Iranians seek temporary refuge in neighboring Turkey as conflict with Israel escalates
GURBULAK BORDER CROSSING, Turkey (AP) — At a border crossing between Turkey and Iran, Shirin Talebi was anxiously waiting on Monday for her children and grandchildren to arrive from Tehran. The family are planning to stay for a month or two in Turkey, seeking temporary refuge from the conflict between Israel and Iran.
'I'm here because of safety. They are bombing. My children have small children of their own,' said Talebi, who had just arrived at the Gurbulak-Bazargan border crossing from the Iranian city of Urmia.
'Hopefully, it is over in one or two months so we can return to our country,' she said.
Turkey, which shares a 569 kilometer-long (348 miles) border with Iran, has expressed deep concern over the escalating armed conflict between Iran and Israel.
Israel launched an assault on Iran's top military leaders, uranium enrichment sites and nuclear scientists that it said was necessary to prevent the country from getting any closer to building an atomic weapon. Friday's surprise attack came two days before Iran and the U.S. were set to hold a negotiating session for a deal over Tehran's nuclear program.
Iran has retaliated by firing waves of ballistic missiles at Israel.
There are fears in Turkey that a prolonged conflict could threaten its security, cause energy disruptions and lead to refugee flows.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has stated that Turkey was ready to act as a 'facilitator' toward ending the conflict and resuming nuclear negotiations in telephone calls with U.S. President Donald Trump and Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian.
Observers have noted an increase in arrivals from Iran since the conflict, though Turkish officials have dismissed social media reports of a large-scale refugee influx as unfounded. Turkey has not provided any official figures for arrivals.
'Our Ministry of Interior and relevant security units confirm that there is no unusual movement, congestion or irregular crossing at both the Kapıkoy and Gurbulak border gates,' the Turkish presidential communications office said.
Turkey allows Iranians to enter the country without a visa for tourism purposes and stay for up to 90 days.
At Gurbulak, one of the busiest crossings between Turkey and Iran, bus driver Ferit Aktas had just brought a group of Iranians to the border gate from Istanbul and was waiting to pick up others.
'About a week or 10 days ago, there would be between three and five people (Iranians) who would come for shopping or tourism. But now, I can say, that there are at least 30 Iranians in my vehicle per day," he said.
'They say, 'We are not safe there and we are forced to come.' Most of them want to go to Europe, they want to go to Europe through Turkey," Aktas said.
Mejid Dehimi, also from Umria, arrived in Turkey for a week-long break, not to escape the conflict. He expressed support for his country's leaders.
'We are not afraid of death,' he said. 'We will stand against Israel until our last breath and for as long as our lives allow.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
32 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Is Regime Change Possible in Iran?
Israel's campaign to set back Iran's nuclear program reflects a shared, if mostly unspoken, ambition among Western and Arab allies: to end Iran's clerical regime. The terrible record of regime change efforts by the West has long muted such hopes—but Israel's early successes in the war are giving them interesting new life. The assessment of whether the regime might actually collapse is certainly a factor in America's calculations of how much deeper to involve itself. Washington's stated position of non-involvement is, of course, implausible. Israel would never have acted against U.S. wishes—it depends on America for the spare parts that keep its air force running, a diplomatic shield at the United Nations, legal cover against international tribunals, and critical support in intercepting Iranian missile and drone retaliation. That Israel also struck right around the 60-day deadline President Donald Trump had given Iran for engaging in useful talks—which Iran brazenly flouted—also points in the direction of coordination. But on the other hand, Trump is averse to military action and the United States has vulnerable military personnel, assets, and bases scattered across the region. That said, only the United States has the bunker-busting capability to fully take out the most fortified elements of Iran's nuclear program: the underground facilities at Natanz and Fordow. There is a scenario, after Israel does everything else, in which such an option may look attractive. It is reasonable to expect the Trump administration to first try a return to diplomacy, but of a more muscular variety than it