Tactics for Achieving Outlined Goals
There are several tactics that could be used to achieve outlined goals. For example, the U.S. could modify its foreign policy towards Iran. In this regard, prominent government officials should adopt a reconciliatory tone when making public comments. The Iranian government would be willing to sign a mutual agreement if its interests were considered. Mutual respect between the two countries could form the foundation for fruitful negotiations. Secondly, it was vital to have modest, realistic expectations. The U.S. had a more extensive infrastructure than Iran. Hence, it was impractical to expect Iran to implement drastic measures within a short time. Both parties should specify the extent to which the partnership would be developed. Bottom-line expectations and requirements should be stated to avoid future misunderstandings. Besides, both sides must propose friendly and tactful negotiators to ensure smooth, bilateral discussions. Such tactics are appropriate since they establish trust between representatives from the two nations. Trustworthy relationships between Iran and the U.S. can restore peace and security in the Middle East.
Obstacles to the Success of Established Plans
Notably, there are significant obstacles that could foil the success of established plans. For example, the leaders of both countries have traded threats and counter-threats across mass and social media platforms. Hence, it was challenging for both parties to embark on negotiation. Another obstacle could arise in the management of expectations. The abolishment of the previous deal was motivated by failed outcomes. It is possible that previous experience would lead to indifference. Both nations had to recognize and appreciate the potential benefits from fostering negotiations. Economic obstacles could derail the plans if Iran obtained financial benefits from the nuclear program. Iran was often accused of funding and supporting terrorist organizations across the Middle East. If irrefutable evidence was provided to prove Iran's duplicity, then tough economic sanctions could be used.
The Impact of Stress on Policy-Making
Stress can impact policy-making in numerous ways. Low stress contributes to policy-making due to the impact of motivation. Individuals that experience low stress can usually pay greater attention to issues[1]. Moderate stress has similar outcomes during policy-making. Contrariwise, high stress usually promotes alertness over short periods. Ambiguous and complex policies can be derailed if the person experiences high stress for a long time. Defective and ineffective policy-making occurs when stakeholder work for long hours[2]. In addition, high stress levels can cause policy makers to reduce communication and foster rationalization or stereotyping. If stakeholders engage in haphazard research and neglect due diligence, policy-making will be hampered. Stress often contributes to maladaptive behavior and rushed decision-making[3]. Consequently, stakeholders should strive to shun stress-inducing activities and circumstances.
The Influence of Personality and Personal Experience
Personality and personal experience have a considerable impact on policy-making and defining issues. People develop closed minds due to strongly-entrenched beliefs and practices. Social, political, and organizational contexts contribute to a person's experience[4]. Policy-making experts and elites have greater professional experience than beginners. Such experts are rigid and consistent since they manifest high commitment and attentiveness. Personality and cognition are especially fundamental when individuals experience high stress. Stakeholders that manifest flexibility are mostly uncommitted and inattentive[5]. Personal experiences develop into cognitive structures and beliefs. In this respect, stakeholders learn to formulate decisions and solutions in specific ways. Adjustment to changes and new situations can be quite slow[6]. Policy-makers should be allowed to modify their beliefs based on new circumstances.
Bibliography
Rosati, Jerel A. "The power of human cognition in the study of world politics." International Studies Review 2, no. 3 (2000): 45-75.
Jarel A. Rosati, "The power of human cognition in the study of world politics." (International Studies Review 2, no. 3, 2000), 69
Jarel A. Rosati, "The power of human cognition in the study of world politics." (International Studies Review 2, no. 3, 2000), 66
