U.S. Department Press Briefing – July 1, 2024 July 1, 2024 1:37 p.m. EDT

Department Press Briefing – July 1, 2024

July 1, 2024

1:37 p.m. EDT

MR PATEL: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR PATEL: I don’t have anything off the top, Matt, so if you want to kick us off.

QUESTION: You have nothing off the top at all?

MR PATEL: Nothing off the top.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. Let’s just start with the situation in the Middle East. And what’s your understanding of where things stand at the moment?

MR PATEL: Well, Matt, we continue to work closely with partners in Egypt and Qatar. Our understanding is that they are still pressing their Hamas interlocutors to see that any gaps that exist as it relates to the ceasefire deal that we’ve been talking about for so long, that there might be ways to close that gap. And we’re still hopeful, and we’re watching that space very closely.

The President and the Secretary were clear when they laid this out. We believe that this three-phase ceasefire proposal that Israel has made to Hamas and that the UN Security Council has endorsed is the best way to end the violence in Gaza and ultimately end the conflict, and we’re continuing to push to try and close this deal.

QUESTION: Right, but you’ve seen the latest from Hamas that they don’t – that it’s not good enough, right?

MR PATEL: Matt, I’m not going to get into the ins and outs.

QUESTION: You haven’t? I’m not asking you to get into it. Have you seen it?

MR PATEL: I’m not aware of a recent proposal or communication from Hamas aside from the one a number of weeks ago. But again, I’m not going to negotiate or get into the back and forth on this publicly. What I will just say, and again, is that our viewpoint that the time for haggling is over and it’s time for a ceasefire. We and our partners agree that the deal has to be grounded in the principles of the ceasefire proposal that the entire international community already supports, and Hamas has previously agreed to similar iterations of this proposal. So they need to sign on to the version that was shared in front of them.

QUESTION: Okay. And then last one, just on the north – Israel’s north, Lebanon’s south.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: What’s the current – what’s your current concern about the possibility of a broader conflict there?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have a prognosis to offer, Matt, but restoring the calm along the Blue Line, it continues to remain a top priority for us and it must be of utmost importance to Lebanon and Israel as well. We continue to be concerned by the level of violence, and we’re continuing to work towards a diplomatic solution that would allow Israeli and Lebanese citizens to return to their homes and live in peace and security. When the President laid out that ceasefire that we were just talking about, Matt, he said in his remarks that a ceasefire and a hostage deal in Gaza will accelerate the possibility of progress, including lasting security among Israel’s northern border with Lebanon. And so that’s something we’re going to continue to work towards.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Leon.

QUESTION: Yeah, just to follow up on Gaza. What do you make of the evacuation orders, again, that were released today in Khan Younis and Rafah? You’ve always said that you were against all displacement of populations, and the poor Palestinians have been going up, down, east, west, and now again they have just fled – now they came back, now they have to leave again. What do you make of those orders to —

MR PATEL: So, of course, Leon, when it comes to one of our key tenets of this conflict, the Secretary was very clear in Tokyo that there can be no permanent displacement of Gazans. Of course, over the course of this military operation that the IDF is conducting – and I will let them speak to specific logistical parameters – as those operations are being conducted, it is of course pertinent that civilians and non-militants be asked to appropriately evacuate for safety concerns. But again, these are all logistical parameters that the IDF can speak to.

When it comes to the tenet of how we’ve been talking about Rafah, there has been no change in our policy. We continue to believe that any major military incursion into Rafah we would be opposed to, but yet, we have yet to see any kind of incursion to take place thus far.

Yeah, Camilla.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Just back to Lebanon.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: We’ve seen a couple of alerts go out from U.S. Embassy Beirut over the last few days, and the most recent today was one about flight restrictions. Can you just give us a little bit more detail at all on – or any kind of insight into possible preparations for Americans as things continue to be very tense on the border there? I know that you can’t get into too much detail, but what can we expect in terms of, like, the kind of options that State has to help Americans if need be and needs to pivot at the last minute?

MR PATEL: So let me say a couple of things. First, for those who may not be tracking, the country of Lebanon as a whole currently is a – at the Travel Advisory warning level of Level 3: Reconsider Travel. But the specific region of southern Lebanon is at a Level 4; it’s at a Level 4: Do Not Travel level, as is Lebanon’s border with Syria, as well as refugee settlements throughout Lebanon. We undertake this kind of work and planning at all of our – first, to – let me say that when it comes to our Travel Advisory warnings, we make those assessments and changes based on circumstances on the ground, and we’ll continue to assess what situations are like should there need to be any kind of change in Travel Advisory warning.

When it comes to supporting American citizens, we have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens overseas, and in many countries the security environment remains complex and can change quickly.

