Our policy has not changed.

It is very nice to see a Democrat in this day and age thinking strategically about the security of the United States.

No, it is worse.

We cannot provide a blank check to this and a future President because everything that is envisioned goes beyond this President.

We want to fight ISIL. We want to give the President the wherewithal to degrade and deter them.

I am looking beyond, so if we think an accommodation to fight ISIL is good, the aftermath of that in Iraq, in Syria, in Yemen, and elsewhere, in my view, is not so good.

I think we share that goal with Turkey, but I have not had in my conversations with the Turks the requirement that we take concerted action against Bashar al-Assad as the precondition necessarily for the Turks to have any greater role in the coalition to deal with ISIL.

Although this hearing is not focused on the administration's proposed authorization for the use of military force against ISIL, it is by nature an opportunity to probe the dynamics of our current anti-ISIL strategy that will inform our discussion of an AUMF.

The question is for how long, under what set of circumstances, and when you let Iran ratchet back up and, in essence, give some future President maybe no choices but to pursue a military action.

the price has not changed his behavior.

I think the deal was one-sided. The regime has not changed tactics.