ConflictClarifier

מעקב משבר איראן-המפרץ 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 25, 2026

How the war in Iran could most affect Europe

Summary

In the early hours of September 2, 2015, 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi, his 5-year-old brother Galip and their mother Rihan drowned when their overcrowded boat capsized during the 12-mile journey from Bodrum, Turkey, to the Greek island of Kos. They were fleeing the siege of Kobane, a Syrian-Kurdish border town under assault by the Islamic State group. The photograph of Aylan’s lifeless body, face-down on a Turkish beach, shocked the world and became a defining symbol of the human cost of the Syrian civil war—a single child representing the millions fleeing conflict and persecution. Now, as a new war engulfs Iran, history may be repeating itself, but on an even more catastrophic scale. “Even before the current war in the Middle East there were more than 20 million forcibly displaced people in the whole region,” said Gerald Knaus, founder and director of the European Stability Initiative. “The latest fighting is producing further displacement, with no end in sight.” A Stark Warning Since late February, between 600,000 and one million Iranian households—up to 3.2 million people—have fled their homes, according to UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency. Most are fleeing from Tehran and other major urban areas toward the rural north, escaping strikes that began on February 28. The human toll has been severe. Thousands of people have been killed across the Middle East. As of March 22, 3,231 people had been killed in Iran, of which 1,407 were civilians including 214 children, according to U.S.-based rights group HRANA. Thirteen U.S. service members had been killed. Strikes have been reported in more than a dozen countries, and in Lebanon nearly 1 million people have been displaced after Israel escalated hostilities with Hezbollah. The European Union Agency for Asylum has issued a stark warning: with Iran’s population of approximately 90 million, even partial destabilization could generate refugee movements of an “unprecedented magnitude.” The agency noted that displacement of just 10 percent of Iran’s population would rival the largest refugee flows of recent decades. To understand what Europe might face, one need only look back at the Syrian civil war—a conflict that fundamentally reshaped the continent’s politics and societies. By July 2015, more than four million Syrian refugees had fled to neighboring countries. The breakdown was staggering: Turkey hosted 1,805,255 Syrian refugees, Lebanon took in 1,172,753, Jordan absorbed 629,128, Iraq sheltered 249,726 and Egypt received 132,375, per UNHCR. Lebanon’s refugee population represented approximately one in five people in the country, while Jordan’s constituted roughly 10 percent of its population, according to Amnesty International. Turkey became the crucial gateway to Europe. Over 800,000 refugees and migrants came via the Aegean Sea from Turkey into Greece in 2015, accounting for 80 percent of the people arriving irregularly in Europe by sea that year. The geographic proximity and established migration networks made Turkey the natural corridor for refugees seeking to reach the continent—a role it would likely play again if Iran’s conflict drives similar westward movement. “The main reason for the extraordinary refugee year 2015 in the Aegean was loss of hope among many refugees,” Knaus told Newsweek. “The second reason is as important, however: Turkey allowed Syrians in. Today and for many years already this is no longer true.” Over one million refugees and migrants reached Europe by sea in 2015 alone. Of these, some 972,500 had crossed the Mediterranean Sea, with an additional 34,000 crossing from Turkey into Bulgaria and Greece by land. Half of those crossing the Mediterranean that year—500,000 people—were Syrians escaping their country’s brutal civil war. The human cost was devastating: some 3,735 people were reported missing and believed drowned in 2015. By the time Aylan Kurdi’s body washed ashore, more than 300,000 people had risked their lives to reach Europe, and over 2,600 had perished in the attempt. Gateway to Tragedy The Syrian exodus wasn’t Europe’s only migration crisis. After the NATO-backed fall of Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, Libya fell into chaos and became a major transit hub for African and Middle Eastern migrants. That year alone, more than 1,500 people drowned or went missing in the Mediterranean—the deadliest year since UNHCR began tracking such data. A record 58,000 irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees reached Europe by sea in 2011, and by 2015, the central Mediterranean route saw 150,000 crossings. Libya’s collapse created a humanitarian catastrophe. Migrants faced horrific abuses in detention centers and were often forced onto boats by traffickers, risking death at sea. The resulting influx of refugees fundamentally reshaped European politics. Hungary, under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, erected a border fence along its frontier with Serbia in September 2015 after recording over 411,000 irregular crossings that year. Orbán’s hard-line stance against migration became a blueprint for nationalist leaders across the continent. The crisis shattered the Schengen ideal of open borders and fueled the rise of far-right, anti-immigration parties. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany party, known as AfD, surged in popularity, capitalizing on public anxiety over Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome over one million asylum seekers. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (formerly National Front) gained ground with anti-immigration rhetoric. The Netherlands saw Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom become a major political force, while in Italy, Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy—which would eventually lead her to the prime minister’s office in 2022—gained traction on a platform that included strict migration controls. In the U.K., the refugee crisis became a flash point in the Brexit referendum. Immigration was weaponized by pro-Leave campaigners, infamously through the “Breaking Point” poster, which showed a line of refugees under the slogan “The EU has failed us all.” The image, widely condemned as inflammatory, became a symbol of how migration fears were exploited to sway public opinion. A decade later, the political aftershocks endure. Anti-immigrant sentiment remains potent and far-right parties have cemented their influence across Europe. Meloni now governs Italy, Wilders’ party recently won Dutch elections, and the AfD has become the second-largest party in several