Why Trump’s 50% Tariffs May Not Slow India’s Economic Growth

---

Palestine| Planet & Commerce 

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has issued a formal warning to Israel that its armed forces could be named in the UN’s next annual report on sexual violence in conflict. The move follows concerns over credible allegations of sexual abuse against Palestinian detainees in Israeli custody, documented by UN monitors and human rights organizations.

In a letter to Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, Guterres said he was “putting Israeli armed and security forces on notice” due to “significant concerns of patterns of certain forms of sexual violence that have been consistently documented by the United Nations.” The warning marks an escalation in UN scrutiny of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians during the ongoing conflict and detention operations.

Every year, the UN Office of the Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict releases a Conflict-Related Sexual Violence report, naming state and non-state actors accused of committing or tolerating sexual abuse in wartime. The listing process carries reputational consequences and can trigger calls for international sanctions, travel restrictions, and arms embargoes.

Guterres’ letter indicates that Israeli forces could be named in the upcoming report unless there is evidence of concrete steps to halt alleged abuses and ensure accountability.

According to the letter, the UN has “credible information of violations by Israeli armed and security forces” perpetrated against Palestinians “in several prisons, a detention center, and [a] military base.” The alleged abuses are said to include sexual violence against detainees, which UN monitors have struggled to fully investigate due to what Guterres described as “consistent denial of access” to detention facilities.

The Secretary-General urged Israel to take “necessary measures to ensure immediate cessation of all acts of sexual violence.”

A 2024 report by Israeli human rights group B’Tselem alleged that sexual violence was repeatedly committed by soldiers or prison guards against Palestinian detainees. Facilities named in various investigations include Sde Teiman and Ketziot Prisons in the Negev desert, Megiddo and Gilboa near the West Bank, and Etzion in Jerusalem.

Last year, Israel transferred hundreds of Palestinian detainees out of the Sde Teiman facility following a petition from human rights groups. The petition, supported by CNN’s reporting on the makeshift prison, called for its closure. In September 2024, Israel’s High Court of Justice warned that Sde Teiman must operate in compliance with the law but stopped short of ordering it shut down.

Despite these measures, human rights advocates claim that abusive practices remain widespread and that accountability is rare.

Ambassador Danny Danon dismissed Guterres’ warning as relying on “baseless accusations” from “biased publications,” urging the UN to instead focus on sexual violence committed by Hamas.

Israel has consistently denied allegations of systematic abuse, rejecting previous UN statements as politically motivated. Its mission to the UN in Geneva has accused UN agencies of attempting to “incriminate” the Israeli military and of downplaying or ignoring Hamas’s own atrocities.

In March, a UN commission accused Israel of “increasingly employ[ing] sexual, reproductive, and other forms of gender-based violence” against Palestinians as part of a broader strategy to undermine their right to self-determination. The commission also alleged that Israel committed “genocidal acts” by systematically destroying sexual and reproductive healthcare facilities in Palestinian territories. Israel rejected these findings outright.

At the same time, the UN has documented sexual violence committed by Hamas. A UN team last year reported “clear and convincing” information that hostages taken to Gaza after the October 7 attacks were sexually abused, with “reasonable grounds” to believe such abuse was ongoing. Pramila Patten, the UN special envoy on sexual violence in conflict, stated that the team had found credible evidence of rape and gang rape during the attack, marking the UN’s most definitive assessment of those allegations.

If Israel is listed in the UN’s 2025 report on conflict-related sexual violence, it would join a roster of states and armed groups accused of such crimes, potentially exposing it to intensified diplomatic pressure and human rights investigations. The listing could also embolden international legal proceedings and advocacy campaigns targeting Israel’s military conduct.

For the UN, the warning reflects an effort to apply uniform standards to all parties in armed conflict, regardless of their political or military alliances. However, the move will likely deepen tensions between Israel and the UN, which have grown more strained over the war in Gaza and civilian casualties.

Guterres’ letter to Israel signals that the UN is prepared to escalate its criticism over alleged sexual violence against Palestinian detainees, even against a powerful and historically contentious member state. Israel’s categorical rejection of the charges, coupled with its calls for the UN to focus on Hamas, sets the stage for a renewed battle over narrative and accountability.

The final decision on whether Israel will be formally listed will rest on developments in the coming months — including whether it allows UN access to detention facilities, implements safeguards against abuse, and prosecutes offenders. Until then, the diplomatic standoff over human rights and sexual violence allegations is set to remain a heated fault line in the already fraught Israel–UN relationship.

USA| Planet & Commerce 

The Trump administration’s ambitious Golden Dome missile defense system — an unprecedented $175 billion project — is being billed as a game-changer in U.S. homeland security. Designed to integrate space-based interceptors, ground-launched missile systems, and advanced radar and laser arrays, the project seeks to provide a multi-layered protective shield capable of neutralizing threats ranging from intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to hypersonic glide vehicles and drone swarms.

Announced in broad terms during Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign and fast-tracked after his return to office, Golden Dome has now been detailed in a series of U.S. government slides first reported by Reuters. Presented to roughly 3,000 defense contractors in Huntsville, Alabama, the slides bore the slogan “Go Fast, Think Big!” — an encapsulation of both the project’s urgency and its sweeping scale.

At the core of the Golden Dome concept is an integrated architecture comprising:

1. Space-Based Layer – Satellites capable of detecting, tracking, and intercepting missiles during their boost phase, when rockets are climbing through the atmosphere and remain relatively slow and predictable targets. This space tier would enable faster engagement and reduce reliance on mid-course interception, which is more complex and prone to countermeasures.
    
