impact

New York City, United States – Rising prices on the back of US-Israel strikes on Iran are adding to the economic pressure facing US consumers despite efforts by US President Donald Trump to paint the war as a success.

On Wednesday, Trump declared, “We won – in the first hour it was over.”

Trump’s declaration comes even as the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, cutting off oil from the Gulf amid warnings from Iran, which continues to strike ships, that oil could reach $200 per barrel.

Oil prices spiked above $100 per barrel on Sunday and again today.

The magnitude of the economic pressure on consumers will depend on how long the war lasts and, crucially, how soon shipping traffic can return to the Gulf.

“If it drags on and especially if it remains at this intensity, prices will be higher, and more volatile for consumers,” said Rachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow at the think tank Center for a New American Security.

“If it ends quickly, and it’s a credible and stable end, then we could see prices fairly quickly normalising”.

If the war lasts more than a few weeks, however, observers say the US economy is more likely to see deepening impacts, like 1970s-style “stagflation” or a recession.

When might we see a recession?

On Thursday, the International Energy Agency said in a report that “the war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”

According to Sam Ori, who directs the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, in the past, when oil prices have reached 4 percent to 5 percent of gross domestic product and stayed elevated, “that’s always triggered a recession.”

The US will not hit that threshold as quickly as it would have in the 1970s, when its economy was more deeply dependent on foreign oil, Ori said, but added he expected a recession if prices remained about $140 a barrel for most of the year.

Alternatively, “the indefinite closure of the Strait of Hormuz would so vastly exceed that number, it would not take a year,” he said.

Ori, who used to run an oil shock war game for US officials, said he would have been “laughed out of the room” if he had proposed a scenario where the strait was closed for six months, because many analysts see it as “too big to fail”.

Ori says that assessment is still likely, but recent developments “are chipping away at that level of certainty”.

The Gulf, which separates the Arabian Peninsula and Iran, provides more than one-fifth of the world’s oil supply via tanker ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

The severity of that threat to the global economy is the “strongest indicator that this is going to get resolved pretty fast, because it’s impossible to fathom what would happen if it didn’t”, Ori said.

He added that the conflict has now entered a phase in which it may be moving out of US control, especially as some countries have turned off the oil wells as they run out of storage.

While those events have now been baked into oil prices, the things that he is on the lookout for include “successful mining of the strait, some kind of structural blockage, or a battlespace development that binds the US into a longer, drawn out conflict”, outcomes that could signal a total loss of the strait for an unknown amount of time and create the “conditions for a complete meltdown”.

Higher prices

The war is already driving petrol prices up for US consumers.

Patrick DeHaan, who leads petroleum analysis for the app GasBuddy, said that the national average as of Wednesday is now $3.59 per gallon ($0.95 per litre) – up 65 cents since February.

The highest increases are near the coasts, where US petrol, diesel and jet fuel supplies are more easily diverted to meet global demand, according to DeHaan.

An end to the conflict could lower petrol prices within weeks, DeHaan said, but “every week that this goes on, we could see another 25 to 40 cent increase”.

Robert Rogowsky, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, said lower-income people in particular, “will pay the price for this inflationary burst”.

As the war continues, it will also nudge up prices for consumer goods.

Peter Sand, chief analyst for freight intelligence platform Xeneta, said the backup at the Strait of Hormuz is already causing congestion at ports worldwide.

In the short term, consumers should not feel much of a pinch, Sand said. But if the conflict lasts for a month, some goods will be delayed, “and of course, the price tag on those goods also goes up.”

The war also means that the Red Sea, mostly closed in 2025 due to Houthi attacks, will likely stay closed throughout 2026, Sand said. It was expected to reopen, which could have lowered consumer prices.

Oil and oil byproducts from the Gulf are also used directly in consumer goods, like plastics, pharmaceuticals and fertilisers. Shortages now may mean higher prices later.

Fertilisers from the Gulf, for example, are needed soon for spring planting. Delays could affect crops next year.

A shortage of helium from the Gulf could also impact semiconductor manufacturing, delaying car manufacturing and other industries, Ziemba said.

The spectre of 1970’s-style ‘stagflation’

Higher consumer prices could increase the risk of “stagflation”, when stagnant economic growth occurs alongside high unemployment and high inflation.

That is how the US economy responded to the oil price shocks of the 1970s.

