Via Teleconference
10:08 A.M. EDT
MODERATOR: Hey, everyone. Thanks for joining. Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll get through as many questions as we can. Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Good morning, everybody.
As you all know, the Biden administration has repeatedly warned of the deepening security partnership between Russia and Iran since the outset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
One specific threat we have consistently exposed and warned about is the potential transfer of Iranian missiles to Russia for use in Ukraine. Secretary Blinken mentioned this morning. Here’s the current state of play. I just want to rehash it for you:
As has been reported recently, dozens of Russian military personnel have been trained in Iran to use the Fateh 360 close-range ballistic missile system. Russia has received these shipments of Iranian Fath-360 close-range ballistic missiles and will probably employ them within weeks against Ukraine, which will, of course, lead to the deaths of even more Ukrainian civilians, particularly because of the way they use ballistic missiles against civilian infrastructure.
Moscow possesses an array of its own ballistic missiles, of course, but the supply of these Iranian missiles, which have a maximum range of about 75 miles, could allow Russia to use more of its arsenal for targets beyond the front line, while employing Iranian warheads for closer-range targets. This is obviously deeply concerning, and it certainly speaks to the manner in which this partnership threatens European security and how it illustrates Iran’s destabilizing influence now reaches well beyond the Middle East.
Russia’s support for Iran is destabilizing as well, as Moscow is sharing technology that Iran needs, including on nuclear issues. And, of course, we know that Russia also shares some space information with Iran. And we’ve been working with our allies to ensure that there is a significant consequence to this action.
Later today, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany will announce their intent to suspend certain lucrative commercial ties with Iran and their state-owned business. We will supplement their rea- — I’m sorry — we will supplement their action with our own sanctions that the Department of Treasury and the Department of State will be announcing later this morning, including additional measures against Iran Air. And we expect allies and partners will be announcing their own measures against Iran as well.
But this is a clear message from the E3 and the United States that if Iran continues to support the war in Ukraine, there will be significant economic costs.
The new Iranian president and the foreign minister have repeatedly claimed that they want to engage with Europe and garner sanctions relief. Destabilizing actions like this just fly in the face of that rhetoric and ultimately hurt their own economy.
With that, I can take some questions.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our first question will go to Trevor with Reuters.
Q Hey, thanks for doing this. Could you talk a little bit more about possible targets for sanctions, and, you know, also this kind of idea about threats to European security? You know, there’s obviously Ukraine, but broader than that, what do you see as kind of the risks to Europe right now?
MR. KIRBY: Look, these are close-range ballistic missiles, again, with a range of about 75 miles, so they don’t have a huge range. And we fully expect that Putin will use them, again, inside Ukraine. But we’ve also seen — I got asked about it yesterday, you know — drone and missile fragments falling outside of Ukraine. And you just never know in terms of the potential for miscalculations, for poor accuracy, for the effect on outside of Ukraine. So that’s a concern.
But the larger concern — and I tried to hint at this in the opening comments — is that both Iran and Russia get better because of this partnership. They share technology. They share tactics and procedures. They share intelligence. They share geostrategic ways to better cooperate.
And when you have two destabilizing actors like this getting closer and reinforcing one another in terms of their — what they believe they need to do militarily, that does increase the level of danger. Russia will get — has already benefited from the provision of drones by Iran. They’ll benefit more from this ballistic missile technology. And I think we can all agree, or at least I think we all should agree, that a Russian military that has more capability available to it, to kill innocent Ukrainians, is unsafe for all of us, certainly for our European partners.
And the same is true in the Middle East, Trevor, when you have Iran, that already has a growing and increasingly effective ballistic missile capability, is now available to — they can avail themselves of Russian technology to improve their capabilities. That, too, is dangerous in the Middle East.
So it’s dangerous on both ends of this, not just to Europe, but to the Middle East. And that’s why we’re issuing the sanctions that we’re issuing today.
As for additional details, I’d have to refer you to the Treasury Department on that. I don’t have anything more outside of the announcement of the sanctions to speak to today.
I would also say — and, obviously, you know we don’t pre-announce anything in the future — but we’ll continue to monitor this. And if we feel additional actions, including additional sanctions, are warranted, well, you know, we’ll take action in that regard as well.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Aamer with the AP.
Q Hi. Thank you both. How many short-range ballistic missiles did Iran transfer? And why did Iran move forward with it now? As you pointed out, you guys have been warning about this and concerned about this for months and months now.
And then, separately, does the administration want to see an independent investigation into the death of the young U.S. Turkish citizen in the West Bank?
