1 war, 2 disease outbreaks, 1 oil crisis: 6 countries face higher risks, 3 see lower risks — Inside 2027 Global Risk Map

The 2027 Global Risk Map changed ratings in 12 countries. Risks rose in Iran, Bahrain, Kuwait, Ecuador, Cuba, Jordan, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Risks eased in Jamaica, South Korea and Hungary. These changes show how quickly security conditions can shift across regions.

Iran moved from high to extreme risk because of conflict with the United States and Israel, economic challenges and greater detention risks. Bahrain and Kuwait moved from moderate to high because of their exposure to Iranian strikes and US forces. Ecuador worsened because of gang violence, extortion, trafficking disputes and illegal mining. Cuba faced blackouts and fuel shortages.

Jordan, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia also moved from moderate to medium risk after Iranian attacks exposed vulnerabilities. Jamaica improved after homicide fell 40% between 2024 and 2025. South Korea stabilised politically, while Hungary saw less unrest after Viktor Orbán and Fidesz left power.

A global risk map is a structured assessment of security conditions in different countries and regions. It helps organisations compare threats and understand where travel, business operations or public services may face greater difficulty. The 2027 map also introduced multiple ratings within one country, recognising that risks can vary sharply by location.

Global Guardian measures several dimensions. These include crime, armed conflict, healthcare, natural disasters, infrastructure, political stability, civil unrest and terrorism. Together, these factors show both immediate dangers and the systems that determine how well a place can withstand disruption.

The map matters because security is rarely determined by one issue. Iran’s rating reflected conflict, economic challenges and arbitrary detention risks. Cuba’s change reflected blackouts, fuel shortages and pressure on healthcare. The assessment therefore connects violence, governance, essential services and resilience instead of treating security as only a military question.

The report identifies security changes across 12 countries. Ratings worsened in nine: Iran, Bahrain, Kuwait, Ecuador, Cuba, Jordan, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Ratings eased in three: Jamaica, South Korea and Hungary. The countries span the Middle East, Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia and Europe.

The map also connects security to major international disruptions. Conflict involving Iran, the United States and Israel affected Iran and Gulf countries. The report lists two major health emergencies, involving Hantavirus and Ebola. These outbreaks placed pressure on public health systems and travel policies.

Energy security was also affected on a large scale. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz caused what the report describes as the largest-ever disruption to the oil market. These developments could continue influencing security conditions in the coming year, alongside country-specific problems such as crime, political instability and weak infrastructure.

Conflict involving Iran, the United States and Israel increased danger inside Iran and across nearby Gulf states. Iran faced direct effects from the conflict, plus economic challenges and a higher risk of arbitrary detention. These factors pushed its rating from high to extreme.

Bahrain and Kuwait were especially vulnerable because they host concentrated US forces and could face Iranian strikes. Jordan, Qatar and the UAE also had US military installations or important economic sites exposed during the 2026 Iran war. Saudi Arabia faced threats to oil and gas infrastructure, air bases and Saudi Aramco sites.

The key mechanism is exposure to attack. Military facilities can become targets, while damage or disruption at energy and economic sites can affect national services and markets. The report also links Saudi Arabia’s higher concerns to renewed risks from the Yemen conflict. These pressures made several Gulf countries less secure.

Attacks and gang violence can cause deaths, injuries, displacement and property damage. They can also interrupt transport, trade, tourism and investment. Governments may need to spend more on security and emergency response, leaving fewer resources for ordinary services. Fear and instability can then reinforce one another.

Ecuador shows this mechanism clearly. Disputes over cocaine trafficking, extortion and illegal mining worsened conditions, while gangs increasingly used explosives, including car bombs. In the Gulf, attacks threatened military installations, oil and gas infrastructure, air bases and major economic sites. Such attacks can disrupt operations even when damage is limited.

Blackouts and fuel shortages create a different chain of harm. Cuba’s nationwide outages put pressure on the power grid and healthcare system. Health emergencies such as Hantavirus and Ebola can strain public health systems and change travel policies. Together, these pressures reduce resilience and make future disruptions harder to manage.

A country-wide rating can hide important local differences. One region may face conflict or terrorism while another remains relatively stable. Crime, infrastructure, healthcare access, political tensions and exposure to natural disasters can also vary within national borders.

The 2027 edition introduced multiple risk ratings within a single country for this reason. A region near a conflict zone, military installation or major economic site may face different threats from a distant region. Similarly, gang violence or weak infrastructure may be concentrated in particular areas rather than spread evenly nationwide.

This approach gives travellers, businesses and governments a more useful picture of security. It can support more targeted planning, such as changing routes, protecting vulnerable facilities or directing emergency resources. The source does not name specific subnational ratings, but its new method recognises that national averages may conceal local risk differences.

Overall security risk comes from several connected systems, not one isolated threat. Conflict can damage infrastructure and energy supplies, while political instability can fuel unrest and make crime harder to control. Weak healthcare and poor infrastructure can increase the effects of disasters, disease outbreaks or attacks.

The report gives several examples. Iran’s conflict, economic challenges and detention risks combined to produce extreme risk. Ecuador’s gang violence was linked to trafficking disputes, extortion and illegal mining. Cuba’s blackouts and fuel shortages pressured both the power grid and healthcare system. These problems can reinforce each other.

The result is lower resilience. A government facing unrest may struggle to maintain services. A damaged energy system can disrupt hospitals and businesses. Natural disasters and health emergencies can add pressure to already strained institutions. The report’s outlook suggests these interactions will continue shaping security, alongside the conflict, disease outbreaks and energy disruption it identifies.