• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 4, 2014

Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT/SECRETARY TRAVEL
IRAN
INDIA
PAKISTAN
AL-QAIDA/REGION
ISIL/REGION
SYRIA
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
NIGERIA
DEPARTMENT/U.S. DIPLOMACY CENTER
IRAQ
AFGHANISTAN
ISIL/REGION
IRAQ

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:08 p.m. EDT

MS. HARF: Good afternoon. Welcome to the daily briefing. I am very, very sorry for the delay. This day has been a crazy one, but thank you for bearing with me.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, the day has been what?

MS. HARF: A crazy one schedule-wise.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: That's not a headline. Don't move that on the wire, Matt.

A couple items at the top. First, a travel update: Secretary Kerry is in Wales today for the opening day of the NATO Summit. The NATO Summit is an opportunity for allies to engage on issues like Ukraine, Afghanistan, the Middle East – including, of course, the threat posed by ISIS – defense spending, and other issues of vital interest to the alliance. The Secretary is following the President's schedule today. He also attended a ministerial meeting with four NATO aspirant countries – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro and Macedonia – as well as met separately with Ukrainian President Poroshenko and the new Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu. The Secretary will meet later today with the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and this evening will attend dinner with fellow NATO foreign ministers.

Last item at the top: I know you've probably seen this in your inbox, but just an update on the schedule for the Iran nuclear talks. I know you've all been asking for scheduling updates. The next round of P5+1 talks with Iran led by the EU will start in New York as of 18 September. That's the week before the high-level meetings at UNGA. Following, there's been a meeting between High Representative Ashton and Foreign Minister Zarif that happened on the 1st. There will also be bilateral meetings between the E3 and Iran, also between the U.S. and Iran, as is happening today.

Deputy Secretary of State Burns, Under Secretary Sherman, and Senior Advisor – his new title – Jake Sullivan will meet today and tomorrow with Iranian officials in Geneva. These are bilateral consultations in the context of the nuclear negotiations, obviously. The delegation includes a number of senior nuclear officials, including Jim Timbie of the State Department, Paul Irwin, the Director for Nonproliferation at the National Security Council, also some sanctions experts including Richard Nephew from the State Department. He's our Principal Deputy Coordinator for Sanctions Policy. Also Chris Backemeyer, the Director for Iran at the NSC, and Brooke Anderson, who many of you know from the State Department as well.

Matt.

QUESTION: Well, actually, let's start there. Just logistically --

MS. HARF: With Iran?

QUESTION: Yeah, on Iran. Just logistically, on the talks that begin in New York on the 18th, those are the Wendy Sherman-Bill Burns talks?

MS. HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: Do you expect that they're going to last for the whole of UNGA --

MS. HARF: Well, sorry, let me back up.

QUESTION: -- and will the Secretary be dropping in?

MS. HARF: So these are the talks that Wendy, as our political director, leads at the political director level. I am guessing that Deputy Secretary Burns will be there for part of them as well. We don't have the full schedule, but these are the ones that Wendy tends to lead at that level at those talks. Then, obviously, ministers will all be coming to New York. We don't have anything confirmed yet about a ministerial P5+1 meeting. I expect there may be, but we're still working on details on that.

QUESTION: All right. And you expect that it will be more than just one day, right? It just begins on the 18th and will go through the whole --

MS. HARF: Correct. I actually expect that they'll probably go until the end of the ministerial – the high-level week at UNGA. So I expect to be in New York for quite a few days.

QUESTION: All right. And then also on Iran, yesterday, there were people at the IAEA talking about the – about how the IAEA investigation into Iranian – alleged Iranian nuclear production --

MS. HARF: Possible military production.

QUESTION: -- yes, exactly – was stalled again. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. HARF: Well, they – the IAEA director general will put out a report on Iran scheduled to be released later this week to the Board of Governors, so I don't want to get ahead of that or the substance of that report. I think some people had started speaking about this a little bit, but obviously, it's not been released publicly yet, so we'll wait for that.

But that being said, we have continued to call on Iran to cooperate fully and without delay with the IAEA to resolve all outstanding issues, particularly those that give rise to concerns regarding the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program. Obviously, this is a key component of what needs to be discussed going forward.

QUESTION: Can we expect, then, once the report to the Board of Governors comes out, that you'll have a more detailed --

MS. HARF: You can.

QUESTION: -- response?

MS. HARF: Not probably very detailed, but we will have a response once it's out.

QUESTION: Gotcha, okay.

MS. HARF: Let's go around the room. Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Or anything else on Iran?

QUESTION: On Mr. Sullivan, he's a senior advisor to the Vice President or to –

MS. HARF: No. Well, he left his position with the Vice President as of the 15th of August. He is retaining his role in the Iran nuclear negotiations as a special government employee of the State Department, so he's a senior advisor here.

QUESTION: Through the Secretary?

MS. HARF: A senior advisor. I don't know if it's to the Secretary or who it's to. Deputy Secretary Burns, after he retires, will also remain as a special government employee to work on the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

QUESTION: Sorry, he's a senior advisor to everybody, basically?

MS. HARF: He's just – I think Jake tends to be a senior advisor to everybody, yes.

Anything else on Iran?

QUESTION: Couple questions on South Asia --

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: -- starting with India.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: You must have seen the report Prime Minister Modi was in Japan, and this was a historical visit between Japan and India's historical and cultural ties. And since Japan is an ally of the U.S., if you have been following this news?

MS. HARF: We have been, and as we talked about during the Strategic Dialogue, the U.S. strongly supports India's collaboration and cooperation with its neighbors in the Asia Pacific. We support this collaboration through our trilateral dialogue and other activities as well with India and Japan and certainly look forward to further strengthening that trilateral cooperation.

QUESTION: Is – U.S. has played any role in this visit?

MS. HARF: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: If U.S. had played any role during this visit?

MS. HARF: I don't think so. I can check on that, but not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: And on Pakistan.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: As far as Nawaz Sharif's future is concerned, he called for a special session of the parliament or national assembly, and he was sitting and listening all these parliamentarians, and most of them to support him and not the – Imran Khan and the other demonstrations or what.

My question is that – do you support – still support Nawaz Sharif? And also, what message do you have now for the Imran Khan and other demonstrators?

