Flow of foreign fighters. It is about degrading and reducing isils ability to finance itself. It is about of losing its narrative of hate and its bastardization of islam. We have brought together about 30 states in a coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. Some are involved in humanitarian assistance. Some are in a military campaign. It is a very endeavor. Progress is taking two forms primarily one, we have begun what will be a longterm process of working with the Iraqi Government under the new leadership of Prime Minister abadi. To combine with efforts to hold up the capacity of the sunni tribes, ultimately in the form of a national guard, also our support for the Kurdish Peshmerga to provide a viable ground force that can take that territory from isil. We have seen in the effort to hold back and repel the assault, taking the refinery and the mosul dam, we have seen success. Holding back an assault on baghdad. Incrementally and it is very tough going in anwar, seeing some progress there. There will be good days and bad days. That will be rebuilt. Our air campaign, which has consisted of hundreds and hundreds of stripes has contributed substantially to that progress. The isil campaign will take time and in syria in particular it will be more challenging because, unlike in iraq, we do not have a government with which we can and will cooperate. Obviously you are looking to do more of the of the administration and its allies, to do more, and we have had reports today, too, discussions with turkey, creating some sort of safe haven, no fly zones. The fight against islamic state, if i so continues you can also then from the turkish point of view, of course it is obligated by the fact that they also want to remove policy and get rid of assad. Is there going to be a nofly zone . The reporting has gotten ahead of the policy decisions. Can i give you some granularity . Turkey has borne the brunt of the refugee outpouring and has a Critical Role to play in many asked x aspects, counter financing, countering the flow of foreign fighters, and could play an increasingly Important Role in the military site if it chose to do so. Already turkey has committed to providing a training facility, as has saudi arabia, for our efforts to train the money it the moderate Syrian Opposition. That is a very important contribution. We are able to use turkish facilities for different parts of our operations. The question is, would turkey be willing to go all in, as some of the arab countries have, with their positions . They share our strong view that assad has lost all legitimacy and you cannot have a stable syria as long as he is in power, but their statement on the counterisil campaign has established a broad swath of a nofly zone and safe even. Our view is that given that this is a multifront, multifaceted campaign, the weight of our effort ought to remain in iraq and the airstrikes in the support for the moderate opposition in syria will in the first instance support our efforts in iraq and in the second instance, deny isil a viable rear face is that we think the establishment of a nofly zone or safe zone at this point is at best premature, and would be a major investment of resources, that would be something of a diversion frankly from the primary task at hand. Even though we are very much continuing to can out and exchange views consult and exchange views with the turks and looking at all ideas short of a nofly zone or safe haven that we might agree on that would accomplish our shared objectives, those conversations are ongoing. So, no so no so, no safe haven right now . We are going in the direction of no safe haven at this point. There is a left of strategic clarity here about what youre trying to do. You are flying on multiple fighting on multiple fronts. You are not fighting, but some of your allies are fighting isil, but also syria. There are critics who say what is your strategic objective here with regard to both isil, we know, but with regard to area and the assad regime, what will the three look like . There are those who like us to broaden the campaign to go beyond countering isil, to take on other causes in the region, inc. Looting using military force directly including using military force directly to take on a side assad. That settlement ultimately needs to come through political means. We have been invested in trying to accelerate that settlement by trying to build up the capacity and the moderate Syrian Opposition. We have sought and thus far have received support from congress to begin and wrapup that effort. Is there a reliable moderate Syrian Opposition . There is a moderate Syrian Opposition. It has had to fight on multiple fronts, and yes, it is facing significant strains, particularly in the north. In the south, we have seen greater regrets. [indiscernible] sorry. Not at all. The challenge for our states and these allies joined in this coalition is tuesday focused on the challenge of countering isil. For that to succeed, ultimately we need to see a political transmission in syria, in which assad is removed, but the ultimate goal has to be to destroy eiffel and not get sucked into a multifront military endeavor. Be president has been very clear, you have been very clear. Despite the criticism of many in the military, saying this can be achieved without the deployment of u. S. Ground forces in combat. In combat. You still believe that can be achieved . Yes. This is by no means our First Experience on the ground. For any battlefield progress ultimately to be sustained, because at any event, at some stage, United States and Coalition Forces will leave. It has to be owned and maintained by the indigenous forces, and in the case of iraq, the Iraqi Security forces and syria, ultimately by syrians. In iraq, the approach weve taken is trying to a build that iraqi capacity in a sustainable way. You will recall the president announced that in addition to our military presence, we will be