Any citizen traveling abroad anywhere, our message to them has always been that they should enroll in Smart Traveler to be best informed about any communication from the U.S. Government. We also encourage that in Lebanon, that U.S. citizens have their own departure plans in place. And we don’t have any announcement to make on ay evacuation of private citizens from Lebanon, but what I can say is that the U.S. Government remains diligent in planning and preparing for any and all possible emergency contingencies. And this is work that happens not just in Lebanon but at all of our diplomatic facilities, at our embassies and consulates, around the world. This is what we do, and it’s part of our contingency planning. But I wouldn’t speak to any more specifics beyond that.

QUESTION: And just given that these alerts have gone out in the last few days or within a week, do we read that as there being – there has been an escalation in the past few days? Or is this just a culmination of what —

MR PATEL: This is the State Department and the U.S. Government wanting to offer American citizens in the country and in the region, and those who may have loved ones in the country, in the region, to have the most informed information as possible and have the best avenues to stay in touch with the U.S. Government.

Nick.

QUESTION: A different region but somewhat related.

MR PATEL: Can I see if anybody else has anything else? Then I will come back to you. Simon, did you have —

QUESTION: No, not on this region.

QUESTION: I have one.

MR PATEL: Okay. Kylie, go ahead.

QUESTION: It was reported over the weekend that the U.S. proposed new language to bridge the gaps. You were saying you’ve been working to bridge the gaps between Hamas and Israel for a hostage release and ceasefire. Can you share with us if that new proposal was signed off on by Israel before the U.S. put it forth? Or did you guys share it with both sides, like just where that stands at this moment?

MR PATEL: So I’m not going to get into the specifics of where we are in our conversations with Israel and other regional partners. I will leave it at what I said to Matt, that our partners in Qatar and Egypt continue to press Hamas interlocutors on ways to close this gap. The President and the Secretary have all been engaged on this directly, and we continue to feel strongly that the ceasefire proposal that the President laid out a number of weeks ago continues to be the best way to get a surge in humanitarian assistance, release all the remaining hostages, and perhaps most importantly, get us on a path to greater and broader diplomatic conversations that has the potential to get this region out of these countless cycles of violence that we’ve been experiencing.

QUESTION: So no time frame for expectations as to when the two sides might get back?

MR PATEL: No. I wouldn’t speak to a time frame for the specifics of the deliberations from up here.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: All right. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. Secretary Blinken today at Brookings stressed again the need for a plan for the day after, and without it, it will be chaos or may – and he also said that there’s three things that the U.S. will not accept: Israeli occupation, Hamas getting back to power, or chaos. But what we hear from the Israeli Government all the time, that they are not ready yet to discuss such plans, and they’re not – they don’t want this Gaza Strip to be ruled by Hamas or even the PLO. And we know that you’ve been – stated many times, you or Matt, that you are stressing the Israelis and keep talking with them about this. Did you reach anywhere with them? Are they going to talk to you about their future plans for the day after?

MR PATEL: So we have stressed the importance of there being some plans for the day after. This is nothing new. This is something that the Secretary has been engaged on for a number of months now and has been a key piece of the shuttle diplomacy that he’s been engaged on in the region. It’s not for me to speak to the Israelis or to the foreign policy and the policies that they’re interested in pursuing. But what I can say from our perspective is that in every conversation that we’ve had with our partners in Israel and other regional partners, we have stressed the principles that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo last fall.

And part of that, we have stressed that there is a responsibility to have a plan for a day after to ensure that these things can come to fruition, that Hamas can no longer use Gaza as a springboard for terrorism on the Israeli people, that Israel can no longer be an occupying power for Gaza, that there – we get us on a path to a diplomatic solution and get us on a path to two states that have equal measures of integrity and security for Israelis and Palestinians. And these are conversations we’ll continue to have.

QUESTION: But are they susceptible to this push? Because publicly, they – it seems not.

MR PATEL: It should come as no surprise that over the course of this conflict, we of course had policy disagreements and – with our partners in Israel. But we’ll continue to engage on these conversations. But we have stressed at every turn that there is a responsibility and a need to make sure that there is a plan for a day after.

Michel, go ahead.

QUESTION: Vedant, Arab League assistant secretary-general has said during the weekend that the league’s member-states concurred that the labeling of Hizballah as a terrorist organization should no longer be employed. Do you agree with the Arab League on this?

MR PATEL: So I have seen those reports, Michel, and we’re looking into them. But let me just say unequivocally that there is no question that Hizballah remains a dangerous terrorist organization and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. We believe that there is no reason to take steps to remove such a designation, and we have continued to urge governments around the world to designate, ban, or restrict Hizballah. Sixteen governments from across the world have heeded this call since 2019, and we’ll continue to have those conversations. But again, I just want to reiterate, in our point of view, Hizballah remains a very dangerous terrorist organization.

Simon, I saw you had your hand up.

QUESTION: Yeah. Just moving to a slightly separate subject.