MS. HARF: Well, yes, we still do. He is the elected leader. We've said that repeatedly, and we've been carefully monitoring the demonstrations in Islamabad. We've consistently said that the U.S. encourages all the parties to work together to resolve their differences through dialogue; also, though, oppose any efforts to impose extra-constitutional change to the democratic system. It's something we've talked about a lot in here. We're monitoring it. Obviously, our ambassador remains in touch with Pakistani officials, but not much more analysis than that.

QUESTION: And finally, do you agree with the Nawaz – I mean, with the Imran Khan that he still alleged that the 2013 election in Pakistan was fraud and fake?

MS. HARF: We have said that Nawaz Sharif is the elected leader of Pakistan.

QUESTION: Thank you, madam.

QUESTION: Can I stay in the region?

MS. HARF: Sure.

QUESTION: You've probably seen the news that al-Qaida has announced that they're rolling out a new --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- branch, al-Qaida in the Indian Subcontinent. What's your comment on that?

MS. HARF: We obviously are concerned about any recruitment or efforts by terrorists or violent extremist groups anywhere in the world. We're not able to verify those reports yet, and – hold on. Let me just double-check if there's a second page here. Sorry. I have updated something here.

Yes, we haven't been able to verify that yet. Obviously, we're looking to see if there's more information we can get about this here. We have remained committed to dismantling al-Qaida anywhere that it poses a threat to the United States, make sure it doesn't again pose a threat to the United States, particularly in that region. We also don't regard this announcement as an indication of any new capabilities by al-Qaida.

QUESTION: So you've been saying for a while that core al-Qaida has been – I think "decimated" was the word that you've used?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm, that is the word that I've used.

QUESTION: Would you stand by that, given that they seem to be sort of expanding into another region?

MS. HARF: No, absolutely. When we talk about core al-Qaida, it's al-Qaida senior leadership in the tribal areas primarily of Pakistan, also some in Afghanistan, and that core leadership has been decimated. That's a fact. We've constantly at the same time said we're concerned if they try to undertake operations in other places, if they – as they – as we know have affiliated groups other places. So we're concerned about it. Again, we don't regard this announcement as an indication of any new capabilities by al-Qaida.

QUESTION: Marie, what does that mean, that you haven't been able to verify – I mean, you've seen the video of Ayman al-Zawahiri announcing that this is --

MS. HARF: Well, we haven't been able to verify that there's actually some sort of new group out there that is in any way active.

QUESTION: All right. Well – and you also – you talk about how core al-Qaida has been decimated. But here's the guy who's the leader of it appearing in --

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Yes, and all of his other compatriots --

QUESTION: Are dead? They're all dead?

MS. HARF: -- that were part of that – if you look at --

QUESTION: All of them?

MS. HARF: -- bin Ladin, if you look at a series of successions of number threes in al-Qaida, a host of other senior leaders in al-Qaida, yes. The core of al-Qaida's leadership except for Zawahiri, of the senior leadership in al-Qaida in Pakistan, has been taken off the battlefield.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. HARF: And as they are replaced with new fighters, they are significantly less capable, are significantly less trained, they have much less capability.

QUESTION: All right. I want to go to ISIS, but if you want to --

QUESTION: Yeah, just one question as a follow-up to what you've said: How can you be certain that it doesn't represent an indication of new capabilities if you also are telling us that you are not even in a position to verify the substance of the announcement?

MS. HARF: Because we don't have anything to indicate there are new capabilities here. We don't know – know there's – this has been an announcement, a propaganda announcement made on a video. That doesn't mean there's new capabilities to back it up.

QUESTION: So have you not --

MS. HARF: You can say one thing, but it doesn't mean it's backed up by capabilities.

QUESTION: So have – has the intelligence community not discerned any significant al-Qaida presence on the Indian subcontinent heretofore?

MS. HARF: Well, no. We have known that there's an al-Qaida presence in many places of the region, many parts of the region. Of course we know that. That's not anything new. But in terms of an announcement about some sort of new branch, we judge – the U.S. Government judges that this is not an indication of new capabilities. We have nothing to indicate that there are new capabilities here.

QUESTION: But you can't rule out that there are new capabilities?

MS. HARF: Well, you can't prove a negative, James, but we have nothing to indicate there are.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Well, hold on a second.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: I wonder – yesterday Jen was able to share with us a little bit more information about the ISIL – the Sotloff video. I'm wondering if there's anything more that the – that you can share today in terms of the when, where.

MS. HARF: Not much new. As she said yesterday, we've determined the videos, the Foley and Sotloff videos, were not shot at the same time, the Sotloff video being filmed after the Foley video. We don't have more details to share about exact timing or location, except to say in Syria. The intelligence community is poring over the video to see if there's any information in it, clues in it, data in it, that we can use to determine those, but ultimately, of course, to bring to justice those responsible.

QUESTION: Okay. And then a couple days ago – I believe it was Tuesday – Jen was asked about passport revocations.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have an answer to that question whether it is within your ability to revoke a passport for someone who belongs to – who is a member of a foreign terrorist organization?

MS. HARF: So we have a variety of tools at our disposal to prevent Americans who have joined terrorist organizations from returning home. One of them is the ability to revoke passports if the Secretary of State determines they pose a threat to the United States or could pose a threat to the United States. I think if you look inside each of your passports you will see that language and the federal regulation that underpins it outlined right there.

We did do that in 2011 with Anwar al-Aulaqi under that regulation. The Secretary made the determination that he posed a threat and revoked his passport. That is a tool we have at our disposal. We have other tools as well, including watch listing, including subjecting people to additional screening as well.

QUESTION: So those additional tools are short of revoking a passport?

MS. HARF: They're in addition to. In addition to.

QUESTION: Right. But short of – in other words, if you go on a watch list, you don't necessarily lose your passport; is that right?

MS. HARF: Correct, correct. There --

QUESTION: Does that mean --

MS. HARF: There are a number of ways. You can also have your passport revoked if you are party to or subject of a federal arrest warrant. So if there was, for example, a sealed indictment or some sort of arrest warrant out for an American who had joined a terrorist organization, as there frequently are, then you can also have your passport revoked that way.

QUESTION: Does it follow then from the case – the example that you cited of Mr. Aulaqi that if you get your passport revoked, you're also going to be killed by a drone?

