Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Tuesday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Tuesday on C-SPAN, cybersecurity officials discuss ways the federal government is making progress on improving infrastructure and resilience to potential cyber threats.
That's live at 11:30 a.m. Eastern.
Then at 1 p.m., the Federalist Society is hosting a conversation on the incoming Trump administration's agenda for the Securities and Exchange Commission by considering the future of cryptocurrency, climate regulations, and the agency's new enforcement approach.
Again, that's on C-SPAN.
Also on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.
Next, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller briefs reporters on a possible ceasefire between Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
He also comments on the International Criminal Court's decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli officials and Russia's use of North Korean soldiers in its war with Ukraine.
This is just under an hour.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Sorry to be a few minutes late.
Sorry to start the briefing a little late.
Let's get going, Matt.
You don't want to give us a review of the turkey pardon?
The turkey pardon was great, actually.
My kids got, in addition to seeing, what were they, Peach and Blossom being released on their own recognizance, my kids got to meet the president and shake his hand, take a selfie with him.
So it was a, as far as far as events were a great success and worthy pushing the briefing back 45 minutes, but I am sorry that you had to wait.
Right.
Okay.
Well, now, with that important news of the day out of the way, what I realize that your colleague at the White House, Admiral Kirby, was asked about this multiple times and isn't going to give an answer, and I don't expect you're going to give any answers too.
But what is your understanding of the status of this proposal right now?
Yeah, so as the Lebanon one.
Yeah, I know what you're saying.
You won't be surprised that things have not changed markedly in the hour and a half, two hours since he spoke to the press.
What I'd say is we have made significant progress with getting towards a resolution that includes progress from where we were when I spoke to this last week, but we're not done yet.
Nothing is final until everything is final.
We continue to work to try and get an agreement over the line, and we're hopeful we can get one, but we need both of the parties to get to yes.
Okay.
Do you have, off the top of your head, an idea of how many times you guys, U.S. officials, have said exactly those words as it regards to Lebanon dating back to September, late September.
Yeah.
And as it regards Gaza going back to, you know, almost a couple days or a week or so after the October 7th attacks.
I can tell you we are painfully aware because this has been an incredibly frustrating process, both getting to a ceasefire and a diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Lebanon and also the many rounds and negotiations to get a ceasefire in Gaza.
There are any number of stages where we have hoped that the parties would get to an agreement.
And remember, that's what it requires in these cases.
It's not the United States, but the parties to the agreement to say yes.
There have been many times when we thought we were going to be getting to yes in both cases, and for various reasons, the parties didn't get there.
That said, we believe we are close here, but that's why you heard me come out and say nothing's final until everything is final, because we know we don't have a deal until there's one that has been fully agreed to by both sides.
So, why do you think it is, and I'm not asking you to get inside their heads necessarily, but that there are people in this government who are running around on background repeatedly giving overly optimistic assessments of where things stand.
Look, I am always reluctant to speak to the comments that people make on background because you know there are any number of government officials with oftentimes with differing assessments about the same situation.
I will say, speaking to where I believe we are, I've said we're close because I do believe we're close, but that doesn't mean we're going to get there.
We need the parties to say yes, and hopefully, that'll happen.
Right, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to believe these assessments because they've been wrong every single time.
So, here's the thing.
And I realize that you're wrong until you're right.
So, you're right about wrong until you're right, but there's also, you know, there's the George Mitchell quote you often hear the Secretary referred to about diplomacy being 500 days of failure leading to one day of success.
That's often how these agreements work.
But you should know that when typically when we say we're close, we have the caveat that nothing is final until everything is final and that it takes the parties actually saying yes and getting there.
I think you've also heard the secretary say that oftentimes the very last stages of an agreement are the most difficult because the hardest issues are left to the end.
That, of course, is true.
Hopefully, we'll get there with an agreement.
We are pushing as hard as we can to get a diplomatic resolution that would allow these tens of thousands of people in Lebanon, Israel to return home.
But ultimately, that's up to the parties, not to us.
You could speak to the same conflict, there was a huge strike on Beirut on Saturday, and some are reporting that it seemed to be a bunker buster bomb.
You know, those are bombs that the U.S. has provided to Israel.
Do you have any information on whether that was that was used?
Do you have any concerns about that kind of strike on a residential area central Beirut?
So, I can't speak to this specific strike.
I don't know what it was that they were targeting.
I can tell you that we have been concerned about escalation in central Beirut.
And when there were near-daily attacks on Beirut, we made it clear to Israel that we had concerns about those.
And we saw those attacks dial back.
Now, there are still legitimate targets that Israel has the right to go after, but how they do so matters very much.