had telegraphed in recent months. The U.S. previously seemed to be headed towards a renewed version of the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump walked away from (unwisely, in my view) in 2018. But that was before the humiliation the regime has endured since Israel began its strikes Friday. Israeli jets have controlled Iran's skies, having wiped out air defenses; a host of senior figures, including the heads of the military and Revolutionary Guards as well as the top nuclear scientists, have been killed; many missile launchers have been disabled and a host of nuclear sites badly damaged. Most missiles sent from Iran have been intercepted, though some did get through, killing more than 20 people in Israel. With the regime thus exposed, perhaps Trump will finally issue a long-overdue ultimatum to Iran's clerical regime—not only to hand over its enriched uranium but also to end its outrageous efforts to undermine its neighbors with proxy militias and discontinue production of long-range ballistic missiles. If this happens and Iran stuck to its old positions, a U.S. military strike becomes more plausible. And from there, it is easy to envision escalation, especially if Iran hits at American targets like the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar. At that point, undermining the regime itself—through attacks on energy infrastructure, cyberattacks, information campaigns, and more—might be openly on the table. Would any of that be defensible? Do countries not retain the right to govern themselves? Such questions are never clear—but the case for regime change in Iran is good. By nearly every standard, the Islamic Republic has lost its legitimacy. It governs without meaningful consent, relying on violent repression, censorship, and an unaccountable clerical elite. It is anti-democratic by design, structurally incapable of reform, and fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of Iran's overwhelmingly young, urban, and globally aware population. It remains standing not through popular support but because of its efficiency in suppressing dissent, its control over the economy, and the fear it instills. Internationally, Iran's legitimacy is further eroded by its rather obvious pursuit of nuclear weapons, sponsorship of terrorism, and serial violations of human rights. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. ATTA KENARE / AFP/Getty Images The Iranian proxy militia project has devastated the region: Hezbollah has turned Lebanon into a failed state; Hamas and Islamic Jihad have perpetuated cycles of war in Gaza and the West Bank; the Houthis have destabilized Yemen; Shiite militias in Iraq have terrorized civilians. Uncoiling these tentacles would not just restore regional balance—it would free Arab states from the permanent hostage situation engineered in Tehran. Given all this, one could certainly argue that the Iranian regime has lost its right to demand noninterference by being a menace to its region. But that still leaves the question of practicality. After all, history is littered with failed regime change efforts from outsiders. The U.S.-backed invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein, but unleashed chaos, insurgency, and years of sectarian war. In Afghanistan, 20 years of Western nation-building collapsed in 11 days, ending with the odious Taliban back in power in Kabul. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a debacle that only strengthened Cuba's Fidel Castro. The CIA-backed overthrow of Chilean socialist Salvador Allende led to decades of dictatorship and considerable regret. More recently, Libya collapsed into anarchy after the fall of Moammar Gaddafi, and U.S. attempts to influence regime change in Venezuela have gone nowhere. What these cases teach is not that regime change is always doomed, but that external actors cannot impose internal legitimacy, decency, and stability. You cannot liberate a people who aren't prepared to act—or who might see you as the greater threat. Iran is a deeply nationalistic society, even if the people despise the Islamist regime. Any intervention that appears externally driven risks strengthening the regime's narrative and provoking backlash. The Revolutionary Guards thrive on the image of Iran as a besieged fortress. A misstep could entrench them further. So while regime change is not impossible, it must ultimately be homemade. The challenge is that the clerics have constructed a dense architecture of fear, dependency, surveillance, and economic patronage that enriched the men with guns. Civil society is fragmented, the opposition in exile is divided, and many are economically tied to the state. The most plausible scenario is a palace coup: a rupture within the military, perhaps even inside the Revolutionary Guards themselves. Both organizations have suffered