Severin Borenstein, faculty director of the Energy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, said, “There’s certainly concern about stagflation again.”

That combination of high inflation plus high unemployment, Borenstein said, “is just really tough for the Fed to deal with”.

“They can either juice the economy or slow it down, and the two problems call for opposite solutions”, Borenstein said.

The Fed can lower interest rates to prompt spending and hiring, which can make inflation worse, or it can raise interest rates to lower inflation, which can slow hiring.

Ziemba said higher oil prices likely point to “inflation remaining stickier, which means it’s harder for the Fed to cut interest rates.”

As a result, “mortgage rates and other long-term interest rates might be stuck at their current levels,” Ziemba said. Mortgage rates, which were at 5.99 percent on February 27, are up to 6.29 percent as of March 12.

Even if the war ends tomorrow, it may already be accelerating longer-term shifts.

Rogowsky called US attacks on Iran “an injection of adrenaline” into a realignment already under way, as middle powers seek to reduce their reliance on the US.

That realignment “will affect our terms of trade, which will have a distinct impact on our economy”, Rogowsky said.

Logistics consultant David Coffey said for some businesses, the war is expediting conversations about risk. “They may have been assuming ‘Yes, there’s risk in the Middle East,’ but they may not have been assuming that this would kick off”, Coffee said.

Making supply chains more secure could raise costs for consumers, he said.

Military spending and the US budget

Meanwhile, Heidi Peltier, a senior researcher at Brown University’s Costs of War Project, said war also means long-term expenses around debt payments and veterans’ healthcare.

“We have spent at least $1 trillion in interest on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – and rising, because it’s not like we’ve paid off any of that principal”, Peltier said.

Military spending, she said, also tends to create fewer jobs than government investment in education or healthcare. “If we’re spending money on this, what are we not spending money on?” Peltier asked.

The ongoing U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran has sent oil prices soaring, rattling global financial markets and prompting governments to implement urgent measures to protect their economies and citizens from energy shortages and rising costs. As the war disrupts critical supply routes through the Strait of Hormuz, countries heavily reliant on oil imports are scrambling to stabilize domestic fuel supplies and mitigate inflationary pressures.

South Korea Caps Fuel Prices

In a historic move, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung announced that the government would cap domestic fuel prices for the first time in nearly 30 years. Authorities are also seeking alternative energy sources beyond shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. To support the measure, a 100 trillion won ($67 billion) market-stabilization program may be expanded if necessary, reflecting the severity of the supply shock.

Japan Prepares Strategic Oil Reserves

Japan has instructed a national oil reserve storage facility to prepare for a possible release of crude oil, according to opposition party lawmaker Akira Nagatsuma. While precise details and timing remain unclear, this measure underscores Japan’s reliance on strategic reserves to manage sudden spikes in global energy prices.

Vietnam Removes Fuel Import Tariffs

Vietnam is temporarily eliminating import tariffs on fuels to ensure continued domestic supply amidst global disruptions. The government expects this measure to remain in effect until the end of April, aiming to reduce cost pressures on both businesses and consumers.

Indonesia Boosts Fuel Subsidies and Biodiesel Plans

Indonesia is increasing budget allocations for fuel subsidies, currently totaling 381.3 trillion rupiah ($22.5 billion), to offset rising energy costs and maintain affordable electricity and fuel prices. The government may also revive plans to expand the B50 biodiesel program, blending 50% palm oil-based biodiesel with conventional diesel, as a longer-term strategy to reduce dependency on imported oil.

China Halts Fuel Exports

China has directed refiners to suspend new fuel export contracts and attempt to cancel previously committed shipments. This policy excludes jet fuel for international flights, bonded bunkering, and supplies to Hong Kong or Macau. The move is designed to secure domestic fuel availability amid soaring global prices.

Bangladesh Closes Universities and Rations Fuel

Bangladesh, which depends on imports for 95% of its energy, has implemented emergency measures including university closures and rationing fuel sales to conserve electricity and fuel. Daily fuel sale limits were imposed after panic buying and stockpiling, highlighting the country’s vulnerability to regional energy disruptions.

Analysis: A Coordinated Global Response

These measures illustrate the unprecedented economic ripple effects of the Middle East conflict. Countries with high import dependency are balancing immediate crisis management such as subsidies, price caps, and rationing with longer-term energy strategies, including strategic reserve releases and alternative fuel initiatives.