2. Upper Layer (Midcourse Defense) – This includes the Next Generation Interceptors (NGI), developed by Lockheed Martin, which form part of the upgraded Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) network. These would be positioned in existing sites in southern California and Alaska, with a new large missile field in the U.S. Midwest to expand coverage against rogue-state ICBMs.
    
3. Middle Layer (High-Altitude Terminal Defense) – A mix of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) batteries, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense systems, and next-gen radar arrays, all designed to intercept threats in the terminal approach phase before impact.
    
4. Under Layer (Limited Area and Point Defense) – This final protective shell incorporates upgraded Patriot missile batteries, mobile radars, and a new “common” launcher system capable of firing multiple interceptor types against a variety of threats, including short-range ballistic missiles and drones.
    

The modular and relocatable nature of the lower layers would allow for rapid deployment in multiple theaters, minimizing reliance on permanent fixed sites.

One of Golden Dome’s defining goals — and its most technically challenging — is to achieve reliable boost-phase interception. This phase, typically lasting only a few minutes after missile launch, offers the advantage of destroying a threat before it can deploy decoys or maneuver.

While the U.S. has developed interceptors and reentry vehicles separately, it has never built a vehicle that can both survive the extreme heat of atmospheric reentry and execute an intercept on a hostile missile. Doing so will require breakthroughs in materials science, guidance algorithms, and propulsion systems — all under an ambitious deadline of 2028.

The most striking new detail from the Huntsville presentation was the planned Midwest missile field. Mapped as a large-scale interceptor base, it would complement existing GMD sites in Alaska and California, providing overlapping coverage across the continental United States.

The Midwest location is strategically advantageous: it offers central positioning for defending both coasts, adds redundancy in case coastal sites are compromised, and shortens the engagement window against certain missile trajectories from Eurasia or the Middle East.

Lockheed Martin, which is heavily involved in NGI development, touted the Golden Dome as a “defense system that shields America from aerial threats, hypersonic missiles, and drone swarms with unmatched speed and accuracy.”

Golden Dome’s potential industrial base reads like a who’s who of the U.S. defense sector — Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX (Raytheon), and Boeing — all contributing specialized systems. However, notable by its absence from the slides was Elon Musk’s SpaceX, despite its earlier interest in providing launch services and space-based interceptor platforms.

Other firms vying for roles include Palantir, specializing in software and data integration, and Anduril Industries, known for autonomous defense systems. The Pentagon has emphasized that the program is still in its early acquisition phase, with architecture decisions pending after a round of industry, academic, and national lab consultations.

The Golden Dome’s projected $175 billion price tag comes with significant uncertainties. A U.S. official speaking to Reuters noted, “They have a lot of money, but they don’t have a target of what it costs yet.”

So far:

• $25 billion appropriated in Trump’s July tax-and-spend bill (which also included deep cuts to social programs like Medicaid).
   
• $45.3 billion earmarked in Trump’s FY2026 budget request.
   
• Additional funds may be sought from allies — with Trump floating the idea of Canada contributing $61 billion toward the project.
   

The timeline is equally aggressive. Space Force General Michael Guetlein, newly confirmed to lead the project, has:

• 30 days (from July 17 confirmation) to assemble a core team.
   
• 60 days to deliver an initial system design.
   
• 120 days to present a full implementation plan, including satellite deployment schedules, ground station infrastructure, and integration strategies.
   

Trump has repeatedly compared Golden Dome to Israel’s Iron Dome, a short-range defense system funded heavily by the U.S. that has proven effective against rockets and artillery fire. However, the Golden Dome’s scope dwarfs its Israeli counterpart, tasked with defending an entire continent — plus Alaska and Hawaii — against threats of vastly greater speed, range, and complexity.

Where Iron Dome relies on ground-based radar and interceptors within a few dozen kilometers of target areas, Golden Dome aims to combine space-based sensors, boost-phase interceptors, and layered ground defenses spanning thousands of kilometers.

If successful, Golden Dome would mark a major leap in U.S. strategic defense capabilities, effectively making large-scale missile attacks on the homeland far less viable. But its implementation raises complex issues:

• Escalation Risks — Adversaries may accelerate development of advanced countermeasures, hypersonic weapons, or swarm tactics to overwhelm defenses.
   
• Cost Trade-Offs — Funding the project could crowd out other defense priorities, especially if cost overruns push spending well beyond $175 billion.
   
• International Reaction — Countries like Russia and China may view the system as destabilizing, potentially undermining existing arms control frameworks.
   

Trump has cast Golden Dome as a signature achievement of his presidency, aligning it with his campaign promise to build “a missile defense shield around our country.” Its rapid progress — even in the planning phase — is intended to signal decisive leadership on national security.

But the ambitious timetable and cost could become political liabilities if milestones are missed or if Congress balks at additional appropriations. The project’s success may hinge on maintaining bipartisan support, something complicated by the deep partisan divides over Trump’s broader defense and foreign policies.

Golden Dome’s vision — intercepting missiles in space, adding a central U.S. missile field, integrating lasers, and deploying modular interceptors — represents one of the most technically ambitious defense undertakings in American history. Its $175 billion budget reflects both the enormity of the task and the political weight Trump has attached to it.

If it meets its 2028 deadline, the system could redefine U.S. homeland defense for a generation, potentially neutralizing threats before they reach American soil. But the technical, financial, and geopolitical hurdles are formidable.

For now, Golden Dome remains a bold blueprint — one that blends cutting-edge engineering with the high-stakes politics of defense spending, national security, and presidential legacy. Whether it becomes a historic success or a cautionary tale of overreach will be determined in the years ahead.