German states. A Crisis of Much Greater Scale Iran’s population of approximately 90 million dwarfs Syria’s prewar population of 22 million. With 3.2 million Iranians already internally displaced, humanitarian agencies warn that even a modest escalation could trigger refugee flows on a scale never before seen. A displacement of just 10 percent of Iran’s population—9 million people—would far outnumber Syrians who fled their country during the entire civil war, potentially overwhelming both neighboring host countries and Europe’s already strained asylum systems. “So far, relatively few people have left Iran—the vast majority of those displaced remain in the country. But as the war continues and the situation becomes more tenuous—in addition to the strikes themselves, things like the destruction of civilian infrastructure—more and more people will assess whether to leave,” Kelsey P. Norman, a fellow for the Middle East at Rice University’s Baker Institute and director of the Women’s Rights, Human Rights and Refugees Program, told Newsweek. Europe is still grappling with the aftermath of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which triggered the continent’s largest refugee crisis since World War II, displacing more than 8 million people across borders and placing immense strain on national asylum systems. Around 8,000 Iranians applied for asylum in the EU in 2025. Even a modest increase in displacement would represent a dramatic surge from current levels. The International Organization for Migration has called for immediate de-escalation, warning that “military escalation would force more families from their homes and hit civilians hard.” Iraq, which already hosts more than 280,000 refugees from other countries and has nearly 1.2 million internally displaced people, finds itself bracing for a potential influx from neighboring Iran. The country’s refugee infrastructure, already strained from years of internal conflict and the ISIS insurgency, faces the prospect of absorbing potentially hundreds of thousands more displaced persons. Turkey—already hosting roughly 1.8–1.9 million Syrian refugees in 2015—faces a daunting prospect. If Iran’s conflict drives mass displacement, Turkey could again become the primary Aegean corridor to Europe, forced to choose between hardening its borders or allowing large numbers to transit. “Approximately 1,500 Iranians per day have been permitted to cross from Iran into Turkey so far, but Turkey is preparing for the possibility of large arrivals, weighing options like creating a buffer zone, setting up camps along the border or permitting certain groups of individuals to enter the country,” Norman added. “Turkey will not accept a mass number; the ruling AKP party is still contending with the politics of allowing more than 3 million Syrian refugees to remain for so long. But even if it does allow camps along the border or the creation of a buffer zone, it will absolutely seek financial assistance to do so from Europe. The infamous 6 billion euro deal with Europe from 10 years ago taught Turkey that it can effectively leverage the politics of refugee hosting to demand—or sometimes blackmail—Europe into providing financial assistance. If needed, we can expect that Turkey will employ the same tactics again,” Norman said. Knaus added that if Turkey does not allow large numbers of refugees in, they will not be able to reach the EU and remain trapped. Germany and Sweden, which absorbed the largest numbers of Syrian asylum applicants during the 2015 crisis, would again find themselves on the front lines. In 2015, EU+ countries (EU‑28 plus Norway and Switzerland) recorded 1,349,638 asylum applications—more than twice the level recorded in 2014. Syrians were the largest group of asylum applicants, accounting for 27 percent of applications in the EU+, with 369,871 applications registered that year. Germany and Sweden together received 47 percent of Syrian asylum applications in the EU between April 2011 and July 2015. Germany alone pledged 35,000 places for Syrian refugees through its humanitarian admission program in 2015. Europe Divided The Iran conflict has exposed deep divisions within Europe over migration policy. In January 2026, Spain announced it would grant legal status to potentially 500,000 undocumented migrants already in the country. While Spain’s move came before the Iran war began, European officials fear that any offer of sanctuary could create a pull factor if Iranian refugees begin fleeing en masse. The decision has created tensions with France, which shares a border with Spain and fears an influx of migrants taking advantage of Spain’s more permissive policies. This tension echoes the fractures that emerged during the 2015 crisis, when disagreements over burden-sharing and border control threatened EU unity. The difference now is that Europe’s political landscape has shifted significantly rightward, with anti-immigration leaders like Meloni, Orbán and Wilders holding substantial power. In Knaus’ view, those political dynamics cannot be separated from the forces that he said produced Europe’s largest refugee movements in the first place. “It is worth recalling that the two largest refugee crises affecting Europe in the past decade were closely linked to the actions of one man, Vladimir Putin,” he said. “First through Russia’s military intervention that helped keep [Bashar al-] Assad in power during the Syrian war, and then through the invasion of Ukraine that forced millions of Ukrainians to flee. The political effect is striking: Many of the same far-right parties in Europe that warn most loudly about refugees and fantasize about the chimera of the ‘Great Replacement’ openly sympathize with the very leader whose wars produced the largest refugee crises in Europe since the Second World War.” As the war in Iran enters its fifth week, humanitarian workers fear that Aylan Kurdi’s story—and those of thousands like him—will repeat themselves on European beaches. The 2015 crisis transformed European politics, fueled the rise of far-right movements and led to renewed debate over open borders within the EU. A new wave of displacement from Iran would test European unity, humanitarian commitments and political stability in ways the continent has not experienced in generations.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxyUNEURussia

Sources

  • Jennifer WignallBy Jennifer Wignall

    In the early hours of September 2, 2015, 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi, his 5-year-old brother Galip and their mother Rihan drowned when their overcrowded boat capsized during the 12-mile journey from Bodrum, Turkey, to the Greek island of Kos. They were fleeing the siege of Kobane, a S

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran