Department Press Briefing – September 19, 2024
September 19, 2024
1:05 p.m. EDT
MR MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
MR MILLER: It’s a little bit of a smaller room today.
QUESTION: Smaller room? Smaller crowd?
MR MILLER: Smaller crowd, obviously. A smaller room – I don’t think the room has shrunk in the last 48 hours. But yes, smaller crowd, which I’ll try not to take personally.
Let me start with some opening comments. Secretary Blinken will travel to New York City next week to participate in the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly. While at UNGA, the Secretary will reiterate the United States’ commitment to addressing global challenges through multilateral action. UNGA High-Level Week is a time for UN member states to reaffirm our collective commitments to the tenets of the UN Charter, and the United States recognizes the UN’s critical role in maintaining peace and security, advancing sustainable development, and promoting human rights.
In New York City, the Secretary will speak at the UN Summit of the Future, where world leaders have the opportunity to better position the UN to address the challenges of today and tomorrow – and to deliver solutions on the issues that matter most to the lives and livelihoods of our people.
He will participate in a UN Security Council session on Russia’s war against Ukraine, and lead a meeting of the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drugs, which the United States launched last year to fight the trafficking of fentanyl and other synthetic drugs that have claimed the lives of so many Americans. In addition, he will hold a number of bilateral and multilateral meetings with allies and partners to discuss how we can continue to support Ukraine, how we can reach a ceasefire to the conflict in Gaza, address the ongoing suffering in Sudan; ensure a free, prosperous, and stable Indo-Pacific; and tackle many of the other urgent challenges the United States and the world are facing.
We will have more announcements about the Secretary’s specific schedule in the days ahead, but he is very much looking forward to his fourth High-Level Week as Secretary, and I know we all look forward to seeing a number of you there as well.
And with that, Matt.
QUESTION: Right. Thanks. Sorry, I missed the call so —
MR MILLER: No, quite all right.
QUESTION: A little bit late. I’ve got two things before people get into what I’m sure is going to be the dominant theme of today, but I want to get them out of the way first.
MR MILLER: UNGA?
QUESTION: No. (Laughter.) Lebanon. But I’m not going to ask about Lebanon. I want to ask: One, have you been able to substantiate or find any evidence that anyone in Ukraine or anywhere else informed you – meaning the embassy or the State Department here – of this guy who is accused of attempting to assassinate the former President?
MR MILLER: So we have – so I’ve seen obviously some of the public reporting where various individuals or organizations have said that they were in contact with our Ukraine about – or our embassy in Ukraine about his activities in Ukraine. We, to date, have found no record of such a communication. I can’t rule out completely that there wasn’t any such communication; but, as of date, we have found no record of one.
QUESTION: Okay. And that’s with the embassy or embassy –
MR MILLER: The embassy in Ukraine.
QUESTION: Or embassy staff. What about here in –
MR MILLER: We haven’t found any other – obviously the State Department is a big place, so that’s why I said I can’t rule out that someone didn’t have a communication with somebody somewhere in the State Department. But we, as of yet, have found no record about anyone – any individual or organization communicating with us about –
QUESTION: All right. I realize —
MR MILLER: – his activities there.
QUESTION: I realize this is a difficult question to answer and you may not want to. But if you had been, what could the State Department do about it? If you were told that there was some American citizen abroad acting suspiciously, what could or – what could you have been – what could this department have been able to do?
MR MILLER: So it would depend on the circumstance. But if, for example, we were told that an American abroad was acting in a way that was a threat to others, it’s the type of thing that we could refer to law enforcement and, as a standard course of practice, we would refer to law enforcement.
QUESTION: Okay, all right. And then the second thing which is not on Lebanon is you’ve seen that the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has postponed the hearing or the meeting that they were going to have on a contempt citation for the Secretary from today while the Secretary is in Egypt and – or was in Egypt and is now in Paris – until Tuesday, when I presume – but please let us know – that he is aware that the Secretary will be in New York on Tuesday, and that the time of the hearing, which is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, is literally like 20 minutes before President Biden –
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: – is supposed to speak at the General Assembly. Do you think that HFAC’s or at least the chairman’s efforts to go after accountability on this are serious, or are they just screwing with you?
MR MILLER: Let me say a few things about it. Number one, first of all, we are glad that the committee finally recognized that the Secretary does have important foreign policy business to carry out on behalf of the United States. We told them weeks ago that he would be in the Middle East this week on the date when they said that they wanted to have a hearing today. We told them that he would not be in the United States, that he would be traveling overseas to try to reach a ceasefire to the conflict in Gaza. They went ahead and scheduled the hearing for that date anyway and threatened him in contempt if he didn’t show up on a day when we had told them that he would be out, carrying out these important foreign policy duties.
Glad that they moved the hearing from today until Tuesday in recognition that he’s not here. But once again, they have unilaterally selected a date when we have told them in advance that he will be not in Washington, D.C. because he will be elsewhere in carrying out important meetings to advance the foreign policy interests of the United States.
To give you an example of what some of those meetings he will be having next week are: Number one, he will be participating in a United Nations Security Council debate on the war in Ukraine. We expect President Zelenskyy to be at that meeting. We expect the Russian foreign minister to be at that meeting. But we obviously think it’s in the interests of the United States that the United States be represented at that meeting by the Secretary of State to defend the United States’ interests. He is going to convene a meeting of the Global Coalition to address synthetic drugs, which the Secretary founded to try to fight the scourge of fentanyl trafficking.
Chairman McCaul himself has said that the United States needs to work with its allies and partners to do more to address fentanyl trafficking. Well, that’s what the Secretary is doing next Tuesday in New York. This is a meeting that has been long-scheduled with foreign ministers and other foreign leaders that we are intent on carrying out because of the import foreign policy – because of the important outcomes that we expect to have from that meeting.
He also will attend other bilateral meetings. He will be with the President. The President is speaking to the General Assembly that day. The President will be having other meetings and the Secretary will be attending those meetings with the President. So, he has important duties to carry out at the General Assembly.
Now I will reiterate what we have told the committee privately and what I have said publicly, which is the Secretary is willing to come and testify before that committee. We have said we are willing to work with them on a date that is mutually aggregable. But obviously they can’t just set a date when he has scheduled meetings to go participate in a Security Council meeting or convene this meeting to address fentanyl any more than he could be there today when he was in the Middle East trying to reach a ceasefire. That is not the type of accommodation that the Supreme Court has said the Congress must carry out under the Constitution.
So if they are intent on having a hearing next Tuesday, we will again make another witness available. And if they don’t want to have it Tuesday, if they can have it another day, we will make the Secretary available. But we expect the committee to work with us through the constitutionally mandated accommodation process.
QUESTION: Well, at the moment, do you think that they’re actually – that they’re actually serious about wanting to conduct oversight? Or do you think that there is some kind of a political agenda at play here?
MR MILLER: Look – so it very much does not appear that they are acting in good faith. When we tell them weeks in advance that on Thursday, September – what is today? September 19th the Secretary is going to be in the Middle East; he can’t be in the Middle East and appear before a congressional hearing in Washington, D.C., at the same time, and they set a hearing for that date anyway. And then when we get close to it and they realize oh, yeah, he actually is in the Middle East, and so they moved a hearing to Tuesday, when we have told them that he is going to be in New York carrying out these important meetings, and they schedule it anyway and threaten him in contempt – rather than hold it on another date. There’s nothing magic about next Tuesday. They could hold the hearing on another date. We’ve said we’d make the Secretary available on another date. So when they are not willing to take yes for an answer, I think it does raise – call into question whether they are actually —
QUESTION: Okay. So are you saying that if Congress is supposed to be in recess the week after next, I believe, if they were to – or at least members of this committee were to come back into session, the Secretary – while he is in D.C. before any other potential travel that’s coming up in the second week of October – that he would be willing to appear?
MR MILLER: So, I’m not going to negotiate a date in public. That’s what we can do –
QUESTION: No, I’m not asking –
MR MILLER: No, I just – but –
QUESTION: But –
MR MILLER: But –
QUESTION: But the idea is –
MR MILLER: The – I totally –
QUESTION: The idea that they have raised is that, well, we’re going to be in recess – Congress has raised – well, we’re going to be in recess. So if the Secretary was asked to appear and the committee – at least the members of the committee – would be willing to come back to Washington or to not be on their vacation, he would do that in the first week of October?
MR MILLER: So I can’t commit to a specific date or a specific week here, obviously. I’d have to look at the Secretary’s calendar, and I would want – we want to discuss this with the committee first. But what we have told them is while he’s not available to testify on the dates that they have picked, we want to work with them on the next date that is mutually available to both us and the committee, and we are committed to doing that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Yeah, Gillian.
QUESTION: A question on Iran. I’m wondering what the department’s response is to this recent revelation yesterday that – I mean, we knew that the Iranian regime’s hackers were trying to penetrate the presidential campaign, but now we learn they are so far burrowed in there that they actually managed to steal Trump campaign information and share it with what was then the Biden-Harris campaign. I mean, it’s pretty – I don’t know, it seems shocking.
MR MILLER: So we have been raising concerns about Iranian cyber actors attempting to influence elections around the world, including U.S. elections, for some time. It was of course disclosures by the United States that brought all of this to light. I think these latest attempts are nothing new by the Iranian regime. It’s sought to undermine democracies around the globe for years. But of course, they’re absolutely troubling.
Iran should not interfere in our elections. No country should interfere in our elections. And what we will do is continue to expose those countries that attempt to interfere in our elections, and we will hold them accountable for those actions.
QUESTION: So I understand that the – like, Iran’s attempts may not be new, but certainly the degree of success they’re now having is new. We’ve not ever seen anything like that before, at least that was disclosed publicly.
MR MILLER: Well, we’ve seen – we’ve certainly seen countries hack into presidential campaigns before, obviously. You’re right; we have not publicly disclosed any example of Iran having done so. No, they are – they are – it is absolutely a concerning set of behaviors by Iran, which is why we have committed to exposing those actions publicly and why we will hold them accountable for them.
Yeah, Jenny.
QUESTION: Can we move to Lebanon?
MR MILLER: Sorry, I don’t know why I skipped over the line, Shaun.
QUESTION: All good. (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: I mean, do you want to go, Shaun? (Laughter.)
MR MILLER: Just going typewriter-style down the line.
QUESTION: Can we – can we switch to Lebanon?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: We are seeing increasing escalations there. The Israeli Defense Forces say they are launching strikes there. Gallant has mentioned a new front. What is your response to the fact that it seems the Israelis are trying to escalate this to another front in the war?
MR MILLER: So we have made very clear – and you heard the Secretary speak to this publicly yesterday in Egypt – that we don’t want to see any party escalate this conflict. We think that the best way to solve the really very real security challenge that Israel faces is through a diplomatic resolution that would allow thousands of Israeli citizens to return home and allow thousands of Lebanese citizens to return home. We’re going to continue to impress that on all parties.
QUESTION: What have they shared with you about their plans for the Lebanon offensive?
MR MILLER: So I will keep those conversations between our two countries private. We consult with them about a range of security measures all the time, of course. But I will say in our private diplomatic conversations we have said what we said publicly to the – what we say publicly to you is the same thing we say privately to them, which is that we do think a diplomatic resolution is by far the best way to address the real security concerns that they have.
QUESTION: And is that something they’re still accepting?
MR MILLER: They still want a diplomatic resolution, but you can look at their public statements and judge for yourself where they’re going. But we still do hear them say that they prefer a diplomatic resolution. That’s what we’re going to continue – and among other reasons, that’s what we’ll – that’s why that’s what we’ll – lost myself in my words. That is one of the reasons why that is what we will continue to push for.
QUESTION: And then I’m curious. Is the U.S. still prepared to back Israel if they are to escalate this on a northern front?
MR MILLER: So let me make one thing clear. We are committed to the defense of Israel against terrorist organizations. That includes Hamas. It includes Hizballah. It includes other Iranian proxies. We will continue to stand by Israel’s right to defend itself. But we don’t want to see any party escalate this conflict, period.
QUESTION: One –
QUESTION: Can I just follow it up?
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You don’t want any party to escalate it. I mean, for example, today when Nasrallah was speaking, there were Israeli jets breaking the sound barrier over Beirut. Are those escalatory actions?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to comment on any one specific action. Obviously, we have seen Israel and Hizballah launching strikes at each other going back to I believe it was October 8th, and immediately after the October 7th conflict, Hizballah began sending rockets and drones across the border to target Israeli communities. And we’ve seen Israel respond to that by targeting Hizballah militants inside Lebanon. So that has been a pattern since October 7th. And of course it goes back well before that, but it’s been an entrenched pattern nearly every day since then.
We continue to push for a diplomatic resolution. We continue to believe the only way to get there is by first getting a ceasefire in Gaza, and so that’s what we’ll continue to focus on.
QUESTION: And when – just taking a step back, perhaps, when you’re saying you want de-escalation, how dangerous is it right now in Lebanon? I mean, what we’ve seen in recent days – what’s the level of concern?
MR MILLER: It continues to be a very dangerous situation. Now, look, that – we have – it has been a dangerous situation since October 7th. As I just said in my previous answer, you’ve seen Hizballah launching terrorist attacks against Israel nearly every day since October 7th. So it has been a dangerous situation, and the risk of escalation has been high, and there have been a number of points where the risk of escalation has been especially high, and that risk has receded – never gone away, but receded. And so we will continue to push to try to calm tensions, to try to urge all parties to de-escalate, and try to get to a place eventually where we can push for a diplomatic resolution.
QUESTION: Just two more, if you don’t mind. This of course happened – and I think we’ve asked this before, but it’s worth repeating. Amos Hochstein was there just recently. I realize he doesn’t work for the State Department, but he is a U.S. envoy. What does this – does this go – does this contradict at all the message he was trying to send about de-escalation, about having a diplomatic solution? I mean, this came right after – right after his visit.
MR MILLER: So I will let the – I will let every party speak for themselves. I will speak on behalf of the United States and say that of course we want all parties to de-escalate. And we’ll leave it at that.
QUESTION: Just one final thought. The – again, about the nature of these explosions, the walkie-talkies, the pagers. Were these legitimate targets? Obviously, Hizballah people appear to be targeted, but there are also not just reports but there are accounts of children being killed, for example. Is that – is this a legitimate form of warfare?
MR MILLER: So without commenting on these specific incidents because we are still gathering information, as a general principle, we do believe it is an appropriate practice for any country to defend itself by fighting terrorist organizations and terrorists that attack and are committed to attacking that country. But of course, civilians are never a legitimate target in any type of military or other operation.
QUESTION: Would you see them as targeted in this?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any further comment on the incident at all.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
MR MILLER: Daphne, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks. So just to follow up on Jenny’s questions, if Israel invades Lebanon, will the U.S. continue to stand by Israel?
MR MILLER: I am not going to deal with any type of hypotheticals of that nature. Obviously we support Israel’s right to defend itself, but we do not want to see a further escalation of the conflict. I’m not going to deal with any hypothetical scenarios that may or, hopefully, will not occur.
QUESTION: It’s well within the realm of possibility. I mean, will the U.S. get involved and continue to back Israel?
MR MILLER: We will continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself while making clear we don’t want to see any party escalate this conflict. But I’m just not going to deal with a hypothetical scenario. It is – continues to be the priority for the United States to push for de-escalation of the conflict. Now, other parties have to make their own decisions, but that will be what we continue to push for.
QUESTION: And then just on the attacks on the communications equipment, what effect do these incidents have on ceasefire talks? The Secretary was just in Egypt. What did he hear while there about the path forward and any effect that these attacks have on the ceasefire?
MR MILLER: So I think it’s too early to speculate or comment on what any type of implications might be. But as has been true in similar incidents over time since we’ve been trying to reach a ceasefire to this conflict, the continued loss of life ought to encourage all parties to reach a ceasefire. It ought to be in the interests of all parties to reach a ceasefire that brings the hostages home, that stops the death of civilians in Gaza, that decreases tensions across the Blue Line, that decreases tensions across the region.
So I can’t tell you what the actual effects will be, but I can tell you that the way we look at it and see – when you see continued incidents that bring death and suffering and instability, that ought to be an incentive for reaching a ceasefire, not a disincentive. Can’t say it will be, but it ought to be.