advising and assisting and training, but it will not be in calvet combat. It will be at forward training facilities, outside baghdad, outside reveal but if they are not doing it and owning it and committed to it, in a multisectarian fashion, it will evaporate, and we have seen the proof of that. Weve got to do this in a way that will be sustainable. One final question. If this administration had not withdrawn all u. S. Forces from iraq, which was pretty much one of the president s goals when he became u. S. President , do you think we would see the kind of chaos and turmoil we are seeing now . What were seeing is not a function of the decision that in fact president bush made when he signed the transition agreement to downscale our presence. There was an option to leave forces . D the United States was prepared to do that will stop the Iraqi Government under maliki was not prepared to do that, to provide the exceptions where that would be possible. We have been ready and willing as we have been in afghanistan, and as we will do in afghanistan, to leave behind a reduced american presence a little under 10,000 to provide that kind of ongoing training assistance. What we saw, the real reason why in iraq it has been twofold one, the rise of isil. An outgrowth of al qaeda in iraq, but secondly, the really dismal governing authority that maliki divided, which was sectarian, which was corrupt, which didnt invest in maintaining the capabilities of the Iraqi Security versus that had forces that had been built up. We had a lunch where we witnessed in a two size and crossdressing, i think [laughter] we had bob menendez, the democrat, and rand paul, the republican. We were talking about iran, rand paul was completely supportive of the administration from negotiation strategy with iran. Senator menendez said he would bring forward a resolution in the next three weeks that would intensify the sanctions regime, increase the sanctions regime on iran from march, first of april of this new twopart deadline from march to make sure pressure is maintained. He worries, he fears that iran will play this out and the sanctions will gradually be weekend weakened, that he will produce legislation that will require you to increase the sanctions on iran. What do you say to that . At think our view is that would not be constructive. Let me explain why. We say that we have an agreement to extend the negotiations for an a distant for an additional set of months. Four more months for policy framework, three more months for the technical implementation details. Why . Two reasons the negotiations have made progress. While there are significant gaps that remain, they have been substantially narrowed and we have found throughout this process, negotiations have been serious, they have been substantive, and they are moving in the right direction. Secondly, we have an interim agreement that was negotiated and agreed a year ago. If you look back where we were a year ago and where we are now, we are in a much better place today than we were a year ago. A year ago, there were 200 kilograms of 20 highly enriched uranium that the rainy and sat at the ready they could quickly convert into a Nuclear Weapon. All 200 kilograms are no longer usable for that purpose. They are not progressing beyond enrichment at 5 , whereas before the renault constraint. The iraq plutonium facility, which had been on a fast track to giving iran the plutonium pathway to a Nuclear Weapon has been frozen, and there is no continue progress on the iraq facility. We have unprecedented trends baronetcy transparency. Whereas prior to this agreement, the iea iaea had very little insight. This interim agreement which many said would come at the expense of sanctions is not only held, has not only been upheld by the ukrainian side buspar, but has halted the Nuclear Program and rolled it back in key respects, prolonging the breakup time and giving us far greater insight into their capabilities than we have ever had. The sanctions have largely held together actually, more than largely. They have held together. And there it is a degradation of the sanctions regime that everyone fair that has not come to pass. It would be foolish to jettison that progress when the prospect of a comprehensive agreement remains insight, if not imminent. And when we know if the United States were to unilaterally impose additional sanctions, we would blow these negotiations. The International Community would blame the united dates rather than a round for the collapse of the negotiations, and the iranians would conclude there was little point in continuing the process at the negotiating table. That does not make good policy sets from the perspective of achieving a sustainable and to iran from Nuclear Program. Lets move on quickly to another bat after bad actor. Vladimir putin in russia. Despite the sanctions buspar, he has not disgorged any of the legitimate gains he has made in ukraine. He is putting pressure on other countries in the region. You have not stopped him. What can you do to stop him from these rather grandiose territorial ambitions . What we have done is built and maintained through American Leadership unity with europe and key partners outside of europe and the g7 in a where, who all agree and elsewhere, and while agree, that russias actions are illegal and destabilizing and have to come at a cost. That cost has come in a form that few expected would be as painful and significant economic sanctions as we have imposed and continued to impose. These are not just targeting individuals are individual companies, but broad sectors of the russian economy, and they have been joined we are actually joint every step of the way by the europeans and we have maintained that solidarity. Look at where the russian economy is. It has suffered substantially over the last year as a result of sanctions and as a result of declining oil prices. The result is pretty powerful. The imf says they are