Washington ( CNN ) -- Although domestic issues may continue to dominate the presidential campaign , eventually the candidates will be called upon to give a comprehensive view of U.S. national security interests and defend those views in a presidential debate . Americans will want to know : What is each candidate 's vision of America 's role in the world and which candidate is better suited to be our commander in chief ? The stakes are high , even if public attention is not . The Middle East is quaking from a cascade of revolutions . Iran is inching ever closer to having a nuclear bomb . China is rising , prompting countries across the region to both engage with it and hedge against it . Al Qaeda 's power has shattered , yet its fragments remain dangerous . Sustained economic growth is transforming countries across Africa and Latin America , while Brazil , Turkey and India grow in global influence . Europe appears to be turning inward , as financial crises create economic constraints and political turmoil . Global energy markets are changing dramatically , with the United States now importing more than twice as much oil from the Western Hemisphere as it does from the Persian Gulf . Whatever the outcome of the November election , America 's next president must confront these changes . At a time of fiscal constraint and political divisiveness , the next president and his administration must lay out a vision that matches national means to national ends -- in other words , a grand strategy . Grand strategies assess the international and domestic environments , define U.S. interests in these environments and recommend ways and means to secure those interests . They explain America 's role in the world and how to think about that role . And they provide a vision for how America should build and marshal all the relevant elements of national power and leverage assets in one area to achieve goals in another . They are a map for getting things done . As President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov . Mitt Romney articulate their respective grand strategies , they will need to confront five big questions about U.S. national security : . 1 . What are the most significant threats and opportunities facing the United States ? How serious and immediate is the threat posed by Iran ? Is terrorism still the greatest threat to the United States or is al Qaeda on the ropes ? What does the rise of China portend for American interests ? Does the Arab Spring represent an opportunity or a threat to longstanding interests -- or both ? What should the United States do to reduce violence and drug trafficking in the Western Hemisphere ? How can Americans derive greater prosperity from today 's interconnected global economy ? How should the United States engage pivotal states such as Brazil , India , Indonesia and Turkey ? 2 . When should America engage and when should it isolate ? Is the dual-track approach to Iran -- negotiate and sanction -- the right one ? Are sanctions in general useful ? Should American diplomats engage with foes such as Iran or the Taliban or fear that doing so will convey legitimacy upon them ? What is the right level of engagement and pressure in the U.S. relationship with Pakistan ? When is it appropriate to use military force and in what measure ? 3 . How much defense do we need and how much can we afford ? What kinds of wars should our military prepare to fight in ? Can we safely reject the prospect of large-scale land wars and counterinsurgency operations ? Should America invest more in technologically advanced weaponry ? Should pressure to cut the overall government budget determine the scale of defense spending ? How can we make our armed forces more effective and efficient in the future , regardless of the level of budget cuts ? 4 . How can the United States prosper in the global economy ? Are trade agreements fundamentally good for the United States and should America pursue more of them ? How should Washington deal with China 's currency practices ? What threat does the eurozone crisis pose to the American economy , and what should the United States do about it ? How will America 's economic challenges affect our influence abroad ? What must the United States do at home to make us more competitive globally ? 5 . What role should human rights and democracy play in American foreign policy ? Is the `` freedom agenda '' a thing of the past , or does it speak to longstanding traditions in U.S. policy ? How does America balance its values and interests in countries such as Bahrain ? Has the Arab Spring demonstrated the importance of supporting democratic values in the Middle East or has it illustrated the limits of doing so ? Should the United States be willing to use force to end atrocities in Syria ? In a new report published by the Center for a New American Security , we asked four of America 's leading strategists to grapple with questions like these . Robert Art argues that the United States should continue to play a global leadership role , but that it can not afford to do everything and thus must be selective in its engagements . He calls for the United States to focus its energies on providing what he calls `` global public goods '' that can not easily be provided by other countries and that benefit both the United States and the world . These include protecting freedom of navigation on the seas , which undergirds the global economy , and helping to ensure peace among major powers , without which both security and economic prosperity will suffer . Richard Betts , in contrast , calls for a more limited U.S. role in the world . Since today 's security threats are less severe than at other points in our history but America 's fiscal challenges are intense , Betts calls on the United States to rebuild its economic power and pull back from global military commitments . He argues that America should rebuild its `` strategic solvency '' -- the economic and fiscal ability to confront national security threats in the future . Peter Feaver calls for robust American engagement in the world and expresses concern that Americans sometimes overvalue the risks of intervening militarily and overlook the risks of not intervening . He argues that the United States should dissuade the rise of a hostile peer rival , such as China , even as it engages Beijing as a stakeholder in the international system . The United States should do this from a position of strength -- what he calls the `` velvet-covered iron fist . '' To protect U.S. leverage in the Asia and the Middle East , he expresses deep concern about any erosion of America 's military might and cuts to the U.S. defense budget . Anne-Marie Slaughter calls for the United States to recognize that answering most of the questions raised above depends not just on America 's diplomatic relations with other countries , but also on its ability to work with networks of nongovernmental organizations , businesses , religious groups , philanthropies and even individuals . The United States derives enormous power from its influence in these networks and ability to attract students and entrepreneurs from around the world . At the same time , though , threats to the United States emerge increasingly from powerful networks of criminals , arms dealers and terrorists . Severing the links between nefarious networks and other , legitimate ones , is an important source of American power . While we share some of the authors ' views and differ on others , we all agree on this : As Americans prepare to vote for their next president in November , it is time for a vigorous debate about American grand strategy . In November , Americans will decide for themselves . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors .
While campaign is focused on domestic issues , key foreign policy issues loom , say authors . They say America 's next administration must identify key challenges , too . President will have to decide when to engage militarily or diplomatically , they say . Authors : A key question is what kind of policies will help U.S. prosper in global economy .