The Iraq War shows that regime change is not an effective nonproliferation tool. Americans will not support another war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction if it requires the U.S. military to invade and occupy a foreign country at the cost of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Do you share this view?
Do you view regime change and invasion as an effective and efficient international tool to deal with nonproliferation? If so, how do those costs compare with verified negotiated agreements like the Iran nuclear deal?
The U.S. military, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the head of U.S. Strategic Command, supports the New START arms control agreement with Russia. Do you favor its five-year extension? If not, why? What would be lost if the treaty were allowed to prematurely expire in 2021?
This article was originlly published in Foreign Policy. To read the rest of the article, please click here.