IMF warns attacks on Saudi Arabia could hurt global economy after strike on Aramco headquarters

An administrative building at Aramco’s headquarters in Dhahran was hit on Tuesday evening. Saudi Arabia’s energy ministry reported a limited fire and said nobody was killed or injured. The damage still mattered because the site helps coordinate the kingdom’s oil system.

A person with direct knowledge told Reuters that the building’s top three floors were badly damaged. They included the office of Amin Nasser, Aramco’s chief executive. Operations reportedly continued, although some employees worked from home, while others moved work to offices abroad. The company had not commented.

Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis claimed responsibility. The group has also attacked Saudi airports during renewed fighting with a Saudi-led coalition. The strike added to wider disruption affecting flights, investment plans, shipping, and oil prices. Brent crude rose above $106 a barrel, showing how security threats can quickly affect energy markets even when immediate operations continue.

Aramco is Saudi Arabia’s major oil company, described in the article as an oil giant. Its headquarters in Dhahran is more than an office complex. It serves as a centre for overseeing much of the country’s energy infrastructure.

The company supervises oil rigs, refineries, export terminals, and pipelines from the headquarters. These facilities extract, process, store, and move oil. Coordinating them from one centre helps Aramco manage production and exports. That makes damage or disruption at the site important, even if the physical damage is limited.

The attack damaged an administrative building and its top three floors, including chief executive Amin Nasser’s office. Sources said operations continued normally, although some staff worked from home or moved work abroad. The headquarters therefore remained functional, but the strike exposed a central point in Saudi Arabia’s oil system. Its importance extends beyond Saudi Arabia because oil disruptions can raise global prices.

Saudi Arabia’s oil matters globally because the country is one of the world’s largest oil producers and exporters. The source does not state a specific production volume or share of world energy supply. It does show the kingdom’s central role through Aramco’s control of rigs, refineries, export terminals, and pipelines.

That network connects Saudi oil to international buyers. If production, processing, or exports are threatened, traders may fear that less crude will reach the market. Even before an actual shortage appears, that risk can push prices higher. The article reports Brent crude trading above $106 a barrel after the latest attacks.

The IMF warned that negative spillovers could affect “everybody, everywhere.” Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline provides some protection by sending oil to Yanbu on the Red Sea, bypassing Hormuz. Still, the article links the kingdom’s economy and global energy concerns to security around its oil infrastructure and shipping routes.

Oil prices respond not only to barrels already lost, but also to the risk of future disruption. Saudi Arabia operates a large and connected energy system, including rigs, refineries, export terminals, and pipelines. Damage or threats can make buyers and traders question whether supplies will move reliably.

The article gives a clear example. An administrative building at Aramco’s headquarters was hit, while the top three floors were badly damaged. Sources said operations continued, so the attack did not immediately stop oil production. Yet Brent crude still traded above $106 a barrel. The market was pricing in uncertainty and possible wider trouble.

The effect can spread internationally because oil is traded across borders and used throughout economies. Higher crude prices can increase transport, food, and energy costs. The IMF warned that poorer countries relying on imported energy were especially exposed. Governments were urged to help people facing higher food and energy bills.

The Strait of Hormuz is presented as a crucial shipping route for Saudi Arabia and neighbouring countries. If fighting or attacks kept it closed, oil could not move through the waterway under normal conditions. That would reduce or delay exports and increase uncertainty for countries buying energy.

The article says Saudi Arabia can use its East-West pipeline to carry oil to Yanbu on the Red Sea. This avoids Hormuz and has reduced the kingdom’s economic damage compared with some neighbours. But the alternative route does not remove every risk. Shipping still has to resume, and the pipeline may not replace all normal movements.

The IMF expects Saudi Arabia’s economy to shrink 3.3% this year before growing 7.9% in 2027. That recovery forecast assumes Hormuz gradually reopens from March 2027, with shipping returning to pre-war conditions by October. A longer disruption could therefore weaken recovery and prolong global energy pressure.

An alternative route matters because oil can still reach export facilities when a major sea passage is unsafe. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline carries oil across the kingdom to Yanbu on the Red Sea. This lets exports avoid the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping route disrupted by the conflict described in the article.

The pipeline changes the flow of oil. Instead of moving through Hormuz, oil travels by land to Yanbu, where it can be shipped from the Red Sea. The IMF said this route had reduced Saudi Arabia’s economic damage compared with some neighbouring countries. It gives the kingdom another way to connect its oil to international markets.

The route is not described as a complete replacement for normal shipping. The IMF’s recovery forecast still assumes Hormuz gradually reopens from March 2027 and shipping returns to pre-war conditions by October. Saudi Arabia also benefited from developing businesses outside oil, which helped protect its economy from the war’s impact.

Countries dependent on imported energy must buy fuel from international markets rather than rely mainly on domestic supplies. When oil and energy prices rise, those countries pay more to power transport, homes, factories, and farms. The extra cost can spread through the wider economy.

The article highlights the pressure on households. Rising energy costs can also push up food bills because food production and transport require energy. Countries with fewer resources have less ability to absorb those increases or support people who are struggling. This is why the IMF singled out poorer energy-importing countries as especially vulnerable.

The danger grows when supply routes are threatened. Attacks on Saudi facilities and disruption around Hormuz can make prices rise worldwide, even before supply is fully interrupted. IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva urged governments to help people facing higher food and energy bills. The warning shows that a regional conflict can become a global cost-of-living problem.