10:35 A.M. EDT
MODERATOR: Good morning, everyone. Thanks so much for joining. I’ll turn it over to Kirby for a few words at the top, and then we’ll take your questions.
MR. KIRBY: Hey, guys. Happy end of the week here. I don’t really have a whole lot to say at the top except to note that tomorrow is Ukraine’s Independence Day, 33 years. And I expect you’ll hear from us officially on this a little bit later today. But obviously, we continue to support Ukraine’s fight for their independence, an independence that they have had to defend pretty mightily here over the last two and a half years.
And so, I suspect that as we officially mark their independence day — and again, I think you’ll hear more from us a little bit later today — you’ll see that we will back up that philosophical support for their independence with more tangible support as well, including more security assistance coming to Ukraine to help them as they defend themselves.
And again, I think you’ll hear more from us and more from the President later today.
With that, I can take some questions.
MODERATOR: First up, we’ll go to the line of Aamer Madhani.
Q Hey. Thank you both. Could you just give us an update on Brett’s meetings in Cairo and how they’re going and where things stand?
And then, related to that, is there plans for some sort of, I guess, like high-level summit led by Director Burns in the region on Sunday?
MR. KIRBY: I think all that is kind of mixed in together with your first question, Aamer. They had constructive discussions last night in Cairo, and those discussions are going to continue today. Director Burns is there today to join those discussions.
So, the process is actually moving forward. It’s moving forward in the way we had outlined earlier in terms of these next rounds of talks. Now, what’s critical is that everybody participate in these talks and that sides continue to work towards implementation; that everybody comes to these discussions with an eye towards actually closing out these implementation details and getting after it.
And so, again, early signs in Cairo — and these are early signs — is that the discussions have been constructive. But there’s more talks to come here over the course of the weekend. As I said, Director Burns is there. Brett McGurk is there. And so we’ll be staying in touch with them, of course, over the next couple of days and seeing how things shake out.
But things are moving forward. There’s been press reporting out there that, you know, they’re near collapse. That is not accurate. There has been progress made. We need now for both sides to come together and work towards implementation.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to Steve Holland.
Q Thanks, John. Just following up on that, is Israel still insisting that it be allowed to keep forces along the Philadelphi land corridor between Egypt and Gaza?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, look, Steve, I’m not going to get into the details of the implementation. I think you guys can understand why I wouldn’t do that. But what I can say is that when you go back to the 27 May text, there’s clear responsibilities for both sides here. And what we want to see is that both sides meet those commitments, meet those requirements.
And as I said earlier, the preliminary talks that we had going into Cairo last night were constructive in nature. So we want to see that same, sort of, momentum continue here over the next couple of days. But I don’t think it would be useful for me to get into the details of it.
The last thing I want to just say, and I know this will just sound like things I’ve said before and might be easy for reporters to dismiss, but I hope you don’t: Think about what this deal will do for the people of Gaza. It gets them a period of calm and a potential end to the war and the violence and the bloodshed. It also gets them, because of a stop in the fighting, an incredible opportunity for all of us — and I mean all of us, including the United States — to dramatically increase the humanitarian assistance that’s getting in, all the things that they still so desperately need. And it gets those hostages home with their families.
And I know I say all these three things all the time, but I just hope you don’t drive past that, because, you know, we’re at a point here where if these talks do go well, and if both sides really come to the table and are willing to talk about implementation, that that — that’s a reality, or that could be the reality. And that’s what we’re going to keep driving at.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to the line of Tamara Keith.
Q Hi. Thank you so much for doing this. Two questions. When you said we’re going to hear from the President later, are we going to see the President later, or are you saying that there’s going to be a paper statement?
And regarding Jake Sullivan’s travel to China, is that any sort of prelude to a possible POTUS-Xi meeting before the end of the administration?
MR. KIRBY: It’ll be a paper statement.
And as for Jake’s trip to Beijing, this was a follow-on coming out of the Woodside summit back in November of last year. The idea of having Jake head over to Beijing actually came out of that meeting. And so, this has been months and months in the planning. And it’s also reciprocal to — I think you know Wang Yi came here in October, so it’s reciprocal to that.
There is an awful lot on the agenda. I wouldn’t speak to any specific outcome, but I do want to stress that we do expect that Jake will want to talk to his Chinese counterpart about things that we have begun to work together on — the mil-to-mil communication channel, fentanyl precursor preventative measures.
