The new airport threat landscape: geopolitical volatility

Airports and the aviation industry at large depend on an interconnected world. Geopolitical stability is fundamental for bilateral agreements, overflight rights, airport growth, and providing passengers with ample choice of safe destinations.

The airport sector is no stranger to turbulence. Episodic crises such as the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption, the 2003 SARS outbreak, the Persian Gulf war, the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2007 recession emphasised the variety of challenges that the industry could face.

However, it seems geopolitical volatility has become the new norm with near-permanent disruption. Across the globe, conflicts have been on the rise in recent years. According to research by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) at Uppsala University, conflicts are now at their highest level since the Second World War.

Turbulence from only the last few years has already impacted aviation dramatically. Episodic crises that once appeared isolated are increasingly disrupting global air travel, forcing airspace closures, rerouting aircraft and creating operational uncertainty.

Gulf region disruption highlights operational fragility

Earlier this year, the Gulf region experienced widespread disruption following military action involving the United States, Israel and Iran. Missile exchanges led several Middle Eastern states to temporarily close their airspace, bringing one of the world’s busiest aviation regions almost to a standstill.

Dubai Airport, the busiest airport in the Middle East saw multiple drone-related incidents since the strikes began. The airport’s concourse saw some damage with a drone striking near to the airport on March 7, 2026. Passengers were ushered down into the train tunnels to take shelter when the alarms sounded. A drone also hit a fuel tank near the airport which ignited and caused another temporary shutdown. The airport reported that a few of its employees were injured during this time.

Alongside airspace disruption, the conflict has also contributed to volatility in global energy markets, pushing up the price of jet fuel. For airlines, higher fuel costs quickly translate into increased fares, capacity adjustments or reduced frequencies, particularly on long-haul routes. For airports, this creates additional uncertainty around traffic recovery and network stability, especially where demand is more price sensitive.

However, Neville Hay, a Global Security Transformation Consultant, cautions against overstating the nature of the threat to airports themselves. He notes that, while airports have inevitably been affected by the disruption, there has been no evidence during the recent conflict of commercial airports being deliberately targeted.

Instead, the principal challenge has been managing the consequences of regional instability, with governments taking the decision to close national airspace as a precaution while the security situation was assessed.

“The action taken by [Gulf] States was correct in my opinion,” says Hay. “Closing the airspace would not be an airport decision. Government emergency meetings take place, the situation is analysed, and then a decision can be made as to how the airspace can be reopened.”

Though Gulf states generally reopened their airspace within hours of each closure during the 2026 Iran conflict, airlines still faced months of disruption as carriers rerouted services, avoided conflict zones and operated under continuing regional security restrictions. The UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office lifted its advisory against “all but essential travel” to UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar in June 2026, however with the caveat that “the situation remains unpredictable and attacks could resume at short notice.” Fragile geopolitical relationships fuel traveller uncertainty around regions.

European networks under pressure post-Ukraine invasion

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine since 2022 has arguably caused a near-permanent disruption for the aviation industry, especially in Europe.

In response to the invasion, more than 30 countries, including all EU member states, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Japan, banned Russian-registered aircraft from their airspace. Russia responded by closing its own airspace to airlines from those countries.

As a result, airspace between Europe and Asia has become increasingly constrained. Airlines have been forced to navigate around Russian, Ukrainian and, at times, Middle Eastern airspace, concentrating traffic along narrower corridors through regions such as the Caucasus, where political tensions also remain fragile.

Airports positioned close to these geopolitical fault lines face significant commercial and operational consequences, and Helsinki Airport and Finnair are a prime example. Before 2022, Helsinki’s location made it one of Europe’s most efficient transfer hubs between Europe and Asia.

The closure of Russian airspace removed that competitive advantage almost overnight. Flights to key Asian destinations became several hours longer, significantly increasing fuel consumption, crew costs and aircraft utilisation.

Although most major European airports have recovered to or exceeded their pre-pandemic passenger volumes, Helsinki Airport handled 16.3 million passengers in 2024 compared with 21.9 million in 2019, remaining around 25% below pre-pandemic levels.

Much of this decline reflects the loss of Europe-Asia transfer traffic, with passengers increasingly connecting through Middle Eastern hubs or airlines that retain access to Russian airspace, such as Chinese airlines, who are capitalising on this new competitive advantage.

Separating perceived threats from operational reality

Hay believes these developments illustrate how airports must become more resilient without assuming they are entering a wartime operating environment.

“The majority of States are peaceful and civilian commercial airports are business environments,” he explains.

“Sensational headlines do not help. Airports have found themselves caught in the middle of conflict zones, but the focus should be on understanding the risks, rather than creating unnecessary fear.”

Rather than fundamentally changing the nature of airport security, Hay argues that geopolitical instability reinforces the importance of preparedness.

“Crisis management relies on continuous training,” he says.

“Airports can no longer afford to say, ‘It is not likely to happen here’. They have to be outward looking, continually horizon scanning and understanding how threats are evolving.”

He believes airports should strengthen intelligence capabilities, improve collaboration with national security agencies and invest in specialist expertise capable of assessing geopolitical, cyber and emerging threats. Traditional risks such as terrorism have not disappeared, but they now exist alongside state-sponsored cyber activity.

“Larger airports will require intelligence departments, not rely on other agencies but collaborate with them under one roof”, said Hay.

Sharing and discussing intelligence, providing training and investing in the development of individuals, as many are new to the airports, will be paramount for larger airports to protect themselves against geopolitical crises. The focus needs to include threats and not just commercial benefits.

For Hay, the recent conflicts should ultimately be viewed as learning experiences rather than reasons for alarm.

“The industry has to be flexible to change,” he concludes. “The current [Middle Eastern] conflict has been a learning environment, and aviation must take note.”

This article appeared in International Airport Review’s Airport security in a geopolitically complex world eReport which was published in July 2026. To read the full report, click here.