And then finally, I just wanted to ask if you had any reaction to that House Republican report on the Afghanistan withdrawal, particularly the suggestion that the White House and NSC was resistant to taking input from agencies and outside. Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Hey. There’s a lot there. I don’t have the number of missiles for you, Aamer. I really don’t have information to go beyond the downgraded intelligence that Secretary Blinken announced this morning. But we know these missiles have been delivered. But that’s really as far as I’m going to be able to go right now.
On the death of Ms. Eygi: You’ve heard us talk about this. You certainly, I hope, heard Secretary Blinken’s comments in London earlier today. We continue to mourn and grieve with the Eygi family about what happened here. And we note that the Israeli Defense Forces have completed their preliminary investigation in which they found they were at fault. And we also note that they have called for now a criminal investigation to pick up where they left off and move forward.
So we’re going to be watching that very, very closely. We know that’s an unusual step for the IDF. That’s not something that they do typically. So, again, it’s noteworthy. We’ll continue to watch where it goes and stay in touch with Israeli leaders as that moves forward, because obviously this is just a tragic, tragic outcome, and as Secretary Blinken said, it should not occur for an innocent bystander to be killed in a protest.
So, again, very, very deeply concerning to us, and we’ll be watching this investigation very closely.
I don’t have anything beyond that to speak to in terms of whether there should be something independent. I think we’re going to want to see where it goes now in terms of the criminal investigation and what they find, and if and how anyone is held accountable, before we move beyond that.
Q On Iran — why now? After months of worrying that this could happen, why do you believe it happened now? Why did they make the decision to move forward?
MR. KIRBY: I wish I could get inside the head of the Supreme Leader here and figure out why he’s doing what he’s doing. I can’t do that. All I can tell you is that this is something that we had warned about for months, publicly said we were concerned about the possible tren- — transfer of ballistic missiles and ballistic missile technology and expertise to Russia.
We made that — we downgraded that and put that out in the public, and we’ve been watching it ever since. And now we have seen, in fact, this deal get consummated, and so we’re making that public and doing something about it.
But as for the exact timing, it’s difficult for us to know how they executed on this particular timeline. The timeline is — and I’m not at all picking on your question, Aamer. It’s a fair — absolutely fair question. But the timeline itself is not the most relevant piece. What’s most relevant is that now Russia will have available to it additional ballistic missiles to rain down on the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian infrastructure. And that’s exactly how this guy is going to use these things now.
I mean, I’m not saying he’s not going to target military units; he might do that. But what he has been known for doing in the past is using ballistic missiles, because they’re incredibly fast, to hit civilian targets with obviously little or no notice.
And that’s why it’s so important for us to continue to do what we have to do to improve Ukrainian air defenses. And you saw in the last drawdown package of $250 million, there was additional air defense in there. Secretary Austin just met with the Contact Group last week in Germany, working hard to get additional air defense, like additional Patriot systems, to Ukraine to help them with this exact threat.
So while we wa- — while we monitored this deal as it formed, we also did and we’ll continue to do everything we can to help Ukraine defend against it.
From the President on down, the NSC, led by Mr. Sullivan, ran a very robust and thorough policy process. And I can tell you, without question, it reflected the input of all the departments and relevant agencies across the government, including military commanders in Kabul, as well as State Department diplomats in Kabul. They were wrapped up into that process and participated.
In fact, throughout the whole spring and summer of ’21, the NSC convened dozens of high-level planning meetings for the withdrawal, including senior leaders, again, from across the government. They coordinated formal rehearsals of the withdrawal and convened tabletop exercises for the interagency — exercises that explored all kinds of different scenarios, including the potential evacuation, not only of diplomats and military personnel, but of civilians.
And of course, there was — there were preps put in place to make sure that we could deal with a rapid deterioration of the security situation. That’s why Secretary Austin pre-positioned military assets in the region, nearby, for that very eventuality. That all came out of these tabletop exercises and drills that we conducted in that spring.
In fact, just to foot-stomp it even more, even before the President made his final decision about whether to leave Afghanistan, that planning for those kinds of eventualities began in March, before the President made his decision. And again, it included the top leaders across the government. And that planning included, again, withdrawal planning and an account for a full range of contingencies.
I would add one more point here, if you’ll allow me.
Throughout that entire time, the NSC solicited input, again, from key officials across the government and on the ground in Kabul, including military commanders with whom NSC leaders spoke personally multiple times, to ensure that we fully understood their views.
So, again, an awful lot of effort across the interagency and early on. And this idea that it was reckless and rushed and not inclusive of an interagency process is just bogus.
Thanks for the opportunity.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Barak with Axios.
Q Hi. Thank you for this. Kirby, Secretary of State Blinken said again today that the U.S. will present, he said, “in the coming time, very soon,” a new bridging proposal for the Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal. And at least what I hear from White House officials is a different message that says there’s nothing imminent, that there’s no new proposal that is ready to be presented, and it seems that there’s some sort of a contradictory message coming out from different parts of the administration.