MS. HARF: That does not follow. No, Matt.

QUESTION: No? Okay.

MS. HARF: But I the President has been clear. He was clear in his speech at NDU that, obviously, we take very seriously the threat of American citizens who join terrorist organizations. We take additional care when thinking about options for taking them off the battlefield but that your citizenship cannot serve as a shield if you take up arms against the United States.

QUESTION: The determination by the Secretary that a given individual poses this kind of threat serving as the basis for the revocation of a passport --

MS. HARF: One basis. There's a variety of regulatory ways we can as well.

QUESTION: Is the individual whose passport is at issue entitled to some kind of procedural or I should say due process, or is there an appeal mechanism for it?

MS. HARF: I don't know. I can check on that, James. Obviously, the bar here is quite high, as it should be. I'm sure everybody who has a passport believes that the bar should be very high for having that revoked. I don't know the details on that piece of it, James. But again, it is an extraordinary measure that the Secretary can take to revoke passports. Again, I think Anwar al-Aulaqi is a clear case of where this was needed.

QUESTION: But it doesn't – simply being a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization isn't grounds for --

MS. HARF: It does not automatically mean your passport will be revoked. That is correct.

QUESTION: Okay. So there's no rule or there's no regulation that says if you are a member of al-Qaida or ISIS, that you lose your passport?

MS. HARF: Correct. But there, as I said --

QUESTION: But you're on your way?

MS. HARF: Well, not necessarily. There's obviously a process. We take the fact that we issue passports very seriously, the responsibilities to the American citizens under the Constitution in terms of having a passport. But there is a process, again, if you are shown to be a threat to the United States, where the Secretary can make that determination and revoke your passport. Also, as I said – and this does not require secretary-level involvement – if there's an arrest warrant out for you, legal litigation against you, those are all pieces of this as well.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any other examples than Aulaqi?

MS. HARF: I can check on that. This was obviously the most high-profile one and we've spoken about it from the podium – my predecessors have. I can check and see if there are others. We probably won't get into all those details, though.

QUESTION: Staying on ISIS?

MS. HARF: Staying on ISIS.

QUESTION: Two days ago I asked Jen Psaki in the briefing whether she could assure the American people that the President, however he defines his mission against ISIS, would complete that mission before he leaves office. And at the time, Ms. Psaki replied to the effect that she was not going to place a deadline or a timeframe on it.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Since then, the deputy national security adviser at the White House, Tony Blinken, has appeared on CNN and stated, and I quote, "It's going to take time and it will probably go beyond even this Administration to get to the point of defeat."

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So now the Administration has placed some kind of timeframe on this.

MS. HARF: Well, we've always said it would be a long fight. I think those comments are all consistent.

QUESTION: So perhaps you could explain why this President, when he has about two and a half years left on his term, a little less than that, feels he cannot complete this mission?

MS. HARF: Well, let's talk about what this mission means, because I think that's a catchphrase, and let's talk about what it means to degrade, disrupt, and ultimately defeat a terrorist organization. And we can look at some examples from recent history. We have to, I think, step back here.

Obviously, we can never kill or capture every terrorist in the world. That's not how this ends. We've been clear about that. What we can do is take the fight to them, take their leaders off the battlefield, cut off their funding, build partner networks on the ground, as you've seen us do in places like Pakistan and Yemen. Just this week taking a strike, the U.S. military did, in Somalia against a high-value al-Shabaab target there. So we can take away their capability to attack the United States and significantly degrade that. If you look at the fight – taking al-Qaida senior leadership, for example – that fight has gone on for many, many years, started before this Administration, has carried over into this Administration, and we have continued that fight to the point where al-Qaida senior leadership does not have the capabilities they had on 9/11, they had the year we came into office, and that they will have – that they've had even up until a year or so ago.

So we have consistently worked at this problem, taking their leaders off the battlefield, cutting off their financing, degrading their capabilities to the point where they cannot carry out the kind of attacks against the homeland that they would like to. That's how you fight terrorist organizations. "Completing the mission" is a term – I don't even know what that means when you're talking about terrorist organizations. What we think it means is taking away their ability to attack the homeland and to threaten our interest. You've seen us do that other places, we're doing it right now around the world; again, just this week taking a shot against an al-Shabaab leader, and we will continue doing it.

The conversations that are ongoing right now are how we do this long-term against ISIS. Those are the conversations happening in NATO with our partners; they're happening in the Secretary's onward travel. We have to look at this in a nuanced way about how you fight terrorists, and it doesn't always fall into a nice little buzzword as you used in your question.

QUESTION: What was the --

MS. HARF: "Complete the mission."

QUESTION: Oh.

MS. HARF: Why won't he complete the mission by the end of his term. When the President leaves office, James, we will have taken the fight to al-Qaida in Pakistan, significantly degraded their leadership, taken away much of their ability – not all, but much of their ability to carry out the kind of attacks we've seen them carry out in the past. We've taken the fight to al-Qaida in Yemen. We've taken it to al-Shabaab in Somalia. We've taken it other places. We've brought people to justice. Look at Abu Khatallah. Look at bin Ladin. Look at other people, Anwar al-Aulaqi. That's our record here, and now we're looking at a new and different threat and we're looking at the tools we have to fight that. And I think that the ISIS terrorists who are at the receiving end of American military bombs in Iraq right now are very clear about the fact that they are the enemy of the United States. We view them that way and we are treating them that way.

QUESTION: I mean, the record could also be seen as including Benghazi, the current chaos in Libya, the rise of ISIS to become the kind of threat that it is, but that would be more argumentative. And I don't want to go there. I would – just want to elicit a few more facts from you. Can you confirm that U.S. airstrikes killed a top aide to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?

MS. HARF: We cannot confirm those reports. I have seen them and we don't have information to confirm that at this time.

QUESTION: I asked Jen Psaki last week about the bringing to bear of financial tools against ISIS, and she really didn't have much to say about it. The question being posed as to whether ISIS, in the way that it amasses and spends its funds, which are considerable, is so off the grid, so to speak, that the organization is, in effect, beyond our typical capabilities with financing.

MS. HARF: Well, there just – we have to use different tools here. We've --

QUESTION: What are our financial options there, is what I'm asking.