But I will tell you, just broadly speaking, our concerns about the way that this conflict could continue to escalate is one of the reasons why we have pushed so hard to get a diplomatic resolution that would bring it to a close.
I have other questions, but I'll put it in.
Thank you.
Just sticking to the Middle East, there was a report in the Financial Times that Russia has recruited hundreds of Yemeni mercenaries.
I was wondering if you had anything on that.
So we have seen those reports of them luring foreign nationals, including potentially Yemeni nationals, with promises of jobs, citizenship, university admissions, to fight in the war against Ukraine.
There's nothing that we could really comment on at this point, but I would say that's definitely something that concerns us.
We have seen these reports, I should note, not just with respect to Yemen, but you've seen them at times with respect to other countries, reports that Russia was trying to recruit mercenaries.
So it would not surprise me at all, given the desperation that we have seen Russia face where they've had to recruit a foreign army to come into Russia to join the fight, that they would be recruiting mercenaries in Yemen and beyond, but it's not something I can confirm.
Yeah, Saeed, go ahead.
I'll come over to ask Michelle.
Thank you, Matt.
I'm intrigued by the 500 days.
By the way, thank you last week.
Appreciate it.
I'm intrigued by the 500 days of failure, you know, diplomacy being 500 days of failure and one day of success.
It was a George.
We're only 412 days on.
So this was a, so just so you know the full context, if you've heard this, it was George Mitchell's quote.
Real quick.
It was George Mitchell's quote with respect to the Good Friday Accord.
No, I understand.
I'm just saying.
I wanted to ask you about your veto last week.
I know that my colleagues asked this question.
I wasn't here.
But I wanted to ask you, what is exactly the language that you would have inserted or added to agree on this?
Could you share with us?
So I did ask to answer this question when Matt asked it to me last week and had a potential suggestion.
I appreciate your indulgence.
I'm more than happy.
But I will tell you, I went back after the briefing and looked at the exact language that we had proposed.
I'm happy to share it with you because I do still, to this day, fail to understand why it is that other countries on the council wouldn't agree to it.
So one potential language would be demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire to include the release of all hostages.
That's a proposal the United States put forward that was rejected by other members of the council.
Other would be to demand that the parties take immediate steps to end the war, including the unconditional release of all hostages and facilitating extended humanitarian pauses so aid reaches civilians in Gaza.
That also was language that other members of the council rejected.
I don't understand why.
I can't speak to them, but to me, this seems like unobjectionable language that calls for both an end to the war, a ceasefire, and the release of hostages.
But 14 other members found the language to be acceptable.
Sure, you know, not.
Sure, and we disagree about the language that we ultimately opposed.
We thought that language did not link the release of hostages with a ceasefire, and that's why we opposed it.
But others can speak to why they supported the language they did.
We didn't find that to be a sufficient linkage.
But to the question of our alternative language, I think the language I put forward right now makes pretty clear that we were ready to call for an immediate ceasefire.
We're ready to call for an end to the war, as we have done consistently, as we have in a previous Security Council resolution that we supported.
But we believe we have to be clear that includes the release of hostages.
But all diplomats and all experts, all legal experts, said that it was included.
They did call for the release of the hostages immediately.
It is called for in the resolution itself.
No, it did.
I don't have to dispute that.
It did not link it to a ceasefire.
And that's something that we have said from the beginning is important to the United States.
Okay, let me just ask you about the...
No, no, there was one that we supported, the one in June, the United States, the Security Council resolution in June.
Language is okay, but the language you abstained on in March, what's the difference between that language and this current?
I'd have to go back and look at the March language.
There have been so many resolutions.
I honestly don't.
I don't remember that.
There's the one in June that we supported, and it's very different than the one in March.
I'd have to go back and look at that.
Okay.
All right.
Let me ask you on the ICC ruling.
Now, many of your allies, including countries in the European Union, most countries in the European Union and others, they have agreed to this ruling, maybe with the exception of Hungary or a couple of other places.
Do you consider Let Nia to be a war criminal?
So that certainly is not an assessment that we have made.
And I will tell you that we have been clear that we, number one, do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction in this matter.
And two, that we have had real concerns about this proceeding on its own, grounded fundamentally in the rules of the court, that this is supposed to be a court of limited jurisdiction, grounded in the rules of complementarity.
When there are countries that have investigations going on, and we know that Israel has hundreds of open investigations into potential violations of international humanitarian law or violations of the IDF's own code of conduct, that the ICC is supposed to be a court of last resort after those investigations have proceeded.
And we have seen them take that seriously in other cases.
With respect to Venezuela, for example, where they have waited until the end of a country's proceedings before moving forward, they declined to do so here, and that's why we have the concerns that we have.
