As political instability and conflict events continue to drive threats to foreign nationals, travellers and commercial operators, Richard Gardiner interviews Paul Padman, S-RM’s Deputy Head of Crisis Response, to discuss recent trends in evacuations, and best practices for companies navigating high-risk environments and volatile situations.
Political evacuations become essential when conflict and instability place travellers at risk. In 2025, this was illustrated as regional security concerns unfolded amid escalations in the Israel-Hamas war, and tensions between Israel, the US and Iran over its nuclear development. Paul Padman, who coordinates the 24/7 deployment of S-RM’s global Crisis Response team, highlights the challenges of managing evacuations in such rapidly changing environments, and the vital role of intelligence and preparation in enabling companies and travellers to respond quickly and decisively in crisis situations.
Political evacuations are most prevalent in areas with the highest level of instability, where political conditions and the wider security environment are prone to volatility and deterioration. As geopolitical fragmentation and tensions deepen, companies are increasingly acknowledging the need for robust evacuation and crisis‑response planning.
Paul: Over the last two years we have planned and executed emergency evacuations primarily in the Middle East, but also in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and Asia - perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of these are driven by political events. Generally, we have seen an upward trend in requests for evacuation preparation and support year-on-year. This is likely due to the general geopolitical instability we have seen across all regions, particularly over the last three years. Our clients remain cognisant of their duty of care responsibilities to their staff, and we regularly support them with crisis management and evacuation planning services, whether reviewing and exercising existing plans, or writing bespoke policy so they might respond with confidence in a crisis.
In June 2025, Israel launched an airstrike campaign on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities, prompting Iran to retaliate with drone and missile strikes into Israel. The escalation prompted several foreign companies and governments, including the US, the UK, France, China and India, to begin evacuating their citizens and personnel from both countries. Ongoing airstrikes and airspace closures made plane evacuations extremely challenging, largely reducing travel options to leaving via land borders, and in some cases by sea. Many states organised bus and vehicle convoys to move people from Israel into Jordan and Egypt, and from Iran into Turkey and Armenia, where onward charter flights were arranged. A smaller number of evacuations used naval or chartered civilian vessels from regional ports when land routes or nearby airports were no longer considered safe.
Of course, it is helpful to assess whether travel is necessary or essential in the first place, “or whether the objective can be achieved with less risk, for instance in a safer location or even virtually.” But as Paul notes, “travel risk management is about enabling the activity safely;” ensuring companies and travellers are sufficiently aware of threats in the travel environment, and are prepared to cope with the high-stress conditions typical of evacuation scenarios. Paul adds that “Preparation of an appropriate pre-travel assessment that identifies the main risks – whether political, natural, cultural, crime, health and legal obligations to name but a few – is key.”
Travel risk management is about enabling the activity safely.”
There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to planning for political evacuations. Paul emphasises that “Every request for an evacuation is unique and each presents a planning challenge.” The specific dynamics of a given environment – and the potential for rapid shifts as unforeseen developments emerge – mean that evacuation plans that are too generic, or not regularly revised to reflect local conditions, risk relying on “planning assumptions [that] can become outdated very quickly.” This inherent unpredictability, Paul notes, “[necessitates] flexibility and active contingency planning”, while striking a balance that avoids “overly complex or dogmatic plans [that] are more difficult to implement in dynamic circumstances.”
Paul: During Israel’s recent military strikes in Lebanon, we were asked by a client to plan an evacuation of several staff. Airspace restrictions were imposed on an ad hoc basis, disrupting travel plans, and as alternatives, we considered and planned for sea and land route options, whilst ensuring staff were relocated to safer areas in the interim until the window for safe repatriation reopened.
“Ground truth” – or accurate intelligence of on-the ground conditions – is critical to successfully developing and implementing evacuation plans. Effective intelligence can help to identify early-warning signs that a security situation is deteriorating, and once a crisis unfolds, reliable, up‑to‑date intelligence monitoring becomes critical, as evacuation decisions may depend on a real-time picture of the shifting security and operational environment. Determining viable travel routes in conflict zones may include monitoring movements of armed groups or military forces, or local travel restrictions and challenges; airspace and border closures often take place at short notice, and government websites may not necessarily always issue prompt updates.
Paul: Moving clients from Israel (with closed airspace) to Jordan, where airspace was intermittently open during the recent Middle East conflict, saw us planning for three different border crossings, including assessing the best alternative land routes to the north and south, taking into account the potential for further closures and military activity, and maintaining a contingency plan of movement into Egypt.
Pre-identified ‘triggers’ that help decision-makers determine which developments could increase risks, and which corresponding actions should be taken if these developments emerge, can be the difference between a smooth evacuation, and having few safe options left.
Paul: If we consider the continuum in an evacuation, there are points at which risk increases and alert levels elevate, until a decision to evacuate is made. Adequately describing these trigger points is key to a safe and timely evacuation. The risk is waiting too long before [deciding] to evacuate, perhaps hoping that conditions might improve. Good pre-planning, and defining your risk appetite and triggers for an evacuation, are key here, as delaying a decision may already mean it is too late to try a safe evacuation, and resting in place could be the safest option available.