MS. HARF: Okay. Yep. We can talk about that a little bit. Every terrorist group funds itself in a little bit of a different way. ISIS gets a majority of its funding from criminal activity – ransoms, bank robberies. This is one of the reasons we've talked to our partners about how important it is, actually, not to pay ransom, because they're just funding more terrorist attacks. But ransoms, bank robberies, stealing money, ransacking towns – that's a huge way they get a lot of their financing. So how that needs to be combatted is pushing ISIL back out of territory, pushing them away from places where they can get these funds, but that's only a piece of it.

The other piece is private funding coming from other countries, mainly in the Gulf. The Gulf countries are very concerned about this. We've been working with them to crack down on the possible financing networks, whether they're online, which sometimes can evade some of their very strict rules in places like Saudi Arabia, or working with the Qatari Government, others, to cut off private financing networks. This is a shared problem. It's a tough challenge, but we're working with them on that. But again, the majority of their funding comes from this criminal part of it.

QUESTION: Last question. As we approach the anniversary of 9/11, are we experiencing a kind of heightened chatter amongst terrorist networks, without delving into specifics or sources and methods? And is this what is undergirding, for example, the moves in Britain to raise the terror threat there, the comments from the King of Saudi Arabia to the effect that these jihadists are going to be in Europe within a month, in America within a month after that? Is this a particularly heightened time because of that anniversary?

MS. HARF: I don't think anyone's tying any of that to the anniversary, per se. I think it's – particularly in the United Kingdom – and they can speak for themselves, as can the Saudis – is tied to what we've seen coming out of Syria and Iraq with ISIS and their stated intentions, and the fact that there are a number of Westerners with passports. And we are concerned about that. I'm not going to characterize the level of chatter in any way. I don't think that's a productive use of doing so publicly.

But we're always vigilant. We're always looking for threats. But I don't think these specific comments have been tied to that anniversary, James.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: You're welcome.

QUESTION: Marie, very tangentially related to this, and I mean very tangentially related. Your brief foray this morning – and by brief I mean 140 characters – into media criticism, directed at my colleagues --

MS. HARF: Not at your --

QUESTION: Colleague. Colleagues/colleague here.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Has attracted a lot of attention. And I'm wondering if you could just briefly, without getting into any kind of a – not wanting to get into any kind of a name-calling match here --

MS. HARF: Don't worry.

QUESTION: -- explain what it was that you were upset about.

MS. HARF: No, I appreciate the opportunity to give more than 140 characters here. I think that when the anchor of a leading cable news show uses, quite frankly, sexist, personally offensive language, that I actually don't think they would ever use about a man against the person that shares this podium with me, I think I have an obligation, and I think it's important to step up and say that's not okay. And quite frankly, I wish that more people would step up when men say those things about women in public positions and say that it's not okay.

QUESTION: So you don't think that the criticism would have been directed at a man who had replied – who had given similar answers from the podium?

MS. HARF: I think some of that language – we've seen it before – was – would – I – no, I don't think would be used against a man. Some of the language used about my colleague I don't think would be.

QUESTION: By this one person in particular --

MS. HARF: In general.

QUESTION: -- or just in general?

MS. HARF: In general.

QUESTION: Okay. All right.

MS. HARF: Moving on.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) follow on the ISIS thing? Now, I don't know if you had touched upon this, but the King of Jordan or Jordanian sources say that the king has a plan to actually crush ISIS. Has – is that something that you guys have spoken to him about?

MS. HARF: Well, we're certainly having conversations with a number of regional partners, including Jordan.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm. But because – apparently there are parts of Jordan that now under the control of ISIL like Ma'an, like Zarqa, where Zarqawi came from. Another --

MS. HARF: I'm not sure that I – I would be careful when you say that.

QUESTION: Oh, I mean where they have --

MS. HARF: Where they have a presence. Fine.

QUESTION: Yeah. They have a formidable presence.

MS. HARF: But I – I would be careful when saying there are parts of Jordan under the control of ISIS.

QUESTION: Okay. Now let me just go back to --

MS. HARF: I don't think that's true.

QUESTION: -- when I came in you were talking about the fight against al-Qaida and we're taking it to them and so on. We have seen over the past decade and a half or two decades how these groups – these Islamic extremist groups, they morph. They morph into something else --

MS. HARF: Absolutely.

QUESTION: -- and they figure out ways and means to finance and them and get armed and so on. And part of --

MS. HARF: And that's why our efforts have to constantly morph as well.

QUESTION: And quite frankly, a lot of the funding and a lot of not only the actual financial funding, but also the moral funding, if you will, or the pulpit funding, comes from places that are friendly to the United States of America. In particular, like Kuwait, like Saudi Arabia, and others.

MS. HARF: From private citizens.

QUESTION: From private citizens, but also I mean they use the preaching --

MS. HARF: From private citizens.

QUESTION: -- podium out there probably with the government looking the other way. Is this something that you raise directly with the, let's say, the kings and sheiks, and emirs of these kingdoms?

MS. HARF: Well, a couple points. There are also a number of religious leaders in these countries who have spoken out against ISIS, if we talk about the grand mufti in Saudi Arabia, leading religious figures who have spoken out and said these men do not represent Islam.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: And so I think those are the voices that can speak for their own religion about this threat. We are constantly talking to the governments of the countries you mentioned. They recognize the threat.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm. But --

MS. HARF: And they know that we all need to do more to crack down on it.

QUESTION: But quite honestly, I mean, they all use this euphemism "this does not represent Islam." But on the other hand, they also agitate and instigate and so on.

MS. HARF: Well, that's a pretty broad --

QUESTION: And sometimes --

MS. HARF: That's a pretty broad statement.

QUESTION: I mean, I follow these things, and sometimes they do --

MS. HARF: As do I.

QUESTION: I mean, is it something that in this conference, as a result of this meeting that is ongoing now, you will have a clear strategy how you're going to address (inaudible) on this particular issue to the governments of Saudi Arabia, the GCC, and other countries?

MS. HARF: Well, Said, look, it is a good question, and it's one – we have been in communication with them about this issue for quite some time, not just now. They recognize the threat. As we've said, the Secretary has travel coming up after the NATO conference to countries in the region. We don't have a full schedule yet for you, but he will be having these conversations, because I think you've seen us working in the past – I mean, take a country like Saudi Arabia. They've had significant threats to their own security in the past from al-Qaida-affiliated groups there. We have worked with them to help them combat that threat. They have enormous capabilities to bring to bear on that threat. We've seen them do it in the past, and we need to bring some of those to bear again now.