Do you believe that the ICC should continue to do its work?
It should not be sort of sanctioned or pursued by, you know, I mean, we heard Senator Kottl, for instance, they wanted to invade the Mars.
I don't have any comment on the comments on the lines you hear from the Hill.
We are consulting with our allies and partners about this decision and how to respond to it.
I don't have anything to do with that.
Let me ask you one last question on this issue.
We know that the former- It's talking about the treaty you get.
You're going to get a taken question on that one.
Go ahead.
Former Minister of Defense, Israeli Minister Dance, will be coming to the United States soon, I guess.
Is that just like a message saying new ruling, that's not a point.
The former Minister of Defense?
Yes, Mr. Gamma.
I'm not aware of his travel, but look, the United States is not a party to the ICC in any event, has never been a party to the ICC.
Thank you.
Michelle, I said, come to next.
Questions on Lebanon.
First, Israel said yes to the agreement and Lebanon too, but why you didn't announce it yet?
I am glad that you are able to put facts on the table that I have not spoken to.
What's that?
Oh, I know that's what's wrong.
Yeah, oftentimes there are a number of things reported that either are incorrect or a little bit off.
Look, we don't believe we have an agreement yet.
We believe we're close to an agreement.
We believe that we have narrowed the gap significantly, but there are still steps that we need to see taken.
But we hope that we can get there.
I ask you this question, and I will try one more time.
What role will the U.S. play in implementing the agreement?
Look, you are right.
You did ask me that question last week, and I wasn't willing to speak to it because we didn't have an agreement final.
We still don't have one final.
And unless until we get one, I'm just not going to speak to any underlying provisions of that agreement.
And can the U.S. observe the implementation of the agreement since you don't have any troops on the ground?
Again, when it comes to everything in this potential agreement, I'm just not going to speak to any underground.
I will keep trying beside the U.S. Will France and the UK be part of the Commission that will observe the implementation of the MSU.
I think I very obviously have the same answers I've given, or same non-answer I've given in response to the previous.
Finally, can Syria and the Assad regime play any role in preventing the flow of arms from Syria to Hezbollah?
Look, hypothetically, Syria, of course, could play a role in preventing arms from being trafficked through its territory.
It's not a role that we have seen them play today, but yes, of course, that's something that they could do.
Are you talking to them?
No, I don't have anything beyond that.
You asked me a hypothetical question.
I don't have anything beyond that further.
Thank you.
Michelle in the back.
I want to follow up on Lebanon.
You know, President-elect Trump has said that he wants to end that war.
Have they been, has his team at all been helpful?
Or would you like them to be helpful to get this across the bench?
I'm not aware of any conversations between our team and his team about this.
There may have been, you know, there are a lot of people that claim to be close to the former and future president.
There are obviously a number of people inside this administration.
I can't rule out that somebody had a conversation at one point, but I'm not aware of any conversation.
Look, anything that anyone could do to help get a diplomatic resolution is something that we would support, but I don't have anything specific to speak to.
Yeah, Tadia.
Maybe from Lebanon again, and then I have a question on the ICC.
On Lebanon, so is this your understanding, since Netanyahu said in principle that he agreed to the agreement, that he's waiting now for the cabinet to approve it?
Is this the only thing that we're waiting for?
I am not going to get into that sort of underlying detail.
It is up for the government of Israel to determine what constitutes approval under their system.
And we do not yet have an agreement between the government of Israel and the governor of Lebanon, and we're working to get one.
Okay.
But the six-to-day ceasefire, is this your understanding again?
Is the implementation of cessation of hostilities will start once they agreed on that within this period, or do you think this is just a temporary agreement and then we will sort out the details later?
Look, I appreciate the question the same way I appreciate all of Michelle's questions.
I'm just not going to get into underlying details of an agreement that is not yet final yet, or is not yet final.
We have made significant progress.
I think it would be extremely unfortunate if my in any way talking about the underlying details from the podium today while we were trying to bridge the final differences somehow undid the very important work that has happened.
So I unfortunately have to talk about the points of John Kirby as well.
Well, I think John Kirby is being equally responsible and not talking about an agreement that is still being negotiated.
Sure, fair enough.
On the ICC, you vehemently disagree with the decision.
Does a legal scholar who is a Holocaust survivor and a former Israeli ambassador who weighed heavily into this decision does it take into account at all?
Do you think that somebody like him who decided that actually there is reasonable ground to consider Netanyahu and his defense minister as war criminals?
Do you think that doesn't count at all?
Look, we certainly do not begrudge anyone their considered opinion, including legal scholars who have come to the opposite conclusion from the United States.
But it has been the consistent view of the United States, going back for a number of administrations, that they just do not, that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this matter.