And I think Jake will also talk to Minister Wang about things, obviously, that, you know, we’re still struggling with, in terms of this relationship with China: Chinese companies support Russia’s war in Ukraine; tensions in the South China Sea, certainly with the Philippines; tensions across the Taiwan Strait. All of that will come up as well.
But as for whether this lays the tracks for another meeting with President Xi, I just don’t have anything specific to point to with respect to that. I mean, these are, as you know, two leaders that have spent a lot of time with one another, and it’s an important — most important bilateral relationship in the world right now. And we’re going to keep trying to manage this relationship in a way that’s consistent with our national security priorities.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to the line of Nadia.
Q Thank you, Eduardo. Good morning, John. A couple of questions. When you say that both sides need to compromise, was it a mistake or a rush decision to say that Netanyahu has accepted the deal, as Secretary Blinken said?
And do you believe that an Iran potential attack is on hold now, as long as that negotiation is still going on?
And finally, there were some reports that Sinwar wanted a guarantee during this deal that his life will be spared if they agreed into the deal. Do you have any confirmation on that? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: I don’t have any confirmation on that last claim.
On your second question about Iran, we continue to monitor this every single day. As you know, we’ve added additional military forces in the region, improved our deterrent posture, and we’re not taking anything for granted when it comes to being able to protect our troops and our facilities, and also to help Israel defend itself.
We haven’t seen, obviously, Iran attack yet, but we’re not taking anything for granted. We’re laser-focused on making sure we can defend ourselves and defend Israel if it comes to that. Hopefully it won’t come to that.
At the same time, we’re laser-focused on trying to get this deal in place, which is why we’re back again in Cairo, having these discussions.
And then that goes to your first question. Secretary Blinken’s trip was an important muscle movement in this process. I can’t say it better than him. He came out of the meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and said that the Prime Minister has accepted the bridging proposal, and that’s accurate. But what we’ve got to do is get to the details of how you implement that proposal.
So the major muscle movement, if you will, is the bridging proposal itself, but the minor muscle movements are just as important, and that’s what we’re trying to work out through Cairo. And as I go back to what I said before, it’s important that both sides are willing to move forward on those sorts of details.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to Nick Schifrin.
Q Hey, guys. Thank you. Happy Friday. John, just to follow up to that, is there any assessment that Iran has changed its plans in terms of an attack? You’ve stated publicly that Iran made preparations for an attack. Have they undone any of those preparations? And is the threat remains high or higher — I guess it’s up to you, whether you’re able to characterize it — of a Hezbollah attack on Israel? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, look, Nick, you know I’m not going to get into intel assessments one way or another. I mean, it’s still a very perilous situation. I can’t predict what Iran is going to do or not going to do. We believe they’re still prepared to do something if, in fact, they choose to do something, and that’s about as far as I’ll go.
Therefore, we got to be prepared, and we are. We have bolstered our military capabilities in the region, and we’re watching it every single day. So, taking nothing for granted here.
And as for Hezbollah — again, I won’t get into a specific intelligence assessment, but we certainly have to take seriously the rhetoric coming out of Hezbollah. We know that there’s an exchange of fire almost every single day up there that also you just can’t blow off.
So, no — I can’t point to anything specific at this time that would connote some sort of imminent action. But to foot-stomp what I said before, we’re taking this potential threat very seriously, as you would expect we would.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to the line of Michael Hernandez.
Q Hi, John. Thank you for taking the question. I wanted to ask about whether or not the administration believes that Netanyahu is negotiating in good faith. I know there have been statements out of Israel, including from opposition leader Yair Lapid, indicating that that is not the case. So what is the administration’s take on that?
MR. KIRBY: Well, I would just say that we’ve had constructive conversations with our Israeli counterparts in the last few days, and that includes, quite frankly, the phone call the President had with the Prime Minister just a couple days ago. I would characterize those as constructive conversations.
But as I said before, I’m happy to repeat: We’re in Cairo. They’re in Cairo. We need Hamas to participate, and we need to get down to the brass tacks of locking in these details. And that’s what we’re focused on here in the next coming days here, over the course of the weekend.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to Shaun Tandon.
