Policy Recommendation

Policy Recommendation What is a policy recommendation? A policy recommendation is simply written policy advice prepared for some group that has the authority to make decisions, whether that is a Cabinet, council, committee or other body. Policy recommendations are in many ways the chief product of the ongoing work of government managers to create and administer public policy. Policy recommendations have a lot in common with briefing notes. Like a briefing note, a policy recommendation serves to inform senior decision-makers about a policy issue.

However, a policy recommendation document goes further than a briefing note, providing both a more in-depth analysis of the options and a policy recommendation. Policy recommendations are the key means through which policy decisions are made in most levels of government. In our federal and provincial governments, policy recommendations are brought forward by a minister or department for approval by Cabinet. Whether the policy recommendation is accepted as sound advice or dismissed in favor of another option largely depends on how well the issue and the arguments justifying the recommended course of action are presented.

The Bipartisan Policy Center stated on October 10, 2012, that, “Iran’s nuclear program is the most pressing national security challenge facing the United States. ” I’d say it’s a pressing national security challenge given Iran is successful in developing a nuclear weapon because of their objectivity to EU’s and the U. S. ’s recommendations to conforming to the IAEA’s (Intl. Atomic Energy Agency) regulations, heedlessness of the sanctions, and total disregard for the dissimilarities of human life, it would seem a bit intimidating as well as reckless to let them continue on this path to world destruction. Issues: Iran was implicated in the bombing of the U. S. Marine base in Beirut, Lebanon – Being added to the U. S. list of countries that support terrorism. • In October 2011, Iran refused to stop enriching uranium at Natanz; refused to stop work on the new enrichment facility at Qom; and refused to accept a provisional deal reached to send most of its stockpile of LEU (low-enriched uranium) abroad. • Iran still not responding to IAEA’s request to clarify implications about enrichment of uranium. • Sanctions that have already been implemented are causing Iran to retaliate by announcing its plan to build ten new enrichment facilities.

This signaling their defiance and rejection again of Western demands. • For 10 years various major powers have negotiated unsuccessfully with Iran to persuade them to halt its nuclear program in exchange for political and economic incentives. • Iran is enriching uranium at 20% purity grade, which is considered dangerously close to weapons capability. Is the long-term future of enrichment in Iran? Analysis: If a military strike aimed at destroying critical parts of Iran’s enrichment facilities takes place, this would kill civilians in mass numbers, which would be disastrous for them, the United States and the World.

Nuclear weapons are a worldly risk. On a positive note, there are more Iranian people that are pro-American than any population outside of Israel. A bombing by the U. S. would create a change in all of that. Meaning that these Iranian people, who are pro-American, would rally against us, and our troops lives would be put at risk by any rash decisions to attack Iran. The issue at hand is should we make force or make threats of force a prominent part of U. S. diplomacy at this point in the game? The answer for the moment is no.

Nuclear capacity lies mostly in knowledge and facilities can be hidden. If attacked and destroyed, they can be rebuilt. This would only buy us time and send the Iranians program deeper and more covert. It would constitute a lawless act of aggression that would isolate the U. S. more so than Iran; fortify the current regime in power, unleash chaos throughout the region, would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (an International agreement intended to prevent the spread of nuclear technology), and threatening force while lacking a credible scenario for using it would be self-defeating.

This would subvert the waters of diplomacy, causing President Obama to be looked at no differently than our prior president, Bush, who perversely used “preventive war” in justifying the war in Iraq, trampling existing International laws about the use of force being used only to defend against attack or imminent threat of attack. When attempting to resolve the issue at hand, when referring to an imminent threat of attack: Let’s take a look, and not forget, the hostile statement that President Ahmandinejad made when he stated that, “Israel should be wiped off the map. With that statement, would one assume that Iran is seeking nuclear energy or nuclear weapons? Given the facts prior to this concern, we’ve positioned a policy that would serve both countries, the U. S. and Iran, suitably. OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS • The United States must keep force on the table with Iran. • Aggressively enforce the existing sanctions on the officials of the Government of Iran, particularly against foreign oil companies involved in Iran’s oil and gas industry. Reinforce the oil embargo on Iran and keep assets frozen, as well as the travel ban on the many senior officials and Iranian companies. • Work to create more pro-Western democracies and fewer dictatorships in the Middle East – encourage and support the emergence of democratic governments that respect the rights of their people, oppose terrorism, and reject the siren call of Islamist extremism. • Washington should step up its support for peaceful opposition movements in Iran. Adopt an agenda to bring freedom to Iran – the U. S. has wasted much time and effort in trying to engage Tehran on the nuclear issue and on secret talks to broker a regional solution; Iran’s diplomatic strategy uses this engagement to buy time to advance its own regional agenda, press ahead with its nuclear program, and undermine the prospect of new sanctions. Iran’s regime is dangerous when left unchecked. We do not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon because we want to avoid another holocaust.

The overall importance is that the Iranian leaders understand the determination of the countries of the European Union on this matter and that we should and will go on intensifying the economic pressure until the world can feel safe and be satisfied that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG! Our world has all kinds of chances to reshape its policies and keep peace within nations. Accept these recommendations NOW! We can’t wait for a World War III.