Okay.
You said you're not going to comment on Cotton or Lindsey Graham that he wants to destroy the economy of your allies, including France and Canada and whatever.
But the White House said that actually they're going to consider the next steps, what they're going to do later on.
What exactly?
And actually, Karin said they're going to consult with allies.
I mean, most of these allies already sided against you.
So what exactly are the steps that you might consider apart from sanctioning the ICC?
So you just heard me a moment ago say that we are going to consult with our allies and partners on this question.
I'm not going to try and get ahead of those conversations.
We're going to talk to a number of partners of ours and make a decision about how we move forward, but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to try to get ahead of that process before it is taking place.
Is it more than sanctions or within the city?
Again, these are conversations we're going to have with our allies and partners.
I shouldn't get ahead of it here.
So what is your position on whether other countries that are members should follow the arrest warrant?
But we have made clear that we disagree with this ruling and we have serious concerns both with it from a jurisdiction both from a jurisdictional perspective and also from a process perspective.
Every other country has to make their own decisions under their law and their systems, how they're going to react to it.
So when the Secretary was, I think last year it was where he was talking about the warrant for Vladimir Putin said, this was in the Senate, said any country that's party to the court has obligations and should fulfill those obligations.
So should countries' obligations to international treaties be sort of selective in this way?
No, every country has to make their decision.
Every country has to make that decision for themselves.
But I don't think there is any equivalence between the case that the ICC has brought against Russia and the case that it has brought against Israel.
When you look at the difference between the two countries, Russia is not a democracy, does not have a functioning independent legal system, is not investigating violations of international humanitarian law by its soldiers.
Israel is the opposite in all of those cases, a democracy with an independent court system that has hundreds of open cases into allegations against its soldiers.
It is important that those processes be allowed to proceed.
That is the principle of complementarity under which the ICC was founded.
Now, when it comes to countries making the decisions, they all have to make their own decisions in the same way that the United States has.
So that's one huge similarity between both Israel and Russia is that neither are members of the ICC.
Just like you.
Yeah, also correct.
Also correct.
Okay.
Well, if they don't have jurisdiction over Israel, why should they have jurisdiction over Ukraine?
So Ukraine is not a member.
Ukraine is a sovereign state, however, that has granted its jurisdiction to another country.
I think it might have been Poland.
Another country and allowed that country to intervene for them, which is something that sovereign states can do.
There is no sovereign state of Palestine.
We want to establish a Palestinian state, but that is the fundamental nature of our jurisdictional disagreement with the court on this matter.
Okay, it's still your position that other countries, if Vladimir Putin or other Russian officials who've been granted arrest warrants against them, come to their countries, they should be arrested.
Yes, but ultimately that is a decision that every country has to make for itself.
And this feels like a different universe now, but there was a time when this administration was talking quite very positively about the ICC.
Obviously, the U.S. is not a party, but there was an agreement or the president granted or asked agencies to share information with the ICC on the Russia-Ukraine case.
Is that still something that this administration is doing?
Are you saying intelligence and information with the ICC?
I'll have to take that back and get you an answer.
I don't have any current read on what our actions have been in terms of supplying them information on that case.
Yeah, go ahead.
Do you have any further information that you can share about the sticking points?
I do not.
I do not.
It gets into this question that I've declined to answer about underlying details.
And has the U.S. been asked by Israel to give a letter of assurances, including for any Israeli administration?
That also goes to, it's going to be a short briefing if I'm going to be declining all these questions.
No, it also goes to the underlying details of the case of the negotiations, which I just can't in good conscience speak to from here publicly.
Yeah.
Thank you.
So my first question with the ICC.
Iran's Supreme Leader today called for death sentence for Israeli leaders.
So I wanted to get your take.
And does this kind of Position by the Supreme Leader in Iran increases the tension that U.S. tries to subside in the region.
So, those comments, I'd say, are unfortunately what we would expect from the leader of a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism.
When it comes to tensions in the region, obviously, those comments are not helpful.
And I would say, as we have said before, that Iran should not further escalate this conflict, should not respond to Israel in any way, should not take any further steps to heighten tensions in the region.
Do you have a new assessment of Iran's readiness to retaliate against Israel?
I don't.
I mean, that goes to the point I was just referring to.
So, I think we were very clear after Israel took its limited actions several weeks ago now that that should be the end of it.
That should be the end of direct fire between Israel and Iran.
And that remains our position.
Iran nuclear talks, it says to begin at the end of this week in Geneva, Iran, and E3.
Will the U.S. be joining even indirectly in those talks?
No, we will not be joining those talks.
We are closely coordinating with our E3 partners regarding Iran's full implementation of its nuclear safeguards obligations and holding Iran accountable for its failure to meet those obligations.
