The rapid spread of conflict across the Middle East since February 2026 has spurred widespread travel disruptions amid significant uncertainty. Richard Gardiner reflects on the challenges companies and foreign nationals faced in navigating relocations and evacuations as the conflict escalated, and highlights key considerations around how to prepare effectively to avoid being caught off guard in such crises.
On 28 February, the US and Israel launched large‑scale airstrikes on Iran, triggering retaliatory attacks by Iran against its regional neighbours, and rapidly degrading the security environment across the Middle East. S-RM’s Crisis Response team recorded a 100 percent increase in calls for assistance over the first two weeks of the conflict, compared with the 12‑day escalation between Israel and Iran in June 2025. Decision-making challenges and urgency accelerated for companies, travellers and expatriate communities weighing whether to stay or how to depart amid abrupt airspace closures and airline disruptions, suspended embassy services, online dis- and misinformation, and heightened uncertainty over the trajectory of the conflict.
In the immediate aftermath of Iran’s regional strikes, individuals and organisations faced pressing choices over whether to shelter in place, as advised by several regional governments, or to leave while options were still available, following guidance from countries such as the US, UK, and Canada. The Head of S-RM Crisis Response, Pete Doherty, notes that these decisions are often complicated by clients’ concerns over how the conflict might (de)escalate, alongside indecision driven by cost considerations or hope for stabilisation.
Evacuation is a choice, not an automatic decision when crises emerge. Leaving is not always the safest option. S-RM’s advice has consistently been to depart if it is safe and practical to do so, or to shelter in place until a safer window for movement opens.
Doherty observes that a recurring challenge for many organisations lay in having no pre‑agreed evacuation plan with defined triggers to assess when evacuations should occur, and limited support arrangements for in-country personnel. Out‑of‑date or overly‑complex crisis plans, or the absence of any plan or clear triggers for critical choices – such as when an evacuation is necessary – can foster uncertainty and indecision when crises emerge, leaving staff to improvise under pressure. Unclear plans can lead to an over‑reliance on governments and embassies, slow down decision making, and limit flexibility in choosing evacuation options.
Travellers and companies should aim to understand the local and operational environment, and possible scenarios for how a situation could unfold. For companies in particular, plans for dealing with such events should set out a clear decision‑making process, with defined roles and responsibilities at corporate, regional, country and individual levels. Employers are also advised to maintain reliable systems to track personnel and their evacuation status, identify critical assets that must be moved or can be left, and establish backup communication methods like satellite phones should local networks fail.
For those opting to leave, a major challenge lay in identifying viable exit routes. Airspace closures across Iran, Israel and multiple Gulf states – particularly hubs such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha, which had experienced abrupt airspace closures and infrastructure damage – followed within minutes of the initial strikes, making overland travel to neighbouring countries with open airspace the primary alternative. Land borders quickly became congested: major crossings such as Hatta, between the UAE and Oman, saw heavy flows of travellers and heightened document checks, while airports in locations such as Muscat emerged as key departure points, but with limited capacity and rapidly shifting schedules.
S-RM’s Crisis Response team recorded a 100 percent increase in calls for assistance over the first two weeks of the conflict, compared with the 12‑day escalation between Israel and Iran in June 2025.''
While predicting the trajectory of a conflict can be challenging, travellers and companies can ensure options for departure are available by mapping and regularly reviewing potential exit points such as airports, ports, land crossings, including specific travel routes, and fallback options in case primary hubs are compromised. This planning may also help identify where travellers may require specific documentation or face other travel hurdles; companies, for example, may need to assist staff from multiple different countries, in-country family members, or physical challenges to movement.
Largescale travel disruptions |
|
As Iranian strikes expanded, many embassies reduced in‑person services, suspended routine appointments, or shut operations, leaving travellers unsure of where to obtain emergency documents, guidance and travel support. Ambiguity around visa permissions, transit rights and documentation requirements to travel across borders further complicated decision‑making, with some individuals relying on alternative routes without clear assurance of entry.
Amid this uncertainty, online forums became key informal sources of real‑time updates on issues such as border conditions and flight availability, but also amplified rumours and misinformation; for example, some social media users erroneously claimed that the UAE-Oman Hatta border only permitted GCC residents. In mid-March, social‑media posts circulated by Iranian profiles alleging imminent Iranian strikes on parts of Dubai – reportedly based on unverified “military warnings” – also generated significant concern among residents and businesses despite no attacks materialising.
In a crisis, ensure access to reliable and timely intelligence to guide decisions, and avoid overreliance on information that may be incomplete, misleading or outdated. Some authorities may not immediately or regularly update information relevant to an individual or company’s specific situation.
Unlike more concentrated areas of conflict like Ukraine in February 2022, the recent escalation in the Middle East has been notable for its rapid and highly disruptive impact on a region-wide scale, highlighting the value in proactive crisis preparedness even in traditionally low-risk travel environments. Planning and preparation can ease the burden of making high‑stakes stay-or-go decisions under these conditions, reducing challenges associated with volatile developments, limited travel options and incomplete or contradictory information, both as the Middle East conflict persists, and amid potential longer-term volatility in the region.