U.S: Department Press Briefing – September 13, 2024 September 13, 2024 1:34 p.m. EDT

 Department Press Briefing – September 13, 2024

September 13, 2024

1:34 p.m. EDT

MR MILLER: Okay. For the run of show, we have a couple officials here: Jim O’Brien, who is the Assistant Secretary for Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs; and Jamie Rubin, the Director of the Global Engagement Center, who will take questions about the announcement the Secretary just made. And then at the end of that, if you have any other remaining questions, which I’m sure you won’t, about the rest of the world, I’m happy to come back up and take some of those. So, Jim, Jamie.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: Thank you, Matt.

MR RUBIN: Ask us a question. (Laughter.)

MR MILLER: Go ahead, Nick.

QUESTION: Ask (inaudible)?

MR MILLER: Leon.

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: Yeah, sure. Hi, thanks for doing this. Just to be clear, I mean, what exactly is new from 10 days ago, or not even 10 days ago, when DOJ announced – and yourselves announced all these series of sanctions against RT, against the group company, the Rossiya Segodnya? What exactly is different today and is the reason why the Secretary would come out and speak about this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: Yeah, this is about the rest of the world. So last week was very focused on activities in the U.S. Here we’re talking about covert activities attempting to subvert democracy and manipulate information environments in the rest of the world. And Jamie may have some examples of this, but I just want to call attention to one of the sentences the Secretary said. He’s instructed diplomats globally to share information we have about what Russia is doing, and to engage with our partners in trying to remove this threat to democracy and accurate information around the globe.

So, part of what we will be doing, picking up from this, is to engage globally and systemically with our partners over time to keep going at the structure Russia’s built to influence operations around the world. And so, you’ll see more of this over time as we work, and we’ll be working with our partners.

This whole initiative began with the Secretary speaking with a number of our partners. The EU, as you know, has banned RT from functioning in Europe. He spoke with the Canadian foreign minister and with Minister Lammy in Great Britain when he was there earlier this week, and they have indicated a strong interest in being partners on this. And we will work with more and more countries over time to address this. That’s the main difference: domestic, now global.

MR RUBIN: Let me just add a couple of points to what Jim said. First of all, you’ll get a fact sheet. You’ll see a lot of detail. You’ll see incredible detail about the way in which RT has become a clearinghouse for a set of covert operations, covert influence activities, intelligence operations de facto, in country after country after country. There’s an example in Argentina, where they’re trying to affect government policy. There’s a threat in the South Caucasus, where they will use these tools to affect governments there. There are examples in France. There are examples in Germany.

Now, you may not find it dramatic, but in order for us to launch a diplomatic campaign around the world, first you saw what I think most of us would agree was pretty dramatic here in the United States. The rest of the world saw that, and now we’re saying to them this is what can happen to you; unless you toe the Russian line, they’re going to use all of these tools under the mask of the thing called Rossiya Segodnya. And the sanctions that were imposed that you’ll see in the fact sheet are the strongest possible sanctions this government puts on. They’re full, as Jim would know better, blocking financial sanctions.

So, we’re exposing what they do in country after country around the world. We’re using a strong sanction tool. But remember, sanctions are a tool. They’re not a goal. What’s the goal? The goal is for the rest of the world – and remember, you’ve asked questions from Matt for months and months about the Global South, and why there’s not more support for Ukraine in this part of the Middle East or that part of Latin America or this part of Africa. Well, one of the reasons – not the only reason, but one of the reasons why so much of the world has not been as fully supportive of Ukraine as you would think they would be, given that Russia has invaded Ukraine and violated rule number one of the international system, is because of the broad scope and reach of RT – where propaganda, disinformation, and lies are spread to millions if not billions of people around the world.

What we’re asking and what we’re going to do – and Jim has warned me against this, but I’m going to do it anyway – is to use an analogy. Okay? It’s only an analogy. It’s not a precise comparison. When the last administration decided to go after the Huawei company for the risk of intelligence being drawn out of a legal telephone instrument, we took a look at that campaign before we launched this. We tried to learn some lessons from it to try to help us figure out what’s the best way over time to make countries around the world see the value and the danger of RT, which is technically a legal instrument, a television station, despite the lies and disinformation it’s broadcasting, that has within it – and now we’ve shown you and will show you in the fact sheet and in the things that I just said – covert operations, covert intelligence activities, acting as if they were a direct arm of the government.