humiliating setbacks in recent days, and it is not inconceivable that to protect their corrupt financial interests they might dump the aging clerical leadership, beginning with 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, compelling top clerics to flee Tehran. Might Trump authorize the carefully calibrated steps that could lead to such a scenario? For all his hawkish rhetoric, America's problematic president has shown a consistent aversion to prolonged military engagements—on top of an odd disdain for his own military and even for the Western alliance. He criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, avoided conflict with North Korea, and even declined to retaliate militarily after Iran shot down a U.S. drone in 2019. Yet he is also deeply drawn to dramatic successes and personal credit. Israel's successful strike campaign may prove tempting. A scenario where Trump issues a sweeping ultimatum to Iran, demands the dismantling of its missile and proxy projects, and positions himself as the architect of Iran's "freedom moment" might fit this brand. What follows could be very interesting indeed. At a moment of grave uncertainty, one thing is not in doubt: Even though a period of chaos may follow a collapse of the regime, the 90 million people of Iran deserve better than the theocratic prison they've been consigned to since 1979. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Miami Herald
39 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
How Israel's Air Force Compares as IDF Claims ‘Air Superiority' Over Iran
Israel has the upper hand in the skies over the Iranian capital of Tehran, the Israeli military has said, after Iran and Israel launched fresh strikes into the early hours of Monday. "At this time, we can say that we have achieved full aerial superiority over Tehran's skies," Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson, Brigadier General Effie Defrin, said on Monday. Air superiority broadly refers to how freely one military can operate in the air without being significantly threatened by an enemy's air defenses and other aircraft. Iran and Israel have been trading large-scale attacks since Israel launched its "preemptive" campaign to take out Tehran's nuclear, missile and other military sites early local time on Friday. Both sides have indicated they will continue to execute further drone and missile strikes, despite U.S. President Donald Trump's insistence they "make a deal." Israel's operations to quickly establish air superiority-meaning they can use free-falling bombs rather than be limited to missiles launched far away from air defenses-have been "impressive," said Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow with the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), an influential British think tank. Israel used its version of F-35 stealth jets to find air defense radars, while using other aircraft such as its F-16s and F-15s-equipped with long-range missiles and glide bombs-to destroy them, Bronk said. William Freer, a research fellow for national security at the U.K.-based Council on Geostrategy think tank, told Newsweek: "The Israeli Air Force-through a combination of excellent intelligence, stealth aircraft such as the F-35, and sophisticated strike weapons including air-launched ballistic missiles-has been able to establish air superiority in a matter of days; a remarkable feat." This means Israel can fly other aircraft, such as F-15s and F-16s, "almost at will over Iran," Freer said. Flying at lower altitude can still be risky, he added. Israel "has one of the most experienced and capable air forces of the world," said Frederik Mertens, a strategic analyst with Dutch think tank, TNO. The Israeli air force has thoroughly trained personnel, modern aircraft, lots of support aircraft, as well as "ample stocks of advanced ammunition" and American logistics help, he told Newsweek. The country has heavily invested in advanced technology, often in coordination with the U.S. Israel's air force has a total of 340 operational aircraft of various types at its disposal, according to figures from the U.K.-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which annually publishes a comprehensive rundown of the world's armed forces. Israel's fleet of advanced, fifth-generation F-35i stealth fighter jets stands at 39, according to the IISS, along with 75 F-15s and just under an estimated 200 F-16s. Iranian state media claimed in recent days that Iran shot down up to three of Israel's F-35s, which Israel denied. "With Iran being its primary opponent, Israeli planners have had decades to think about how they could deal with them and as we are seeing now, they are combining all the tools at their disposal," Mertens said. Iran has "few technical answers to the combination of Israeli F-35i aircraft that can rapidly geolocate and conduct