We have made it clear that Iran must provide full cooperation, Iran must provide full cooperation with the IEA without further delay and will continue to closely coordinate with the governments of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
Do you find it to be your assessment to Iran's response to the censure they received from the IEA Board of Governor?
What was the first part of the question?
Is it your assessment that Iran's announced its readiness to talk to the EU?
Yeah, it was there.
So, look, I would just say we're concerned with Iran's announcement that it's choosing the path of continued escalation instead of cooperating with the IAEA.
Its continued production and accumulation of uranium, enriched up to 60%, has no credible civilian justification.
The IAEA Board of Governors has been clear that Iran must provide full cooperation with the IAEA without delay in order to resolve questions related to its legal obligations that have been outstanding for more than five years.
And we will continue to coordinate with our E3 partners to hold Iran accountable.
Thank you.
Yeah, go ahead.
I don't know if you were asked this question because I was doing my live show.
On Lebanon, I know you don't want to elaborate, but the question is: if there is no deal, would it be fair to say this would be the last chance?
I don't want to speculate about what might happen.
We want to get a deal, and we believe that we are close.
We will always try to pursue diplomacy to resolve this conflict.
But I don't want to speculate about an outcome that I hope, I don't want to speculate about an outcome that we hope doesn't take place, right?
We want to get a deal.
I don't want to speculate about what would happen if we don't get one.
Okay, from what we've learned, this would be a ceasefire for 60 days, whatever you want.
You don't want to confirm, I understand.
But the thing is, who would be following up on that?
There are rumors that Hochstein is leaving his position.
So, is the State Department going to be involved?
Are you going to follow up also on the internal politics mediation in Lebanon when it comes to the president to elect a president to have a new government?
What are the plans?
So, the United States will continue to say engage on this question.
I obviously can't speak for what will happen post-January 20th.
be a new set of people making decisions about the the United States role in the region but it's certainly in the interest of the United States to continue to push for diplomacy and to continue to resolve this conflict and ultimately to see that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is implemented.
It's an important thing that we are trying to achieve under this resolution and that is something that will require work by the parties.
Should we get this agreement, it will require work by the parties going forward and I do believe it is in the interest of the United States states to stay engaged on that matter whether it is our administration or the next one.
Since you raised up 1701, will we have another Security Council resolution regarding this agreement or statement from the Security Council since you will preside over the Security Council next month?
Look, I just don't want to get ahead of where things stand today.
We want to get a resolution first.
Should we get a resolution?
You will hear from us about the answers to all the questions that you have been putting to me today and many others, including potentially a Security Council resolution, but I just don't want to get that.
I don't want to get into that today.
Yeah, Channy.
I have a couple of questions on Russia, Ukraine, and North Korea.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rutenko said that if South Korea provide lethal weapons to Ukraine, the relationship between the two countries will be completely destroyed.
And the United States is also responsible for this.
How will you react to this?
Look, I don't want to deal with the hypothetical situation, but it is Russia and Russia alone that is responsible for the very real security concerns that South Korea and the United States and Japan and any number of other countries have about the movement of DPRK troops to join the fight in Russia against Ukraine.
Secondly, Ukraine media reported that 500 North Korean soldiers killed by Ukrainian strikes in Crucucius are North Korean troops deployed into combat and currently fighting against Ukraine.
What is the situation up there?
So we have seen North Korean troops in our combat operations with respect to any kind of damage assessment.
I would refer to the government of Ukraine to make those.
South Korean National Security Office announced that in return for North Korea sending long-land artillery and artillery power to operate it to Russia, Russia has already given North Korea anti-aircraft missile and other air defense equipment.
How do you confirm this?
Do you have any information about that?
I don't, I am not able to confirm that today.
Thanks, Matt.
You mentioned that one of the things that distinguishes Israel from Russia is the fact that it has hundreds of open investigations into its own people and events.
The State Department, of course, has dozens of investigations into some of those events as well.
Any update on those?
No, they're ongoing.
And what happens on January 20th?
So the assessments that we are conducting about compliance with international humanitarian law are assessments that are required under the law.
They are not discretionary assessments made by this department.
They're things that we are required to do, and that is true regardless of who the President is.
Thank you.
Human Rights Watch has reported today that an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon last month which killed three journalists constitutes an apparent war crime and U.S.-made arms were also used in these incidents, according to the report.
Have you seen the report, and is the US assessing the use of its weapons in this incident, like the others reported, other 500 others?
So, I have seen the public reference to the report.
I'm sure there are people inside the administration, inside the department, who have actually looked at the report.
