This is a signal to the international economy that it is becoming weak and its simultaneous deterioration in the Middle East due to military tension and in Pakistan because of political instability plus uncertainty over the Russia–Ukraine energy ceasefire is revealing itself to be highly dangerous. Governments are finding out that military confrontation can have financial costs that are far greater than on the battlefield, airports are closed and commercial shipping is increasingly at risk.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most pressing areas of concern. King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh is expected to stay shut until October 17 as a result of the deadly attacks by Houthis with drones and missiles. The flight cancellations were reported to be 46.4% across Saudi airports, including cancellation or rerouting of flights at international carriers' airports, according to Reuters. The disruption is especially worrying for a nation which has huge investments in aviation, tourism, logistics and international business under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's Vision 2030 programme.

The impact goes beyond just airline ticket revenue. All cancelled flights have a negative impact on airport revenues, hotel bookings, movement of cargo, aircraft utilisation and business travel. Air carriers will have to bear additional expenses related to fuel, passenger compensation and operation expenses. Saudi Arabia is also facing the risk of extended instability, at a moment when the Saudi capital is trying to emerge as a key international financial and commercial hub.

The security concerns of Mohammed bin Salman are also substantial: While it has not yet been substantiated that he is in any immediate danger, it has been declared that the king is a security risk. The more significant question is how can Saudi Arabia safeguard its critical infrastructure and continue its ambitious economic transformation? Missile defence systems can protect against an incoming threat, however, even if they are successful one by one, they can have a negative impact on civilian air traffic and the level of security.Missile defence systems are able to defend against incoming threats, but even if they are successful one by one, they can have a negative impact on civilian aviation and security perceptions.

The crisis comes at a time when the security of the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb is already causing concern. These waterways are the most important routes for international energy supplies and trade with Asia, Europe and Middle East. A long blockade is not the only factor that can raise the cost of war-risk insurance, freight rates and delivery time for merchant vessels attacked, suspected to be hit by a maritime mine or threatened.

This is especially dire for India. Domestic energy use is still very dependent on imported crude oil, and the shipping routes of the Gulf are vital for significant Indian trade. Eventually, increased transportation and fuel expenses are passed on to manufacturers, farmers, airlines and consumers. A long-term disruption of the sea passages could also make it difficult for refineries and companies involved in petrochemical and fertiliser manufacturing to make supplies.

The size of the crisis can be gauged from the Saudi Aramco chief executive's warning. He estimated almost three billion barrels of oil supply were lost during the disruption and over one billion barrels were pulled from inventories. It will take one to two years to rebuild depleted stocks. The oil market remains under geopolitical stress despite efforts to re-establish supply as prices of Brent were around $104.63 per barrel on Oct. 13.

Maritime security has now become an immediate concern of India. Two Indian sailors were reported missing after being attacked on board MT Petro Dolphin and another Indian crewed ship was hit in the Strait of Hormuz. It is reported that 24 vessels were attacked during the two weeks up to 11 October. The shipping lines' profits on the Super Tankers were said to be staggering at $805,000 a day because so few of the ships would run the risks of shipping in those waters.

In the meantime, President Donald Trump announced an energy truce between Russia and Ukraine, creating another diplomatic mess. Washington is pressuring international fuel markets to lighten up, especially the diesel markets, as consumers in the U.S. face price hikes ahead of the November midterm elections. Initially, neither Moscow nor Kyiv confirmed the deal on the terms announced by Trump, though.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has suggested Kyiv will cease to strike Russian refineries if Moscow does the same. The agreement is now questionable as Russia continues its military operations. Easing the restrictions on Russian diesel has also been subject of criticism in Europe, where governments are concerned that more petroleum revenues will benefit Moscow's war economy.

It's a simple but politically awkward economic calculation. More Russian fuel can ease the supply shortages, but if seen as a reward for military aggression, an agreement could undermine Western sanctions. These developments underscore the need for diversified energy sources and autonomous energy decision making in India, a country which has had a diverse geopolitical energy relationship.

Another source of instability in the region is Pakistan. Islamabad declared emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, which takes away the provincial government linked to Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. The federal government has alleged the provincial government has shown "inaction on militancy" and PTI has termed the action of the federal government as being in a "political game". The arrest of the provincial chiefs has raised concerns about the lack of democratic accountability and the military's role in civilian institutions.

Pakistan's predicament is made more complex as on-going militancy along the Afghan border is accompanied by a political confrontation. The charge against Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan must be been heard by independent quarters but the security issue cannot be denied. A long-running constitutional dispute would erode the effectiveness of administrative coordination, deter investment and divert funds from a struggling economy.