Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4290

Bill Overview

Title: Iran China Accountability Act

Description: This bill prohibits the use of funds to enter into any negotiation with Iran regarding an Iran nuclear agreement until the President makes specified certifications concerning the actions of China and Iran. Specifically, the President must certify that China has ceased incarcerating Uyghur individuals in the Xinjiang region. Additionally, the President must certify that, among other actions, Iran has terminated all agreements involving the receipt of funds from China and all ties and transfer of cash to Iranian proxy forces, including Hamas. Further, any Iran nuclear agreement that the United States enters into must certify the destruction of any and all Iranian nuclear and missile capabilities, weapons, infrastructure, chemical weapons, and offensive cyber activity. Such agreement shall be deemed a treaty requiring advice and consent of the Senate.

Sponsors: Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]

Target Audience

Population: People globally concerned with US, Iran, China relations and nuclear disarmament.

Estimated Size: 10000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Foreign Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this policy is essential to maintaining global security and controlling nuclear proliferation.
  • The requirement for Senate approval is vital for ensuring democratic processes are respected.

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 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 4

Human Rights Advocate (New York, NY)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While the policy promises accountability, I'm concerned about the actual enforcement and real impacts on Uyghur incarceration.
  • I hope the policy leads to tangible human rights improvements in China.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Iranian-American community activist (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could strain US-Iran relations further, affecting civilians in Iran including my family.
  • I'm skeptical about the policy's ability to truly dismantle nuclear capabilities without regional destabilization.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 4
Year 2 3 4
Year 3 3 4
Year 5 3 4
Year 10 2 4
Year 20 2 4

Military Veteran (Dallas, TX)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Ensuring Iran's nuclear disarmament is crucial for US security.
  • The policy rightly ensures Senate's involvement which is necessary for checks and balances.

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 7 5
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 7 4

Economist (Chicago, IL)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could impact US-China trade negatively if not balanced properly.
  • It’s important to consider long-term economic impacts beyond just political gains.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

University Student (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Initiatives like these reflect the world I want to see, one without nuclear threats.
  • I believe the policy enhances the US position as a peace advocate.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Retired Teacher (Miami, FL)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I appreciate the effort towards diplomacy, but I'm wary about what the policy demands in practice.
  • Engagement in treaties is critical, but it should be balanced with humanitarian priorities.

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 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Environmental Activist (Seattle, WA)

Age: 27 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this policy doesn't detract from necessary climate action and sustainability.
  • More resources should be directed towards addressing global environmental threats.

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

Oil Industry Worker (Houston, TX)

Age: 31 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While the policy focuses mainly on diplomacy, it could indirectly affect oil markets with ramifications for my work.
  • Balancing foreign policy with economic stability remains crucial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 5 6
Year 20 5 6

Political Scientist (Boston, MA)

Age: 41 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This bill may create necessary conditions for meaningful negotiation which are essential for long-term peace.
  • Monitoring the efficacy of its certification requirements will be critical in assessing its success.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)

Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)

Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)

Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)

Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)

Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)

Key Considerations