QUESTION: It’s been a couple of days now. What – have you seen any effect so far on the ceasefire talks?
MR MILLER: We continue to push for a ceasefire, but I’m not going to get into where things stand publicly.
QUESTION: Do they promise –
QUESTION: Can I just –
MR MILLER: Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: – quickly ask? There was reportedly another ceasefire proposal presented to the U.S. by Gal Hirsch in the prime minister’s office, an all-in-all which offered Sinwar exile opportunities. What does the U.S. make of this? Do you think that’s an actual realistic plan?
MR MILLER: I don’t think it’s productive for me to comment on it publicly. I will say what you’ve heard us say before: We continue to push for a ceasefire; it continues to be our top priority when it comes to this conflict. The Secretary was engaged in these conversations yesterday with the president of Egypt and the foreign minister of Egypt. There are other conversations ongoing at different levels of our government with the intermediaries, but I don’t think it’s helpful for me to kind of comment publicly on various proposals that are floated.
QUESTION: Is it being considered at all seriously by the U.S. government?
MR MILLER: I just don’t think it’s productive for me to talk publicly, but I will say the proposal that we continue to focus on is the one that the President laid out in his address on May 31st that was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, that was agreed to by Israel, that Hamas agreed to parts of and rejected parts of, and it has been the subject of negotiations for some time now.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that, please?
MR MILLER: Said, go ahead.
QUESTION: You say that they accepted part of and rejected part of, but they issued a statement: They accepted all of it way back then, on the 3rd of July. So they –
MR MILLER: So I guess it – it depends what you mean by “accepted.” Accept with amendments is not accepting. They accepted and they had amendments and –
QUESTION: No, they –
MR MILLER: Let me just say –
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR MILLER: – they had amendments that they came back with. There were parts of that proposal they did not accept that they asked for changes to. So that’s not a full acceptance just as a factual matter, Said.
QUESTION: But yeah, I mean, it’s also factual that it’s the Israeli prime minister who keeps putting in new terms.
MR MILLER: I’m just – Said, I’m just giving you –
QUESTION: No, I’m with you on this, but when –
MR MILLER: As I say, as a factual matter, what you said is not correct.
QUESTION: Okay, all right. Let me ask you just a couple of things in your response to Daphne on – now, U.S. officials don’t believe that Israel is preparing to invade Lebanon. You don’t believe that Israel will invade Lebanon?
MR MILLER: So I don’t know where you got that assessment from. I’m not making any public –
QUESTION: Some – okay. Some are saying that they believe –
MR MILLER: “Some are saying.” Oh, the mythical – I never like to reply to the mythical “some are saying.”
QUESTION: Okay.
MR MILLER: If you have a specific thing to refer to, I’m happy to.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, they’re saying that –
MR MILLER: Otherwise I’ll speak to what the State Department believes and what the State Department is doing.
QUESTION: Okay. Let me – let me then deal with this from a different – do you believe that Israel is preparing to invade Lebanon?
MR MILLER: So, as I said in response to –
QUESTION: Right. (Inaudible.)
MR MILLER: – I think Daphne and Jenny’s question, I will let every other country speak for –
QUESTION: Right.
MR MILLER: – what it is doing, what it is planning to do, and I will speak for what the United States is doing. And the United States continues to push for a de-escalation of tensions, not an escalation.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm. Let me just ask a couple more questions, with the indulgence of my colleagues. Israel is blocking about over 40 percent of food assistance into Gaza, according to the HuffPost. Are you aware of these statistics and can you update us on the latest level of U.S. aid to Gaza? Or is –
MR MILLER: So I’m not aware of that specific statistic. I can tell you that getting food, water, medicine continues to be something that we work on. We have seen something of a stabilizing of the levels of food and water coming in – not a sufficient level, but when things got to a really dire level, they have come back up from kind of what that floor was several months ago. It’s something that we continue to work on every day.
But I think our experience over the last 11 months shows us the only way to get a durable delivery of humanitarian assistance into Gaza is to reach a ceasefire, so you have an increased ability to get food, water, medicine, other humanitarian goods to the crossings themselves, and then you have the ability to deliver them from those crossings inside Gaza to the people that – who need them.
QUESTION: But you are keeping tabs on the level of aid that goes in, yeah?
MR MILLER: Of course we do. I just – I don’t have the number of trucks that came in at my fingertips.
QUESTION: I understand.
MR MILLER: I’m happy to follow up with you after the briefing.
QUESTION: Okay. Is it at the same level as it was when the pier was there, or less, or more?
MR MILLER: So it – the level changes, as you – I think you know, Said, because the truck – the truck numbers are public. They’re published – publicized by various UN entities. I don’t have them at my fingertips, but they’re publicly available and I’m happy to engage with you after the briefing and get them to you.
QUESTION: Okay. And I wanted to ask you about normalization. Yesterday or the day before, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, MBS, said there will be no – they will not recognize Israel without a Palestinian state. So do you feel that now we’re getting so close to the election, this effort to normalize will be dropped by this administration?
MR MILLER: So, Said, that is exactly what the crown prince said to Secretary Blinken when we met with him in Saudi Arabia on January 8th. And the Secretary came out publicly and said that he had just met with the crown prince and the crown prince said there are two things that he needed to see before he could move forward on normalization: one was a ceasefire in Gaza, and one was a legitimate path to two states. So that has been his position, and we have publicly discussed his position for some time.
QUESTION: Yeah, I’m aware, but I’m saying that as the calendar of – as the window closes, do you feel there is going to be further effort by the administration to pursue normalization?
