Pages

Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts

Sunday, July 27, 2025

New EU–US Trade Deal Announced: Key Terms, Strategic Stakes, and Economic Impact


 

New EU–US Trade Deal Announced: Key Terms, Strategic Stakes, and Economic Impact

On July 27, 2025, the United States and the European Union announced a landmark trade agreement, concluding four months of high-stakes negotiations and averting a looming transatlantic trade war. The deal, reached just days before a planned escalation in tariffs, reflects a dramatic culmination of President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade strategy and EU efforts to preserve economic stability.

Key Terms of the Agreement

Tariffs

  • General Tariff Reductions: The US has agreed to apply a 15% baseline tariff on most EU goods—down from a threatened 30%, which was scheduled to take effect on August 1, 2025.

  • Zero Tariff Access for US Exports: In return, the EU has agreed to zero tariffs on US goods, a significant concession aimed at addressing the persistent US trade deficit with Europe.

  • Automobile Tariffs: Tariffs on EU automobiles exported to the US are cut from 27.5% to 15%—a major relief for German and French automakers.

  • Steel and Aluminum: A 50% tariff on EU steel and aluminum remains in place, reflecting ongoing concerns in Washington about strategic materials and industrial capacity.

  • Sectoral Exemptions: Strategic industries—aerospace, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and spirits—are notably excluded from the current tariff framework, leaving room for separate negotiations.

EU Commitments

  • Energy Purchases: The EU committed to purchase $750 billion worth of US energy, particularly liquefied natural gas (LNG) and oil, over the next five years, enhancing US energy exports and reducing European reliance on Russian and Middle Eastern suppliers.

  • Foreign Direct Investment: Brussels pledged to invest an additional $600 billion in the US, building on existing European investments in American infrastructure, technology, and manufacturing.

  • Defense and Automotive Procurement: The EU agreed to increase purchases of US military equipment and automobiles, a move seen as both economic and geopolitical in nature.

Non-Tariff Barriers

No specific terms were announced regarding non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory harmonization or digital trade rules—suggesting that negotiations on these issues remain ongoing or have been deferred.

Strategic and Political Implications

United States

President Trump hailed the agreement as a vindication of his “America First” strategy, using tariff threats to extract concessions. The deal prioritizes US industrial exports, energy dominance, and foreign investment attraction, all central pillars of his 2025 economic platform. It also reflects his preference for leader-to-leader diplomacy, with the final deal struck in a personal meeting with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland.

European Union

President von der Leyen described the deal as a “huge achievement”, restoring “stability and predictability” to a trade relationship that underpins €4.4 billion in daily commerce. While seen as a strategic compromise, critics in Europe argue the deal is asymmetrical, with the EU offering large-scale purchases and tariff-free access in exchange for only partial tariff relief.

Negotiation Context and Timeline

  • Deadline Pressure: The deal was finalized just four days before the US was set to impose a 30% tariff on most EU goods.

  • EU Countermeasures: The EU had prepared a $93 billion retaliatory tariff package, targeting key US exports such as tech hardware, aircraft, and agricultural products. Hungary was the lone EU holdout opposing immediate retaliation.

  • Last-Minute Tactics: Talks had initially been progressing toward a 10% tariff framework, but Trump’s sudden escalation to 30% in mid-July created urgency and altered the negotiation dynamics, with the US demanding additional concessions.

  • Scotland Summit: The final agreement was negotiated during a high-level meeting between Trump and von der Leyen at Trump Turnberry in Scotland—mirroring the former president’s emphasis on personal diplomacy and theatrical dealmaking.

Economic Impact

Trade Stability

  • The agreement preserves the €1.6 trillion annual EU–US trade relationship, crucial to both economies.

  • It avoids supply chain disruptions across industries like pharmaceuticals, machinery, aviation, and energy, which are highly interdependent across the Atlantic.

Sectoral Effects

  • European luxury, auto, and wine sectors, which faced steep US tariffs, saw immediate stock gains:

    • Volkswagen rose 3%,

    • LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy) increased 4%,

    • Remy Cointreau surged 3.5%.

  • Despite this, the continuation of high tariffs on steel and aluminum could cost the EU—especially German manufacturers—over €1 billion per month if the issue remains unresolved.

Broader Implications

  • Energy Geopolitics: The EU’s commitment to US energy diversifies European supply sources, undercutting Russian leverage and aligning with NATO energy security goals.

  • Global Trade Signals: This deal sets a precedent for Trump’s broader strategy, which may be applied to Japan, India, and South Korea in upcoming talks.

  • Domestic Political Reactions:

    • US business groups cautiously welcomed the deal for averting trade war chaos, though some Republican senators criticized it as being too lenient.

    • European trade unions and some Green Party members condemned the large energy and defense commitments as undermining Europe’s climate goals and autonomy.

Sources & Verification

Information in this report is based on reliable press coverage and official statements, including:

For ongoing updates and official documents, consult:

Note: Sentiment from social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) has been included for color but remains unverified and should not be treated as primary sourcing.



ईयू–यूएस व्यापार समझौता घोषित: प्रमुख शर्तें, रणनीतिक प्रभाव और आर्थिक असर
(27 जुलाई 2025)

27 जुलाई 2025 को, संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका और यूरोपीय संघ ने एक ऐतिहासिक व्यापार समझौते की घोषणा की, जिससे चार महीने से जारी तनावपूर्ण वार्ताओं का अंत हुआ और एक संभावित ट्रांस-अटलांटिक व्यापार युद्ध टल गया। यह समझौता उस समय आया जब 1 अगस्त से प्रस्तावित 30% टैरिफ लागू होने वाले थे। यह सौदा राष्ट्रपति डोनाल्ड ट्रंप की आक्रामक व्यापार नीति और यूरोपीय स्थिरता प्रयासों का परिणति है।

समझौते की प्रमुख शर्तें

टैरिफ (शुल्क)

  • सामान्य टैरिफ कटौती: अमेरिका अधिकांश यूरोपीय उत्पादों पर 15% का बुनियादी टैरिफ लगाएगा — जो कि पहले घोषित 30% टैरिफ से आधा है।

  • अमेरिकी वस्तुओं पर शून्य टैरिफ: यूरोपीय संघ ने अमेरिका की वस्तुओं पर 0% शुल्क लगाने पर सहमति दी है, ताकि अमेरिका के व्यापार घाटे की चिंता को संबोधित किया जा सके।

  • ऑटोमोबाइल टैरिफ: यूरोपीय वाहनों पर अमेरिकी शुल्क 27.5% से घटाकर 15% कर दिया गया है।

  • स्टील और एल्युमिनियम: यूरोपीय स्टील और एल्युमिनियम पर 50% टैरिफ बना रहेगा।

  • अपवाद वाले क्षेत्र: एयरोस्पेस, फार्मा, सेमीकंडक्टर, और शराब जैसे रणनीतिक क्षेत्रों को इस समझौते से फिलहाल बाहर रखा गया है।

ईयू की प्रतिबद्धताएं

  • ऊर्जा खरीद: यूरोपीय संघ अगले 5 वर्षों में $750 अरब की अमेरिकी ऊर्जा (प्राकृतिक गैस और तेल) खरीदेगा।

  • अमेरिका में निवेश: यूरोपीय संघ अमेरिका में $600 अरब का अतिरिक्त निवेश करेगा।

  • सैन्य और ऑटोमोबाइल खरीद: अमेरिका के सैन्य उपकरण और वाहन बड़ी मात्रा में खरीदे जाएंगे।

गैर-शुल्क बाधाएं

गैर-टैरिफ अवरोधों (जैसे नियामक नियमों, डिजिटल व्यापार, आदि) पर कोई विशेष विवरण नहीं दिया गया है — इससे संकेत मिलता है कि इन पर बातचीत अभी जारी है या आगे होगी।

रणनीतिक और राजनीतिक प्रभाव

संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका

यह समझौता राष्ट्रपति ट्रंप की "अमेरिका फर्स्ट" रणनीति की सफलता के रूप में देखा जा रहा है, जिसमें टैरिफ दबाव का उपयोग करके लाभ प्राप्त किया गया। यह अमेरिकी औद्योगिक निर्यात, ऊर्जा प्रभुत्व और वैश्विक निवेश को प्राथमिकता देता है। ट्रंप ने यह सौदा व्यक्तिगत रूप से स्कॉटलैंड के ट्रंप टर्नबेरी में ईयू प्रमुख उर्सुला वॉन डेर लेयेन से मुलाकात कर हासिल किया।

यूरोपीय संघ

ईयू अध्यक्ष वॉन डेर लेयेन ने इस समझौते को “बहुत बड़ी उपलब्धि” बताया, जो €4.4 बिलियन प्रतिदिन के व्यापार संबंध को “स्थिरता और पूर्वानुमान” प्रदान करता है। हालांकि, आलोचकों का मानना है कि यह सौदा असंतुलित है, जिसमें ईयू ने शून्य शुल्क और भारी खरीद के बदले केवल सीमित टैरिफ राहत पाई।

वार्ता की पृष्ठभूमि और समयरेखा

  • समय सीमा का दबाव: 1 अगस्त से प्रस्तावित 30% टैरिफ के लागू होने से पहले यह समझौता अंतिम रूप से तैयार हुआ।

  • ईयू की जवाबी तैयारी: यूरोपीय संघ ने $93 अरब मूल्य के अमेरिकी उत्पादों पर टैरिफ लगाने की तैयारी की थी। केवल हंगरी ने इस प्रतिक्रिया का विरोध किया था।

  • अंतिम क्षण की रणनीति: वार्ता पहले 10% टैरिफ फ्रेमवर्क की ओर बढ़ रही थी, लेकिन ट्रंप की अचानक की गई टैरिफ बढ़ोतरी ने समीकरण बदल दिए।

  • स्कॉटलैंड बैठक: अंतिम समझौता स्कॉटलैंड में दोनों नेताओं की आमने-सामने बैठक के बाद हुआ, जो ट्रंप की निजी कूटनीति और सौदेबाजी शैली का प्रतिबिंब है।

आर्थिक प्रभाव

व्यापार में स्थिरता

  • यह सौदा €1.6 ट्रिलियन के वार्षिक यूरोपीय-अमेरिकी व्यापार संबंध को बनाए रखता है।

  • दोनों अर्थव्यवस्थाओं में आवश्यक आपूर्ति श्रृंखलाएं (जैसे दवाइयां, मशीनरी, ऊर्जा) प्रभावित होने से बच गईं।

प्रभावित क्षेत्र

  • यूरोपीय लक्जरी, ऑटोमोबाइल, शराब उद्योग को लाभ मिला:

    • Volkswagen के शेयर में 3% वृद्धि

    • LVMH में 4% उछाल

    • Rémy Cointreau में 3.5% बढ़ोतरी

  • हालांकि, स्टील और एल्युमिनियम पर ऊंचे शुल्क से जर्मनी जैसे देशों को €1 अरब प्रति माह का नुकसान हो सकता है।

व्यापक संकेत और प्रतिक्रियाएं

  • ऊर्जा भू-राजनीति: यूरोपीय संघ का अमेरिकी ऊर्जा पर झुकाव रूस की ऊर्जा पकड़ को कमजोर करता है और नाटो की ऊर्जा सुरक्षा रणनीति को मजबूत करता है।

  • वैश्विक व्यापार रणनीति: यह सौदा ट्रंप की नीति को दर्शाता है, जो वह भविष्य में जापान, भारत और दक्षिण कोरिया जैसे देशों के साथ भी लागू कर सकते हैं।

  • घरेलू प्रतिक्रिया:

    • अमेरिकी उद्योग मंडलों ने राहत की सांस ली लेकिन कुछ रिपब्लिकन सांसदों ने इसे अमेरिका के लिए पर्याप्त नहीं माना।

    • यूरोपीय ट्रेड यूनियन और ग्रीन पार्टी के नेताओं ने बड़े पैमाने पर ऊर्जा और रक्षा खरीद की आलोचना की।

स्रोत और पुष्टि

यह रिपोर्ट निम्नलिखित विश्वसनीय स्रोतों पर आधारित है:

आधिकारिक दस्तावेज़ों के लिए देखें:

नोट: X (पूर्व ट्विटर) जैसे सोशल मीडिया प्लेटफॉर्म्स से प्राप्त प्रतिक्रियाएं केवल जनभावना को दर्शाती हैं, और वे आधिकारिक पुष्टि नहीं मानी जातीं।

The Protocol of Greatness (novel)
A Reorganized UN: Built From Ground Up
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
World War III Is Unnecessary
Grounded Greatness: The Case For Smart Surface Transit In Future Cities
The Garden Of Last Debates (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
A 2T Cut
Are We Frozen in Time?: Tech Progress, Social Stagnation
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

The Protocol of Greatness (novel)
A Reorganized UN: Built From Ground Up
The Drum Report: Markets, Tariffs, and the Man in the Basement (novel)
World War III Is Unnecessary
Grounded Greatness: The Case For Smart Surface Transit In Future Cities
The Garden Of Last Debates (novel)
Deported (novel)
Empty Country (novel)
Trump’s Default: The Mist Of Empire (novel)

The 20% Growth Revolution: Nepal’s Path to Prosperity Through Kalkiism
Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy
The $500 Billion Pivot: How the India-US Alliance Can Reshape Global Trade
Trump’s Trade War
Peace For Taiwan Is Possible
Formula For Peace In Ukraine
A 2T Cut
Are We Frozen in Time?: Tech Progress, Social Stagnation
The Last Age of War, The First Age of Peace: Lord Kalki, Prophecies, and the Path to Global Redemption
AOC 2028: : The Future of American Progressivism

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

1% for Peace or 5% for War? Rethinking NATO, the UN, and the Path to Global Stability




1% for Peace or 5% for War? Rethinking NATO, the UN, and the Path to Global Stability

As NATO countries edge toward committing 5% of their GDP to defense, the world stands at a crossroads. Are we witnessing a resurgence of Cold War-style militarism, or are we missing a transformative opportunity to rethink global governance entirely? What if, instead of pouring trillions into tanks, missiles, and endless deterrence games, the international community invested just 1% of GDP into a reformed global institution—an upgraded United Nations built for the 21st century?

The 5% Defense Push: A Recipe for Insecurity?

NATO's push for increased defense spending, long championed by hawks and now echoed by populists, comes at a precarious time. The global economy is fragile, inflation remains volatile, and the geopolitical order is deeply fragmented. A 5% defense commitment across NATO would mean nearly $1.5–2 trillion annually from member countries alone, accelerating arms races and stoking further tensions with powers like China and Russia.

But more military spending doesn’t necessarily equal more security. In fact, it often produces the opposite:

  • It fuels regional arms races.

  • It diverts resources from healthcare, climate adaptation, and education.

  • It cements power in military-industrial complexes that are unaccountable to global citizens.

Moreover, defense spending does little to address non-military threats like pandemics, climate change, cybercrime, AI safety, or mass migration.

A New UN: The 40-40-20 Model

Now imagine a global system that is actually designed to work: a reorganized United Nations, created from scratch to reflect the real balance of power and the needs of the modern world.

This new UN would be based on a 40-40-20 voting formula:

  • 40% weight to global GDP (reflecting economic contribution),

  • 40% weight to population (reflecting democratic legitimacy),

  • 20% weight to sovereign equality (one country, one vote, as a nod to universal representation).

And most importantly: no veto power. No more geopolitical gridlock at the Security Council because of five permanent members playing empire. Every country, large or small, would have a stake—but power would also be aligned with responsibility and capacity.

Under this new structure, every country would contribute 1% of its GDP to the global institution. That would fund:

  • A standing peacekeeping and mediation force.

  • Global health preparedness and rapid pandemic response.

  • Climate crisis mitigation and resilient infrastructure investment.

  • AI and cyber governance frameworks.

  • Sustainable development, infrastructure, and education funding for the Global South.

Just 1% of global GDP would bring the UN’s budget from under $60 billion to over $1 trillion, making it the most powerful, coordinated force for peace, science, justice, and prosperity the world has ever known.

Why the Status Quo Is Not Just Broken—It’s Dangerous

In today’s system, one-on-one bilateralism is the norm, not the exception. Countries negotiate trade, defense, and energy deals in isolated silos, often under coercive conditions. The result? Bullying, bribery, and breakdown.

The U.S., under Trump or any other nationalist president, increasingly treats diplomacy as a zero-sum game of leverage and loyalty tests. From slapping 500% tariffs on India for buying Russian oil to threatening Mexico with tariffs over immigration, this transactional diplomacy breeds resentment and instability.

These are not long-term strategies. They're short-term power plays. Worse, they’re often led by political actors who lack basic understanding of economics, global interdependence, or long-term incentives.

Inflation Is the Wildcard That Will Bite Back

The American economy may be strong on paper, but it’s vulnerable to shockwaves from trade disruptions, rising energy costs, and supply chain fragmentation. Inflation is already haunting working-class Americans, and another round of Trump-era tariffs—or a global escalation in defense spending—could send food prices and energy costs soaring again.

Historically, when food inflation spikes, political consequences follow swiftly. Trump may ride high in the polls for now, but should inflation return with force, his support could collapse into the 30s overnight. The irony would be sharp: a man promising to "make America great again" inadvertently delivering 1930s-style economic pain, complete with protectionism, scapegoating, and instability.

Conclusion: The Future Is Either Global or Grim

We face a stark choice. Spend 5% of GDP on war and rehearse the tragic mistakes of the 20th century—or spend 1% of GDP on peace, cooperation, and intelligent global governance. The current path of escalating defense budgets, nationalist bullying, and transactional diplomacy leads only to diminishing returns and mounting risk.

The reimagined United Nations—built on the 40-40-20 formula, funded equitably, and freed from the straitjacket of veto power—could be the governing architecture for a post-imperial, multipolar world.

But this won't happen unless we demand it. Unless we see the absurdity of $2 trillion defense budgets and start asking: what else could we do with that money?

Because in the end, peace is cheaper than war—but only if we’re willing to pay for it.




युद्ध पर 5% या शांति पर 1%? नाटो, संयुक्त राष्ट्र और वैश्विक स्थिरता के पुनर्विचार की ज़रूरत

जैसे ही नाटो देश अपने GDP का 5% रक्षा खर्च के लिए समर्पित करने की दिशा में बढ़ रहे हैं, दुनिया एक चौराहे पर खड़ी है। क्या हम एक बार फिर शीत युद्ध जैसी सैन्य होड़ की ओर लौट रहे हैं? या क्या हम वैश्विक शासन को पूरी तरह से पुनर्कल्पित करने का ऐतिहासिक अवसर गंवा रहे हैं? सोचिए, अगर टैंकों, मिसाइलों और अंतहीन शक्ति-प्रदर्शन पर खरबों डॉलर खर्च करने की बजाय, हर देश GDP का केवल 1% एक नवगठित, आधुनिक और प्रभावी संयुक्त राष्ट्र में निवेश करे, तो दुनिया कितनी बदल सकती है?

5% रक्षा खर्च: असुरक्षा का नया नुस्खा?

नाटो का बढ़ता रक्षा खर्च उस समय हो रहा है जब वैश्विक अर्थव्यवस्था नाजुक है, महंगाई अस्थिर है, और अंतरराष्ट्रीय व्यवस्था विखंडित होती दिख रही है। नाटो देशों का 5% GDP रक्षा में लगाने का अर्थ होगा प्रति वर्ष 1.5 से 2 ट्रिलियन डॉलर की वैश्विक सैन्य होड़, जो न केवल तनाव बढ़ाएगी, बल्कि शांति के हर प्रयास को कमजोर भी करेगी।

लेकिन क्या अधिक सैन्य खर्च वास्तव में सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित करता है? या यह हमें और भी खतरनाक रास्तों पर ले जाता है?

  • यह क्षेत्रीय हथियारों की होड़ को बढ़ावा देता है।

  • यह स्वास्थ्य, शिक्षा और जलवायु परिवर्तन जैसे क्षेत्रों से संसाधन छीन लेता है।

  • यह सैन्य-औद्योगिक गठबंधनों को ताकतवर बनाता है, जो आम लोगों के प्रति जवाबदेह नहीं होते।

और सबसे महत्वपूर्ण बात—यह उन खतरों से निपटने में अक्षम है जो सैन्य नहीं हैं, जैसे:

  • वैश्विक महामारियाँ,

  • जलवायु आपातकाल,

  • साइबर अपराध और एआई जोखिम,

  • वैश्विक शरणार्थी संकट।

नया संयुक्त राष्ट्र: 40-40-20 मॉडल

अब कल्पना कीजिए एक ऐसी नई वैश्विक संस्था, जिसे 21वीं सदी की जरूरतों के अनुरूप फिर से डिजाइन किया गया हो।

यह नवगठित संयुक्त राष्ट्र आधारित होगा एक 40-40-20 वोटिंग फॉर्मूला पर:

  • 40% वोट आर्थिक योगदान (GDP) के अनुसार,

  • 40% वोट जनसंख्या के अनुसार (लोकतांत्रिक प्रतिनिधित्व),

  • 20% वोट एक देश एक वोट के आधार पर (संप्रभु समानता के लिए)।

सबसे अहम: वेटो शक्ति समाप्त। अब कोई भी देश—चीन, अमेरिका, रूस या कोई और—अपने हित में वैश्विक सहमति को रोक नहीं सकेगा।

हर सदस्य देश को इस व्यवस्था में अपने GDP का 1% योगदान देना होगा, जिससे:

  • वैश्विक शांति सेना और मध्यस्थता बल का निर्माण,

  • महामारी रोकथाम और स्वास्थ्य आपदा प्रतिक्रिया,

  • जलवायु परिवर्तन से निपटने हेतु वैश्विक फंडिंग,

  • एआई और साइबर सुरक्षा के वैश्विक मानदंड,

  • वैश्विक दक्षिण के लिए सतत विकास और शिक्षा निवेश।

इससे संयुक्त राष्ट्र का वार्षिक बजट 60 अरब डॉलर से बढ़कर 1 ट्रिलियन डॉलर से अधिक हो जाएगा—इतिहास की सबसे बड़ी और सबसे प्रभावशाली वैश्विक संस्था।

वर्तमान व्यवस्था: नाकाम और खतरनाक

आज की वैश्विक व्यवस्था में एक-से-एक द्विपक्षीय सौदे ही मानक बन गए हैं। हर देश अकेले अमेरिका या चीन से सौदे करता है—कई बार डर या मजबूरी में। नतीजा?

  • धमकी,

  • सौदेबाज़ी,

  • असमानता,

  • और स्थायित्व की कमी।

अमेरिका की "ट्रंपवादी" कूटनीति इसमें एक और परत जोड़ देती है। रूस से तेल खरीदने पर भारत पर 500% टैरिफ लगाने की धमकी हो या मेक्सिको पर आप्रवासन के बदले टैरिफ—यह सब अल्पकालिक शक्ति के खेल हैं, न कि कोई दीर्घकालिक रणनीति।

महंगाई: वो ज्वाला जो वापस आएगी

अमेरिकी अर्थव्यवस्था अभी स्थिर दिख रही है, लेकिन वह टैरिफ, ऊर्जा अस्थिरता और आपूर्ति श्रृंखला के टूटने से गंभीर रूप से प्रभावित हो सकती है। यदि महंगाई फिर से उछली—विशेषकर खाद्य और ऊर्जा की कीमतें—तो इसके राजनीतिक परिणाम तीव्र और तीखे होंगे।

महंगाई बढ़ती है, तो ट्रंप के समर्थन में गिरावट भी तेज होगी। यदि खाद्य कीमतें बढ़ती हैं, तो ट्रंप के जनमत सर्वेक्षण 30% तक गिर सकते हैं। और यह एक कटु विडंबना होगी: जो नेता "अमेरिका को फिर से महान" बनाने का वादा करता है, वह देश को 1930 के दशक जैसी आर्थिक पीड़ा की ओर ले जा सकता है।

निष्कर्ष: या तो वैश्विक भविष्य या पतन

हमारे पास स्पष्ट विकल्प है:

  • या तो GDP का 5% युद्ध पर खर्च करें और 20वीं सदी की गलतियों को दोहराएं,

  • या GDP का 1% शांति पर खर्च करें, एक आधुनिक, न्यायसंगत और जिम्मेदार वैश्विक संस्था के निर्माण में।

वर्तमान ढांचा—वेटो, पक्षपात, और सैन्य केंद्रीकरण—अब टिकाऊ नहीं है। और एक नवगठित, प्रतिनिधिमूलक, और शक्तिशाली संयुक्त राष्ट्र ही वह ढांचा हो सकता है, जो नई बहुध्रुवीय दुनिया को दिशा दे।

लेकिन यह तभी संभव होगा जब हम मांग करें। जब हम सवाल करें कि—5% रक्षा पर क्यों? और 1% शांति पर क्यों नहीं?

क्योंकि अंततः, शांति की कीमत युद्ध से कम होती है—लेकिन केवल तब, जब हम समय रहते उसका भुगतान करने को तैयार हों।





How Trump turned the tide in his trade war Placing historically high taxes on imports from around the world — particularly at a time when American consumers are still reeling from the highest inflation they’ve experienced in four decades — marked one of Trump’s boldest gambles of his presidency. Trump was largely elected on his pledge to fix Americans’ finances. Economists have widely shunned his trade policy, which is expected to raise costs for businesses and consumers. ........ For example, Trump had threatened Japan with a 25% tariff earlier this month when negotiations stalled. But late Tuesday, a trade agreement between the two nations was announced, including a tariff rate of 15% on Japanese goods imported into the United States. US markets got a healthy bounce higher Wednesday. Japan’s markets took off like a rocket. ........ But 15% is more than the 10% that US importers have been paying for Japanese exports since April, when Trump first rolled out his so-called reciprocal tariffs on trading partners — and much more than what the Japanese were paying before Trump took office. ...... this is “a bizarre political and economic theory world we now live in.” ...... Tariffs on Chinese imports fell to 35% from 145%, which had been a historic level that served as an effective shipping embargo. ........ it’s not clear Trump can claim victory on trade just yet. At least dozens of trading partners are expected to get higher tariffs set at the end of next week, and Trump has floated raising the 10% universal tariff he imposed on April 2 to 15% or 20%. The European Union, another major US trading partner, has found a trade agreement elusive, and tariffs could surge on both sides of the Atlantic as a result. ........ as US importers work through warehoused inventories of goods that were brought in to the United States before tariffs were put in place. ........ the US dollar continues to sink sharply, in a sign of concern about potential US economic weakness to come. US and Japanese bonds sold off Wednesday, too........ That’s the market’s way of saying the certainty of the present could quickly turn into more tumult in the future.

Businesses deliver gloomy results even as markets celebrate Japan trade deal
China reacts to Trump's UNESCO decision
And Now It's The Wall Street Journal's Turn To Tango With Trump | Opinion When, oh when, will Americans realize we are descending into dictatorship? President Donald Trump has already silenced ABC, CBS, and Facebook, extorting millions of dollars from them for offending him. The job was done using bogus lawsuits and the power of the presidency. And now it's the turn of The Wall Street Journal. Trump is suing the newspaper owned by his sometime supporter Rupert Murdoch.

The Epstein fallout continues — and the House GOP is clearly starting to get worried
Trump’s Tariffs Force Europe to Rethink Ties With China

2 Chinese Stocks That Could Leave U.S. Tech in the Dust
‘I had to do something extraordinary’: Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief reveals details of Kursk operation The plan was prepared by an extremely limited circle of commanders. The main objective was to force Russia to go on the defensive within its own territory. ........ According to Syrskyi, Ukrainian forces seized about 500 square miles in the Kursk region at the time, shocking both Moscow and Western allies.

Obama dismisses ‘nonsense flowing from the White House’
Get ready for more bad news from Tesla
Trump Flip-Flops on Sending Weapons to Ukraine

1% for Peace or 5% for War? Rethinking NATO, the UN, and the Path to Global Stability
Reimagining the United Nations: A 40-40-20 Vision for a Democratic World Order
Toward a Federated World: Rethinking Sovereignty, Representation, and Rights in the 21st Century
From Colonial Empires to Data Empires: Understanding the Power Differential Then and Now
A New United Nations Will Cut Military Budgets—and Unlock Trillions for Humanity
The WTO Is Broken — Let’s Reform the UN and Rethink Global Trade from the Ground Up
Five Languages for a New United Nations: Mandarin, English, Hindi, Spanish, Arabic
If the UN Can’t Reform, It Must Be Replaced: Time for a New United Nations That Reflects Today’s World
A New United Nations, A New Partnership: How Reform Can Unite the U.S. and India as Equals
The Small Country Coalition: How Nations with Fewer than 30 Votes Could Shape a New United Nations Imagining A New United Nations

at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, June 13, 2025

Israel's Strike on Iran: June 13, 2025



Israel's Strike on Iran: June 13, 2025

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a significant series of airstrikes on Iranian targets, escalating the ongoing conflict between the two nations. The operation, dubbed "Operation Rising Lion" by Israeli media, targeted Iran's nuclear facilities, ballistic missile factories, and military commanders, with Israel claiming the strikes were aimed at preventing Tehran from developing an atomic weapon. The attacks began early Friday, prompting widespread regional airspace closures and international concern about further escalation.
Details of the Strike
  • Targets: Israel struck nuclear facilities, missile production sites, and killed several high-ranking Iranian military commanders, including Hossein Salami, a top commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The strikes also reportedly disabled critical air defenses using kamikaze drones launched from within Iran and targeted missile launchers.
  • Execution: The operation involved Israeli Air Force fighter jets and precision-guided weapons, with some reports suggesting Israeli intelligence operatives coordinated drone strikes deep inside Iranian territory. The attacks were described as a prolonged campaign, with Israel warning of further action if Iran retaliates.
  • Impact: Iranian state media reported damage to military sites but did not specify the extent. The closure of Iranian airspace and the death of key commanders suggest significant disruption to Iran’s military capabilities. Iran’s immediate counterattack capacity is reportedly delayed as it reorganizes its forces.
  • Regional Effects: Airspace over Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Jordan was closed, causing thousands of flight cancellations and diversions. Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport shut down, and Israeli carriers like El Al, Israir, and Arkia moved planes out of the country. Major airlines, including Emirates, Lufthansa, Air India, and Qatar Airways, suspended or rerouted flights, with traffic diverted over Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Central Asia.
International Reactions
  • United States: The Trump administration distanced itself from the strikes, with President Donald Trump stating the U.S. was not involved but suggesting Iran’s refusal to negotiate a nuclear deal provoked the attack. Trump urged Iran to “make a deal” to avoid further destruction, while U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Tehran against targeting U.S. interests.
  • European Union: EU leaders, including Germany and France, condemned the escalation and urged restraint. Lufthansa suspended flights to Tehran and avoided Iranian, Iraqi, and Israeli airspace.
  • Arab States: The UAE, Qatar, and Oman strongly condemned Israel’s actions, with the UAE calling for a UN Security Council ceasefire. Saudi Arabia had not issued a specific statement by 09:20 AM CDT, but its airlines avoided Iranian airspace.
  • Turkey: Turkey denounced the strikes as a provocation violating international law, accusing Israel of avoiding diplomacy.
  • Russia: Russia’s aviation authority banned its airlines from using Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, and Jordanian airspace until June 26, reflecting concern about regional instability. Russia’s Foreign Ministry urged citizens to avoid travel to Iran and Israel.
  • Iran: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the strikes as “wicked and bloody,” vowing a “bitter fate” for Israel. Iran reported launching approximately 100 drones toward Israel in retaliation, which Israel’s military is working to intercept.
Iran’s Likely Response
Iran’s response is still unfolding as of 09:20 AM CDT, but several indicators suggest its approach:
  • Immediate Retaliation: Iran has launched about 100 drones toward Israel, which the Israeli military is actively intercepting. This suggests an initial retaliatory move, but the scale is smaller than Iran’s October 2024 missile attack.
  • Strategic Constraints: The loss of key commanders and damage to air defenses and missile launchers may limit Iran’s ability to mount a significant direct counterattack. Reports indicate Iran is reorganizing its military, potentially delaying further action.
  • Proxy Warfare: Iran may rely on proxies like Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, or the Houthis to retaliate, as it has in past conflicts. This approach allows Iran to avoid direct confrontation while maintaining pressure on Israel. However, Hezbollah’s weakened state could constrain this option.
  • Diplomatic Posturing: Iran’s leadership may prioritize condemning Israel internationally while seeking to preserve its nuclear negotiations with the U.S. A restrained response could align with President Pezeshkian’s reformist agenda to secure sanctions relief.
Potential for Escalation
The tit-for-tat cycle could escalate rapidly, depending on Iran’s response and Israel’s follow-up actions:
  • Best-Case Scenario: Iran limits its retaliation to the current drone attack or proxy actions, allowing both sides to de-escalate. Israel’s targeted strikes, avoiding civilian infrastructure, may provide Iran an opportunity to save face without further escalation.
  • Worst-Case Scenario: If Iran launches a larger missile or drone attack, Israel could intensify its campaign, potentially targeting Iran’s remaining nuclear sites or oil facilities. This could draw in the U.S., given its THAAD deployment in Israel, and involve Iran’s proxies, risking a regional war. Axios reports U.S. concerns that Israel’s air defenses could be overwhelmed by a massive Iranian ballistic missile attack.
  • Nuclear Risk: Israel’s strikes on nuclear facilities heighten the risk of Iran accelerating its nuclear program in response, though its current disarray may delay this. A future Israeli strike on enriched uranium sites could provoke a severe Iranian reaction.
  • Regional Impact: Continued airspace closures and rising oil prices (already surging post-strike) could destabilize global markets. The Strait of Hormuz remains open, but shipowners are considering avoiding the region, which could disrupt oil supplies.
Conclusion
As of June 13, 2025, 09:20 AM CDT, Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure have heightened tensions, with Iran launching a drone retaliation and regional airspace shut down. International calls for restraint, particularly from the U.S. and Arab states, aim to prevent a broader conflict, but Iran’s next moves—whether direct, proxy-based, or diplomatic—will determine the trajectory. The risk of miscalculation remains high, with potential for a devastating regional war if either side escalates further. The situation is fluid, with Israel on high alert for additional Iranian retaliation and global markets bracing for instability.






Israel’s Ambition: Destroy the Heart of Iran’s Nuclear Program It may take days, or weeks, to assess how far Israel has set back Iran’s atomic capabilities. ....... When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday evening that Israel had struck “Iran’s main enrichment facility in Natanz,” he was signaling the scope of his country’s ambitions in the largest strike it has ever aimed at Iran: It sought to destroy the beating heart of the Iranian nuclear program.......... The Natanz facility is where Iran has produced the vast majority of its nuclear fuel — and, in the past three years, much of the near-bomb-grade fuel that has put the country on the threshold of building nuclear weapons. ........ There are no reports yet of whether Iran’s other major enrichment site, called Fordow, was targeted as well. It is a much harder target, buried deep under a mountain, deliberately designed to be out of Israel’s reach. ........... As a result, it may take days, or weeks, to answer one of the most critical questions surrounding the attack of Iran’s facilities: How long has Israel set back the Iranian nuclear program? If the program is delayed only a year or two, it may look as if Israel has taken a huge risk for a fairly short-term delay. And among those risks is not only the possibility of a long-lasting war, but also that Iran will withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, take its program underground, and race for a weapon — exactly the outcome Mr. Netanyahu was out to prevent. ......... History suggests such attacks have unpredictable results. Even the most ingenious attack on the program 15 years ago — a cyberassault that put malware into the system, destroying centrifuges — only slowed Iran for a year or two. And when the program came back, it was bigger than ever. ........ Iran has always maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful and that it is not pursuing a bomb, though no other country with only a peaceful program enriches large quantities of fuel to near bomb grade. ....... Over nearly 20 years, Israel and the United States have targeted the thousands of centrifuges that spin inside the Natanz facility, in hopes of choking off the key ingredient Iranian scientists needed to build a nuclear arsenal. Together the two countries developed the Stuxnet worm, the cyberweapon intended to make the centrifuges spin out of control. That operation, code named Olympic Games, was born in George W. Bush’s administration and flourished in Barack Obama’s until the operation was exposed. ............ And the centrifuges at Natanz continued to spin, until the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran forced the country to give up 97 percent of its fuel and slow the enrichment at Natanz to a crawl. That agreement also capped the level of enrichment to a level useful for generating nuclear power but not sufficient to make a bomb. .......... But then President Trump pulled the United States out of the accord in 2018, calling the deal a disaster. And within a few years, Iran began revving up the facility, and putting new, far more efficient centrifuges in place. It increased enrichment levels to 60 percent purity — just shy of bomb grade. Experts said it would take only a few weeks to further raise the level to 90 percent, commonly used in atomic weapons. ........... Over the past few months, international inspectors have concluded, Iran sped up its enrichment. On Thursday night — Friday morning in Israel — Mr. Netanyahu used its recent progress to argue that Iran now has enough fuel for nine weapons and that the country could “weaponize” that fuel within a year. That accords with what inspectors reported a week ago. ............... But it is still too early to know how much damage Israel did. Natanz is not deeply buried, but the centrifuge halls are 50 yards or more beneath the desert, and covered by highly reinforced concrete. The question is whether the centrifuges were destroyed. .......... Israel’s attacks went beyond the facilities. It also sought to decapitate both the military and nuclear leadership. ........... For years, Israel targeted top nuclear scientists individually. Some were killed by sticky bombs attached to their car doors. The country’s chief nuclear scientist was killed in a robot-assisted assassination. But some of the strikes Thursday night appeared to wipe out their headquarters and living spaces, part of an apparent effort to kill the personnel en masse. ............ One mystery still surrounding the attack is whether Israel made any attempt to hit the deepest, most protected facility among its sprawling nuclear complexes: the enrichment center called Fordow. It is on an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps base, and is deep within a mountain — nearly a half-mile under the surface ........ American officials have said Israel does not have the bunker-busting bombs to get at that facility, where Iran’s most advanced centrifuges have been installed. And if Fordow survives the attacks, then there is a good chance the key technology of the country’s nuclear program will survive with it.

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)