And now here’s the fun part: They’ve admitted it. Go look at what the leader of RT has said. They have said they are operating under direct instruction of Vladimir Putin. That’s what they say they’re doing. And we’re saying they’re fully integrated into the intelligence operations of the Russian Government. And that’s a big difference than our state-funded media. Believe you me, no one in this building gets to tell anyone at VOA, RFE or RL what to say, do, or write. They ask us questions and we answer them. That’s the difference between a state-funded media organization in a democracy and one in an authoritarian government.

The leader of RT has admitted that that’s what she does, and they do. And we’ve now given you enormous examples of how dangerous it is around the world, and I sure hope it meets your definition of something new.

QUESTION: The crowdfunding effort that was announced today, that was directed at a domestic Russian audience, and was it on Russian platforms? Is there any indication that this was on any U.S.-owned platforms?

MR RUBIN: My understanding of that is it’s on Russian platforms but is run by RT secretly. They don’t say this is an RT operation, send – buy UAVs from – and some of that we discovered were UAVs purchased from the People’s Republic of China in small amounts to send to the Russian army. So that’s not what a TV station normally does. That’s what a military entity does. And it’s just another example of what we’re trying to show you, that it is not just a fire hose, as the Secretary put it, of disinformation but a fully fledged member of the intelligence apparatus and operation of the Russian Government on the war in Ukraine.

MR MILLER: All right, Nick and then Kylie.

QUESTION: You guys have – oh, sorry. The Secretary highlighted the first sentence of the fact sheet, new information, much of which originates from RT employees. That language goes beyond what the Department of Justice said last week. So, could you talk about some of the sourcing on this information?

And then on the crowdfunding program, how do you know that that’s not just the RT deputy editor-in-chief helping zealously the soldiers he believes are actually defending Russia? How do you know it goes beyond that? And the PRC stuff – is that just dual-use, or are you alleging that those are PRC weapons that actually went to Russian soldiers via RT?

MR RUBIN: I’ll try. That’s a tough question and you know it’s a tough question. Normally, unless you work over in Langley or in other intelligence facilities of this government, we don’t normally tell you how we know something. Suffice it to say, as Secretary Blinken pointed to, one of the hallmarks of this administration, as you may have seen in Time Magazine, is the ability of our National Security Advisor, our Director of the CIA, and the Director of National Intelligence to downgrade information related to the war in Ukraine, and how remarkable that was and how remarkable it’s been and how remarkable it will continue to be.

Suffice it to say that the GEC, I work with all members of this government. I have a military team, I have an intelligence team, I have State Department officials, and I have teams from other part of the government. This is government information. You can draw your own conclusions as to how much more specific, but I think what the Secretary was pointing to is that some of these things have been admitted themselves by the leaders of RT. And that doesn’t mean that just because someone admitted something it’s not new information, because it’s new and it’s put in its proper context. And that’s the word that we officials love that you guys generally don’t love, because it allows us to go on too long.

But more seriously, RT’s leadership in its most recent interview has acknowledged that their job is to do what the Kremlin tells them to do. And we’re giving you examples of what they’re telling them to do that have nothing to do with broadcasting, even broadcasting lies and disinformation.

MR MILLER: Kylie.

QUESTION: Wait, wait. On the China and weapons?

QUESTION: Yes.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: Yeah. So, the significant thing – so I’d just say in short, no, we’re not going to tell you more than the Secretary said on who said what. On the weapons, China is a major supplier. Much of the crowdsourcing – the things that’s significant is it was done covertly. So, it wasn’t just some employees putting on a telethon, and it was done covertly so they could purchase in some cases, yes, individual arms. So, in this case we have no indication that China knew that this was being directed by the Russian Government or that the end users were Russian soldiers. So that’s – that line we haven’t crossed.