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Just since this is the first briefing you’ve had since the debate on Thursday, there’s obviously been a lot of responses over the President’s performance. I know this isn’t the White House, but I also want to note that the Secretary doesn’t have any events this week where we’ll have a chance to ask him directly, so this is a forum to try and ask. And he was asked about this this morning – not by a journalist, I should say – at Brookings Institution, about – globally there has been a – as well as domestically, there has been some response to the President’s performance on the debate stage. It’s raised – raising some questions about his ability to lead, to respond to crises. From this building’s point of view, is there anything you want to say in response to that?

MR PATEL: I think Secretary Blinken laid out our point of view on this pretty clearly. And so I would just echo what he said. And to give just a snippet, the Secretary was pretty clear and succinct that the world and world leaders know the President, they know the policies that he pursues and he champions, and they like and believe in the policies that we’re pursuing. And next week, we’ll – the Washington area has the great opportunity to host NATO leaders for the 75th NATO summit, which I think will be another opportunity to talk about this administration’s commitment to having a seat at the table, this administration’s commitment to showing that American engagement matters. And so we’ll continue to have those conversations, but I will leave punditry and electioneering to others in D.C.

QUESTION: And have you had any contacts from allies or other countries expressing concern over this performance and asking to sort of – for reassurance?

MR PATEL: Again, I have no diplomatic conversations to speak to, but I will just echo again that world leaders know this President, and they know this is a President who has worked at the cross-section of foreign policy for decades, and they know and believe in the policies that he and this administration are pursuing.

QUESTION: Well, leaving aside the punditry and electioneering, what was your reaction? What was the reaction of this building?

MR PATEL: Matt, it’s really not appropriate for me to be offering any commentary on something like a debate from up here, and I think you’ve been covering the State Department long enough to know that.

QUESTION: Yeah. But the question’s got to be asked.

MR PATEL: I appreciate you asking it, I guess, but I’m going to politely —

QUESTION: Well, no, you actually don’t appreciate that.

MR PATEL: I’m going to – no, no. Matt, I do —

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR PATEL: I do appreciate any question you ask.

QUESTION: No, you don’t. And “appreciate” is a much-overused word.

MR PATEL: But I will politely – I will politely decline to comment on —

QUESTION: Okay, fair enough. But so to follow up on something, you’ve heard absolutely nothing? You’re not aware of anything that any foreign government has said since Thursday night to you or to anyone you’re not aware of about what happened?

MR PATEL: That is correct.

QUESTION: Nothing?

MR PATEL: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Just one – one more question on this.

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

QUESTION: And this building, have you guys given any guidance to your top diplomats who are serving in a political capacity – because they’ve been picked by this President – in terms of how they should be answering questions about if Biden will remain the nominee from their interlocutors overseas?

MR PATEL: People who are employees of the State Department – whether they are Schedule C, whether they are a presidentially nominated person in that position – are well aware of what their roles and responsibilities are in speaking to domestic politics in any kind of official capacity.

QUESTION: So that’s not a yes or a no.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, Sam.

QUESTION: Yeah, on – I had another question, but tagging onto the debate question, is it some concern in this building that not just a lot of the international community but even president – former President Trump said that no, Israel is the one that’s ensuring that the war – that the attack in Gaza continues there? Is there some concern that there’s going to be a broader consensus contrary to the claims of the – of the State Department, the administration that Hamas is the holdup here?

MR PATEL: I’m not sure I – I’m not sure I fully understand your question, Sam. What exactly are you asking?

QUESTION: Well, that there was some substance in the debate, and —

MR PATEL: As there tend to be in presidential debates.

QUESTION: And – yeah, and Trump – and Biden depicted Hamas as the lone holdout for preventing a stop to the fighting, and Trump said no, actually, Israel is the holdout. And then he quickly added that – that it should continue to kill Palestinians. So although he took a very militaristic perspective, he actually acknowledged the underlying truth shared by a great deal of the international community that, in fact, it is Israel that is holding up a stop to the conflict.

MR PATEL: So —

QUESTION: Is that – that must be a concern to you.

MR PATEL: It is not. Any person on any particular debate stage is of course entitled to whatever opinion they want. When it comes to the current ongoing conflict in Gaza, we remain incredibly committed of continuing to work with partners in Qatar, partners in Egypt, partners in Israel to see what can be done to close the gap as it relates to the ceasefire proposal that the President laid out a number of weeks ago. We continue to believe that that is the best path forward to get hostages released, to get a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and as well as to get us onto a path of diplomacy to have greater conversations for peace and stability in the region.

I want to come back to Kylie real quick because —

QUESTION: The Biden —

MR PATEL: — I was – I did not mean to be so flippant in moving on. I was just trying to work the room.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR PATEL: So again, just to – let me reiterate from – there – we have not provided or provisioned any guidance from the State Department to talk about any issues as it relates to domestic politics outside of, on an annual basis, bureaus within the State Department and through the interagency create materials to how to talk about elections in the democracy context, but not in a – the – offering punditry or analysis.

So again, I just want to reiterate that any person serving in any capacity, in an official capacity – whether they are a Foreign Service officer, a Civil Service officer, a Schedule C employee, or a Senate-confirmed position – are well aware of what the – and whether they are ambassadors or not – are well aware of what is acceptable to talk about while wearing their official duties, when they are representing the department in an official capacity.