We generally do take these reports very seriously when we see them from non-governmental organizations, but I don't have any kind of further assessment, either to the type of weapon that was used or to the nature of the strike itself.
And there were similar, like, you know, reportedly 500 such incidents that were being investigated by the State Department.
Any confliction in any of the no, just as I said in response to Willie's question, we have a number of assessments that are ongoing.
I don't have any further status to update on those.
Yeah, thank you, Matt.
On the potential Israeli attack in Iraq, the Iraqi government this week they went to Security Council, the Arab EQ, and also the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
And there are the Iraqi diplomats saying that they reach out to the U.S. How they reach out to you, and what's your position on this?
So, we have had a number of conversations with the government of Iraq about this underlying question, as you know, because I've spoken to you about them a number of times from this podium.
And that our position has been clear that the Iran-aligned militia groups inside Iraq risk destabilizing Iraq.
They risk dragging the country into a regional war by conducting unsanctioned attacks both within Iraq and outside of Iraq's borders.
And look, we have a strong security partnership with the government of Iraq, and we have warned them about the dangers posed by armed groups acting independently and against Iraq's interests, and we'll continue to do so.
Yeah, these group is especially Qatar Paswala, the Islamic Consistency Group, they issued a statement and they said that they keep continuing attacking Israel.
So, do you think Israel has rights to defend themselves against these groups and attacking these groups inside Iraq?
So, every country has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks.
That's a true statement about every country in the world.
But we have been trying through diplomatic engagements as well as through our deterrent activities to prevent an escalation of this conflict and to prevent other countries from being dragged into this conflict.
And that, of course, includes Iraq, which is why we have been clear with the government of Iraq that it must do everything possible to prevent these types of attacks from inside its own borders.
And lastly, the Iraqi government says that the U.S. has an obligation to deter these threats under the third section of the Strategic Framework Agreement between the U.S. government and Iraqi government.
Do you think that you have this obligation to deter these threats on Iraq?
I'm not going to speak to that publicly.
We'll continue to discuss that with our Iraqi partners.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, there are suicide bombings, sectarian clashes, political chaos, and right now, thousands of Pakistani people are protesting and clashing with the police force and demanding the release of their political leader.
What are your thoughts when you see such kind of like a country like Pakistan going through such turmoil?
Right.
So, in Pakistan and around the world, we support freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association.
We call on protesters to demonstrate peacefully and refrain from violence.
And at the same time, we call on Pakistani authorities to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to ensure respect for Pakistan's laws and constitution as they work to maintain law and order.
So, U.S. prosecutors have charged Indian billionaire Adani with fraud and bribery.
The leader of the opposition in India, Rahul Gandhi, has demanded the immediate arrest of Adani and alleged that Prime Minister Moody is protecting him.
Is this something you support, such as the arrest investigation?
If that is a law enforcement matter, I would defer to my colleagues at the Department of Justice to speak to it.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Matt, regarding the protests going on in Pakistan, yesterday in almost 10 major cities in the U.S., those similar protests happened where they are demanding the release of Imran Khan.
Right now, just 15 minutes ago, 20 people in the protests were shot.
They are injured now.
Your reaction to that and how do you see the future of Pakistan?
Is it starting to look like Bangladesh or not yet?
Look, I don't have any further comment than what I said a moment ago: that we support the right of people inside Pakistan to protest peacefully, and we call on the Pakistani authorities to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Just last one: a lot of journalists, international journalists, and I want to include myself in it too, are a little concerned about how the upcoming administration is going to be treating the media.
Is there anything you can at least tell them to boost them up, not to be too scared about the treatment?
No, there's nothing.
Look, look, I think we have shown since day one of this administration the respect we have for the independent media.
No, no, no.
Talk about the future of the coming one to be very harsh.
Just let me give my answer.
We have shown since day one the respect that we have for the independent media.
That's why we hold these briefings, because we believe it's important to come here and take questions.
And I certainly believe that that is true and will continue to be true, that it's an important check on power for administrations of both parties.
But I don't suspect that the incoming administration is necessarily going to look to me for advice on that question.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
So, Mr. Kirby today very much seemed to confirm that Ukraine is allowed to use attack on Russia, as you said, in and around Kursk, Abless.
So, given your previous reticence to clarify it, I mean, can you clarify that it was a confirmation?
No, I don't have anything further to say on that.
Okay, so in light of the recent experimental IRBM strike in Newcroft, are you considering changing your approach?
No, we have not.
When it comes, so two ways to interpret that question, and I'll answer them both ways.
When it comes to nuclear posture, if that's the approach that you meant, no.
We have not changed our underlying nuclear posture and don't anticipate the need to do so.
When it comes to our overall approach with respect to Ukraine, no, we will continue to support Ukraine.
