Bill Overview
Title: Iran Nuclear Weapons Capability Monitoring Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of State to establish a task force to consolidate and synthesize efforts to monitor and assess Iran's nuclear weapons activity. The State Department must also report on Iran's nuclear activity and submit a diplomatic strategy for engaging U.S. allies regarding Iran's nuclear weapons and missile activities.
Sponsors: Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]
Target Audience
Population: People globally who have a stake in international peace and security
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The bill primarily targets Iran's nuclear weapons capability, which is a matter of international security. Hence, it will directly impact international diplomatic relations and nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
- The State Department is required to establish a task force and increase efforts to monitor Iran's nuclear activities, which impacts U.S. foreign policy and requires resource allocation.
- The bill involves diplomatic strategy for engaging U.S. allies, which reflects a global interest in Iran’s nuclear activities.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects international diplomacy and security, which is indirectly connected to the wellbeing of U.S. citizens.
- The budget allows for enough resources to monitor activities but must be used efficiently to ensure comprehensive coverage of the task force’s responsibilities.
- People may differ in their level of concern about international security, which could affect their perception of the impact on their wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Foreign Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The enhancement of monitoring abilities will strengthen the U.S.'s diplomatic stance and lead to more informed policy decisions.
- I believe that focusing on diplomatic strategies with allies will help prevent escalation in the region.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Factory Worker (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this affects me day-to-day, but I hope it doesn't lead to higher taxes.
- Security from nuclear threats is important, but I’m not sure this policy is worth the cost.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graduate Student (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill's strategy could foster peaceful engagements, which makes me hopeful about future global interactions.
- It seems like a step forward in responsibly managing a potential threat.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Elementary School Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving international security is crucial, but it feels distant from the issues we face locally.
- I appreciate efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation but wonder if funds could also support education and local services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Military Officer (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is essential to maintain our strategic advantage and ensure long-term peace.
- I support any action that brings our allies together to address international threats.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Tech Startup Founder (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone interested in innovation for peace, I see the potential benefits of this policy.
- I’m skeptical about governmental efficiency, but coordination might lead to technological advancements in monitoring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Oil Rig Inspector (Houston, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stable international relations mean stable energy prices, which is good for business.
- I'm supportive of any measure that helps avoid conflicts that could disrupt energy supplies.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Undergraduate Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the need for constant vigilance but question whether this fiscal allocation is the most impactful.
- Educational policies feel more pressing at the moment, but I do care about global safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
International Law Professor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these are vital to maintain international law and order.
- This could serve as a diplomatic tool to encourage compliance among states.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Public Health Coordinator (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Geopolitical stability impacts public health indirectly through stress and resources availability.
- I support the policy but wish its scope included more direct public health measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31200000, High: $72800000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32448000, High: $75712000)
Year 5: $58320000 (Low: $35088000, High: $81648000)
Year 10: $67473000 (Low: $40599600, High: $94362200)
Year 100: $15716975000 (Low: $9430185000, High: $21946765000)
Key Considerations
- The policy is motivated by international security concerns rather than economic factors, hence economic impacts are secondary.
- Resource allocation within the Department of State and potential international collaboration costs are key fiscal concerns.