MR MILLER: Every day that goes by, it gets tougher to accomplish anything. That’s just a temporal fact. We continue to believe, however, that long term, of course normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel is in the interests of both countries, it’s – in the region, as is the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, which Saudi Arabia has made very clear is inextricably linked to normalization. All of those things are in the interests of Israel. They’re in the interests of Palestinians. They’re in the interests of broader – the broader region.
Now, we are obviously quite aware of the challenges that we face in getting to those now. The fighting in Gaza continues to wage on. We continue to work to get a ceasefire. But as a long-term goal, of course it has not changed as one of our foreign policy goals.
Yeah. Hudson.
QUESTION: Can you put any meat on the bones to the sort of urgency to try to calm tensions between Lebanon and Israel? Are there any sort of calls or U.S. government travel you can read out at all? There are some reports that the Pentagon Secretary is no longer going to visit this weekend.
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to the travel of people in other departments. I will say that we continue to engage with our Israeli counterparts on this. As was publicly reported, Amos Hochstein was just in Israel on Monday, pressing the need for de-escalation and pressing the need for a diplomatic resolution. The Secretary of Defense has talked to the defense minister several times in the past few days. We’ve had conversations between State Department officials and Israeli officials. Those will continue. They will continue at the senior-most levels of the government. At times we’ll read those out, but I can’t announce – I can’t make them – I can’t – I can’t make them – I can’t announce them publicly before they occur, of course.
QUESTION: And calling for calm has been sort of a routine recital by the administration. Do you have any response to criticism that the U.S. calling for calm while continuing to arm Israel is not a successful strategy for reducing tensions?
MR MILLER: So let me say this. First of all, as I said earlier, the – we continue to be committed to the defense of Israel. You look at the security situation that Israel faces, where they have Hizballah on their northern border; they have a terrorist group in Gaza that’s committed to the destruction of Israel; there are terrorist groups that operate in the West Bank that are committed to the destruction of Israel; Iran, of course, is committed to the destruction of Israel. So of course, we are committed to Israel’s security.
By the way, we are mandated – we are required by statute to guarantee that Congress has a – I’m sorry – that Israel has a qualitative military edge over rivals in the region. It’s not a discretionary question. It is a statutory requirement, and it is one that we are committed to. So there is also an important deterrent effect to the United States continuing to send a message to Israel’s adversaries that if they attack Israel, we will defend it. And that’s a message that we will continue to send loud and clear.
QUESTION: It just seems like when the U.S. is visiting in the region there are escalations that happen – sometimes by Israel’s enemies; oftentimes by Israel – that seem to catch U.S. officials by surprise. And it would seem to raise questions about the competency of U.S. policy.
MR MILLER: So first of all, I don’t think the calendar exactly lines up, only because there are various escalations that happen in this conflict not on a daily basis, but pretty regular basis, and there are U.S. officials traveling on a pretty regular basis. So when you have U.S. officials in a region that is, by its nature, volatile, where there are actions happening all the time, of course there’s going to be some overlap at sometimes. But oftentimes, there’s not overlap. So I think you’re drawing an inference that – I think in college I was taught – was correlation, not causation.
It remains a very difficult, volatile region. That has been long before – through – long before President Biden took office. It will probably continue to be true long after President Biden leaves office. What I can you the United States will continue to do is supply – is to apply all of our diplomatic muscle to trying to ease tensions, to trying to de-escalate tensions. And if you look at the various points since October 7th when there was real concern that this conflict would spiral out of control and lead to all-out regional war, the diplomatic efforts that we have pursued have been able to prevent that from happening on a number of different occasions.
That, of course, is no guarantee for the future – the investment line about past results being no guarantee to future success. But what it is, is a sign to us that that’s what we need to keep doing, that we need to keep – even in the face of a very difficult situation – doing everything we can to urge all parties to de-escalate tensions, to try to restore calm, and try to refrain from taking steps that can’t be reversed.
QUESTION: Causation isn’t correlation, but don’t U.S. officials risk becoming just part of the furniture in the Middle East, where they’re not really taken seriously in any —
MR MILLER: I think the example I was just going through shows exactly the opposite. There have been times throughout the past 11 months where U.S. engagement with our allies and partners in the regions and the messages that we have been able to organize various allies and partners to send to Iran, to Iranian proxy groups, and the messages that we have delivered to Israel and to other countries, have kept this conflict from spilling out of control.
Now as I said, it remains a very difficult, volatile situation, and the situation could escalate at any moment. But we’re going to continue to try to prevent that. So far, we have been successful of keeping it from turning into an all-out regional war. And that’s what we’re going to continue to try to pursue.
Tom. Sorry. Olivia, sorry, I did not want –
QUESTION: That’s okay. Go, Tom.
QUESTION: Just wanted to pin down some of the basics, again, on the exploding pagers. I mean, is it still your position that you are not saying publicly who you believe carried out these attacks?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any comment on it at all.
QUESTION: And is there any reason that you wouldn’t say why – what your assessment is of who carried these out?
MR MILLER: I just don’t have any comment on it at all.
QUESTION: Okay. Two days ago, you said the U.S. was not aware of this incident in advance. Is that statement still accurate?
MR MILLER: The statement I made on – two days ago was absolutely accurate.
QUESTION: That you didn’t know about the incident in advance?
MR MILLER: Correct.
QUESTION: Okay. Because there – I mean, there has been some reporting that there was a call from the Israelis to say that something was going to happen in Lebanon on Tuesday. Do you have any comment on that report?
MR MILLER: The statement I made on Tuesday was 100 percent accurate.
