10:33 A.M. EDT
MODERATOR: Hey, everyone. Thanks for joining. We don’t have anything for the top here, so we’ll just go straight into questions. That being said, our first question will go to Patsy with VOA.
Q Hi, Sam. Thank you so much. I have two questions. The first one on Venezuela. We asked this to Karine yesterday, but wondered if you can clarify a little bit more the U.S. position on Venezuelan leader Edmundo González Urrutia. It seems that it went from Secretary Blinken last week recognizing his victory to, kind of, now just supporting diplomatic efforts to return democracy to Venezuela.
If you can just clarify: Is the U.S. still calling him “president-elect”? Or have you ever called him “president-elect”? Just your latest position on that.
And then I have another question on Sinwar.
MR. KIRBY: We have not changed our formal recognition of the government of Venezuela since 2015, Patsy, and that is that we recognize the 2015 National Assembly.
Again, as has been said time and time again, based on all the evidence presented by the opposition but also civil society, other observers, polling, Mr. González won the most votes, and now Mr. Maduro needs to release the full, detailed voting data without delay to represent the aspirations of the, what, 12 million Venezuelans who turned out to vote.
But no change in our policy on recognizing the 2015 National Assembly.
Q Are you calling him “president-elect”?
MR. KIRBY: I have nothing more to add.
Q Okay. And just on Sinwar. Can you give your assessment on his selection as the new leader and what you think that might do in terms of ceasefire prospects?
MR. KIRBY: The man is a terrorist. He has an awful lot of blood on his hands. This guy was the architect of the 7th of October attacks in Israel. And some of that blood on his hands is American blood. He has always been the chief decision-maker when it comes to negotiations over the course of these now nine months. So, in effect, nothing really changes in that regard.
And as the chief decision-maker, he needs to decide now to take this deal, to get a ceasefire in place, to get some of those hostages home, and to get us all an opportunity to get more humanitarian assistance in. He needs to accept the deal.
Q Can you just comment: If Israel continues their strategy, it appears, of just targeting Hamas leaders, is that helpful or not helpful to ceasefire prospects? I mean, is the goal here to just not have anybody to negotiate with?
MR. KIRBY: The goal here needs to be getting a ceasefire. The goal needs to be getting hostages out. The goal needs to be getting more humanitarian assistance in. And obviously, throughout this entire campaign, Israel has been putting pressure on Hamas, and specifically their leadership, at various levels — low, medium, and high. And they continue to do that.
I’ll let the Israelis speak to their operations.
But what we’re focused on, what we want to see, the progress we want to make is towards a ceasefire deal tied to hostages being released.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to — sorry, my computer just blacked out for a second. Our next question will go to Morgan with Semafor.
Q Hey, John. Thanks so much for doing this. Just two questions. One, I’m wondering if you can give the latest assessment on when an attack by Iran will happen or, you know, what it might look like, kind of what’s the latest thinking there.
And then also, the White House and Secretary Blinken described the ceasefire negotiations as in a “final stage” yesterday. I’m just wondering if you can elaborate on that. Has something changed in the last few days that has caused you to start describing them as such? Or do you have a timeline on when they might be — you know, there might be a breakthrough there?
MR. KIRBY: We’ve always been talking about these ceasefire negotiations as “as close as we’ve ever been”; the gaps are narrow enough that they can be closed.
What we’re talking about here is recognizing the fact that we’ve come an awful long way. There is a good proposal before both sides, and they need to both accept that proposal so we can get this in place. We are as close as we think we have ever been, and that’s why — that’s why we talk about it in these terms.
And again, absolutely zero has changed about the sense of urgency with which we’re trying to get it in place.
On your first question, I’ll just say a couple of things. We don’t want to see this conflict escalate. We certainly don’t want to see any sort of all-out regional war. And there’s not a whole lot of indications that other parties here want to see the same thing, which is why we’re working really, really hard, with intense diplomacy, to try to avoid an escalation.
Can’t predict that we’re going to be 100 percent successful in that, which is why the President ordered additional military resources to the region to make sure that, should Israel be attacked, that the United States can ably come to her defense. I’ll leave it at that.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Liz with Scripps.
Q Hi. Thank you, Admiral Kirby. I just had a question about the attack on U.S. personnel at that Al Asad base. I was just wondering if there’s any more update and information. Yesterday, Karine had said that nobody had been killed. I was just wondering if there’s any update on their status.
And also, has President Biden spoken with them or their families since the attack happened?
MR. KIRBY: My understanding is that some of the individuals who were wounded have returned to duty and that some
are undergoing additional medical care outside of the region. But I would refer you to DOD to get any more detail on that.
There’s been no communication from the President or the White House to these members or their families. I think we can all understand that, right now, particularly those that are still seeking medical care, that that needs to be the focus — is getting better. And we want to, of course, give them the time and space to do that.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Alex Ward with the Wall Street Journal.
