Airlines weigh Middle East cancellations after US strikes in Iran strand thousands
By Jack Queen
(Reuters) -Commercial airlines around the world on Monday were weighing how long to suspend Middle East flights after the U.S. struck Iran.
Singapore Airlines, one of the highest-profile in Asia, had called the situation "fluid" on Sunday as it cancelled flights from Singapore to Dubai following a security assessment.
The Middle East route has become more important for flights between Europe and Asia since Russian and Ukrainian airspace closed due to war, but flight tracking website FlightRadar24 showed empty space over Iran, Iraq, Syria and Israel.
Air France KLM said on Sunday that it cancelled flights to and from Dubai and Riyadh on Sunday and Monday. British Airways, owned by IAG ICAG.L, also cancelled flights to and from Dubai and Doha for Sunday. It was still reviewing the situation, it said in a statement on Sunday evening, when asked about later flights.
Missile and drone barrages in a growing number of conflict zones represent a high risk to airline traffic, and an organization that monitors flight risks, Safe Airspace, a website run by OPSGROUP, warned on Sunday that U.S. attacks on Iran's nuclear sites could heighten the threat to American operators in the region.
In the days before the U.S. strikes, American Airlines suspended flights to Qatar and United Airlines did the same with flights to Dubai.
Airlines are also concerned about a potential spike in oil prices following the U.S. attacks, which will increase the cost of jet fuel. [O/R]
Israel meanwhile is ramping up flights to help stranded travellers at home and abroad. The country's Airports Authority says that so-called rescue flights to the country would expand on Monday with 24 a day, although each flight would be limited to 50 passengers. Israeli airline El Al on Sunday said it had received applications to leave the country from about 25,000 people in about a day.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
37 minutes ago
- CNBC
Why global markets are brushing off U.S. strikes on Iran
The U.S. joining the war between Israel and Iran might seem like a geopolitical flashpoint that would send markets tumbling. Instead, investors are largely shrugging off the escalation, with many strategists believing the conflict to be contained — and even bullish for some risk assets. As of 1 p.m. Singapore time, the MSCI World index, which tracks over a thousand large and mid-cap companies from 23 developed markets, declined only 0.12%. Safe havens are also trading mixed, with the Japanese yen weakening 0.64% against the dollar, while spot gold prices slipped 0.23% to $3,360 per ounce. The dollar index, which measures the U.S. dollar against a basket of currencies, rose 0.35%. In general, the market reactions after the U.S. strikes have been less aggressive, especially relative to just over a week ago when Israel launched airstrikes against Iran. "The markets view the attack on Iran as a relief with the nuclear threat now gone for the region," said Dan Ives, managing director at Wedbush, adding that he sees minimal risks of the Iran-Israel conflict spreading to the rest of the region and consequently more "isolated." While the gravity of the latest developments should not be dismissed, they are not seen as a systemic risk to global markets, other industry experts echoed. On Saturday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that the United States had attacked Iranian nuclear sites. Traders are now keeping a close eye on any potential countermeasures from Iran following the U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities. Iran's foreign minister warned that his country reserved "all options" to defend its sovereignty. According to Iranian state media, the country's parliament has also approved closing the Strait of Hormuz, a pivotal waterway for global oil trade, with about 20 million barrels of oil and oil products traversing through it each day. "It all depends on how Iran responds," said Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Financial Group. "If they accept the end of their military nuclear desires… then this could be the end of the conflict and markets will be fine," he told CNBC. Boockvar is not of the view that Iran will carry out the disruption of global oil supplies. The worst-case scenario for markets would occur if Iran were to close the Strait, which is unlikely, said Marko Papic, chief strategist at GeoMacro Strategy. "If they do, oil prices go north of $100, fear and panic take over, stocks go down ~10% minimum, and investors rush to safe havens," he said. However, markets are subdued now given the "limited tools" that Tehran has at its disposal to retaliate, Papic added. The idea of shutting down the Hormuz waterway has been a recurring rhetoric from Iran, but it has never been acted upon, with experts highlighting that it is improbable. In 2018, Iran warned it could block the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal and reinstated sanctions. Similar threats were made earlier in 2011 and 2012, when senior Iranian officials — including then-Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi — said the waterway could be closed if Western nations imposed more sanctions on Iran's oil exports due to its nuclear activities. "Tehran understands that, if they were to close the Strait, the retaliation from the U.S. would be swift, punitive, and brutal," Papic added. In a similar vein, Yardeni Research founder Ed Yardeni said the latest events have not shaken his conviction in the U.S. bull market."Geopolitically, we think that Trump has just reestablished America's military deterrence capabilities, thus increasing the credibility of his 'peace through strength' mantra," he said, adding that he is targeting 6,500 for the S&P 500 by the end of 2025. While predicting geopolitical developments in the Middle East is a "treacherous exercise," Yardeni believes that the region is in for a "radical transformation" now that Iranian nuclear facilities have been destroyed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Business leaders from Bill Ackman to Jason Calacanis react to the US strike on Iran's nuclear sites
