American Diplomacy Pros And Cons

Dictionary.com defines foreign policy as “a policy pursued by a nation in its dealing with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives (Dictionary.com, 2015).” According to U.S History (2015), The United States American foreign policy is founded on interactions with foreign nations and establish standards of collaboration for its governments, conglomerates and citizens. The objectives of the foreign policy of the United States, plus all the Agencies and Bureaus in the United States Department of State are "to shape and endure an additional democratic, safe, and affluent domain for the advantage of the American societies and the global community.” Jurisdictional goals listed by the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs

In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln spoke the timeless words ??government of the people, by the people, for the people?. He might not have known they were the undercurrent of a war that was fought eighty-two years prior in 1781; a war fought one hundred and forty-eight years in the future in 2011. I truly believe that the government floats by the ebbs and flows of its citizens will and opinion. Their will can drive us to war or their will melts away not remembering why we went to war in the first place. The peoples will is the rudder steering the Diplomatic, Information, Military and Economic ?DIME? spectrum maneuvering its way across the governmental swamp. The peoples will to vote and protest shape our diplomatic outcomes. The peoples

regarding the tense relationship between the U.S. And Iran in order to illicit a more

Did you know that an estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants reside in the U.S? Now add the amount of legal immigrants is estimated to be 487,072 immigrants per year. The fact that the amount of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S, shows that our policies and security not only need to be updated but also taken more serious. This year we will vote for a new President and the candidates this year could not be any different. First you have Donald Trump with his 10 point system and then you have Hillary Clinton with her plan to solve our immigration policies.

Former President Ahmadinejad set Iran back years by putting Iran into extreme isolation from the international community. His continued badgering with the international community, eventually lead to a nuclear stand-off with world powers. With what seems to be the Ayatollah’s blessing, President Rouhani has so far shown promise to ease the country’s relations and assume a solution on the nuclear issue. “For Washington, meanwhile, the election offered stark confirmation that its strategy is working, at least to a point. The outcome confirmed that political will for a nuclear deal exists within the Islamic Republic. In other words, the path out of isolation and economic crisis is perilous, but Iran’s new president, who has sometimes been dubbed “the sheikh of diplomacy,” may just be the right man at the right moment to walk it.” (Maloney, 2013)

In the year 2014, The United States and Iran are considering working together in order to put a stop to the threats posed by the militant group, Isis. This is a big step for the two countries since just in 2013, the United States threatened to use force against Iran to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Even though, the two countries are facing a common enemy, Iraq; this does not reduce the tension that the U.S and Iran have towards each other. For 60 years, the U.S. had a tumultuous relationship with Iran. From the removal of Iran Prime Minister in 1953 to the most recent, Iran’s nuclear agenda, the United States have been involved. This raises the questions of how did the U.S. involvement in past history shape current Iran

World powers suspect Iran has been dishonest about its nuclear program and is seeking the ability to harness their nuclear power to build a nuclear bomb. Iran believes it has the right to nuclear energy and is adamantly stressing that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, even though they have been conducting suspicious research as well as publically stating that a goal of their state is to destroy Israel. As the secretary of State, you, John Kerry, have the ability to travel the higher road by reducing the sanctions. As our planet and global economy evolves, so should our policies. You have the ability to decrease the sanctions placed on Iran as well as the ability to keep Iran in line. An era of reduced sanctions and economic

The most important issue in international polity in which the US is engaged is the war in Afghanistan. President Obama suggested pulling out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014. But the election made the issue more relevant with the President being questioned about it time and again. After his election and the assumption of office the President on 6th November, 2012 made it clear that America was not going to wage any war anywhere and he was ushering in a new era of peace. He emphatically announced that Afghanistan would find their own new democracy and all American troops would be pulled out, not only from Afghanistan but from all other trouble spots. This would be a relief to Americans, veterans and their family. It also would be a relief to the tax payer. Lastly it may change the way the world views America.

My proposed initial approach in dealing with the Iranian situation would involve the adept employment of diplomacy. As indicated by Reed Fendrick, diplomacy involves a constant calculation of countries’ apparent vital interests, power capacity, and relations with other countries, in an endeavor to exploit one’s own country’s freedom of action with the definitive intention of guaranteeing the attainment of the nation’s vital interests, the fundamental element being survival.2 Fundamentally, I advocate the use of certain aspects of diplomacy to effectively quarantine Iran in the world’s public view. Upon summoning an emergent United Nations conference, and possibly the convening of other summits that comprise diplomats throughout the international community, a shared message could be composed and disseminated to accomplish this purpose. As discussed in the National Security Policy Memorandum, the

President Obama must begin without delay the abolition of nuclear weapons even though this will take a decade to complete. This can only be done by the implementation of a comprehensive, irreversible, binding, auditable treaty. Such approach will eliminate world class nuclear weapons, including weapons of mass

The Cold War is over and some people believe that we do not need nuclear deterrence anymore. The U.S.S.R has fallen and Russia poses little threat to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. Because of this, Russia and the United States have begun disarming their nuclear weapons. The United States has reduced its nuclear stockpile of warheads from 31,265 in 1965 to about 10,455 in 2002, enough to use for deterrence ("Table of . . . "). This disarming agreement is only between these two countries and they will continue to keep a minimum number of these nuclear warheads to deter other countries. They realize that they are not a threat to each other,

• The UN Security Council will endorse this agreement with a resolution which terminates all previous nuclear-related resolutions and incorporates certain restrictive measures for a mutually agreed period of time.

The White House hopes that the cash bonanza from the deal will moderate, not radicalize Iran’s behavior in the region. The administration’s underlying logic, as Hudson Institute Michael S. Doran pointed out, is that a deal will unlock the decades-old animosity between Washington and Tehran, setting them on a new, positive course. In the administration’s mind, the economic benefits from the deal are critical to ensure that Iran is more likely than not to renounce its bad ways.

Most countries of the world are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program. The European Union and the United States have been trying to negotiate with Iran for it to end any activities to create nuclear weapons. In 2009, the United States under the Obama Administration began its negotiation process. They first offered Iran positive incentives to develop new relations with the U.S. Iran refused. So, it used another tactic by imposing “pain” on Iran by having stiff sanctions put into place. The United States hoped this would bring Iran to the negotiating table, but it did not (Pollack & Takeyh, 2011, p. 1). In January of 2011, Iranian officials met with the EU

The rationale behind such efforts by President Obama and his team, many of who are still holding critical planning and operational positions in the US government, was that as more money and investment flows into Iran its government will become more moderate. That has been proven to be a wrong assumption. As Iran’s access to hard currency and international financial markets expanded, it has double downed on its aggressive foreign policy and support for terrorism; president Rouhani and the parliament has increased the IRGC budget while