I share your concerns about the sectarian nature of Iran's approach in Iraq.

We will continue our efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL, which poses a threat to the United States and the international community.

We believe very strongly that they did.

Russia has built and tested a ground-launched cruise missile system that violates the Treaty.

I will note here--and there--this is uneven across Europe, but, in general, I am quite concerned with the level of investment that Europe is making in its militaries.

I've told Iraqi leaders that while the United States is open to supporting Iraq more than we already are, we must see a greater commitment from all parts of the Iraqi Government.

Their actions are--as I--the phrase I've used is 'pouring gasoline on the civil war in Syria.'

we are trying to stick up for the principle that Iraq is a single, unitary, multi-sectarian state.

Allowing sequestration to return would deprive U.S. forces of what they need to accomplish their missions around the world.

Assad needs to go, but the structures of governance need to stay or we hope they will stay.

Vladimir Putin's conduct there has had the opposite of whatever effect he thought it might have in terms of attracting Ukraine in the direction of Russia.

France, the UK, and Germany's decision to expand their counter-ISIL operations will significantly enhance the Coalition's efforts.

Ramadi needs to be retaken, and the way to do it is to have a force under the competent command and control of Iraqi Security Forces commanders.

The current drawdown plan uses a time-phased approach for the withdrawal of United States forces.

In order to have what you're correctly identifying as the end state that will keep the peace in the long run, there has to be, first of all, in Syria, a political transition from Assad to a government that includes some of the opposition.

The Department of Defense addresses the totality of threats posed by Iran.

I believe that a stable, multi-sectarian Iraq is the only way to ensure the long-term defeat of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

No, the Department has sufficient authorities under the Iraq Train and Equip Fund authority to provide assistance to military and other security forces of or associated with the Government of Iraq.

I do not believe that expanding the use of Iraqi Kurdistan as a base of operations is necessary at this time to defeat the Islamic State and check malign Iranian influence in the region.

We will not allow the Russian Federation to gain a significant military advantage through its violation of an arms control treaty.

Our approach has been... to try to find a political exit for Bashar Assad rather than a United States-led military exit.

We have serious concerns with Iranian malign activities outside of the nuclear issue.

I have consistently emphasized to them that they have a unique role, here, and also, insofar as they're concerned about Iran.

I very much would like, and we would very much welcome--and we've repeatedly said this--working with those countries on the ground.

The United States will not take any action inconsistent with our obligations under the INF Treaty as long as those obligations remain in force.