In 2015, the Syrian civil war triggered an unprecedented migration wave that caught Europe off guard. Syria has a population of less than 30 million, whereas Iran’s population exceeds 90 million. The war in Iran began on 28 February 2026 and has been dragging on ever since, with no end in sight. The longer the crisis persists, the greater the likelihood that large numbers of people will head toward Europe. Given Iran’s size, Europe could face even greater migratory pressure than it did ten years ago. This raises an important question: is Europe better prepared now than it was in 2015?
According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), 3.2 million Iranians were temporarily displaced already in mid-March. Iran hosts a large number of Afghan refugees too, around 2 million people, the UNHCR warned. According to some estimates, so far ‘only’ 1 300 people a day have fled Iran via Türkiye—many fear, however, that these numbers might rapidly increase if the war continues.
Iran shares borders with seven countries: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Turkey. Most of these neighbors face political instability and weak economies, meaning they are unlikely to offer substantial aid to refugees or welcome them with open arms. Azerbaijan, for instance, has already closed its border with Iran. Among Iran’s neighbors, Türkiye is the most likely first destination for refugees fleeing the country. However, with 3.6 million Syrian refugees already in the country, Ankara is unlikely to admit more. Therefore, if a migration wave does occur, it is unlikely to stop in the region and will likely make its way toward Europe, as happened in 2015.
Over the past ten years, the European Union has debated the bloc’s migration rules. Eventually, the EU’s Migration and Asylum Pact was approved in 2023 and is set to come into force in the summer of 2026. Many, however, already doubt that it will be up to the challenge—especially if fears of a potential Iranian migration wave materialize.
The main focus of the EU’s migration regime is to distribute immigrants among Member States. Under the rules, the European Commission annually reviews the migration situation in each Member State to determine which countries are facing significant migratory pressures and which are not. Those countries deemed ‘not under pressure’ are required to assist those that are. The regulation specifies two main forms of ‘support’: Member States not under migratory pressure must either take in 21,000 migrants from countries under pressure or contribute €420 million to a so-called ‘solidarity pool’ used to support the affected countries. In other words, Member States not under pressure are obliged to pay up to €20,000 for every migrant they are unwilling to accept.
These measures were strongly opposed by some EU Member States, including Hungary. Budapest argues that the rules punish those that have managed the migration crisis effectively over the past ten years. Hungary is ‘not under migratory pressure’ (according to the European Commission’s assessment) because, since 2015, it has built a strong border defence system and has not admitted illegal migrants. In Budapest’s view, it would be an ironic twist if the country were forced to take in migrants from other EU Member States after having protected the EU’s external borders from immigration at its own expense for a decade. Under its strict anti-immigration policies, Budapest was not only left unsupported by Brussels but, worse, was sanctioned by the EU. The fines imposed on Budapest’s anti-immigration measures already exceed €500 million.
‘Budapest was not only left unsupported by Brussels but, worse, was sanctioned by the EU’
In addition to the much-criticized relocation scheme, the newest addition to the EU’s Asylum Pact is a list of ‘safe countries’, intended to enable easier deportations. Seven countries—Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco, and Tunisia—are considered ‘safe’, meaning that people arriving from these countries can be returned under accelerated procedures if their asylum applications are found to be baseless.
Countries such as Hungary, along with right-wing political forces across the continent, however, consider these rules insufficient to address the root causes of the crisis. The EU’s low deportation rates cannot tackle the underlying issue: illegal border crossings into the Union. Rather than admitting migrants and assessing their applications after entry, individuals should not be allowed into the EU unless they already possess the appropriate documentation. In other words, instead of focusing solely on relocation, and in addition to deportation, EU Member States should strengthen their border defence capabilities to meet the challenges Europe now faces due to the situation in the Middle East.
‘After 30 years of failure, the only solution is for the EU to give back its competences to Member States so that they can manage migration and asylum policy on a brand-new basis grounded in national sovereignty,’ Rodrigo Ballester and Viktor Marsai wrote in the columns of the Hungarian Conservative, introducing introducing a report containing 18 policy proposals on how to truly reform and improve the EU’s migration system.
Related articles: