Bill Overview
Title: DEFEND Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense to seek to cooperate with Middle East allies and partners (i.e., countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and other countries in the region as appropriate) to identify and develop an approach for such allies and partners to implement an integrated air and missile defense capability to protect against attacks from Iran and groups linked to Iran.
Sponsors: Rep. McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA-5]
Target Audience
Population: People living in Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Middle Eastern countries
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill focuses on enhancing defense cooperation between the US Department of Defense and Middle Eastern countries.
- The target population primarily consists of citizens residing in Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt.
- Citizens in the Middle East region covered by the Act will benefit from improved air and missile defense capabilities against potential threats from Iran.
- The legislation's impacts will largely concern those living in regions vulnerable to attacks from Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and others mentioned.
- Residents and military personnel within the US and Middle Eastern allies might gain strategic security benefits from this cooperation.
Reasoning
- The policy directly influences US military and defense contractors stationed in or working with Middle Eastern allies, estimated to be approximately 1,000,000 individuals.
- The average US citizen may experience an indirect impact, mainly through changes in defense spending and the strategic benefits of stronger Middle Eastern alliances.
- Expenses are distributed with an initial allocation of $500 million in the first year, stretching to nearly $5.6 billion over ten years, emphasizing greater military collaboration in the Middle East.
- The policy's immediate impact would be more significant for individuals in defense-related occupations or locations closely tied to Middle Eastern defense strategies.
- Considering the policy's scope, it is essential to recognize individuals who might not be involved but still perceive an indirect influence due to a sense of national security or fiscal implications.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Contractor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is essential for enhancing defense capabilities in a crucial region.
- Increased collaboration helps protect our allies and, indirectly, national interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Military Personnel (Tampa, FL)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative strengthens strategic positions against threats.
- Collaborating with other nations is beneficial for personal safety during deployments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Taxpayer and Software Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might mean higher taxes, but security alliances are vital.
- Aware but skeptical about the necessity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Retired Diplomat (New York, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strengthening ties with Middle East allies is a prudent strategy.
- Improved defense mechanisms are beneficial for long-term peace.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Graduate Student in International Relations (Houston, TX)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This Act is a chance to study successful international cooperation models.
- Ultimately, beneficial for academic and future career prospects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Public School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good policy for international peace but potential taxpayer burden.
- Educating students on its implications offers teachable moments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Defense Analyst (San Diego, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This Act supports vital initiatives for regional stability.
- Provides job security and professional growth opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Investment in defense is prudent, but fiscal impact worries remain.
- Would prefer more focus on domestic priorities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Electronics Exporter (Miami, FL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could bolster economic ties and safety in trading regions.
- Appreciate efforts for a safer, more consistent trading environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Healthcare Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Peace and safety for those abroad are valued.
- Supports any actions improving conditions in the Middle East.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $520000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $620000000)
Year 3: $540000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $640000000)
Year 5: $560000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $670000000)
Year 10: $600000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $700000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $800000000)
Key Considerations
- The potential effectiveness of the defense integration plans with allies.
- The geopolitical implications of enhanced defense capabilities in the Middle East.
- Long-term commitments in hardware and joint-defense operations.
- Impact on US defense budget and policies.