The rapid policy responses also underscore the fragility of global energy markets in the face of geopolitical conflicts. Central banks and governments must navigate a complex trade-off: containing inflation while ensuring sufficient energy supply to prevent industrial slowdowns and social unrest.

As the conflict persists, global energy markets remain highly volatile, and governments may need to continue adjusting policy tools to stabilize domestic economies, with potential implications for trade, inflation, and energy security worldwide.

With information from Reuters.

Middle Eastern crises seldom stay localized. They frequently go well beyond the battlefield in terms of politics, strategy, and psychology. Officials in Beijing, Moscow, Taipei, and Kyiv will be keeping a tight eye on events surrounding Iran today, in addition to those in Tehran, Washington, and Tel Aviv. Power perceptions are shaped by situations like this, and in international politics, perception can be almost as important as actual power.

The current state of affairs presents an unsettling question for China and Russia. A large-scale military operation against a prominent regional actor will unavoidably send signals about the balance of power in the international system if it continues without significant opposition from other big states. The Middle East is not where those signals will end. They will visit other geopolitical hotspots, like Taiwan and Ukraine, where credibility is crucial to deterrence.

Iran has progressively evolved into more than simply another diplomatic friend in Beijing’s eyes. It now plays a part in China’s larger Eurasian economic and strategic strategy. Beijing has been building energy and transportation networks that connect western China to the Arabian Sea through projects like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Chinese planners considering long-term energy security have taken note of the geographical proximity of the Pakistani port of Gwadar to Iran’s Jask Oil Terminal.

Beijing has long sought variety, which these lines provide. Chinese strategists have been concerned about dependence on maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca for decades. The energy lifelines of the second-largest economy in the world could be threatened by any interruption there. Iran fits into China’s attempt to lessen that vulnerability because of its location and resources. Trade in energy has already strengthened ties between the two nations. Iran has quietly emerged as a major supplier of cheap crude to China in spite of U.S. sanctions. Both nations are able to avoid some aspects of the Western financial architecture since many of those transactions go through China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System and are settled in renminbi.

However, the partnership has grown beyond oil. Beijing and Tehran signed a long-term strategic agreement in 2021 with the goal of working together on infrastructure, energy, and technology for decades. Later, China backed Iran’s admission to groups like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Then came a diplomatic surprise: Beijing assisted in mediating the reestablishment of ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023, a development that surprised many Western observers.

Taken together, these actions indicated a significant development. China was starting to portray itself not only as a regional economic force but also as a diplomatic player with the ability to influence its political environment.

That ambition makes the current moment particularly sensitive for Beijing. Governments in the Middle East and a large portion of the Global South frequently evaluate great powers based on their actions during times of crisis rather than their words during times of peace. Some capitals may discreetly reevaluate how reliable such support would be in an actual security crisis if China seems unwilling to protect the strategic environment surrounding its alliances.

The ramifications go well beyond Iran. Chinese officials have made it clear time and time again that they would not support Taiwan’s formal independence efforts and will not allow outside meddling in the Taiwan Strait. The legitimacy of those warnings is just as important to deterrence as military prowess. Some Washington policymakers may assume that China is unlikely to take more aggressive action in other areas if Beijing’s response to significant geopolitical shocks involving its partners primarily consists of diplomatic criticism.

Russia faces a different—but no less consequential—set of calculations. Moscow has positioned itself as a major Middle Eastern political mediator for the majority of the last ten years through its military engagement in Syria. Russian soldiers established a key base on the Mediterranean coast and assisted in stabilizing Bashar al-Assad’s regime starting in 2015. From such a vantage point, Moscow participated in almost all meaningful discussions regarding the future of the area.

However, that impact has been diminished. The political landscape has drastically changed as a result of the fall of the Syrian government and the growing power of actors supported by the West in Damascus. In addition to losing a strategic ally, Russia has also lost a significant portion of the regional clout it developed over the course of almost 10 years of diplomatic and military engagement.

In that context, Iran now occupies a far more important place in Moscow’s strategic thinking than it once did. Defense and energy cooperation are two areas where the two nations’ relationship has grown. Iranian drones have contributed to Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, establishing a clear connection between the conflict in Eastern Europe and events in the Middle East. The message would reverberate much beyond the immediate battlefield if Iran were to sustain a significant military defeat at the hands of a concerted operation by the United States and Israel. While opposing major powers stayed mostly on the sidelines, observers from all around the world would see that Washington still had the capability to change regional dynamics.