Nick.

QUESTION: You said you weren’t aware of any particular foreign reaction to the debate, but the Polish foreign minister tweeted afterwards, among other things, with, like, a reference to the Roman Empire, “It’s important to manage one’s ride into the sunset.” So do you have any reaction to that? And then I’ve got a separate question.

MR PATEL: You should ask the Polish foreign minister. I think I’ve exhaustively spoken to this political issue to the extent that I can. I really don’t have any other commentary to offer.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t think you’ve spoken exhaustively about riding into the sunset.

MR PATEL: (Laughter.) That is true. That is true.

I will let you ask your follow-up before I —

QUESTION: Okay, kind of the same region and tangentially related —

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: — to the Lebanon questions. U.S. bases in Europe were put on heightened alert over the weekend. Are there any concerns about U.S. citizens there, or is this limited to military personnel, or is there any increased danger —

MR PATEL: So on installations I will let my colleagues at the Department of Defense speak to any posture change or any – anything as it relates to their facilities. What I can say about our embassies and consulate is that there has been no change in operating status of missions in the region. We, of course, closely monitor and evaluate threat information and adjust our security and operating postures accordingly. I will also say that we have a pretty strong track record of adjusting our operating postures swiftly when needed. So I just don’t have any assessment to offer at this time. Like I said, our diplomatic facilities continue to be under the same posture that they were.

QUESTION: And one more on Europe.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any reactions to the first round of French parliamentary elections? And separately, Hungarian Prime Minister Orban said that he is now forming an alliance with right-wing groups in Austria and the Czech Republic. They’re calling it the patriots of Europe, and that it would be the largest right-wing group in European politics. Do you have any comment on that?

MR PATEL: So on your second question, I don’t. And on your first question, I’m just not going to get ahead of the French process. What I can say is that France is a vital partner. It’s our oldest ally with whom we have a long and proud history of democratic values. We have full confidence that – and strength in France’s democratic institution and processes, and we intend to continue our close collaboration with the French Government across the full spectrum of foreign policy priorities.

QUESTION: Can I just get back to the embassy question in Europe?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: You said there’s no change in operating status, but is there any change at all to security status?

MR PATEL: There is not. There is not.

QUESTION: There’s none?

MR PATEL: There is not.

QUESTION: So all embassies are open, there isn’t, like, a heightened security —

MR PATEL: Well, whether they are open or not, Matt, I’d have to go through a litany of lists. But to Nick’s question in linking it to the status and posture that our —

QUESTION: Yeah, related to this, there is not – there is —

MR PATEL: Correct, no. There has been no change linked to that, correct.

QUESTION: All right, thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: This is —

MR PATEL: Camilla.

QUESTION: Just, also related, just out of interest, would the – the reporting is that the U.S. military bases are on heightened alert and a pretty high level of alert, some reporting saying the highest in 10 years. Is it – is it normal for U.S. military bases to be put on such high alert and there to be no change in security status for embassies? Is that —

MR PATEL: Well, they – you – I think we go down a rabbit hole of whether military installations and diplomatic facilities are necessarily always in the exact same place or not, which isn’t always the case. So —

QUESTION: Just as a —

MR PATEL: What – I just don’t want to get into hypotheticals. What I can say is that as it relates to our embassies and consulates, there is no change in operating status of missions that we have in the region. But when it comes to Travel Advisory warnings, when it comes to the safety and security of our citizens and our diplomats, when it comes to the operating status of our facilities – whether they are embassies or consulates – this is something that we closely monitor and evaluate, and it’s something that we monitor and evaluate in real time, and we have the ability to adjust our security and operating postures accordingly. We have the ability to do that swiftly when necessary. But I just have no updates for you in any posture change on our end.

QUESTION: Okay, and just – well, I’m going to defer to other people who might have questions on the Middle East region, if you can come back to me.

MR PATEL: Okay. All right. Shannon.

QUESTION: Thank you. Same topic, really, but the worldwide caution alert that is in place right now, specifically advising the LGBTQI+ community that they could be at increased risk of threat traveling abroad through the month of June – it seems to be more focused on Pride celebrations. As we enter July, does the State Department believe that threat has lifted or will begin to lift?

MR PATEL: I have no – first, let me just say I have no updates on that Pride – and I’m saying this broadly – sometimes it is observed at different times of the year, depending on what country you’re in. I understand that also to be the case sometimes in the various communities within the United States as well. So no, I’ve no – nothing to preview in terms of changing our posture there.

Jalil, go – actually, hold on – before I come to you, Alex has had his hand up. I’ll come back to you.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks so much, Vedant.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: This one’s about the President’s leadership at the NATO summit next week. President Zelenskyy gave an interview to the U.S., an op-ed yesterday. He said that the U.S. doesn’t see Ukraine in NATO today because, he said, U.S. is afraid to quote/unquote “annoy Putin.” I know you guys have been talking about some sort of bridge within – upon on the summit. Why is it not convincing enough for the Ukrainians in terms of your intention to see Ukraine in NATO?

