Questions for the candidates:
(1) The United States has–since the Cold War era–maintained that any effort to shut down the Strait of Hormuz will be considered an act of war against the United States. Where do you stand on that, and what would your response be to such an effort by the Iranians or any other nation-state?
(2) Each of the last two Presidents–as well as most of the Republican candidates for President–have made it our policy that Iran must not be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The questions on this are severalfold:
(a) do you believe that such an outcome is feasible?
(b) to what extent should we engage the Iranians to ensure that this outcome is achieved?
(c) is war an acceptable step toward this outcome?
(d) given that we are not able to keep criminals from obtaining firearms in the United States, how would a conventional war prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?
(e) would the cost of war justify any proposed benefit?
Questions for Ron Paul:
(1) Given that you are the most anti-war of any candidate in the field–to include the President–under what circumstances would you consider war as necessary?
(2) Even in peacetime, intelligence is a very necessary function of national security. Toward that end, what are your visions for intelligence policy? What does that look like domestically and in the foreign arena?
(3) Your opposition to the Patriot Act is well-documented. At the same time, what do you propose that would (a) allow us to gather the intel that we need, while (b) preserving fundamental liberties?