We believe in their fight for their freedom.
We believe in their fight against a country that has tried to change the borders of Ukraine by force, and we're going to continue to support them.
And Lamond reported today that there are discussions between the French and the British about deploying troops to Ukraine.
I take it you're not going to do it yourself, but do you have any reaction to that?
No, I don't have any comment on that.
Said, come back to you.
On the settlers, you know, about the Israeli Defense Minister, Mr. Katz, that decided to release the settlers that are in administrative detention.
I mean, there are a handful.
There are like thousands of Palestinians in the mistry.
Do you have any comment on that?
Yeah, so we see the announcement that administrative detentions will no longer be applied to extremist Israeli settlers as a rolling back of one of the limited tools that was effectively being used by the Israeli government to rein in this illegal activity.
As you know, Saeed, we are incredibly concerned about the increasing extremist violence in the West Bank, including assaults on civilians, forced displacement of Palestinian communities, and the willful destruction of homes and farms.
We have called on the government of Israel repeatedly to take further actions to deter extremist settler violence and to hold those engaging in it accountable.
And as you have seen, with the actions that we have taken over the past year, we are also committed to continuing to take our own actions to hold Palestinians.
Have you spoken to the Israeli officials on this issue?
So the Secretary has not spoken with Minister Katz since this announcement was made.
I know that the Secretary of Defense had a call with him over the weekend.
And when it comes to the substance of that call, I would defer to my colleagues at the Pentagon.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Yeah, really good.
Now, just on the sanctions, is there anything the State Department can do to calcify the sanctions that you've already put in place?
So the sanctions that we have put in place are decisions by the executive branch under authority given to us in the State Department's case, and I believe it's true in the Treasury Department's case as well, by an executive order signed by the President.
Executive actions, unlike statutes, can be reversed by future executives, and executive orders issued by one president can be withdrawn by future presidents.
I know that is an unsatisfactory answer to a number of people, but that is the nature of our system.
Coming back to Lebanon, there's a Human Rights Watch report today based on some research that they've done about an Israeli airstrike on October 25th that killed three journalists and injured four others.
They say it seemed to be a deliberate attack on civilians and apparent war crime and found that it used a U.S.-produced J-DAM guidance kit.
Is that something you've looked into?
I think that's the same one I got asked about a moment ago when I said that I had seen the reports about it.
I'm sure that there are people inside the department who have actually reviewed the underlying report itself that was issued by Human Rights Watch.
We take all these things very seriously and look at them, but I don't have any assessment about either the type of munition that was used or the underlying event itself.
I'm going to come back on that on this incident, specifically on that attack against the journalist.
Of course.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Of course.
Thank you, Matt.
The U.S. has an extradition with Turkey, and Hamas leaders are now in Turkey, according to Reuters' report.
When will the United States demand that Turkey extradite Hamas leaders responsible for the murder, rape, and kidnapping of Americans?
And I have another question on the Palestinian Act.
So at a briefing last week, I was very clear that we do not believe that the leaders of Hamas, who are brutal terrorists, responsible for the murder of individuals from all around the world, including United States citizens, we don't believe that they should be given safe haven anywhere in the world.
Now, when it comes to specific extradition matters, that is a legal matter for the Department of Justice, not the Department of State.
Since the U.S. government has made it clear that it opposes a Palestinian statute that provides a salary for life for anyone who murders a Jew, will the U.S. demand that the Palestinian Authority repeal that law?
And will the U.S. sanction anyone who indeed provides a fee for someone who kills a Jew?
We have made clear our concerns about that underlying policy, and I never previous sanctions activities from here.
Yeah, go ahead.
Thank you very much.
Financial time supported, Russia is recruiting hundreds of young humans, ensuring them good salaries and Russian citizenship to fight against Ukraine.
You have some observation.
Are you aware about that?
Are you input from your social media?
I think this is the third time today I've gotten a question that I already answered already in the briefing.
I did answer this earlier in the briefing, so I'll encourage you to check the transfer.
I could give the same answer again, but I don't know if that's a good use of anyone's time.
Okay, Amnesty International documented discrimination, violence, and you can say discrimination with the transgender people and people who don't have our dedicated gender.
But we have someone here in the United States who is coming to take charge of White House and going for next president.
He already said he's going to introduce some laws regarding their genders.
So your ambassador has been very engaged all around the world with the rights of transgender LGBT.
You have some concerns on that.
Let me take the question and get back to you.
Go ahead.
Hello, I have a question.
First, one related to journalists.
Today, the United Nations organization, they blamed Israel for putting Fadi al-Wahidi, a video journalist in Al Jazeera, put his life in risk because of lack of healthcare and medical supplies in northern Gaza.