Q Yeah, thanks. Just wondering, John: Have you seen any movement by Iran or its proxies in preparations for attacks on Israel or U.S. troops in the region?
MR. KIRBY: We’re watching things real closely, Alex. And as we said, we’re engaged in some pretty intense diplomacy here to prevent an escalation in the region. At the same time, as we do that, we also have to make preps of our own to be able to help Israel defend itself should it come under attack.
I’m not going to talk about intelligence assessments one way or the other. We’re obviously watching events extremely closely, as you would expect that we would. And for us, it’s really about trying to forestall any escalation, and, short of that, making sure that we’re ready to meet our national security commitments there in the Middle East, and that includes, I would add, protecting and defending our own people and our own facilities.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Seung Min with AP.
Q Hey, guys. Thanks for holding this call. I wanted to ask about Russia and Ukraine. Putin earlier today said there was a Ukrainian incursion of the country’s southwestern region and called it a, quote, “large-scale provocation.” Ukraine hasn’t commented about the scope of the operation. What does the White House know about what happened there? Can you comment on that?
MR. KIRBY: I’ll let the Ukrainians speak to their operations one way or the other. That’s most appropriate. So I would refer you to the Ukrainian Armed Forces to speak to what they’re doing.
We’re going to stay focused on making sure they have what they need to defend themselves, of course. And I would also just add that nothing has changed about our policy with respect to enabling or encouraging strikes or attacks inside Russia, outside the bounds, of course, of what we have permitted them to do with U.S.-supplied weapons in the past, which is to
target imminent threats just across the border.
The last thing I would add is that we are, as you would expect we would be, reaching out to our Ukrainian counterparts to get a little bit better understanding.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Nadia. Nadia, you should be able to unmute yourself.
Q Yes. Hi, Sam. Thanks. A couple of questions. Just to follow up of the previous question to John: So you’re saying that Hamas has to accept the deal or Sinwar has to accept the deal. So is this your understanding that the deal has not concluded until now is because of Hamas refusal, and it’s had nothing to do with Prime Minister Netanyahu?
And second —
MR. KIRBY: The deal hasn’t been accepted because neither side has signed up to it. We believe that both sides need to do
the final bit of work here to come to a conclusion on this thing.
Q Okay. So, Prime Minister Netanyahu also is — you’d consider him an obstacle to signing this deal? It’s not just Hamas?
MR. KIRBY: I’m sorry, can you repeat that?
Q Yeah, I said: Equally, you’re saying that it’s both sides. It’s not just Hamas who refusal; also Prime Minister Netanyahu refused to sign this deal?
MR. KIRBY: I’ll say it again: There’s a proposal that is on the table. It’s a good proposal. It’ll get us a six-week ceasefire, or get us the most at — the most vulnerable hostages out.
We believe the gaps are narrow enough that they can be closed. There’s some implementation details that need to be hashed out. We want both sides to hash them out and get this deal in place.
We have a sense of urgency about this, and we believe all parties ought to have the same sense of urgency.
Q Okay. Regarding the Iranian attack, do you believe that the U.S. allies will come to your help this time like they did in April? There’s some kind of talks in certain capitals that Israel has provoked this attack by assassinating Haniyeh, and, therefore, they’re not willing every time to come up and bail Israel on acts like this.
So do you have any assurance that the U.S. allies will do exactly what they did before?
MR. KIRBY: Well, first of all, we don’t want to see an attack, and we’re going to keep working through diplomatic channels to see what we can do to deescalate the tensions there.
If there is an attack, what I can tell you for sure is the United States is and will remain postured to help defend Israel with a wide range of military capabilities. What other nations decide to do or don’t do is up to them to speak to.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Barak with Axios.
Q Hi, John. Thank you. Thank you, Sam. You just said to Nadia that both sides, Israel and Hamas, need to accept the
deal. And I’m a bit confused because I’m pretty sure I heard both President Biden and National Security Advisor Sullivan, and you, say that the proposal is an Israeli proposal. So if it is an Israeli proposal, there’s one of two things: Either Israel accepted and it’s only Hamas, or Prime Minister Netanyahu withdrew the proposal and now does not accept his own proposal. Which one is it?
MR. KIRBY: Barak, I’m going to leave my answer the way I gave it to Nadia, and I’m going to just leave it right there.
Q You didn’t answer.
MR. KIRBY: I did answer your question by telling you I’m referring back to my answer to Nadia.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Patrick with Defense One.
Q Hey, thanks for doing this. Can you speak a little bit to why a squadron of F-22s is in the region, if that reporting is accurate? That’s not generally thought of as a defensive platform. It’s really for going in through, as you know, advanced air defenses. So what is the value of deploying that platform at this time?