MR PATEL: Well, I am certainly not going to speak for the Ukrainians, but let me just say that we have no problem holding Russia to account. I don’t even want to justify it by saying annoy. We have no problem holding Russia to account. And over the course of this conflict, since their brutal invasion into Ukraine, we have taken a number of steps from export controls, to sanctions to hold the Russian Federation accountable.

On top of all that, we, of course, have offered so much support to our Ukrainian partners when it comes to security assistance, economic assistance, humanitarian assistance. And I will also just note for folks, because I believe you all weren’t able to attend because it was a President’s trip, but just two weeks ago the President signed a bilateral security agreement with President Zelenskyy underlying and reassuring our commitment to the people of Ukraine, because we believe that a commitment such as that one is critical to ensuring Ukraine’s security democratically, economically, and in a security sense as well.

QUESTION: So just to be clear, so U.S. wants to see Ukraine in NATO and is not afraid of annoying Putin?

MR PATEL: You have this Secretary of State and this President talk about how we believe that it is important there be a bridge to Ukraine’s membership in NATO. Of course, this bilateral security agreement is not a replacement for that, but it is one of the things that we view as part of that bridge to one day Ukraine being able to join NATO. Look, we have long said that we support and affirm NATO’s open door policy.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have two more on South Caucasus. The Secretary spoke about Georgia today, and he said that we have taken some actions (inaudible) let’s talk about sanctions. And weeks – actually a couple days after the initial sanctions, the first tranche was announced, there are reports that Georgian security service chief was in the United States. You also guys have invited Georgia’s foreign minister to Washington next week. Aren’t you concerned you are sending out mixed messages?

MR PATEL: What do you mean, Alex?

QUESTION: By inviting officials and then telling us they were sanctioned officials – imposing visa restrictions.

MR PATEL: Well, look, Alex, when it comes to Georgia – and I know we’ve spent a lot of time in this briefing room talking about some of the legislation that has recently passed – it’s important that also we continue to engage with appropriate officials when the Georgian Government – it is a country we continue to have a range of issues that we want to prioritize in the context of that bilateral relationship with them. And while, of course, when it comes – when it has come to this specific legislation, you’ve heard me and Matt talk about the many issues that we have and how we believe it is counter to Georgia’s own EU aspirations. It’s – we still believe it’s important to engage, and there continue to be other issues that we have no doubt we’ll talk about with them.

QUESTION: Thank you. And finally on Azerbaijan, there have been some high-level engagements with Azerbaijan. The Secretary spoke with Aliyev, and last week James spent his days in Baku. Is there any concern that these high-level engagements keep happening without securing the release of political prisoners?

MR PATEL: Alex, this is a long process and it requires us to have continued engagement, and it’s something that I would expect both the Secretary and Assistant Secretary O’Brien and others to be – continue to be focused on.

Julia, you’ve had your hand up. I’ll come to you, Michel, right after. Go ahead, Julia.

QUESTION: Thank you. I wanted to ask about the reported coup in Bolivia and the reports today that the former president is accusing the president of staging a self-coup to gain popularity. I was wondering what the State Department makes of this allegation and if the posture towards this is changing.

MR PATEL: So we’re continuing to monitor the situation in Bolivia, as I imagine many in the international community are. We understand and have taken note the number of viewpoints that have emerged in recent days, and we welcome independent analysis into the events of June 26th. What I want to say broadly though is that these events in Bolivia make clear that democracy continues to remain fragile in some parts of our hemisphere, and the United States intends to work together in line with the OAS Charter and the Inter-American Democratic Charter to protect the democratic institutions of our countries and other countries.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that if it does turn out to be a self-coup, that that will create even more instability in the area?

MR PATEL: We said we’d welcome independent analysis of these events. I will let that process play out first before offering additional perspective.

Guita, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, a question on the presidential elections in Iran, Vedant. The government claims that 40 percent – claims 40 percent participation, although the diaspora disputes that figure. I was wondering – now, there are two candidates that are going to the second round. One is the well-known hardline Saeed Jalili, and the other one has been presented as a reformist. I was wondering, what is the State Department’s overall assessment of the situation and this election?

MR PATEL: So first let me just say, we’re not in a position to confirm or – any turnout number or speculate on what the implications of that might mean for the Iranian regime. Our viewpoint is that even the Iranian Government’s official numbers about turnout are most – like most other things as it relates to the Iranian regime, are unreliable. Our view is that these elections in Iran are not free and fair, and we have no expectation that these elections and whatever the outcome might be will lead to a fundamental change in Iran’s direction or lead the Iranian regime to offer more respect for human rights and more dignity for its citizens. So I just don’t have any prognosis to offer, Guita.