QUESTION: Can I jump back to ISIS real quick?

MS. HARF: You can.

QUESTION: The Iraqi ministry of defense has posted some pictures of what they say is a Chinese national who is fighting with ISIS.

MS. HARF: I hadn't seen them.

QUESTION: Have you – so you haven't heard anything about communication with the Chinese on this front or --

MS. HARF: I haven't. I can check. We know there are people from possibly 50 countries that have gone to fight with ISIS, but let me check on that for you.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MS. HARF: You're welcome.

QUESTION: Madam, on --

MS. HARF: I'll go here and then go to you.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can we move to Ukraine and Russia?

QUESTION: ISIS.

MS. HARF: Anything else on ISIS?

QUESTION: ISIS. Yeah, one more.

MS. HARF: Okay, we'll do two more on ISIS. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Speaking of finance of ISIS, we all know that ISIS has significant oil sources – resources --

MS. HARF: Yes, that is true.

QUESTION: -- oil wells. Do you have a clear picture where the ISIS forces sell – which countries they sell this oil --

MS. HARF: That's a good question. Let me see if I can get some more details on that for tomorrow. I don't have details on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: I'm happy to check.

QUESTION: I have also Syria question, but not ISIS question.

MS. HARF: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: From yesterday, I ask about the 12 Syrian women who applied for a visa to come here and be part of the play at Georgetown University, and apparently they were rejected. Do you have further explanation for this reason?

MS. HARF: Well, just a couple points. As you know, visa records are confidential. We cannot discuss individual cases. All applications are reviewed individually in accordance with our rules and regulations under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. There's obviously a standard that people have to meet in general to be given a visa of this nature.

But in general, I think we should make the point about refugees here, that the United States resettles more refugees than the rest of the world combined, period. And I think our commitment to helping with resettlement of refugees is an important one that we take very seriously.

So taking it broader, obviously I can't comment on the specific visa case. This is a commitment we take very seriously. The UNHCR just this year started referring Syrian refugees to the United States for processing. There are several thousand in process right now. It does take some time, given that it is, again, a process. But this is something we're very committed to doing.

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: Do you know how many they have referred and how many are in process?

MS. HARF: Yes. Well, I think all that they've referred, I think, are in the pipeline. There's several thousand Syrian nationals in the pipeline at the moment. I don't have a more specific number than that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: But so far in 2014, U.S. admitted only 63 Syrian refugees.

MS. HARF: Since Fiscal Year 2011, we've resettled 166 Syrian individuals. But again, part of this is because the UNHCR only began this year in mid-2014 referring refugees in large numbers to the United States. That's a process that we're a part of, so I can expect, obviously, we have several thousand in the pipeline, and that number will continue to go up.

QUESTION: Just to follow up ISIS.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Any comments on their recent announcement yesterday that their next mission will be Afghanistan and Pakistan?

MS. HARF: I also saw those reports and think we're probably not in a position to verify those either. But obviously, we're concerned about terrorists looking anywhere to attack. We're constantly vigilant about these kind of threats.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam.

QUESTION: Marie, on the Syrian refugees, how many refugees did the U.S. resettle now from the Syrians?

MS. HARF: So since --

QUESTION: Since the crisis till now?

MS. HARF: Since 2011, it's 166. But again, part of this is there are several thousand in the pipeline now because the UN just started referring large numbers to the U.S. for resettlement. They're the ones who run this resettlement process for countries across the world. So that number will go – continue to go up.

Yes.

QUESTION: Ukraine and Russia?

MS. HARF: We'll go to Ukraine, yes.

QUESTION: Can you confirm what U.S. officials said at the NATO summit that the U.S. is preparing a new batch of sanctions against Russia in coordination with your EU partners?

MS. HARF: What we're doing this week is talking to our partners in the EU, in NATO, but particularly in the EU, about what additional steps and pressure we can put in place on Russia. I don't have anything to preview for you, but that's a constant topic of conversation.

QUESTION: Okay. Related to that, can we --

QUESTION: Can I follow on that just really quickly?

QUESTION: Yep.

QUESTION: Since we're on sanctions?

MS. HARF: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: And the prospect of sanctions?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So many times we've heard from senior U.S. officials that if Mr. Putin did not change course, if he further escalated the situation – and by all accounts, the U.S. now sees that he has done so – that he would face greater costs.

MS. HARF: And he has repeatedly.

QUESTION: But he has not since what this Administration terms an incursion occurred.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And so I just want to get your sense of whether it is an inevitability that he will from this moment forward face still greater costs or whether that's just something that's under discussion and he may not face.

MS. HARF: Well, we have been clear he will continue to face additional pressure. I'm not going to outline what that may look like. Obviously, sanctions are a key part of that toolbox, and we're having those discussions right now. But I don't have anything else to preview for you.

QUESTION: But you can't say that additional sanctions are a certainty at this point?

MS. HARF: Well, what do they say? The only thing in life that's certain are death and taxes? Probably going to leave it there.

QUESTION: Sanctions are a form of tax. (Laughter.)

MS. HARF: Look, we are very clear that we will continue increasing the pressure on Russia. I would expect even possibly additional steps. I'm not going to outline what those are this week, but that's a conversation that's ongoing.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS. HARF: Yep.

QUESTION: Yesterday when asked about the upcoming military – oh sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, related to that. Thank you. On the – can we go back on the – to the French warship?

MS. HARF: We can, yes.

QUESTION: So yesterday Jen Psaki said that it was a wise decision from the French.

MS. HARF: Yes, I agree with Jen Psaki.

QUESTION: Good. Just would like to make sure that you are completely satisfied because if we read carefully what the French said, they don't talk about suspensions; they talk only about a delay to November. And the French president said himself that if the conditions are met, if there is a ceasefire, they will proceed with the delivery of the warship. So are you asking for plain cancellation of the contract as Senator McCain did yesterday?

MS. HARF: I don't always agree with Senator McCain. I won't do that. But we do believe this is a wise decision. We've had constant conversations with them about this. You've named a lot of hypotheticals there, and I'm just not going to get into what might happen. But we do believe that yesterday's decision was a good one.

