When wars close the skies: The impact of the Iran–Israel conflict on global aviation

At 35,000 feet, commercial aviation appears far removed from the tensions that shape international politics on the ground. Yet, the reality is quite the opposite.

The escalating hostilities between Iran and Israel have demonstrated the profound vulnerability of global civil aviation to geopolitical conflict. Marked by coordinated military strikes, retaliatory missile attacks and regional airspace closures, the ongoing crisis has disrupted international flight networks, airline operations and aviation regulatory frameworks. For an industry built on predictable airspace access and global regulatory coordination, such conflicts introduce significant operational, regulatory and legal complexities.

One of the most immediate consequences of geopolitical conflict is the closure or restriction of civilian airspace. States often impose such measures to mitigate the risks posed by missile and drone activity, military operations and heightened air defence systems within their territories. During periods of heightened tension, the presence of active weapons systems, drones and surveillance operations significantly increases the risk to civilian aircraft operating in or near the affected region. In response, aviation authorities typically issue advisories directing airlines to avoid certain airspaces or adjust flight routes. While these measures are intended to ensure passenger and crew safety, they often have wider implications for global aviation. Given the interconnected nature of international flight networks, the closure of even a single region’s airspace can disrupt major flight corridors, forcing airlines to reroute flights, increase travel time and incur higher operational costs.

International civil aviation is governed by the principle that states have complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above their territory, as recognised under the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. This allows states to control or restrict the use of their airspace, particularly in situations involving security risks or an armed conflict. In such circumstances, states may lawfully close or limit access to their airspace through safety advisories and notices to airmen. Article 9 of the Convention permits such restrictions on grounds of military necessity or public safety. However, while these measures are legally justified, their impact is not confined to national boundaries. Airspace closures in conflict zones often disrupt international flight routes and airline operations across regions. Although the ICAO provides guidance on aviation safety, the absence of binding enforcement powers means that responses remain largely dependent on individual state decisions.

Geopolitical conflicts significantly impact aviation insurance and liability. Airlines operating near conflict zones face heightened risks such as potential misidentification by defence systems. To manage these risks, operators rely on war-risk insurance, which may become more expensive or restricted during periods of conflict. In some cases, insurers may even withdraw coverage for certain regions, limiting airlines’ ability to operate affected routes. Airlines must ensure passenger safety, which means their route decisions are guided by both regulatory advisories and insurance considerations. As a result, geopolitical risks increasingly influence operations.

One of the most immediate effects of the conflict has been the closure or restriction of airspace across the Middle East. Countries such as Iran, Israel, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, etc. and Iraq have limited or suspended civilian overflights to reduce risks from missile strikes, drone activity and ongoing military operations. Aviation authorities worldwide have also advised airlines to avoid affected regions due to the risk posed by air defence systems and unpredictable military responses. These restrictions disrupt major global flight corridors. As the Middle East is a key transit region connecting Europe, Asia and Oceania, even flights far from the conflict zone are impacted.

Airspace closures force airlines to reroute flights, leading to longer routes, higher fuel consumption, increased costs and delays or cancellations. Flights between Asia and Europe, for example, have been diverted away from affected airspace, increasing travel time and in some cases, requiring fuel stops. The impact is especially significant for Gulf carriers, which rely on hub cities such as Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi.

The conflict has also had a direct economic impact on the aviation sector. Airspace restrictions and rerouting have increased fuel consumption and operational costs for airlines. At the same time, instability in the region has contributed to massive increase in global fuel prices, further affecting airline profitability. These increased costs are often passed on to passengers through higher fares, while flight delays and cancellations continue to disrupt travel plans. As a result, the financial impact of geopolitical conflict is felt across both airlines and consumers.

For India, the impact is particularly significant because many westbound routes traverse West Asian airspace. Disruptions in this region directly affect connectivity between India and key destinations. Indian airlines have been required to reroute or suspend certain services in response to safety advisories and airspace restrictions, leading to longer travel times and increased operational costs. In some cases, airlines have been forced to adopt significantly longer routes, for instance, flights to Europe being diverted via alternative corridors, further adding to fuel consumption and operational strain.

The financial impact of these disruptions is already visible. India’s largest carrier, IndiGo, has introduced additional fuel charges on both domestic and international tickets in response to a sharp rise in aviation turbine fuel (ATF) prices triggered by the ongoing conflict. These charges vary by route and are intended to offset the increased cost burden arising from higher fuel prices and longer flight paths. This trend is not limited to a single airline. Other carriers, including Air India and Akasa Air, have also introduced similar surcharges, reflecting a broader industry response to rising fuel costs and operational challenges.

For passengers, this translates into higher airfares, longer travel times, and greater uncertainty in scheduling, coupled with safety concerns. At the regulatory level, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) continues to monitor developments to ensure safety and operational continuity. This underscores the vulnerability of Indian aviation to disruptions in West Asia, a region central to both international flight routes and fuel price dynamics.

The Iran–Israel conflict highlights the deep interdependence between geopolitics and civil aviation. While international legal frameworks recognise state sovereignty over airspace and provide mechanisms for managing safety risks, their effectiveness is often shaped by evolving geopolitical realities. As conflicts continue to disrupt established air routes and operational stability, airlines, regulators and insurers must adopt more dynamic risk assessment frameworks. Strengthening international coordination and preparedness will be critical to ensuring that the global aviation system remains resilient in the face of future geopolitical uncertainties.

About the authors: Ajay Kumar is a Partner, Hetram Bishnoi is a Principal Associate, and Anchal Nanda is a Senior Associate at KLA Legal.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.