These impressions build up in geopolitics. Credibility develops gradually, frequently over years, but it can deteriorate rapidly. Some governments may start to doubt the geopolitical benefit of aligning with Moscow if Russia seems incapable—or unwilling—to react when a close ally is under severe strain. However, competing nations might feel more confident to test Russian interests in other disputed areas, such as the Black Sea or Ukraine. However, Moscow’s choices are far from straightforward. In order to lessen the impact of Western sanctions, Russia has been fostering stronger commercial connections with a number of Gulf governments in recent years. Openly supporting Iran might make those relations more difficult. But staying completely silent runs the danger of conveying a contrary message: that when tensions rise, Russian alliances provide little strategic defense.

It seems unlikely that either China or Russia will move quickly to engage in direct combat. There would be significant risks of escalation. However, great-power competition seldom relies solely on choices made on the battlefield. There are plenty of other ways to be influential. Both nations have permanent seats in the UN Security Council. They can guarantee that any military action is politically disputed on the international scene by imposing debates, contesting legal justifications, and introducing resolutions, even symbolic ones. Beyond the Security Council, diplomacy is also important. Sovereignty and non-intervention have long been valued in nations like South Africa, Brazil, and India. Even if it doesn’t instantly change the situation on the ground, coordinated pressure from a larger group of states could influence how the issue is portrayed worldwide.

Another option is economic levers. The energy markets continue to be extremely vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. Major exporters continue to have the power to affect supply and pricing decisions by working with producers in organizations like OPEC+. Even little changes can serve as a reminder to the globe that regional conflicts have far-reaching economic repercussions. Great powers are also capable of sending quieter signals. Regional balances are not changing in isolation, as seen by intelligence collaboration, defensive technology transfers, and conspicuous naval deployments in nearby waterways. These actions convey that other important actors are keeping a close eye on them even while they avoid open confrontation.

Ultimately, this moment’s significance goes well beyond Iran. Expectations about how power functions in the international system are gradually shaped by incidents such as these. The precedent starts to take hold if armed action consistently reshapes regional orders without significant opposition from opposing nations. That precedent unavoidably affects Taiwan’s future for China. For Russia, it relates to both the larger security balance throughout Europe and the continuing conflict in Ukraine. Credibility is crucial in both situations.

Moments like this become inevitable tests if Beijing and Moscow want to maintain an international system where power is more widely spread. It is not always necessary to escalate conflict in order to respond. It often involves proving that significant changes in regional power will not happen completely unchallenged through diplomacy, economic pressure, and strategic signaling. There is meaning in silence as well. In places far from the Persian Gulf, how Tehran interprets that silence now could influence strategic decisions tomorrow.

The United States-Israeli war on Iran could leave consumers and businesses worldwide facing weeks or months of higher fuel prices even if the conflict, which is now in its eighth day, ends quickly, as suppliers grapple with damaged facilities, disrupted logistics, and elevated risks to shipping.

The outlook poses a global economic threat and a political vulnerability for US President Donald Trump leading into the midterm elections, with voters sensitive to energy bills and unfavourable to foreign entanglements.

Global oil prices have surged by more than 25 percent since the start of the war, driving up fuel prices for consumers worldwide.

The national average petrol price reached $3.41 per gallon ($0.9 a litre) on Saturday, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), rising by $0.43 over the past week. Goldman Sachs warned oil prices could climb above $100 per barrel if shipping disruptions continue.

The US crude oil settled at just below $91 per barrel on Friday – its largest weekly gain on record in data dating back to 1983, indicating prices could continue to rise.

“The market is shifting from pricing pure geopolitical risk to grappling with tangible operational disruption, as refinery shutdowns and export constraints begin to impair crude processing and regional supply flows,” JP Morgan analysts said earlier this week, according to the Reuters news agency.

The conflict has already led to the suspension of about a fifth of global crude and natural gas supply, as Tehran targets ships in the vital Strait of Hormuz between its shores and Oman, and attacks energy infrastructure across the region.

A nearly complete shutdown of the strait means the region’s top oil producers – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Kuwait – have had to suspend shipments of as much as 140 million barrels of oil – equal to about 1.4 days of global demand – to global refiners.

More than 80 percent of global trade moves by sea, according to the World Bank, meaning disruptions in the waterway could increase freight costs and delay deliveries of goods.