QUESTION: Well, put it this way: Is there any scenario under which you would think that you would drop your objection to the delivery of these?

MS. HARF: I don't want to speculate on that. Any? Big – that's a big category.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, if Putin did what you wanted him to do and then also got out of Crimea --

MS. HARF: I don't want to speculate on that. We've said right now --

QUESTION: -- would it be okay for the French --

MS. HARF: -- this is not the time to go ahead with these.

QUESTION: But is there ever a good time for the French to sell a warship to the Russians?

MS. HARF: In the eternity of history that is still to come?

QUESTION: Well, no. The past --

MS. HARF: Well, I don't know. That's what you seem to be asking about.

QUESTION: In the past, Peter the Great went to Europe and got a lot of ships. Why not --

MS. HARF: I don't have much more analysis on this, Matt.

QUESTION: All right. So yesterday Jen was asked about these military exercises that you guys are doing with the Ukrainians.

MS. HARF: Yes, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And she talked about how they would contribute to peace and regional stability and build confidence, et cetera. I'm just curious why you believe that considering what you have said about Russian military exercises in Russia with the Russian military on its own soil, and you talked about how those were provocative and not helpful to the situation. So --

MS. HARF: Two points on that if you want me to start there, or do you have more?

QUESTION: Yeah, I just want to know what's – why --

MS. HARF: What's different?

QUESTION: Why are your military exercises good and contributing to stability and Russian military exercises are bad and prevocational?

MS. HARF: Because we're not undertaking armed intervention into other countries. We haven't taken escalatory actions using our military. These exercises are annual. They're pre-planned. They are not being held in response to current events. And I think that should speak for itself.

QUESTION: Right. But whether or not they're annual and whether or not --

MS. HARF: Well, that's important though.

QUESTION: Well, but you --

MS. HARF: We do this every year.

QUESTION: You would agree that Ukraine is unsettled, right, at the moment, to say the least?

MS. HARF: I think unsettled --

QUESTION: It's not a normal situation in Ukraine.

MS. HARF: Because another country has undertaken an armed intervention, which by definition means if that country takes – undertakes exercises, they are seen in a very different context than when NATO does.

QUESTION: For whatever reason --

MS. HARF: Or when we do.

QUESTION: For whatever reason, Ukraine is not a peaceful, stable, country at the moment.

MS. HARF: That reason matters, though.

QUESTION: Yeah, it may.

MS. HARF: It does.

QUESTION: Very well, but not to my question, which is --

MS. HARF: I think it actually does matter to your question.

QUESTION: -- is it wise to stage a military exercise in a country that you say is at war with its much larger neighbor?

MS. HARF: Again, these are exercises that are done on an annual basis that we believe are incredibly important to demonstrate our commitment and our resolve to stand side-by-side our partners in their defense. And we've said that this is why they're so important. They are not in response to recent events. And again, we aren't the ones who have taken escalatory military action; Russia has. So our exercises should be seen in drastically different context given the recent past of both of these different sides of this conflict here.

QUESTION: Right, but the Russian troops – the Russian exercises that you criticized, this is quite apart from the allegations of sending troops across the border.

MS. HARF: But it's related. It's the same country doing it.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but --

MS. HARF: And so how can their exercises not be seen in the context?

QUESTION: But Russian troops training in Russian territory doesn't seem to --

MS. HARF: Well, but how can those exercises not be seen in the context of their intervention --

QUESTION: Well, how can your exercises not be seen in the context of --

MS. HARF: Of what?

QUESTION: -- of the unsettled nature of the conflict in Ukraine?

MS. HARF: Of defending a country that's been intervened in militarily? They're two separate things.

QUESTION: So this is for defense of Ukraine?

MS. HARF: This is for standing by our partners. There's a couple different exercises. We can talk through what those are. But they're designed to increase interoperability, promote regional stability and security, and strengthen our international military partnering.

QUESTION: I understand. That's what Jen said yesterday, and I understand that's what you say, but --

MS. HARF: Again, we're remarkably on the same page.

QUESTION: But you – I don't understand how it is that you can't see that – why the Russians would take the position that they have taken, which is to say that --

MS. HARF: Well, I think it's a convenient one for them to say publicly, but I don't think it has any basis in reality. I can see why they're doing it; I just don't think it's accurate.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: I mean, I – look. You're looking at a country who has intervened in an armed and military way in its neighbor. Of course their military exercises have to be seen in that kind of escalatory context. Everything they're doing with their military in that part of the world right now is escalatory and aggressive and interventionalist. How can you not see their exercises in that context? They are not divorced from each other.

QUESTION: Well, okay. But if – but you say that they're escalatory and that their exercises are provocative. Why is it wrong for the Russians to say that your exercises are provocative?

MS. HARF: Because nothing we've done have been provocative throughout this entire conflict, and everything they've done has been. Again, it's a convenient propaganda talking point, but it's not based in reality --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: -- which is par for the course for them in this conflict.

QUESTION: Marie --

QUESTION: Is there any further clarity on the viability or status of this seven point peace plan that President Putin apparently devised on the plane ride over to Mongolia?

MS. HARF: Those long plane rides. Are you talking about the ceasefire plan that President Poroshenko's spoken about?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

QUESTION: I believe so, yeah.

MS. HARF: Okay. Just making sure we're talking about the same thing. President Poroshenko, I think, did again today say that he has continued his efforts to find a peaceful resolution, which may be able to implement steps to facilitate a peace plan as early as tomorrow. But the situation remains fluid. The continuing conflict in Ukraine's east does not help. And ultimately, it's up to Ukraine and Russia to decide what any peace deal might look like. So that's a conversation we are certainly having with our partners, with the Ukrainians, and it's one that will continue. But again, the situation remains very fluid.

I should also note that the Secretary met with President Poroshenko today at the NATO summit. He reiterated our strong support for Ukraine's sovereignty. They both agreed that Russia must lay down its weapons, stop arming and financing separatists. They also discussed the talks between President Putin and President Poroshenko tomorrow – I think they're tomorrow – and as well as Poroshenko's meeting with President Obama as well. So that was a conversation that happened today at NATO.

QUESTION: One interesting development in the aftermath of President Putin's announcement about this plan was that the Kremlin then announced that it is the Kremlin's view that Russia would not be a party to this agreement because it is the view of the Russia that Russia has not been a party to the conflict. Since the United States --

MS. HARF: That is just like an alternate universe, that they are "not a party to this conflict."

QUESTION: Okay. Well, since the United --

MS. HARF: But what a ceasefire looks like is up to Ukraine and Russia to decide between each other, and a peace deal is up to them to decide between each other. But if Russia is not a party to the conflict, then where did all the Russian military people and weapons and arms and separatists come from?

QUESTION: Is there a ceasefire --

MS. HARF: I would just put that question back to the Kremlin.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, but you mentioned a ceasefire. Isn't there a ceasefire that is supposed to take effect tomorrow --

MS. HARF: So that's what – President Poroshenko's spoken about this a little bit. Obviously, this is an ongoing conversation, but the fighting in eastern Ukraine is still fairly serious. So we're just all watching the situation.

QUESTION: So does that mean – you don't think that the pro-Russian separatists have anything to do with – or should have anything to do with a ceasefire?

MS. HARF: That's not at all what I just said.

QUESTION: Oh, okay. Well, you just said it's between Kyiv and Moscow.

MS. HARF: To decide what a peace deal might look like. Obviously, a ceasefire needs to include the separatists, but who are --

QUESTION: But wouldn't a peace – wouldn't an agreement to end the hostilities also require them?

MS. HARF: I mean, obviously, if there's --

QUESTION: Yes?

MS. HARF: -- going to be one that takes effect, yes, obviously.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can we go to --

MS. HARF: In what regards, I don't know.

QUESTION: Can we go to another topic?

MS. HARF: We can just do a few more, guys, yeah.

QUESTION: Can I have another topic real quick?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm, and then I'll go to you.

QUESTION: The meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday and Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- and his team. Now, we understand Erekat came out after the meeting which took, like, a couple hours and --

MS. HARF: Two hours, yes.

QUESTION: -- said basically they did submit a letter saying or requesting or demanding – or however you want to interpret it – that there be a time limit to ending the occupation. Is that your – also your understanding?

MS. HARF: Well --

QUESTION: And would you support such a timetable whether it's three years or ten years?

MS. HARF: Secretary Kerry did meet with Saeb Erekat yesterday for about two hours. It was a constructive conversation, covered a range of issues including Gaza, Israeli-Palestinian relations, and recent developments in the region. They agreed to keep talking in the weeks ahead, but no further details to share or confirm for you.

QUESTION: All right. When you say they will keep talking in the weeks ahead, Marie, is that through the office that was established with Martin Indyk and he has since left and someone – is that --

MS. HARF: Well, indeed Frank Lowenstein is having follow-up meetings today with Saeb Erekat --

QUESTION: Okay. Now is that --

MS. HARF: -- as the acting special envoy.

QUESTION: Okay. Is that office still in place?

MS. HARF: It is.

QUESTION: Is that team still in place?

MS. HARF: It is, absolutely. They are hard at work.

QUESTION: All right. And suppose that the Palestinians – their next step when the General Assembly convenes around the third week of this month, they go ahead and endeavor to sort of join, like they claim, 500 or so UN agencies and so on – are you telling them that if you – they do this, that you will cease support to the Palestinian Authority?

MS. HARF: I don't have any further details of our conversations to share.

QUESTION: Okay. Because I remember yesterday – that will be my final question – Ambassador Samantha Power came out and actually was very clear any unilateral action is not something that the United States welcomes. But on the other hand, I mean, we --

MS. HARF: Well, of course I agree with her, but I don't have --

QUESTION: Right, but --

MS. HARF: -- more details about our conversations to share.

QUESTION: Okay. But it's also – when you say no unilateral action, you also address yourself to the settlements, correct? And the settlements keep on going. I mean, it is --

MS. HARF: We've been clear with our concern about that. Just two more. In the back – or three more.

QUESTION: I have one on this, just to find out --

MS. HARF: Okay, sorry.

QUESTION: -- if you got an answer. Jen – yesterday, I asked about the allegations of the fishing – infringement on the fishing rights for the Palestinians in Gaza. Did you get an answer on --

MS. HARF: I'm sorry if – yes, I did. We have seen those reports, cannot independently verify them. We have urged all parties to adhere to the terms of the ceasefire, protect civilians, and facilitate the delivery of the humanitarian assistance, but we cannot independently confirm those reports.

QUESTION: Are you – do you know if you're trying to independently confirm them, or have you approached the Israelis about them?

MS. HARF: Let me see if – I can check on that. Let me ask on that. Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: Linda Thomas-Greenfield in Nigeria today announced that the U.S. is launching a border security program for the region. We, of course, have had unarmed drones in the region. Can you elaborate more on what the U.S. is considering, especially taking into account that this is a huge area to patrol?

Secondly, on the same topic, there is a report out today from Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict that talks about brutalities against children in Nigeria, including forced recruitment, detention, attacks, rapes, abductions. Did Thomas-Greenfield get into that issue in her meetings in Nigeria? And if so, what was the content?

MS. HARF: Thank you for the questions. On the first one, Assistant Secretary Linda Thomas-Greenfield is in Nigeria through Friday to participate in a number of meetings on regional security. Today, she co-chaired the U.S.-Nigeria Binational Commission's Regional Security Working Group. She did tell the gathering that the United States is close to announcing the launch of a major border security program under our Global Security Contingency Fund launched by President Obama during the recent U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. It will include Nigeria and its neighbors Cameroon, Chad, and Niger. She also said the U.S. is committed to helping the Government of Nigeria address the threat posed by Boko Haram and urged them to adopt a comprehensive approach that protects their citizens.

So that was a conversation she had today. As more details for the plan are put in place, we'll be happy to share them. I do note that the UN Secretary-General had a recent report on children in armed conflict. We, obviously, are very concerned about particularly the terrorist group Boko Haram who has committed terrible abuses against children, including recruiting them and killing them and maiming hundreds of them, and directly targeting schools for attacks. So we've obviously condemned this action. It's something we're very concerned about. We've also continued to press the Nigerian Government to adopt an approach to this, and it's a conversation that is ongoing.

James Rosen.