MR. KIRBY: The great thing about the F-22 and, well, a lot of advanced fighter aircraft that we put in the air is that they can do a whole heck of a lot of things, and that includes defensive missions.
As we made clear last week, the military posture changes that Secretary Austin directed at the President’s order are meant for defensive purposes only, to help defend Israel and to help defend our troops and our facilities and our own interests in the region.
But make no mistake: The F-22 is a superior aircraft at a whole heck of a lot of things. The purpose of putting it there, putting that squadron — adding that squadron in the region is for those larger defensive purposes that I talked about.
Q Is there any concern that that might be viewed as provocative or escalatory, given how it’s particularly useful for, again, like, breaching air defenses that normally guard capitals or pieces of critical strategic infrastructure?
MR. KIRBY: No.
Q (Laughs.) Okay, thanks.
MODERATOR: Thank you. I think we have time for a couple more questions. Our next question will go to Sam with CNN.
Q Hey, thanks for doing this. So, is there any sense that Iran’s calculus in retaliating for the killing of Haniyeh has changed? What’s your view on that and why?
And then a quick other question: What is the current U.S. understanding of the nature of the coordination between Hezbollah and Tehran right now?
MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to talk about intelligence assessments, as I said earlier. And I’m sure as hell not capable of getting inside the Supreme Leader’s thinking.
I would just tell you that we don’t want to see an escalation, as I said before. And if there is one, my goodness, we’re going to be ready to defend Israel and defend ourselves as appropriate.
Iran supports Hezbollah; has for many years. They support the Houthis. They support Hamas. Back in April, when Iran decided to throw a bunch of metal into the air, they also — there were also concurrent attempts by the Houthis and by Hezbollah to assist.
We can’t assume that, should there be another attack by Israel, that Iran’s proxy forces won’t be involved. It would be foolhardy for us to assume that they wouldn’t be. We got to prepare for all contingencies, and we are.
But I don’t think anybody should fool themselves about the strong connections, the muscle and sinew that exists between Hezbollah and Tehran.
MODERATOR: Thank you. We have time for one more question. We’ll go to Ryan with Fox. Ryan, you should be able to unmute yourself.
Okay, seems like that’s not working, so we will go to Tom O’Connor.
Q Hey, can you hear me?
MODERATOR: We can hear you now. Yep.
Q Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
First of all, you mentioned before that the U.S. is engaged in diplomacy to avoid an escalation in the region, of course amid these looming threats from Iran. I’m wondering that besides, of course, the U.S. warning Iran not to retaliate, if there’s been any sort of proposals or, sort of, agreements that the U.S. has put forth that could perhaps address the grievances of both sides to avoid this escalation.
Secondly, on defending Israel from such an attack, if it does occur, does this include supporting Israel’s potential retaliation for that attack? Thank you very much.
MR. KIRBY: As I said earlier, we’re involved in some pretty intense diplomacy here across the region, and it’s not just us. Many of our allies and partners are likewise involved. Let’s see where that takes us.
And I think the less said about the diplomacy and the efforts, the better. But let’s see where it takes us.
And as I said earlier: If Iran moves forward, as they have repeatedly said that they’re going to, we’re going to make sure we’re ready to defend Israel on our own interests. And we believe that the force posture adjustments ordered by the President and directed by the Secretary of Defense put us in a good position to do that.
Q Thank you very much.
MR. KIRBY: I can’t begin to speculate about what might happen in the wake of an Iranian attack, because we haven’t seen it. We don’t know if it’s going to happen, and we don’t know exactly what that would look like. And I certainly wouldn’t speak today inside Israeli decision-making. That would be up to Israeli leaders to weigh the impact of any strikes by Iran and what that might require from them. Those are sovereign decisions that they alone can make and they alone should have to answer for.
President Biden has been extraordinarily consistent with Prime Minister Netanyahu in reaffirming our support for the defense of Israel. We throw around that word “ironclad,” but we mean it. And we will continue to do what we have to do to help Israel defend itself. I’ll leave it at that.
Q Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Kirby has a few words he’d like to —
MR. KIRBY: The only thing that I wanted to come back to do — I got a question about the injured troops. And again, I would refer you to DOD for more detail. But it’s our understanding that those that are still receiving medical care are in stable condition, which is good. But for any more context, you’d have to go to DOD.
I just wanted to reiterate that the reports are that they’re in stable condition. That’s it.
MODERATOR: Thank you. And a quick housekeeping flag from us. It appears when we started the gaggle, we learned that there was a cap on attendees, which we apologize about. We have worked this out for future gaggles. But for today, if your colleagues reach out, they can contact DL NSC Press, and we will share the gaggle Otter with them and then get our transcript out as soon as possible.
So, apologize for any inconvenience to your colleagues. But if we weren’t able to get to you, you know how to reach us. Thanks.
10:55 A.M. EDT