QUESTION: Okay. And on – just to follow up on the point about targeting and international humanitarian law, I mean, presumably the State Department is aware of the amended Protocol 2 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which prohibits the use of booby traps or other devices in the form of harmless portable objects. Is that something you’re taking into account when you’re assessing and gathering information on this incident?
MR MILLER: So we take into account all of the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law when it assesses – when we assess incidents of this type and other incidents throughout this conflict. I don’t pronounce judgment on those from this podium, but those are the types of things that we look at, yes, absolutely.
QUESTION: And given – I mean, just to reiterate the point – I mean, thousands of explosions, two children killed; we’ve seen explosions in public places, in grocery stores, on the streets, health care workers among the casualties. I mean, does that feel to you like a targeted attack that falls within the remit of international humanitarian law?
MR MILLER: So I’m not going to talk about feelings here. We deal in factual assessments of law. Those are the type of assessments that we conduct over time where we gather information and make those assessments based on the facts, based on the law. Those assessments are ongoing. It’s not to speak to this incident or any specific incident, but those are things we take very seriously.
Olivia.
QUESTION: Thank you. Just to actually follow up on what Tom was asking you, you did have a comment on the pager incidents earlier, which is to say that the U.S. is still gathering information. So to what end is it gathering information? Is it to arrive at public attribution for these incidents, or not?
MR MILLER: We continue to gather information for a number of different reasons. I’m not going to speak to them publicly.
QUESTION: Do you expect to arrive at public attribution for these incidents?
MR MILLER: So I wouldn’t want to prejudge today what steps we may or may not take in the future.
QUESTION: I mean, in the past when there have been – call them covert operations – the U.S. has declined to comment until it became common knowledge what actually happened, which seems to be the trajectory here. So is there a reason why at this stage the U.S. is not willing or able to say what has happened in its view?
MR MILLER: Only that I continue to gather information, but I don’t have any comment. It’s not to say we won’t in the future, not to say that we will. But as of today, I don’t have any comment on the incident.
QUESTION: Okay. Why is it too soon to tell whether or how these incidents may have affected ceasefire talks in Gaza? Have you not heard from other parties, whether Hamas, the Egyptians, or the Qataris, that it was at least counterproductive to the facilitation of these talks?
MR MILLER: So I won’t get into our private diplomatic conversations, but oftentimes when you have a big incident in the – this has been true throughout these talks – it does take a few days for the proverbial dust to settle to see where things are going to shake out. So at this point, I just – it would be speculation for me to try to judge how it will impact the talks. Especially, as you know – we’ve said this before – oftentimes communications with Hamas are difficult. They take time. It’s just too early to have – to be able to speculate about any kind of impact.
QUESTION: So you’ve heard no objections or complaints or reluctance from other parties to continue those conversations so long as what’s happening in northern Israel and Lebanon is happening?
MR MILLER: So when it – so when you say any parties, I’ll talk about the mediators who we communicate with. No, there has been no reluctance to continue to work to try and get a ceasefire from any of the mediators that we are working with on this arrangement.
QUESTION: Okay. And the expectation that a bridging proposal may come? I mean, U.S. officials have been saying it could come sort of any day for the past several weeks. Is there any update to that timing?
MR MILLER: I don’t have a timetable to put on it, no.
QUESTION: Does the Israeli government agree with the U.S. that the only way to settle or to arrive at sort of a calmer situation in the north is by arriving at a ceasefire related to Gaza first?
MR MILLER: So they should speak to that publicly, and I know that they have. I am not going to speak on their behalf.
QUESTION: Well, is it – based on your understanding from any conversations —
MR MILLER: I mean, you can look at their public statements. They have said many times that there are – they could reach it through a diplomatic solution, military solution. But to elaborate on that, that’s a question you should put to them.
QUESTION: Okay. But I mean, based on your conversations, diplomatic engagements with the Israelis, is it the U.S.’s view that that is how they are proceeding?
MR MILLER: So I’m again not going to talk about their view. They have talked about this publicly, and at times you have heard various officials from the Israeli government come out and say that they prefer a diplomatic solution but that they are ready for a military solution if they can’t reach a diplomatic solution. I don’t believe they ever put a timetable, but they’ve said that publicly a number of times. They’ve said it privately to us on a number of occasions too.
I cannot speak for what decisions that they are going to make, obviously. Those are decisions that they will make and they can speak to them. I can speak to what we have said to them, and it is what I have said to you and what the Secretary has said publicly and the President on down: that we continue to believe a diplomatic resolution is the best way to ensure both short-term peace and security for Israel and the tens of thousands of Israeli citizens that have been displaced and also long-term stability.
QUESTION: A diplomatic resolution writ large. I’m asking specifically about the sequencing that a Gaza ceasefire must come first before anything can be accomplished in the —
MR MILLER: Oh. So the issue there is that you have heard the head of Hizballah say quite publicly, as recently as today, that there will be no calm, there will be no cessation of the terrorist attacks against Israel, until there is a ceasefire in Gaza. So it’s not really an Israeli assessment. It is a – it is the fact that Hizballah has made clear there won’t be any end to the terrorist attacks against Israel until there’s a ceasefire in Gaza.
QUESTION: Well, but it’s the U.S. taking Hizballah at its word that that is –
MR MILLER: At its word and at –
QUESTION: – that it will not –
MR MILLER: At its word and at the precedent of the last 11 months, right, where they have continued daily attacks.
QUESTION: Okay. Well –
MR MILLER: Other – I will say other than when there was the week-long pause in hostilities last November. Other than that, they have continued near-daily attacks, I should say.