QUESTION: And it was Chinese weapons? Or it sounds like it was, like, Chinese drones and R&D. It’s, like, more dual-use.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: There were some individual soldiers’ arms involved in the crowdsourcing.

MR RUBIN: Some of this equipment has been sourced from the PRC. That means – that doesn’t mean the PRC Government knows – to include reconnaissance drones made by PRC-based entities and R&D support in the production of said drones in coordination with the Russian Ministry of Defense.

MR MILLER: Kylie.

QUESTION: Just one quick question on that, and then I have another question on the cyber unit. So, it is – is it the crowdfunding mechanism that is purchasing these weapons sourced from China, or is it the Russian Government that’s using the funds that are collected there to make the purchases?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: Yeah, we don’t know that.

QUESTION: You don’t?

MR RUBIN: We don’t know the answer to that.

QUESTION: Okay. And then the cyber unit with ties to Russian intelligence embedded in RT in 2023 – can you tell us which countries this unit embedded into RT inside of? And if you can’t list them, just an approximate number of countries where this was an active unit inside of RT?

MR RUBIN: Everything about this unit and its activities inside RT is extremely sensitive information, and I have to get my facts exactly right and not make a mistake here, so bear with me for a second. As I understand it, the unit is a cyber intelligence gatherer, so it’s using cyber tools to gather information and then use that information in some form. We’ve seen in our country and in other countries what happens when cyber units suck up information and then they leak it, for example, or they use it for other purposes.

It’s my understanding that this is a global reach type of a capability because remember, the thing that makes all of this very, very difficult is that the information space is flat. It’s not like you have to be inside Russia or inside China or inside the United States to have an effect on China, Russia, or the United States. And so, with the right kind of capabilities, sitting in the right location, we learned in our country what can happen from some people sitting at a beach in Macedonia – although there’s no beach in Macedonia, but inside Macedonia – what they did in our country. So that’s why the geographic point is not as relevant for cyber espionage.

QUESTION: And is that cyber unit embedded within RT still active at this time?

MR RUBIN: I can’t answer that.

MR MILLER: All right, we’ll do one more. Camilla.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can you give just an idea for – in layman’s terms, a little bit what this looks like, the crowdfunding? I know you said it’s in secret and – are we talking about, like, in secret on the dark web space, rather than, like, a public GoFundMe thing? Can you just help us kind of —

MR RUBIN: I will try to get you more information on that. It’s always funny when you’re preparing this stuff what the thing is that you all decide to focus on, and I never get it right no matter how many years I’ve been doing this business. I personally don’t think that’s the most significant part of what RT is doing. Okay? It’s just an example of what – of how RT is operating as a arm of the government without using its name. It’s an example of something that’s done by cyber – the cyber unit, for example.

But what RT is doing in Argentina in Germany, in France, in the countries – when Jim came back on his – from his last trip, and there were upcoming elections, and they saw the ways in which Russian influence – the Secretary talked about Moldova. I think that’s probably the most important thing, where we’re seeing clear evidence that the – RT is going to be used to try to manipulate an election. And if they don’t win the election, manipulate a crowd to try to generate violence for the possibility of overthrowing. I think that’s probably a lot more important than a few scopes for the soldiers in Ukraine. We were trying to give you an example, and obviously that’s the one that you like the most.

QUESTION: Can I ask one that’s a bit more topical, just for this week?

MR RUBIN: Sure.

QUESTION: So, the – what happened this week with the debate with the former president saying something —

MR RUBIN: Oh, well you know I can’t talk about that.

QUESTION: It’s very specific – can I just – because this is for the GEC as well. Have you seen any – have you seen any evidence – you said the team that you’re working with across the interagency – any evidence of cats and dogs, stories about pets being eaten?

MR RUBIN: You’d have to just —

QUESTION: Was that amplified at all by a foreign entity?