electronic warfare against SAMs [surface-to-air missile systems] while remaining hard to detect on radar, supported by F-16s and F-15s carrying precision-guided standoff weapons such as the Rampage air-launched ballistic missile," Bronk said. Israel brought in its F-35i JETS nearly a decade ago to help get through air defenses, followed by the Rampage missile two years later "to increase its standoff distances from other aircraft," RUSI analysts commented on Monday. Freer said that the Iranian air force "was already in a pitiful state before the current fighting began." He added: "To all intents and purposes, Iran did not really have an air force." Its aging collection comprises an estimated 265 aircraft fit for flying, including 138 fighters and more than 70 ground-attack aircraft, according to the IISS. Tehran's fleet is a mix of Soviet-era jets such as the MiG-29 and American-made aircraft dating back to before the 1979 revolution and the establishment of an Islamic republic in Iran. Tehran has 15 F-5B jets, 54 of the F-5E and F-5F aircraft, plus a handful of F-14 Tomcats, the IISS figures indicate. Iran's air force is "threadbare," Mertens said, adding: "I am very, very impressed that it has managed to keep its old American aircraft operational in the face of withering U.S. sanctions." "But you cannot expect miracles from ancient aircraft, for in the air domain superior technology gives an overwhelming advantage," Mertens said. "Iran's air force is a shadow of what it had been in the days of the Shah." Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown in 1979 and died in 1980. His eldest son, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who lives in exile, has called for an end to the regime headed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since the start of Israel's strikes last week. The poor state of Iran's air force led it to rely almost exclusively on ground-based systems to both launch and intercept attacks, and that is where a second mission helped to secure air superiority. Reports from Israel say the country's notorious Mossad spy agency built a hidden drone base inside Iranian territory. The uncrewed vehicles were then used to attack ballistic missile launchers. Israel reportedly smuggled weapons into Iran that then took out air defenses-paving the way for Israeli warplanes-while commandos targeted anti-aircraft sites in central Iran. Israel's success in its opening strikes "builds on and almost certainly exploited the damage already done" to vital Iranian long-range air defenses last fall, Bronk said. Iran launched two major attacks on Israel in 2024, the first in April when Tehran fired more than 300 missiles and drones in its first ever direct attack on Israel from its soil. A second aerial barrage headed for Israel in October, 2024. Israel targeted part of a Russian-made S-300 air defense system around the central Iranian city of Isfahan in April. Wider attacks in October then destroyed the remaining S-300s at Iran's disposal, Israel said. This left Iran "vulnerable" to additional strikes and to Israeli F-35s, said Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel now at the Atlantic Council. It will be unable to replace these losses in the short-term, he told Newsweek. Israel also targeted air defenses in Syria at the end of last year after the country's regime, led by former leader Bashar al-Assad, collapsed. While these operations set the stage for the Israeli campaign last week, some of Iran's air defenses are still in play, meaning Israel's pilots have to fly along specifics routes, an unnamed Israeli defense official told The New York Times. Israel leans on real-time intelligence to keep track of potential threats to its jets, the official said. An IDF spokesperson said on Monday Israel had established a "safer route" for the aircraft to use in targeting Iran. The IDF declined to provide additional information, but reiterated the Israeli military had established "aerial control over Tehran from the western direction." Defrin said on Monday Israel's extensive overnight strikes in central Iran had homed in on Iranian air defenses before striking other targets, such as command centers, with "dozens of aircraft simultaneously." Some of Iran's jets and air defenses are originally Russian or Soviet designs. But the Middle East military situation is hard to compare with that in Ukraine. Russia itself has a vast air force, despite more than three years of full-scale war in Ukraine. General Christopher Cavoli, the head of the United States' European forces, said in April last year Russia had lost roughly 10 percent of its fleet at that point in the war. But despite this, Moscow has failed to assert convincing air superiority over Ukraine and its much smaller air force, analysts and Western intelligence says. If Russia had destroyed