' shows escalation stage, confirming this is a live policy track. The Climatologist's observation that Hormuz risk is slowing the fossil phase-down reinforces the political logic: governments prioritize energy security over climate targets in active crises. Multiple signal clusters (Austrian finance ministry warnings, EU energy crisis warnings, final LNG shipments approaching ports) create a coherent picture of policy urgency. Small haircut from 0.90 to 0.87 for residual delay risk from procedural holdups or individual member-state objections.