MR RUBIN: I haven’t seen that. I haven’t asked my guys to do that. We’ve been pretty busy on trying to get this thing done. This – you’d be surprised how much work goes into these efforts. And let me just say, because I think we should get the hook – because we’re too focused on crowdfunding and cats – that – I want to thank Carrie Goux, who’s sitting in the back of the room, and all the people at the GEC. This is something that’s been put together over many, many, many weeks and months, and a lot of people put their heart and soul into this sort of work to be able to get it available to you in all these details, so that you can then question me and Jim about cats and crowdfunding.

But this is going to be a long-term campaign, and that’s the point of the analogy to Huawei. That’s something that began under the Trump administration, continued under the Biden administration. We are going to be talking – the Secretary will be talking, the President will be talking, assistant secretaries of state like Jim and especially his colleagues in Latin America, in Africa, in Asia are going to be working with their colleagues to try to show all of those countries that right now broadcast, with no restriction or control, RT and allow them free access to their countries, which I do believe, unfortunately and sadly, has had a deleterious effect on the views of the rest of the world about a war that should be an open-and-shut case.

MR MILLER: All right, thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY O’BRIEN: They’re playing our music.

Thank you all.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: All right, warning from the top tonight we’re going to have to make this a rapid-fire round because I have a meeting at 2:15. But let’s get started. Nick.

QUESTION: You won’t want to discuss anything specifically before the President meets with the British prime minister, so let me try and ask you a question that you can answer. Ukraine has been arguing, as we’ve been talking about, of the utility of long-range fires into Ukraine. It has cited specific targets. It has cited an overall idea of how long-range fires would fit into the broader strategy of victory. So, in general, is that a message that the U.S. has been receiving, and is that a message that will be discussed between British officials, American officials obviously this week? So have you been going forward when it comes to making these issues —

MR MILLER: So, of course, we’ve been having those discussions with our Ukrainian colleagues. That’s one of the things that the Secretary talked about with President Zelenskyy, with the prime minister, and with the foreign minister. It came up in all his meetings in Ukraine two days ago when they were making the case, as they have done consistently since the course of this campaign where you’ve seen different times where they’ve come to make the case for different capabilities or different tactics or other different ways in which we could support them.

Our job always is to listen to the case that they make and then think about, as you may have heard the Secretary say when he got this question – I don’t know – multiple times while he was in the region, both what it is that we can make available to them, how they can use it, what the long-term strategy behind using those capabilities would be. And then we come back and discuss that with our colleagues here, and ultimately the President makes a decision. And so. the – as you know, the Secretary had with him the foreign minister, David Lammy, and who I know was accompanying the prime minister. I’m sure that’ll be one of the things that’ll be discussed in the meeting today.

I do think it is important to note that is not the only topic on the agenda today. We have a longstanding bilateral relationship with the United Kingdom. There are a number of things to talk about in those meetings. Ukraine is an important part of them. It is – it was a large focus of our meetings in the UK, which the Secretary traveled to before Ukraine, but there are other things we talked about too – the war in the Middle East and any other number – any number of other topics.

QUESTION: Okay. And would a U.S. decision about American long-range weapons, would that be made in concert or independently perhaps of any British long-range use of fires inside of Russia?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to speak to any hypotheticals. As of yet, we have not changed our policy. It’s something we discussed with our allies. It’s just something we discussed with our Ukrainian partners. And I don’t have any announcements to make today.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?

MR MILLER: Let me – let me go to Matt first to reclaim his —

QUESTION: Can I ask you something that you might actually have – be able to answer?

MR MILLER: You can try.

QUESTION: Okay. You’ve seen the convictions in Congo?

MR MILLER: I have.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: Would you care —

MR MILLER: Well, I didn’t —

QUESTION: All right. No, that’s it. Okay, you have —

MR MILLER: I didn’t know if you were going to – I assume you wanted —

QUESTION: Right. I’ll send that off to our Kinshasa bureau —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: — that we’ve seen them. Do you have anything to say about them?

MR MILLER: So, you have the same request. So, we have seen that a military court in the Democratic Republic of Congo sentenced a number of defendants, including U.S. citizens, to death for alleged involvement in the May 19th attacks against the government. We understand that the legal process in the DRC allows for defendants to appeal the court’s decision. Embassy staff have been attending these proceedings as they have gone through the process so far. We’ll continue to attend the proceedings and follow the developments closely.