Storages in the Gulf filling

As a result, oil and gas storage at facilities in the Gulf is rapidly filling, forcing oilfields in Iraq and Kuwait to cut oil production, with the UAE likely to cut next, analysts, traders and sources told Reuters.

“At some point soon, everyone will also shut in if vessels do not come,” a ⁠source with a state oil company in the region, who asked not to be named, told Reuters.

Oilfields forced to shut in across the Middle East as a result of the shipping disruptions could take a while to return to normal, said Amir Zaman, head of the Americas commercial team at Rystad Energy.

“The conflict could be ended, but it could take days or weeks or months, depending on the types of fields, age of the field, the type of shut-in that they’ve had to do before you can get production back up to what it once was,” he said.

Iranian forces, meanwhile, are targeting regional energy infrastructure, including refineries and terminals, forcing them to shut down too, with some of those operations badly damaged by attacks and in need of repairs.

Qatar declared force majeure on its huge volumes of gas exports on Wednesday after Iranian drone attacks, and it may take at least a month to return to normal production ‌levels, sources told Reuters. Qatar supplies 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Saudi Aramco’s mammoth Ras Tanura refinery and crude export terminal, meanwhile, has also closed due to attacks, with no details on damage.

Economists warn that the situation could create a combination of higher prices and slower growth.

Authorities in Tehran have called for international action and solidarity after several hospitals and schools were impacted by United States and Israeli air strikes on the country as Iran continues to fire missiles and drones across the region.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that the two countries “continue to indiscriminately strike residential areas, sparing neither hospitals, schools, Red Crescent facilities, nor cultural monuments”.

“These actions constitute the deliberate commission of the most heinous crimes of international concern. Indifference to this ongoing and extreme injustice will only further darken the future of humanity by jeopardising the shared values upon which our global community stands,” he wrote in a post on social media.

Pir Hossein Kolivand, the head of the Iranian Red Crescent Society, wrote a letter publicised late on Sunday to the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), demanding an explicit condemnation of attacks impacting children and educational and medical centres.

He also said monitoring and support mechanisms outlined in the Geneva Conventions must be invoked, adding that the ICRC must “adopt immediate measures” to stop similar incidents from taking place again as the war rages.

“The Red Crescent Society of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a member of the global Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, declares its full commitment to the fundamentals of humanity, impartiality and independence, emphasising that damaged centres had no military applications,” Kolivand wrote.

ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric said in a statement at the start of the war on Saturday that rules of war must be upheld as an obligation, not a choice.

“Civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, homes and schools must be spared from attack. Medical personnel and first responders must be allowed to carry out their work safely,” she said.

Hospitals sustain damage

Multiple Iranian hospitals have been damaged as a result of air attacks and were evacuated by authorities, but there are not believed to have been any direct strikes on any hospitals yet.

In Tehran, major strikes on Sunday damaged multiple medical centres located in two areas, according to official accounts, footage circulating on social media and information geolocated by Al Jazeera.

Videos broadcast by state media from the entrance and surrounding area of Gandhi Hospital in northern Tehran showed significant damage after a projectile struck a nearby area.

Mohammad Raeiszadeh, the head of Iran’s Medical Council, told state media from the hospital on Monday that the in-vitro fertilisation department was destroyed along with its equipment, forcing staff to move cells and embryos. Footage also showed an infant being moved by nurses on Sunday night.

The hospital appears to have been damaged after the Israeli military struck buildings housing Iranian state television’s Channel 2 and a communications antenna nearby.

This led to state television programmes being disrupted for several minutes. The broadcaster confirmed that some of its departments were bombed on Sunday without divulging details.

World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said reports of damage to the hospital are “extremely worrying” and the United Nations agency is working to verify the incident.

After a separate attack on Sunday, the Iranian Red Crescent Society released a video showing the aftermath of strikes near one of its main buildings located near Khatam al-Anbiya Hospital.

[Translation: Right now. Direct attacks by the Zionist regime and America on the vicinity of the Red Crescent building, Khatam al-Anbiya Hospital, Welfare Organisation, and Motahari Hospital in Tehran]

Footage circulating online showed plumes of smoke rising and debris scattered after the strikes. According to the Red Crescent, the ICRC’s Spoljaric visited the site of the damaged medical treatment facility on Monday and condemned any strikes impacting humanitarian centres.