QUESTION: Vedant, as you probably know, the Islamic Republic was allowed to have polling stations here on the U.S. soil. I was wondering if – what is that decision based on? It is a treaty? It is a diplomatic norm to allow another country to open – to have polling stations for their citizens on U.S. soil, especially that Canada did not allow such a thing and the U.S. is the – is probably the first country to impose major sanctions on Iran and is – has talked about Iran – the Islamic Republic as being – as conducting transnational suppression against the dissidents? So what is the decision to allow another country, especially in a case like Iran, to open – to have polling stations?

MR PATEL: So I’m happy to check on any technical specifics on how such a process is determined. I’d have to get back to you on that. But let me just say that in this context foreign governments carrying out election-related activities in the U.S., they need to do so in a manner that is consistent with U.S. law and regulation. We respect the rights of Iranian citizens and the diaspora protesting Iran’s elections or choosing to participate in Iran’s elections. And I will also just note that the Iranians have conducted this kind of activity in the United States before, so this is nothing new, and as have a number of other governments, especially in the time that I have worked here as well. But I am happy to check about the specific technical process for you.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you when that —

QUESTION: A follow-on question?

QUESTION: When you said that most figures released by the Iranian Government are unreliable, does that go – does that extend to uranium enrichment, centrifuge, numbers of centrifuges running, oil exports?

MR PATEL: Well, I mean, in the context of that question, if you – specifically as it relates to its nuclear activities —

QUESTION: Well, I was just wondering if —

MR PATEL: — that is certainly —

QUESTION: Do you believe anything that the Iranians —

MR PATEL: That is certainly one of the reasons why we have insisted that the Iranian regime appropriately open its door to the IAEA as —

QUESTION: Fair enough. So you —

MR PATEL: — persistent to the agreements of the JCPOA.

QUESTION: So you would say that it extends to that? You don’t believe them on anything?

MR PATEL: They do not have a track record of credibility when it comes to —

QUESTION: On anything?

MR PATEL: I think that would be a fair assessment.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: Yeah. Michel.

QUESTION: Yeah, can we go back to Israel and Lebanon?

MR PATEL: Sure.

QUESTION: Some German newspapers have said today that Israel’s invasion of Lebanon is expected to be imminent or in two weeks. Do you have any signs that support such a prediction?

MR PATEL: So I spoke to this a little bit when answering Matt’s question. I don’t have a prognosis to offer. What I can say is that restoring calm on the blue line is a top priority for the United States and it’s something that we think needs to be of the utmost importance to our partners in Israel and for Lebanon as well. We are concerned by the levels of violence and we’re continuing to work towards a diplomatic solution that would allow Israeli and Lebanese citizens to return home and to live in peace and security.

It’s our viewpoint, again, that the ceasefire proposal that President Biden laid out when he gave remarks on it, it would accelerate the possibility of progress, and that includes lasting security along Israel’s northern border.

QUESTION: And are you aware of any U.S. official or officials going to the region this week to —

MR PATEL: I don’t have any travel to announce.

Jalil.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: You’ve patiently been waiting.

QUESTION: Two on Pakistan, one on Afghanistan.

Pakistani parliament – the vice prime minister said that the U.S. did unsolicited interference when 368 congressmen favored and seven opposed that the elections were fair. Do you condemn such a statement by him that —

MR PATEL: Are you talking about the House resolution, Jalil? Is that what you’re speaking to?

QUESTION: Yes, the House resolution, Jalil? It wasn’t bipartisan, so I hope you can condemn it in strong terms.

MR PATEL: Let me just say as a standard practice we’re not going to speak to pending congressional legislation. I will also note that in the United States of America and our democratic system, Congress is a separate but coequal branch of government.

Let me just say broadly that when it comes to Pakistan, our most senior officials, whether that be Secretary Blinken, Assistant Secretary Lu, Ambassador Blome, we have consistently and privately and publicly urged Pakistan to respect the rights of its people in line with its constitution and international commitments, and we urge the Government of Pakistan to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression, freedom of association, peaceful assembly, and the freedom of religion as well.

QUESTION: The United Nations arbitrary committee for detention just today said that Imran Khan detention is illegal and fake, and this is one issue that for last one year has brought, you know —

MR PATEL: I’m aware.

QUESTION: So like – so you don’t – from here standing, you don’t condemn that election frauds and you don’t condemn Imran Khan detention while the UN is doing it and your ambassador still has not visited the congressmen? So, like, where does – where is the State Department standing on so many of —

MR PATEL: So I will – I’ll let the United Nations offer any clarity on the comments that they’ve provided. And in the case of Mr. Khan, you’ve heard us say this before: This is an internal matter for Pakistan. I don’t have any assessment to offer from up here.

QUESTION: Just last one. Doha’s third conference is going.

MR PATEL: One.

QUESTION: And again, this issue is – I raise an alarm because I am just living right next to it. There’s a common saying: “You educate a man, you educate a family; you educate a woman, you educate a whole village.”