QUESTION: Right. Do you believe the proceedings so far have been fair?

MR MILLER: I don’t want to pass judgement on the proceedings so far, because we are still in the middle of the legal process. They do have the right to appeal. We’re going to continue and stay – to stay engaged in monitoring and speaking to the defendants and their attorneys.

QUESTION: All right. And sticking on court cases, a former – I believe former Diplomatic Security officer pleaded guilty today to charges on January 6th. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR MILLER: The only thing I will say about that is we fully support the work by our colleagues at the Department of Justice to hold anyone responsible for violations of law on that horrific day accountable for those violations.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah, Gillian.

QUESTION: Do you guys have a response to what Putin said yesterday, which was basically that if – this is a follow-up on Ukraine.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: If there were missile strikes, he would view that as NATO entering into a direct war with Russia, including the U.S. Just —

MR MILLER: So a few things —

QUESTION: Do you see it that way?

MR MILLER: Yeah, a few things about that. So, number one, that’s very similar to things that he has said over the course of the past two and a half years. We’ve seen him make similar statements about things that the United States and its allies and partners, not all of whom are NATO members, some of whom are other partners of ours around the world. So, it’s not really a new statement by President Putin, but of course we pay close attention to everything that he says.

I would say President Putin is the one who could end this war today if he wanted to. The only reason we are even having a discussion at all about the provision of American capabilities to Ukraine and the provision of capabilities by our NATO Allies and the coalition of 50 countries that we’ve assembled around the world to Ukraine is because Putin continues to press this illegal war, that he continues to try to forcibly take territory of Ukraine. So, if the president of Russia doesn’t want to have a conversation about what capabilities we provide to Ukraine, there’s a very easy way to get to the end of that conversation, and that’s for him to end this illegal war.

QUESTION: But do you dispute his – I don’t know – his —

MR MILLER: Oh, that – yeah, that NATO —

QUESTION: — his perspective on this that this would be an entry of the United States?

MR MILLER: Of course, no. Of course, it would not be an entering of the United States. We have been very clear that the United States is not going to take part in this war. We’re not going to put boots on the ground. We are, however, going to continue to equip Ukraine so it can defend itself. We’re going to continue to work with a coalition of countries around the world to help Ukraine defend itself.

All right. Now, Tom.

QUESTION: Can I just sort of follow up on the issue of the British leadership visit? I mean, how would you characterize how closely aligned you are with the British Government position on the issue of long-range missiles? Because it’s fairly clear that the British and the French and some others are more sympathetic to President Zelenskyy’s pleas to be able to use these weapons inside Russia. So how would you define what – how closely aligned you are with the British on this?

MR MILLER: So, I don’t want to get into the details of both private and ongoing diplomatic conversations, especially ahead of a conversation that’s going to happen here in another hour, hour and a half or so, at the White House. I will say that we are very closely aligned with Britain on the overall objectives, the overall outcome that we want to see. You heard the Secretary and the foreign minister both speak to that in a press conference in Ukraine. We share the exact same objectives, and we continue to discuss with them the best way to achieve those objectives, the best way to make sure that Ukraine ultimately wins this war. That’s an ongoing discussion, as the Secretary said in Ukraine, and I think he believes the – the as the foreign minister said, both of us would go back and talk with our respective governments about what we heard from our Ukrainian partners, and then we will confer with each other as we confer with our other NATO Allies —

QUESTION: But just to —

MR MILLER: — and make decisions based on those consultations going forward.

QUESTION: Would you prefer that there is coordination on these permissions? I mean, if the Europeans are to sort of unilaterally give permission to use their long-range weapons, is that something you have a problem with?

MR MILLER: So, we will continue to coordinate with them. Every country ultimately has to make its own decisions about how they want to support Ukraine, and that’s something that every country has the ability to do – but we do consult with each other, especially with our close NATO Allies. Ultimately this is an issue that is something we want to work together on, and we’ll continue to do that.