Khatam al-Anbiya Hospital, the Motahari Hospital specialising in helping burn victims and the Valiasr Hospital are all located nearby. They reported either sustaining some damage or having to hurriedly move patients out.

The main target hit by Israeli warplanes in the area appeared to have been the central headquarters of the Iranian police. Police Chief Ahmad-Reza Radan did not comment specifically on the targeting of the headquarters but confirmed that police buildings were receiving regular direct hits.

On Monday afternoon, fighter jets conducted bombing runs across Tehran once again. Attacks damaged the main building of the province’s medical emergency services, located in Iranshahr Street in the downtown area. Videos released by state-affiliated media showed staff evacuating, and the state-run Tasnim news agency said several staff members were injured.

According to Iranian authorities, the Aboozar Children’s Hospital in western Iran’s Ahvaz and three medical emergency centres in the provinces of East Azerbaijan, Sistan-Baluchistan and Hamedan were also damaged.

The Iranian Red Crescent said that by noon on Monday at least 555 people had been killed after 131 counties across the country were attacked.

During and after the killing of thousands of people during January’s nationwide protests, Iranian authorities have consistently rejected calls for transparency and condemnations by the UN and international human rights organisations for attacks on hospitals by state forces to detain protesters and medical staff helping the wounded. A number of doctors and medical personnel remain incarcerated and face national security and other charges.

Schools, sports centre take hits

In Tehran, an air strike targeting 72 Square in the eastern neighbourhood of Narmak damaged a high school with authorities reporting that at least two children were killed.

Local media said the target of the attack was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former populist president who may potentially have a role in shaping Iran’s political future after the killing of 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other officials. It was unclear whether Ahmadinejad was present at the site of the attack or was harmed.

There were also multiple casualties after a sports centre was targeted in Lamerd in the southern province of Fars, local authorities said on Saturday.

But the single largest casualty incident announced by Iranian authorities was from a girls school in the southern city of Minab.

After two days of working through the debris, authorities said 165 people were killed and 95 wounded, most of them children. The governor on Monday afternoon released a handwritten list of 56 of the victims but did not provide further information.

The US said it was aware of civilian casualty reports from the school and was investigating. The Israeli army said it was not aware of any Israeli or US strikes in that area.

Education International, a global federation that brings together organisations of teachers and other education employees, condemned the school attack.

“Children, teachers, and schools must never be military targets. The killing and wounding of students and educators is an intolerable violation of human rights and a grave breach of international humanitarian law,” it said.

Teddy Riley took to social media late Thursday to walk back earlier comments he’d made about wanting to work with the disgraced R&B singer R. Kelly.

In an interview with The Times published on Wednesday, the veteran producer and musician — widely known as the architect of the New Jack Swing sound that dominated Black pop in the late 1980s and early 1990s — said he’d “talked a few times” with Kelly, who’s serving a 30-year prison sentence after a jury convicted him of racketeering and sex trafficking charges, and that he’s “bringing in investors” to help release some portion of the 25 albums Kelly has said he’s recorded in prison.

“Everybody deserves a second chance,” Riley told The Times. “Everyone deserves to repent, and everyone gets forgiven by God when you come to him. People miss [Kelly’s] music. I’m the messenger to bring R&B back.”

Yet Thursday he appeared to changed course.

“As a producer, I’ve always been excited about the possibilities of music and creative collaboration,” he wrote in an Instagram post. “That excitement has defined my career. But I also understand that words carry weight, and I never want my passion for music to overshadow the very real pain that many people have experienced.

“If my comments caused hurt, I sincerely apologize,” he added. “That was never my intention. I take seriously the impact that abuse and misconduct have had on survivors and their families. Their experiences matter, and they deserve to be acknowledged with care and respect.”

Riley, whose long career has included collaborations with Michael Jackson, Bobby Brown and Keith Sweat, described his plan to work with Kelly as “a creative idea discussed in passing. It is not something that will move forward. Loving music and recognizing its cultural impact does not mean condoning harmful behavior, and I want to be clear about that.

“I have spent my life building a legacy rooted in innovation, integrity, and love for the art form. That remains my focus. I appreciate the dialogue, and I remain committed to moving forward with intention and accountability,” said Riley, who this month published a book, “Remember the Times,” about his life and work.

“Thank you to everyone who continues to support me, my memoir, and the journey,” he wrote on Instagram.