And Israel is accused of killing over 170 journalists in the Gaza.
Why we don't see any other journalists from USA or any other countries?
It's like seems Israeli targeting, like Israeli authority targeting Arab journalists putting their life in risk, while we don't see any condemnment from you.
You don't blame Israel for killing people.
You have heard us say any number of times that we condemn the death of any journalists, that we don't want to see journalists killed in this conflict or any other, that we want to see journalists protected.
Now, just to answer as a faction, I don't believe there are many at all Western journalists inside Gaza.
So it is quite tragic that it is in most cases Palestinian journalists who are there documenting what is happening on the ground and bearing the very tragic toll of carrying out that important work.
Okay, so do you urge Israel to add more medical support in northern Gaza for like not just like Fadi al-Wahidi for many other people in northern Gaza?
Like so far everyone now under the risk of losing their life.
Yeah, we do want to see increased medical care in Gaza in Gaza, including in northern Gaza, and I would add food and water as well.
Last question.
On ICC, like USA, it seems like against the consensus of most of countries when it comes to Palestinian rights.
You were like the only country that used VTO among 15 countries for ceasefire in Gaza.
You among your partners in NATO and the European Union, you were against the ICC decision.
You were against ICG decision.
You were against most of the consensus in everything came to Palestinian rights.
Why people should believe that you are a fair mediator between Palestine and Israel?
Look at the work that we have done over the past months trying to get an end to the war in Gaza.
Look at the work we have done with Egypt and Qatar trying to get a ceasefire resolution that would hold up just let me finish.
That would stop the killing and stop the suffering.
But I think the faulty premise may be the right way to say it.
I think the issue underlying the question is, or the presumption in the question is that the United States can force anyone to take a deal.
We can't.
Who can?
Let me just answer the question.
We can work with our mediators and continue to put forward the best proposals possible.
We can continue to push to try to get a resolution.
But in all these cases, it requires the underlying parties to say yes.
It requires the parties to conflict to say yes.
And we will continue to use every diplomatic tool the United States has available to itself to try to end these conflicts, but it requires the parties themselves getting to a deal.
One more.
Yeah, who can judge Israel?
Like, which organization in the world can hold Israel accountable for any accusation, hundreds of accusations about journalists, about medical teams, about people, about 70% of who killed in Gaza are women and it should be.
So everyone is able to make their own conclusions.
Everyone is able to reach their own conclusions.
Countries can make their own decisions.
Countries can draw their own conclusions about what has happened and make their own policy choices about whether, for example, they are going to continue to work with Israel diplomatically.
You have seen countries of the world do that.
The ICC can make its own decisions.
You have seen the ICC make its decisions.
They are decisions that the United States disagrees with, but it did move forward on that decision.
So everyone around the world has agency to make their own conclusions or to make their own decisions about the facts of these matters and pursue their own policy choices.
And the United States will continue to do that.
Of course, other countries will as well.
With that, we're at it.
Have you heard anything of what happened any kind of a readout from the Quint meeting today in Italy on the day after plan for Gaza?
There wasn't such a meeting.
There was a meeting of the secretary with a number of Arab partners.
It wasn't the full Quint on Sudan.
It was the Quint minus one?
There were a couple that weren't there.
It ended up not all the foreign ministers from Arab countries ended up attending the G7 meeting in Rome.
So we did have a meeting on Sudan that we'll have a readout coming out.
Not a full Quint because they weren't all there, but it was the Secretary with counterparts from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and not the foreign minister from UAE, but another senior official from the UAE.
We'll have a readout coming out from that, but it was still going on when I walked out here.
I haven't got any of it yet.
I'm sure that they talked about it on the margins of that meeting.
I'm sure that the secretary talked about it in the meetings in the G7, but there wasn't a separate Quint meeting on day after.
Thanks, everyone.
Tuesday on C-SPAN, cybersecurity officials discuss ways the federal government is making progress on improving infrastructure and resilience to potential cyber threats.
That's live at 11.30 a.m. Eastern.
Then at 1 p.m., the Federalist Society is hosting a conversation on the incoming Trump administration's agenda for the Securities and Exchange Commission by considering the future of cryptocurrency, climate regulations, and the agency's new enforcement approach.
Again, that's on C-SPAN.
Also on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.
Sunday, on Q&A, Jochen Jack Werfel, author of My Two Lives, talks about surviving Nazi Germany as a half-Jewish member of the Hitler Youth, the steps taken to conceal his identity.
and the day his Jewish mother was arrested by the Gestapo.
As we got out of that subway, which was right around the corner from where my mother lived, where we lived with my mother, I saw all kinds of Gestapo and SS cars in front of the building.