MR PATEL: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: In my backyard, another terrorists are going to be raised in coming years, right, because when their moms are not educated – and you guys are still cooperating with the Taliban. Like, for me to even ask this question – there’s so much risk to me.

MR PATEL: So is – Jalil, what’s your question? And I hope —

QUESTION: So my question is that I feel so bad that while I’m raising this question in the State Department and putting my life at risk while raising such questions, that why is the U.S. giving any sort of support to the Taliban while the third year has started and women are without education?

MR PATEL: So we’re – so we are not – I’m really not sure what your question was there, but how about this: How about I offer a little bit of an update from the Doha 3 conference. To take a step back, Special Representative Tom West and Special Envoy Rina Amiri are attending these UN-convened meetings in Doha on Afghanistan this week along with closest allies, dozens of countries, international organizations, and others are present. We committed to participating in this after receiving assurances from the UN that the discussion would meaningly address human rights, particularly the plight of women and girls; and, importantly, that there would be opportunities for engagement in Doha with Afghan women and civil society.

QUESTION: But Vedant, the women education is not this typical answer that you’re reading to me and personally, I address to you that, Vedant —

MR PATEL: So let me just —

QUESTION: When women are not educated —

MR PATEL: If you’re going to interrupt me, we’re going to stop taking your questions.

QUESTION: No, no, not interrupting you, I just wanted – because phrasing to a little bit same —

MR PATEL: No, you absolutely are. I’m happy to stop calling on you, Jalil. And let me move on to other questions.

QUESTION: No, no, Vedant, I’m sorry if your feelings were —

MR PATEL: If you’ll let me finish – if you let me finish, and then we’ve got a couple more hands that I would like to get through.

QUESTION: My apologies. My apologies.

MR PATEL: So at a session at the Doha 3 conference on the economy, Special Rep West and Special Envoy Amiri also made clear that the Afghan economy cannot grow while half the population’s rights are not respected. It is well known that the Taliban’s policies are robbing the Afghan economy of over a billion dollars per year in GDP.

You had your hand in the back, and then I —

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on that?

MR PATEL: Sure, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: So the Taliban – one of the Taliban spokesperson tweeted that it was pledged that restrictions on banking and economic avenues should be lifted, citing most countries at the conference supporting that, including the U.S. Is that inaccurate?

MR PATEL: So I don’t have a specific readout from the conference at the moment, Kylie, but what I can say is that Tom made clear that the primary reason private banks have reservations about doing more business in Afghanistan is reputational, and that it is rooted in the Taliban’s atrocious human rights conduct. We know that the Taliban often complains about sanctions, but given the broad general license issued by the Treasury Department, relief organizations as well as businesses have the leeway they need to support the Afghan people.

QUESTION: So no restrictions on the banking and economic avenues that you can – that you are aware of at this time?

MR PATEL: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PATEL: I’m happy to check with the team and get back to you if we have a readout.

QUESTION: And any update on the Swiss fund that was created more than two years ago? Like, how much of that money has actually been put to use in the country?

MR PATEL: I don’t have a breakdown, but we’re happy to check with the team.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Islamic Resistance Front in Iraq announced on Sunday that it will target U.S. interests if a conflict erupts between Israel and Hizballah. What is your position and your response?

MR PATEL: I’m sorry, I didn’t quite understand the first part of your question. Who?

QUESTION: The Islamic Resistance Front in Iraq.

MR PATEL: Okay.

QUESTION: Announced on Sunday that it will target U.S. interests if a conflict erupts between Israel and Hizballah.

MR PATEL: So first let me just say since October 7th, when we look at the whole region, the United States has prioritized de-escalation and ensuring that this conflict doesn’t spread. That continues to be the case. When it comes to Iraq, though, we expect and fully intend to work closely with our partners in Iraq, and this is something that Mr. Sudani and other leaders across the Government of Iraq have also made clear, that they would intend to hold interests or groups that choose to target American interests accountable. And that’s something that we’ll continue to push for as well.

Jackson, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. The Secretary at Brookings said that we should expect an announcement at the NATO summit regarding economic support for Ukraine. What would that look like? Can you specify what he meant?

MR PATEL: No, because I’m not going to get ahead of the Secretary, and you all should tune in to the NATO summit next week. (Laughter.)

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks, Vedant. Last week, the House Republicans in the Congress, they introduced an amendment to the foreign appropriating bill by – which says that if it’s passed, that it would designate Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council and its president as an Iranian-controlled asset. I understand that you are not commenting on the pending bill, but my question is on the reactions from Iraq. Foreign minister and also the acting parliament speaker, the president of Iraq, they reacted to this amendment and they said that – which the acting parliament said that if this passed, it will be a dangerous turning point in Baghdad and Washington relations. What’s your comment to these reactions?

MR PATEL: So let me just again reiterate what you said. I’m not going to comment on pending legislation with Congress. What I can say, though, is that that is not the kind of relationship we believe that we have with the Government of Iraq. And over the course of our relationship, we – there are a number of areas in which we have worked closely with them, especially in the security and counterterrorism space, as well as energy and energy infrastructure, and we’ll continue to work with them and deepen our cooperation on those areas.