Donald Trump on Saturday announced the US had launched strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites. The attack takes US involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel to a new level. Here's how business leaders from Bill Ackman to Jason Calacanis reacted to the news. President Donald Trump on Saturday confirmed that US warplanes had executed "massive precision" airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, in what he described in a press conference as a "spectacular military success." The military operation marks a significant escalation in the tensions between Iran and Israel and represents a new level of US involvement in the international conflict. Business leaders from Bill Ackman to Jason Calacanis reacted to the news. Billionaire hedge fund manager Ackman, a longtime ally of the president's, was among the first to publicly react to the news with a post on X. "Thank you to our great military for its superb execution on ridding Iran of its nuclear threat," Ackman wrote shortly after the news broke. "All Americans are eternally grateful for you." He continued later, writing in a separate post: "To state the obvious, @realDonaldTrump's actions tonight are a lot better than relying on the IRGC's 'commitment' to not develop nuclear weapons." "In eight days, the United States and Israel eliminated Iran's nuclear capabilities with minimal civilian casualties," he added in another post. "One of the greatest military achievements ever." Serial entrepreneur Calacanis posted on X, "Five months into Trump's term, we're at war." In a subsequent post, he elaborated, saying that his initial statement was "just an observation, published without judgement." "We don't have the intelligence that our leaders have, so I will reserve judgement until we know more," Calacanis wrote. "It should be obvious to everyone, however, that no president can just stop conflicts on day one. We now have three conflicts were involved in." The founder of the hedge fund Tolou Capital Management responded to the strikes in a series of posts on social media, describing the US military operation as "completely undetectable," given that no flight trackers showed US military aircraft over Iran within 30 minutes of the strikes. "Say what you want," Hakimian wrote. "The United States military is A1 and there's not a close competitor at the moment." In a separate post, Hakimian added: "The most escalatory thing that Iran can do is not to bomb U.S. military bases in the Middle East. It's to close the Strait of Hormuz. And if that happens, Oil goes above $100 in the blink of an eye. Iran is no military match for the United States. But they can wreak havoc via inflation. Just like Russia in 2022." Maguire, a partner at Sequoia Capital, praised Trump as the "Greatest President of my lifetime." "You may just not realize it yet," Maguire wrote in a post on X, alongside a picture of Trump with his fist in the air after he was wounded during an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. "Bulletproof instincts and nerves of steel." A vocal supporter of Trump and cofounder of Azoria investment firm, Fishback praised the US strikes — and criticized those who expressed concern over the rising geopolitical tensions — in a series of posts on X. "Iran can't possibly think this is the start of a U.S. offensive. Trump's been clear from the start: they can't have a nuke. We just accomplished that. We're done here," Fishback said in one post. "If Iran chooses to retaliate against a clearly telegraphed, one-and-done strike, they'd be signing their own death warrant. Trump was right." In a separate post, he added: "The Fordow nuclear site was a uranium enrichment facility, not a mosque. Not everything is Islamophobia. Calm down. Leave your weird identity politics out of this." Scholl, the founder and CEO of Boom Supersonic, which is developing what it calls the "world's fastest airliner," said in a post on X that he was "proud to be an American tonight." "We can all sleep safer knowing the most dangerous regime won't have the most dangerous weapons," he wrote. Lauder, one of the heirs of the Estee Lauder cosmetics company and a prominent pro-Israel lobbyist, said on X that a "nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat to Western civilization and global security." "It is my hope that today's historic operation by the United States has brought an end to the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions once and for all," he wrote. "I applaud President Trump and his administration for having the courage to act decisively, and for lending critical American support to Israel's effort to build a safer and more stable Middle East." The Lux Capital cofounder and partner has shared several posts on X in the wake of the US strikes, including one responding to Calacanis' initial suggestion that the US was "at war." "NO. We just helped stop MANY future wars," he wrote. Moskovitz, the cofounder of Asana and Good Ventures, responded critically to Trump's announcement that the US had struck multiple sites inside Iran. "Now is the time for peace, President Trump says immediately after starting a war," he wrote on Bluesky. Trump made the call for peace in all caps at the end of his Truth Social post announcing the attack. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next
President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Live updates: Iran threatens to shut Strait of Hormuz; US warns of 'heightened' risk Here are five big questions about what comes next. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's Parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices ranging from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with noninterventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd chanted 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, reposted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal nonnuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously had been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israeli attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East war. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former national security adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider in chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