Alex.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Just to press you a little bit more on Nick’s question, your response doesn’t scream urgency, but knowing what you know about Iranian missiles – delivery of Iranian missiles to Russia, and the White House said that they’re going to be employed within weeks, what is the suggestion to the Ukrainians, just sit back and wait for next time?

MR MILLER: Alex, so you and I have had this debate a number of times before when it comes to any one capability that we might provide. And I would urge you, as always, to take this in a larger context and look at the overall support that we have provided to Ukraine since day one – really since before day one. We were providing Ukraine with security assistance before the February 24th, 2022 invasion, and we have continued to provide tens of billions of dollars in assistance. And we’ve continued to adapt and adjust our capabilities that we provide them and adapt and adjust the assistance that we provide them related to – to the evolving situation on the battleground.

However, we’re going to be deliberate about that. We’re going to want to think about how – that every step that we take fits into a long-term strategy. And Alex, ultimately, I would ask that you judge us by our results, by our actions, and by the overall assistance that we provided. And I think our track record in that regard speaks for itself. One more and then —

QUESTION: Okay. And just —

MR MILLER: Just – because I have limited time, one more and then I’m going to move on.

QUESTION: Thanks so much. Jus to clarify, what gives you confidence that the air defense system you have provided so far will actually protect them against Iranian drones, which will hit within weeks? I’m just saying, based on what the White House told us.

MR MILLER: So – you mean Iranian ballistic missiles or Iranian drones?

QUESTION: Yeah – well, both.

MR MILLER: Iranian ballistic missiles? So, we continue to work with them to strengthen their air defense systems. We have provided them air defense systems; a number of other countries have provided them air defense systems. We’re going to continue to work to bolster them as well as continue their – to bolster their capability to take on Russian capabilities to launch those attacks in the first place.

Kylie, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on the questions here, how much is Russia’s procurement of Iran’s short-range military capabilities, which frees up their long-range capabilities, impacting your guys’ decision making here.

MR MILLER: So, it is absolutely something that we take under consideration, both for the strategic purpose that you point out that it does allow Russia to use some of its more long-range capabilities to strike – they don’t have to use them at the frontlines because they can use these short can use these short-range Iranian ballistic missiles. They can use them to conduct long-term strikes targeting Kyiv, targeting potentially Lviv. You’ve seen them targeting civilian infrastructure, not military infrastructure, with those long-range strikes. So, certainly, it is something that we take into consideration.

We also take into consideration the fact that is very much an escalation by Russia. It’s very much an escalation by Iran for them to begin to provide these capabilities to Russia. So, it is absolutely something that we consider in making our calculations.

QUESTION: And the White House said today that we shouldn’t expect any major announcements after the meeting with Biden and Prime Minister Starmer today. Can you give us some sense of when there might be a final decision on this? It’s been discussed for months now. It seems to have come to a boil this week. Are we looking at next week for a possible announcement on this?

MR MILLER: I do not want to either preview or put a timetable on any type of announcements other than to say this is something that we have gone through from time to time when you – there will be a focus on any one particular weapon system or any one particular capability. And as always, I would just urge you to look at the way that we have consistently handled this, which is to be deliberate, to be smart, and to be strategic in about what we provide and when we provide it to our Ukrainian partners.

Okay, Janne and then a couple more and we have to wrap.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Quick questions. Russia is warning of the use of nuclear weapons, and North Korean Kim Jong-un is also ordering the mass production of nuclear weapons. North Korea trying to get – interfere in the U.S. presidents election. How do you predict North Korea and the Russia’s intervene – intervention in the U.S. presidential election?

MR MILLER: So, we have been – made very clear that we oppose any country taking steps to interfere in our democratic process here and that we will take steps to hold accountable any country that does so. And you’ve seen us take actions in the past.

QUESTION: On North Korea?

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just a little bit more relevant, do you have anything to say about the uranium?