QUESTION: And what would you – what’s the U.S. administration position on Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council and also its president? Do you think that it’s an independent body or it’s an Iranian-controlled asset?

MR PATEL: I’m happy to check back with the team for you. I don’t have anything specific on that.

Go ahead, and then we’ll probably get a couple more and then we’re going to wrap.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. You just talked about the resolution passed in the House regarding Pakistan, but please correct me if I’m wrong: State Department also raised same questions regarding the credibility of Pakistani elections held in – this year and asking for the investigation of reports on massive rigging in those elections. You still asking those questions from the Pakistani Government?

MR PATEL: This is something that we have continued to raise with our partners in Pakistan, yes. That continues to be an area of focus of ours.

QUESTION: Sir, the Department of Homeland Security has identified over 400 immigrants from Central Asia and other region as subjects of concern due to their entry into the U.S. through an ISIS-linked human smuggling network. What measures are being taken to mitigate this threat and ensure national security?

MR PATEL: So we’re aware of this report and this is something that my colleagues at the Department of Homeland Security can speak to in more detail. Let me just say, though, that we work very closely with international counterparts, including our partners in Central Asia, on issues like counterterrorism partnerships, exchange information on potential threats, and as well as improving screening capabilities. But I’ll let DHS speak to that more.

QUESTION: Would you say something about the – sir, would you say something about the multiple bombings in Nigeria? Like, more than 50 people died; more than a hundred are injured.

MR PATEL: So we condemn this horrific attack that took place in Borno on June 29th. These attacks show a disregard of human life and a reminder of the ongoing threat posed by terrorism in the region. We offer our condolences to the families of those killed and wish a full recovery to those who were injured.

Goyal, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions. This debate has been going on in India and also in the U.S., and even during Modi’s second term, Modi 2, and now it continues Modi 3. As far as U.S.-India relations are concerned, because of some countries don’t have good relations with the U.S. because they support terrorism and all those things, like Iran and North Korea, and among others, and – but India or Modi is friends with them or they deal with them because of the national needs of India, including with the Iran and also with the Soviet Union, with Mr. Putin, with Russia.

So how are you going to deal with India-U.S. relations in this midst, sir? Because there are sanctions against those countries, but India or Modi is saying that we have a national need and we have to deal with them in our own, but as far as U.S. relations are concerned we are with the U.S. and we’ll be with the U.S. because largest democracy on the globe and the oldest democracy on the globe, and now we celebrate of course the Fourth of July. So where do we stand?

MR PATEL: So let me just say you – this is something you have – this should be not new to you, Goyal, that India is a country in which we are deepening our relations with in a number of key spaces, especially as it relates to deepening our economic ties, deepening our security cooperation. The President had the opportunity briefly see Prime Minister Modi on the margins of the G7 a couple of weeks ago. So this is an area we will continue to cultivate this relationship.

You are no stranger to the fact that we hosted India for a state visit last summer, and I imagine there’ll be a number of additional areas where we continue to deepen cooperation. National Security Advisor Sullivan just had a visit to Delhi a number of weeks ago as well.

QUESTION: And second, sir – thank you. Prime Minister Modi has been trying, even during his second term, that India wants a good relation with Pakistan, neighboring country, because if we have good neighbors and we prospers and all that – India. And Modi said that now time have come for Pakistan to help for needs of their people, national needs, not just for military and not corruptions and all that. What I’m asking you now, because still now Mr. Sharif or (inaudible) has been trying to say that we not – want to have good relations with India. But India is saying, as in the last five years, that terrorism and talks cannot go together. Pakistan have to condemn terrorism fully against India – it’s still going on. So where do we stand as far as triangle U.S.-India, U.S.-Pakistan, and India-U.S. relations?

MR PATEL: Well, we would hope that any country on the face of the planet condemns terrorism anywhere, but ultimately this is between India and Pakistan. Broadly, of course, we welcome any countries making more positive relations with their neighbors. But as it relates to this specifically, I just – I don’t have anything to offer.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR PATEL: Go ahead, in the pink.

QUESTION: Many women journalists in Israel who were reporting this weekend on the protest of ultra-Orthodox Jews against the supreme court’s order to enlist them for military service have complained publicly about insults and violence from these protesters who called them whores, among more insults. What is your reaction to these insults, to this violence towards women journalists?

MR PATEL: So first let me just say any kind of violence or insult to journalists who are just doing their job – in this instance covering some protests – is fully unacceptable. Time and time again, you’ve heard us say that we believe it’s important and imperative for journalists to be able to do their job, especially in this region of the world. But beyond that, I don’t have – as it relates to the protests itself, I don’t have anything. That is a – it’s an internal matter for the Government of Israel. But unequivocally, journalists need to be able to do their jobs, and insults, name calling, and any kind of violence is unacceptable.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:27 p.m.)