QUESTION: Right. But as you’ve made the point before, public statements can be different from private assessments, so –
MR MILLER: In this case, the public statements have matched the public actions, so –
QUESTION: One more question – sorry – about Iran and whether the U.S. has an understanding based on diplomatic and direct or indirect interactions, whether there is a heightened risk of retaliation from Iran given its ambassador to Lebanon was injured as part of these incidents.
MR MILLER: I wouldn’t want to speculate on what actions Iran might take. We have always made clear to Iran throughout this conflict that it should not take any actions to escalate the conflict and, if it attacks Israel, we will defend Israel.
QUESTION: Do you think – do you think the U.S. has a clear –
MR MILLER: Let me – one more, and I really do have to go to some other people.
QUESTION: – sure – a clear understanding of what Iranians’ intentions might be?
MR MILLER: So it is always impossible to judge what a foreign country may or may not do. I’ll leave it at that.
Hiba, go ahead.
QUESTION: Since you brought up what Nasrallah said today –
MR MILLER: Since I –
QUESTION: You brought up what Nasrallah said today –
MR MILLER: Oh, yeah. Yeah.
QUESTION: – about the – what he said that Western countries reached out to them after the attacks and they said stop the attacks against Israel and everything goes back to normal. Now, we know where are – where’s – where the talks, the ceasefire talks with Hamas stand. We know that you have Philadelphi Corridor and the prisoners. When it comes to Lebanon, he said that the Western countries offered them that stop the attacks and everything goes back to normal. Now, for – they said no, not before a ceasefire in Gaza. But for the Israeli, it is not the same. I mean, they said they want to change the status quo. They want to change the situation. So where things stand here? There’s a misunderstanding – what Hizballah wants and what the Israeli want. And what are you offering for both?
MR MILLER: We – so I’m not going to speak to what Hizballah wants or speak to these supposed private outreaches that Nasrallah said that Hizballah received. What we want is calm. We want calm for the tens of thousands of Israeli families who’ve been forced from their homes, and we want calm for the tens of thousands of Lebanese families that have been forced from their homes.
Now, look, Nasrallah could stop the terrorist attacks across Israel. And I guarantee you, if he did that, we would be impressing upon Israel the need to maintain calm on their end. The bottom line is he hasn’t stopped those terrorist attacks. And so, as long as Hizballah is targeting – is launching terrorist attacks across the border, of course Israel is going to launch military action to defend itself, as any country would. What we continue to push to all the parties is not to escalate the conflict, not to let it spiral out of control into a war that we don’t think serves either side’s interest, and to ultimately try to get to the point – try to let us get to a ceasefire in Gaza that would help bring calm across the Blue Line.
QUESTION: So if I understood you well, you support going back to October 6 on the northern border?
MR MILLER: We want a diplomatic resolution. I am not going to speak to what that diplomatic resolution would look like in public. I don’t think that’s productive.
QUESTION: Okay. One more question. He – Nasrallah also said in case of a ground military operation by the Israeli, Hizballah will operate inside Israel. He said – he threatened that there would be operations inside the seven months. You’ve been saying that a military operation also won’t bring the Israeli citizens back to the north. So do you assess that Hizballah is able to execute what Nasrallah said today?
MR MILLER: I am not going to offer any private assessment or any – I’m not going to offer publicly any type of private assessments that we have about Hizballah’s capabilities.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. And I’ll go with the same route here about Lebanon. You don’t have any assessment, you said in answering many questions. But is it that you don’t have it, or you don’t want to share it?
MR MILLER: I don’t have any public assessment to offer, no.
QUESTION: Okay. And – because my question goes to that. You’re still assessing and you’re still calling diplomatically that everybody should de-escalate. But things on the ground are moving in the opposite direction. Israel is moving troops to the north. Hizballah today said that Israel – what Israel did on Tuesday is a declaration of war. And if I – am I fair to you when I – if I assess from all the answers that you gave to my colleagues here that you’re kind of helpless, like we’re going to call upon them, whether they want to listen to us or not is up to them?
MR MILLER: So let me put it this way. I talked about this to some length in response to Hudson’s questions earlier. Throughout this conflict, we have worked to keep the conflict from escalating. You have seen us, at times when tensions were quite high, intervene with various parties and send messages to various parties and conduct diplomatic engagements that have kept the conflict from really spilling out of control and leading to regional all-out war, which, if you remember, has been one of our top strategic goals since October 7th. It’s what the President and the Secretary were talking about from day one trying to avoid, and it continues to be our top strategic goal.
But of course, every country in the world has agency. Every country in the world, every entity in the world, is responsible for their own decisions. The United States, no other country, can dictate to any country or any entity what they’re going to do. Now, we can continue to engage in diplomacy. We can continue to engage in all of our best efforts. We can continue to rally our allies and partners. But of course it’s true that countries make their own decisions about their future and what they’re going to do. That has always been true. It will continue to be true.
It goes to the point I was saying earlier: The Middle East has been a volatile place for a long time. We have been engaged in the region for some time. And of course since October 7th, we have been engaged to try to bring down tensions. But ultimately, yes, every country is responsible and every entity is responsible for the actions that they take.
QUESTION: But I mean you just answered Hiba’s question about that if Hizballah ceased attacking Israel, you will press Israel to cease attacking them.
MR MILLER: We want to see – look, ultimately, we want to see a resolution. That’s exactly what I was referring to. We want to see a resolution to the violence. That’s what – when I say we want to see tens of thousands of Israelis return home and tens of thousands of Lebanese return, that’s exactly what I’m referring to. We want to see calm along the Blue Line.