QUESTION: With an eye toward history, we saw a very unusual scene unfold here yesterday where the Secretary was joined by five of his predecessors --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- for the groundbreaking of the new U.S. Diplomacy Center.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And I wonder if you might be able to share with us anything about that unusual gathering that was not visible to the naked eye to observers at the groundbreaking, and also whether the Secretary received any particular advice from any of the historic figures who joined him on some of the pressing issues that we have discussed in this very briefing.

MS. HARF: That's a very good question, James, and a question I do not know the answer to. I'll have a conversation with him and see if we can maybe talk about that a little bit tomorrow if I get anything on that.

I know he was very happy to welcome them here. If you just looked at photos and the video, it was quite an amazing event, actually, to have them all here for this event. We were very proud of it. And the new Diplomacy Center will be a very cool thing indeed. But let me see if there's more to share on his conversations.

QUESTION: It will be a very cool thing?

MS. HARF: Cool. It's a technical term. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yes, apparently.

MS. HARF: I'm sure everyone on Twitter will now make fun of me, but --

QUESTION: I'm not trying to make --

MS. HARF: That would be par for the course as well.

QUESTION: I'm not trying to make fun of you. I just have one very extremely brief one, and that is the Iraqi Government formation --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- was supposed happen this week. Is it --

MS. HARF: Nah, no, I think we were tracking towards that the 10th or 11th is – as when the deadline is.

QUESTION: All right. Okay, so --

MS. HARF: Deadline. The 30 days.

QUESTION: -- that's your understanding --

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- is that it's still on track?

MS. HARF: Yes, yes, moving forward.

QUESTION: Yeah?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So the same as the Afghan presidential election?

MS. HARF: They're completely different, Matt.

QUESTION: But they still could happen on the same day.

MS. HARF: I will say – although here, since you bring up --

QUESTION: Yeah. The same time when it will be okay for the French to send a ship to the Russians.

MS. HARF: That was just a sigh of exasperation. No. Since you brought it up though, on Afghanistan just a very quick update. Today, both Dr. Ghani and Dr. Abdullah jointly issued a statement to NATO summit participants that did a couple important things, and I just want to highlight them: reaffirmed their belief in an inclusive political vision; said they will form a government of national unity that will honor the participation of their people in the process; and both again publicly committed to signing the BSA after the inauguration. So those, I think, are important things. The audit process is moving forward.

QUESTION: Yeah, but that's like the third or fourth time they said that.

MS. HARF: Well, there's --

QUESTION: And every time they say it, two days later they come out and they're at each other's throats again --

MS. HARF: The process is moving forward.

QUESTION: -- and one of them was pulling out and the other one is threatening to. So I mean, what --

MS. HARF: The audit and adjudication process is ongoing. It is complicated, it is tricky, but it is ongoing.

QUESTION: How is it complicated and tricky?

MS. HARF: Politics is messy.

QUESTION: No, what is hard here is accepting the result, for the loser to accept the result. That's what the hard thing is here.

MS. HARF: I think that's hard for anyone.

QUESTION: Is there any --

MS. HARF: But we're working --

QUESTION: Do you have any confidence at all that whoever ends up losing this election is actually going to accept defeat?

MS. HARF: We do.

QUESTION: You do.

MS. HARF: A couple more. Yes, two more (inaudible).

QUESTION: Do you have any initial information from Secretary Kerry's meeting today with the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia?

MS. HARF: I don't believe it's happened yet. I think it was supposed to happen – or maybe it's happened while I've been out here. So let me see if I can get that after the briefing. And then he has a dinner this evening as well.

Last one. Yes.

QUESTION: I have two questions.

MS. HARF: Last two.

QUESTION: What is the United States Government's definition of what constitutes an act of war?

MS. HARF: A legal definition?

QUESTION: Whatever definition to want to share.

MS. HARF: I'm happy to check with our lawyers on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: Happy to check.

QUESTION: Number two would be: How many Arab and Muslim leaders at the national level and international level are actively speaking out against ISIS and willing to be an active part of the U.S. allied coalition to defeat this terrorist group?

MS. HARF: Well, let's start with all of the leaders in Iraq who've spoken out very strongly against ISIS, the threat it poses to their own country, indeed asked the United States to undertake military action to help them in their fight against ISIS. So we can start with a whole large number of leaders in Iraq.

QUESTION: So Iraq is one.

MS. HARF: Let me continue. One country with a number of leaders – Sunni, Shia and Kurd – who've spoken out against it. The leadership of the Syrian moderate opposition who we work with – very clear they are fighting a threat against ISIS. I think there have been leaders in other countries, whether it's countries in the Gulf. There have been, as I mentioned, religious leaders like the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia and others who have spoken out very clearly against what ISIS is doing. I'm happy to provide you a longer, more comprehensive list. I can put that together for tomorrow's briefing.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

QUESTION: If you go alphabetically, you can start with Assad, right?

MS. HARF: I can put that together for tomorrow's briefing.

QUESTION: Was that not correct? Would that not be correct?

MS. HARF: Probably not --

QUESTION: Wouldn't an alphabetical list of people who – of Arab leaders who are fighting ISIS --

MS. HARF: I'm now I'm desperately trying to think of an --

QUESTION: -- begin with Assad?

MS. HARF: Actually, Haider Al-Abadi. Let's start alphabetically.

QUESTION: All right. Well, wouldn't Assad be on there?

MS. HARF: Ooh, look at that.

QUESTION: Wouldn't Assad --

MS. HARF: Look at that.

QUESTION: Wouldn't Assad be --

MS. HARF: Look at that. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Wouldn't Assad be on the list? (Laughter.)

MS. HARF: Ah.

QUESTION: Wouldn't Assad be on the list?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) a transcriber. I really do.

MS. HARF: And the last question for today. Yes.

QUESTION: If you need any help with your list, I'm sure Matt has just volunteered to help you put it together.

MS. HARF: We're actually going to go work on it together, so if anyone else would like to join.

Samir, last question.

QUESTION: Yes. You mentioned Haider Al-Abadi.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Did you know of any progress he is doing?

MS. HARF: He's working on it. They are moving forward. They are tracking towards when we think they need to have a new government in place, and hopefully we'll continue making progress.

QUESTION: Any positive statements?

MS. HARF: I can check and see if there's anything new, but he has been saying many of the right things, doing a lot of the right things. We do think he is moving towards a new government soon.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:59 p.m.)