MR MILLER: No. We saw – we obviously saw the video. It doesn’t change our over policy – our overall policy. It’s a new video. I don’t know that it represents any new – bless you – any new capability by the North Korean regime. We are going to continue to make clear that we will defend our South Korean and Japanese allies, and we’ll continue to work for the full denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

QUESTION: Do you think North Korea’s seventh nuclear test is imminent, or just (Inaudible)? Do you know?

MR MILLER: I do not want to make any predictions on that.

Guita, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. On the eve of the anniversary of Mahsa Amini’s death in Iran and the start of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement, the UN fact-finding mission has issued a – its latest report on the situation of human rights in Iran. In short, it says the suppression of women’s and girls’ rights has intensified and it is crushing women’s activism. The mission suggests, and I quote, “states must continue to place the situation of women and girls in the Islamic Republic of Iran high on the international agenda.” I was wondering what the Biden administration is doing in this regard.

MR MILLER: Sure. So as you have heard us say before, Mahsa Amini’s story did not end with her death. She inspired a historic movement that has impacted Iran and influenced people across the globe who are advocating for gender equality, respect for human rights, and particularly the respect for human rights inside Iran. So that report is absolutely right. We have – continue to see a crackdown on women and women’s rights in Iran, and I would just say the new president of Iran has at various times signaled that he wants to change his approach and wants to reach out to the West, and have a different relationship with the West. There are obviously a number of actions he could take in that regard when it comes to Iran’s destabilizing activities outside of its own borders, but one of the actions he could take would be to stop the crackdown on women and women’s rights inside Iran’s borders.

All right.

QUESTION: Middle East?

MR MILLER: Let me take one more and then I really do have to go, because I have a meeting with the boss.

QUESTION: Thank you so much, Matt. One question on the killing of Turkish-American activist —

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: — Aysenur Ezgi Eygi. Recent reports dispute Israeli account that she was shot accidentally. Given the – what happened with the – Shireen Abu Akleh’s case, as – I mean, is the U.S. reconsidering its stance on the Israeli narrative on this? And is it the U.S. – still the U.S. position that you are waiting for the results of the Israeli investigation instead of launching a U.S.-led, independent investigation, as demanded by Aysenur’s family?

MR MILLER: Yeah, let me say this. We have been briefed on the results of the preliminary investigation by the Government of Israel, and they have told us they are conducting a full criminal investigation. We are going to wait to pass any judgments about what steps ought to take – ought to occur next until we have – in terms of – from an investigative standpoint – until we’ve received the results of that investigation. We think they ought to be – that investigation needs to be thorough, it needs to be prompt, and it needs to be transparent, and then we’ll make any determinations at the conclusion of that investigation.

But that said, as the Secretary said earlier this week, even knowing what we know now, we know enough to know that the Israeli security forces need to make changes in the way that they are operating in the West Bank, because you have now seen not just one but two American citizens killed as a result of what the Israeli forces – or the Israeli forces admit themselves were fire from, in this case, the IDF.

So, it is very clear that they do need to make changes in the rules of engagement and we – we’re going to continue to impress – to press them on that, and that I think is a different question than the one about the investigation, but my point being we know enough now to know that there are changes that need to be made.

QUESTION: And just a quick follow-up. What changes do you expect from Israel, and what consequences – will there be any consequences for Israel to kill – for killing a U.S. citizen?

MR MILLER: So, we want to see changes to the rules of engagement. First of all, with respect to consequences, you do need to wait to see the results of the investigation to know whether there need to be any specific criminal consequences for the individuals involved. It’s important that that investigation play out. And as I said, it ought to be prompt and thorough and transparent.

But ultimately, when it comes to the changes in the rules of engagement, what we have said or what we have seen – and you heard the Secretary speak to this – is we have seen a number of occasions when Israeli security forces have stood by when there were acts of settler violence, when they haven’t intervened. We need to – we want to see them intervene and stop those acts of settler violence. We have seen reports of excessive use of force by Israeli security forces against Palestinians. And now we’ve seen the death of two American citizens, and we want that to end. And that’s why we want to see the changes to the rules of engagement.

And with that, I’m sorry, I do have to wrap for today. See you guys next week.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:20 p.m.)

# # #