QUESTION: I mean, how you can guarantee, for example, to Hizballah – if some commander in Hizballah got a notification —
MR MILLER: There are no —
QUESTION: — and he said, okay, the Americans will stop this, how you can guarantee?
MR MILLER: Hold on. Come on. You’re not naive about the history of the Middle East. You know that there are no guarantees about long-term stability. All we can do is do – all every country can do is do our best to calm a very difficult situation; try to get immediate calm and try to build that into lasting peace and build that into regional stability. It is, of course, incredibly difficult. It’s a hugely difficult process or someone would have solved this problem a long time – but that’s what we’re engaged in trying to do.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: All right. Alex, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Shifting (inaudible).
QUESTION: One more on the Middle East.
MR MILLER: And then –
QUESTION: One more on the Middle East.
MR MILLER: No, I would say – and we – like I’ve got about five minutes left because I believe the President is speaking. So if there’s anything else – let me just move on because I’ve got five minutes left, and I assume there are other questions in the world people want to cover.
QUESTION: Different region.
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Starting from UNGA, you highlighted Lavrov’s name as an important guest. You don’t expect any engagement between the Secretary and him in New York, do you?
QUESTION: The Finnish president yesterday went on the record calling to put Russia out of Security Council and take away Russia’s voting power. What is the official American response (inaudible)?
MR MILLER: So I think that is – it is something that people have called for at various times through the process – or various times since Russia launched or expanded its illegal invasion of Ukraine. If you look at the UN bylaws, it is something that would be incredibly difficult to achieve, if not – I’ll just – incredibly difficult to achieve.
QUESTION: But you – if it was possible –
MR MILLER: We are focused on things that are possible, not things that are not.
QUESTION: Okay. South Caucasus. Armenia yesterday announced that they apparently managed to stop a Russian plot against Armenian current prime minister and his office. So they were trying to stage a coup in Armenia. Are you – were you aware of that plot and do you have any reaction? Is Armenia – how vulnerable has Armenia been throughout this time (inaudible)?
MR MILLER: So we – yeah, sorry. We have seen, of course, and have spoken publicly to a number of actions that Russia has taken to try and destabilize its neighbors, to try and destabilize countries across Europe. We will continue to expose those plots when appropriate. As you saw the Secretary do last Friday when he talked about a Russian plot to interfere in the Moldovan election, we will continue to inform our allies and partners about those plots when appropriate. Sometimes we do it privately and not publicly. And we will continue to work with our allies and partners to hold Russia accountable for its actions.
QUESTION: Thank you. On Georgia, we have been – we were discussing Georgia’s Russia law multiple times, but there’s another piece of legislation – a copycat piece of legislation – from Moscow, which is called quote/unquote “family values law.” And we have already seen that they passed it, and there’s also real-life consequences. There’s a transgender was murdered – found murdered two days ago. Do you have any reaction to this law?
MR MILLER: So I know that they passed that law. I believe it has not been fully enacted into law, and there are questions about the ultimate status of the legislation and will it – whether it will become law or not. But look, as we have been saying for months, that Georgia has been moving away from its stated desire and the evident desire of its people for Euro-Atlantic integration through anti-democratic actions, through crackdown on vulnerable and marginalized people, and this law is very much in keeping with that.
QUESTION: And finally, if I may, some of us yesterday covered the signing of U.S.-Serbian energy agreement, and you guys called it strategic partnership. And hours after that, Serbia and Russia announced that they’re going to have next week an (inaudible) dialogue. Is the quote/unquote “strategic partnership” phrase overused here?
MR MILLER: Is the what phrase?
QUESTION: Have you guys overused “strategic partnership” –
MR MILLER: No.
QUESTION: – when it comes to initiative?
MR MILLER: No. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah, I have a follow-up on Ukraine. A few hours ago, the European Union approved the resolution for the European weapons to be used finally on Russia territories. Not all states, such as Italy, approved that resolution. What was the first reaction from the Department of State to this news about the use of European weapons in Russia? And then I have a follow-up.
MR MILLER: Sure.
QUESTION: Please.
MR MILLER: So this is something that we have been discussing with our allies and partners for some time. You have seen some European countries allow their weapons to be used on Russian soil, targeting Russian interests that are engaged in attacks against Ukraine just across the border. We, of course, have allowed U.S. weapons to be used in those attacks. As for – when it comes to every country, they, of course, have to make their own decisions about how they’re going to allow any weapons that they provide to Ukraine to be used, and those are conversations we’ll continue to have with our allies and partners.
QUESTION: This decision will impact the decision from the U.S. to allow Ukraine to use the long range, because not all European states agree to use narrow weapons in Russia?
MR MILLER: I just don’t have any further comment other than it’s an issue we’ll continue to discuss with our allies and partners. Let me do one more –
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR MILLER: – and then I do have to break because I believe the President is going to speak.
QUESTION: Thank you. And sorry to double back to Lebanon in the timing here, but do – okay. I know what you said about the – what the U.S. was aware of or not aware of, in this case, ahead of the pager explosions, but about a day later, there was another wave of explosions, this time of larger radio devices. Did the U.S. have any idea that that was going to happen ahead of time?
MR MILLER: We are not – we were not involved in that operation in any way, shape, or form; and I’ll leave it at that.
QUESTION: So no awareness? You’re not going to say whether you were aware?
MR MILLER: We were not involved in the operation. And with that, I have to break for today. Thanks, everyone.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:52 p.m.)
No comments:
Post a Comment