ConflictClarifier

מעקב משבר איראן-המפרץ 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 31, 2026

Iran war turns Middle East dream into nightmare for Asia's migrant workers

Summary

Asia's migrant workers debate if Gulf jobs are worth deadly risk of Iran war - Published All Norma Tactacon can do is pray as the sirens blare. The 49-year-old, who works in the Middle East as a domestic worker, is thousands of miles away from her home in the Philippines, where her husband and three children live. Stuck in Qatar, which is caught in the crossfire of the US and Israel's war on Iran, her only hope is that she makes it home to her family. "I get scared and nervous every time I see pictures and videos of missiles in the air," she tells the BBC. "I need to be alive to be there for my family. I'm all that they have." As wealthy Gulf states turned into targets of Iranian strikes because of the US military bases they host, expats left in large numbers, while tourists and travellers have stayed away. But it has been especially hard for the millions of migrants whose futures have now turned uncertain. From domestic help to construction workers, they have long supported these economies to lift their families back home from poverty. Tactacon had hoped to pay for her 23-year-old son to graduate from a police academy and for her two daughters, aged 22 and 24, to become nurses, a springboard for high-paying jobs overseas. That's why she spent a good part of the last two decades working as a maid in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). What is still keeping her there is her salary. Filipino domestic workers in the Middle East earn a minimum wage of $500 (£370) a month, roughly four to five times more than what they would make in a similar job back home. "I hope the world will be peaceful again and things go back to the way they were. I pray that the war will stop," says Tactacon in Qatar. But the war is making her reconsider. She might return home and start a small business with her husband. She has reason to be worried. One of the first victims of the conflict was 32-year-old Filipina Mary Ann Veolasquez, who worked as a caregiver in Israel. The Israeli embassy in Manila said she was injured while leading her patient to safety, after a ballistic missile struck her apartment in Tel Aviv. According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the region hosts 24 million migrant workers, making it the world's top destination for overseas labour. Most of them come from Asia - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Indonesia. Many of these workers take low paid or precarious jobs, and have little access to things like healthcare, the ILO says, external. At least 12 South Asian migrant workers have died so far as a result of the conflict, according to reports. The war's mounting fatalities include Dibas Shrestha, a 29-year-old Nepali who worked as a security guard in Abu Dhabi. He died in an Iranian strike on 1 March. "I tried to convince him to move back to Nepal, but he said he liked his job in Abu Dhabi, and that he had a good life," his uncle Ramesh told the BBC. "We have many relatives who've moved to the Gulf for work, so we were very worried for all of them," When the war started, Shrestha assured his family it was safe. In a post on Facebook, he wrote that watching the news had made him "concerned" but he also felt, "The news sometimes presents exaggerated or misleading information". His uncle said Shrestha had been saving up to rebuild his parents' home after it had been damaged in an earthquake in 2015 that killed hundreds. "He was their only son," Ramesh added. "So kind, and very smart." More than 120kms away, in Dubai, debris from an intercepted missile killed Ahmad Ali, a 55-year-old water tank supplier from Bangladesh. His son, Abdul Haque, said he joined his father to work in the UAE but returned to Bangladesh before the war started. His father continued sending money home - $500 to $600 every month, which is a huge sum in the poor South Asia nation. Ahmad died during Ramadan, and his son was told it happened in the evening, just as people were breaking their fast. "He really liked the people in Dubai, he said they were welcoming, that it was a great place to live," Abdul told the BBC. "I don't even think he knew the war was going on. He didn't read the news and didn't have a smartphone." Abdul's his view of Dubai and the region has changed: "It's not safe now, nobody wants to lose a father." Governments in Asia have been scrambling to bring migrant workers home. But the threat of missile strikes has disrupted travel to and from Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar. So people seeking to leave have had to take longer routes home. The last repatriation flight saw 234 Filipino workers from Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain travel up to eight hours by land to Saudi Arabia, where 109 others were waiting to join them on a Philippine Airlines flight. Close to 2,000 Filipino workers and their dependents were flown back to Manila as of 23 March, according to the government. The Middle East is home to roughly half of the more than two million Filipinos working overseas, and their remittances account for 10% of the economy. Remittances are just as crucial for Bangladesh - most of its 14 million migrant workers are in the Middle East. Close to 500 Bangladeshi workers have been repatriated since the conflict started, and the government in Dhaka has arranged for at least two more flights home, departing from Bahrain. For some leaving is not an option. Su Su from Myanmar found a safe home in Dubai when she left behind a country gripped by a bloody civil war that has dragged on since 2021. The 31-year-old, who works as an operations specialist for a real estate company, has been in Dubai for two years. She says her current work-from-home set-up reminds her of Covid lockdowns - except when she hears the sirens. Then she needs to stay away from her window. "I have an emergency bag prepared in case I have to evacuate... This is just a habit I got from Myanmar." And yet, she says, "The feeling here is more calm. I believe at the end of the day, we will be fine". Additional reporting by BBC Burmese and BBC Indonesian

Actors involved

USIranIsrael

Sources

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