barely growing if it all. You expect that all to make him back down . You do . It is a significant cost on russia for his actions and these are factors putin has to take into account when he considers his next step. Russia has pulled back from its pipeline to Southern Europe is also important. That, too, is indicative of the mounting costs russia is waiting for his behavior. Europe is looking at russia and saying we do not want further economic and Energy Dependence on putins russia. As a result, a project championed by putin and the russian government is not likely to materialize. Meanwhile, we are maximizing what europeans and others have supported. We have put 100 million just this year in security assistance, including a range of increasingly severe kidded support sophisticated support like radar. And of the same time we have considered and will continue to consider other forms of support economic, political, and security to the government of ukraine. One quick question before we open it up to questions. China. The president has just come back from a summit meeting with president xi jinping and a series of other leaders in asia, made a great deal out of a deal that was done, particularly on Climate Change, but doesnt that deal to some extent get at what some people worry about right now . There is an unequal relationship between the u. S. And the rest of the world these days that seems to require the u. S. To make what a lot of sacrifices, and with some long distant date on chinas carbon emissions, which people think that china is probably going to hit anyway. Is the fear here that this is the way unfortunately the world is going . The United States and these in these relationships [indiscernible] first of all, china has never, until a month ago, agree to any constraints in any binding fashion on his carbon emissions. They are serious . They are quite serious. And if they are met, it will be a major contribution, along with ours, to curbing global emissions, giving us real momentum also going into the conference next year of the larger global turn Climate Change initiative. We are Different Countries of different sizes, different stages of development. China has never before made the kind of concrete and significant commitment that it made. And i would think that that is not a result of a lakh of American Leadership, but quite the opposite. Leadership that we put together, that they were able to achieve. I think some of your colleagues might be most interested the economic forum. We made Real Progress in the Information Technology agreement that will probably be the breakthrough for the global understanding. The United States and china will also look to extend these of validity from one year to 10 years, and for student visas from one year to five years. The Economic Impact of that is projected to be within the next 10 years to 15 years, worth about 85 billion a year to the u. S. Economy . In chinas economic interest. It is in our mutual economic interest. About 400 million jobs will be supported. That is a big deal. That is one more element of the economic relationship, the global issues, and we also have an important breakthrough on military transparency measures so where are militarys come into proximity, we can hopefully manage that with minimal risk. It was a summit that chalked up successes on a variety of fronts to show the multifaceted nature of the u. S. Relationship with china, but also, where we differ, we will continue to make sure that our interest and values are upheld. China has a history of unequal treaties. Maybe this time it will be another way around. No to questions. The microphone is coming around. There are many geopolitical risks. Which one do you worry about the most . Clearly, we need to be concerned about the things that can shake the foundations of the global economy. I am not a congressman and im not going to get deeply into this. We need to worry about growth thank you parcells in the world, including in europe and in asia, and any number of things can shake that. Even things that one would not have anticipated a few months ago. We spent a lot of time, for instance, as you suggested this is the has of your question, we have spent a lot of time trying to combat the ebola epidemic, which was on for seen months ago and spread beyond west africa to other parts of the world. It could be one of those unforeseen exogenous factors that could undermine growth. That could undermine it. Clearly those are among the things that one has to worry about and thats one of the many reasons why we have invested heavily in trying to stop that epidemic at its o term and over the longer build security infrastructure that can help us deal with the ic disease which are kind of shock that one might not expect from one day to the next but has to be prepared for. Another question in the ack . Thank you ambassador rice. I just wanted to go back a comments to the your on iran. Theres a point of view that is emerging which affects the markets and generally economic thinking that as we get closer to march and then potentially to june, we may be faced with getting back to that period of time prior to the interim agreement where there were serious concerns about the scales tipping in favor of potentially the exercise of the military auction unilaterally or by us getting involved. Id be interested in your observations and comments but as we get closer to march and potentially in june of next year and if you dont have an agreement in hand, can you share with us your thinking of what next . What are you thinking about what is the scenario there after . Thank you. Well the objective is to prevent iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon and to do so in a sustainable way. The best way to accomplish that is for iran to decide and commit and be held to its commitment at the negotiating table to give up its nuclear capacity. Where countries have done that weve seen it as sustainable. The