Ukraine's defenses at the start of its invasion, "the fighting in Ukraine could have gone very differently," Freer said. As of the start of 2025, Moscow had an estimated 1,224 operational aircraft under its aerospace forces, according to the IISS. This includes fighter aircraft such as its MiG-29s and MiG-31s, as well as fighter-bombers such as the Su-27 and Su-34. Russia also had 127 bombers, such as those used by its long-range aviation forces. Ukraine said earlier this month it had attacked more than 40 of Russia's expensive, hard-to-replace warplanes, including Tu-95 and Tu-22 strategic bombers. Kyiv said it had hit more than a third of Moscow's strategic cruise missile carriers in a coordinated, meticulously planned operation. "In theory, the Russians had all the advantages," with a better, bigger fleet and time to plan, plus technological know-how and intelligence on Ukraine's defenses, said Mertens. But Moscow's pilots lack training, large numbers of stealth aircraft and advanced anti-radiation missiles, he said. Russia's Su-57, its fifth generation stealth fighter aircraft, has seen little action in Ukraine. Kyiv said last June it had targeted one of the scarce but advanced aircraft hundreds of miles from Ukrainian soil. Even so, Ukraine's air force was hit heavily in the first days and weeks of the war, and has "no chance to deal the Russians a knockout blow," Mertens said. Ukraine itself had a Soviet fleet of roughly 124 combat-capable aircraft when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of its neighbor in early 2022, according to IISS figures. Ukraine now has just 66 aircraft fit for flying, the IISS said earlier this year. The think tank estimated Kyiv had roughly 21 of its Soviet-era Su-27 in operation, and another 10 Su-25, plus 5 Su-24M jets. Ukraine's air force had 7 combat-capable F-16 fighter jets, the IISS said, and it has received further F-16 deliveries since. Kyiv had clamored for F-16s for many, many months before the Western-made jets were first used by Ukraine in late summer 2024. Ukraine quickly put the jets into defensive roles, but F-16s have not typically made dramatic headlines. An attractive target for Russia, the few F-16s Ukraine operates likely came too late to make a real difference to Ukraine's war effort. At least two Ukrainian pilots have died operating F-16s since last summer. But even with the F-16s, "the Russians still have the numbers and their well-integrated massive SBAMD [surface-based air & missile defenses] on their side," Mertens said. But it remains to be seen whether Russia has enough weaponry to upgrade Iran's air force, or even if it has the will to do so. Related Articles Netanyahu's Prediction on How Targeting Iran's Ali Khamenei Would Play OutWatch: Israeli Airstrike Hits Iran State TV Live on AirRussia Issues Nuclear Warning on Israel-Iran Conflict-'Extremely Dangerous'Fact Check: Did Iran Try to Assassinate Donald Trump? 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Miami Herald
39 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
What do Americans think of Pope Leo XIV a month into his papacy? What poll finds
A month into his papacy, Pope Leo XIV — the Wordle-playing, White Sox-loving, first American pope — maintains a high favorability rating among U.S. Catholics and the general public, a poll found. Sixty-five percent of Catholics said they have a favorable impression of the new pope, compared with six percent who have an unfavorable view, according to a June 15 AP-NORC poll. Twenty-nine percent of Catholics said they still didn't know enough to say, the poll found. The poll of 1,158 U.S. adults was taken June 5-9 and has a margin of error of 4 percentage points. A plurality of the general public, 44%, also said they have a favorable view of Pope Leo, according to the poll. Forty-six percent of Americans said they weren't sure yet, and 10% said they had an unfavorable view, per the poll. How does this compare to Pope Francis? Support for Pope Leo mirrors support for his predecessor at the start of his pontificate, researchers said. Forty-four percent of Americans had a positive view of Pope Francis, while 13% viewed him unfavorably and 42% weren't sure, according to an October 2015 poll. Pope Leo was elected head of the Holy See on May 8 after four rounds of voting. What do Americans want from pope? Before the conclave took place, many Catholics, 37%, said they wanted the next pope to have more conservative teachings, according to a poll, McClatchy News reported. Twenty-one percent said they wanted to see more progressive teachings, per the poll. In May, Americans were split on whether they thought the new pope was liberal or conservative, with 16% saying he is liberal and 12% saying he's conservative, according to a poll, McClatchy reported. Forty-three percent said they were not sure, the poll found.