Q Hey, John. Thanks for this. Can I ask you two different issues? The Emiratis, the UAE, have accepted an ambassador from the Taliban. I believe it’s the first country since 2021, after China, to do this. The UAE, of course, has a good relationship with the U.S. Do you have any take on this? Have there been any communications on it?
And could I also ask you for your take on Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Ukraine, talking about some sort of peace initiative, peace settlement? Do you see this as potentially being productive or not? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Look, on the UAE, every country has to decide for itself what its diplomatic relationships are going to look like and who they’re going to recognize and why they’re going to recognize it. And we’ll let the UAE speak to that. Obviously, you know we have not recognized the Taliban, and there are no plans for us to do so. But I can assure you that this isn’t going to change our relationship with the UAE.
On your — what the hell was your second question? Oh, it was on Modi, right?
Q Modi, yeah. Modi going to Ukraine.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, sorry about that. I should have been writing this stuff down, but I didn’t do it.
You know, look, my answer on that is not dissimilar from my answer to your first question: that every country has to decide for itself what diplomatic conversations they’re going to have.
And as I’ve said many, many times when it comes to the Ukraine war: If there’s another country out there that is willing to be helpful in terms of trying to end the war in Ukraine, we welcome that. But by being helpful, we mean it’s got to include conversations with the Ukrainians, and it’s got to start from an understanding of where President Zelenskyy is on this.
We say it all the time, and it sounds like I’m slapping a bumper sticker on it, but I don’t mean to: Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.
And so, Prime Minister Modi — India is a strong partner for the United States, and the Prime Minister is as well. And, you know, him going to Kyiv and having conversations with President Zelenskyy about where this all ends and how it ends — if that can be helpful to getting us to an end to the conflict that comports with President Zelenskyy’s vision for a just peace, well, then we think that would be helpful.
MODERATOR: Next up we’ll go to the line of Joshua Keating.
Q Hi, John. Thanks so much. I want to ask about remarks that President Zelenskyy made earlier this month — earlier this week, sorry — which he said that the Kursk incursion showed that concerns about red lines had been illusory and that there was a philosophical shift taking place amongst Ukraine’s Western allies. Do you think that the Kursk incursion has changed any of your thinking about escalation risks or so-called Russian red lines?
MR. KIRBY: We’ve been watching escalation risks since the beginning of this conflict, and that ain’t gonna change. We’re always going to be concerned about the potential for the aggression in Ukraine to lead to escalation on the European continent. That’s something that we’ve been watching, again, since the beginning, and we still do. And I think it’s too soon to know right now about what’s going on in Kursk, you know, what that looks like.
I’ll tell you, the Russians have flowed some resources to that area to try to thwart what the Ukrainians are doing. And so, how effective that’s going to be, what the outcome that’s going to be, we don’t know yet. Therefore, it’s too soon to know whether what’s going on in Kursk is — with a potential impact that that could have in terms of escalation. But it is something that we remain concerned about.
MODERATOR: Next up, for our final question, we’ll go to the line of David Sanger.
Q Thanks, John, for doing this. A little either confused or behind the eight ball here on where our current rules are on the use of U.S. weapons in Russian territory. So, when we last left this, the President had made a decision, of course, to allow Ukraine to use U.S. weapons (inaudible) in the Kharkiv area. Now we are seeing some reports of use of HIMARS in their new operation. Has the area been expanded by the U.S., or are the Ukrainians just doing this on their own accord?
MR. KIRBY: I can’t confirm the reports of HIMARS. I can tell you that there’s been no change to the guidance that we’ve given the Ukrainians about where and how they can use U.S. weapons to defend themselves just across the border.
Q Are you examining a question of whether or not they are using these in the current operation?
MR. KIRBY: We’ve been having routine conversations, as you might expect we would, dang near every day here with the Ukrainians about what they’re doing.
As you know, I mean, they are allowed to use U.S.-provided material to defend themselves against Russian aggression. And as you know, the President allowed them to use U.S. munitions across that border to deal with imminent threats. But we’re still having conversations with them. I have no policy leanings one way or another to speak to today, and certainly no new policy decisions that have been made.
MODERATOR: Thanks, everyone. That’s all the time we have for today. Feel free to reach out to the team for any questions we couldn’t get to. Talk to you all soon.
10:55 A.M. EDT