So, I’m a bit confused, so if you can explain what’s going on.
MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Barak. I — it won’t surprise you, but I’m going to say exactly today what I’ve been saying in the last few days: We still have a shoulder to the wheel, and we’re still trying to arrive at a proposal — bridging proposal, if you will — that will get this thing to conclusion and get both sides to agree and get us started into phase one. We are still working at that diligently.
Now, we’re not doing it in the case of, you know, formal negotiation talks at this point. They ended without effect, of course, but the conversations are continuing.
What’s not clear to us, certainly in the wake of the execution of those six hostages, is whether we’re going to be able to get there. What’s not clear to us is whether Hamas will ever be able to come to the table in sincerity and sign on to something. And so, that’s the complicating factor here. It doesn’t mean that the work is not continuing. It is. Secretary Blinken is right; we’re still working on this.
But I just have to say: All that work has been made much more difficult by the events of last weekend and — or the weekend prior to last weekend.
Q But do you agree with what he said, that “in the coming time, very soon,” you will present a proposal? Because he said it also last Thursday, I think, or last Friday. And CIA Director Burns said the same thing on Saturday. But, again, it seems that the White House is in a different place. So are you or aren’t you planning to present something in the next few days?
MR. KIRBY: (Inaudible) — give you a prediction of the day it’s going to happen or what it’s going to look like. I can tell you that we’re still committed to trying to put something forward.
If I could, before you go to the next question — on Trevor’s question about sanctions, I did get some additional information. I just wanted to pass on that in addition to the Iran Air actions that I did mention we and our allies are taking — that those actions were taken — we’re going to be designating individuals and entities in Iran and Russia that are involved in the actual delivery of weapons components and weapons systems, including UAVs and, again, these close-range ballistic missiles.
So I apologize for my incomplete answer to Trevor, but I wanted to go ahead and flesh that out.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Alex with CNN.
Q Thanks, guys. John, just following up a little bit on Barak and what you said yesterday in terms of Hamas changing the terms of the deal: Is that — did they do it implicitly because, of the six hostages, there were three of whom were going to come out in the first phase and, therefore, the deal necessarily changes? Or did you actually get new terms, new demands, like more prisoners from Hamas, in the wake of the execution of those six prisoners? How did it change?
MR. KIRBY: My understanding is it was new demands.
Q They wanted additional Palestinian prisoners?
MR. KIRBY: I’m just going to go as far as saying it was new demands put forward by Hamas.
Q So after the six were executed, you then received new terms to be put into a new agreement?
MR. KIRBY: That is correct.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Kellie with NewsNation.
Q Hey, John. Thanks for taking my question. I just have two here. The first one: Just wanted to ask you about these claims that some Republicans are repeating, including Vance this morning, that Haitian migrants are eating cats and ducks in Ohio. Officials are saying there’s no evidence. Just how dangerous are these kind of comments?
MR. KIRBY: Well, yeah, as you rightly said, the Springfield Police Department actually did, in fact, push back on this absolute nonsense to say it’s not happening.
And what’s deeply concerning to us is you’ve got now elected officials in the Republican Party pushing, you know, yet another conspiracy theory that’s just seeking to divide people based on lies and, let’s be honest, based on an element of racism.
I think all Americans should expect more and better from the people that they’re electing to represent them. And I think what we need to have is, instead of complete BS being pushed out there, is a more meaningful discussion about how we can develop legal pathways for people to come into this country and fair opportunities for them if they come in legally. And that’s what we’re focused on.
It’s dangerous. This kind of language — this kind of disinformation is dangerous because there will be people that believe it no matter how ludicrous and stupid it is, and they might act on that kind of information and act on it in a way where somebody could get hurt. So, it needs to stop.
Q Thank you. And then, just really quickly, if I could ask you: Just — you know, with the debate happening tonight, we’re moving towards the election, can you speak to if and how preparations are being made for — within the NSC for a transition?
MR. KIRBY: You know, look, I’m not going to get into discussions about the politics of it, but, clearly, we all know that no matter how the American people vote in November, there’s going to be a transition to a new administration here come January. And so, as you would expect, it’s a little early, but it’s actually not that early for us to begin to start thinking through what that transition looks like and developing plans and preparations so that the next administration, whoever that might be, has available to it the information, the context, the history of the decisions that we’ve made, why we’ve made them, how we’ve made them, and that they can avail themselves of all that information and corporate knowledge as they come in.
So those plans are — I’m sorry — those preparations are in swing, as you would expect them to be. We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us, obviously, and still some time to do that, to have all those preparations complete.
At the same time, we’re laser-focused on continuing to execute on the national security interests, prerogatives, and priorities of this administration. And you will continue to see us do that every day, all the way up until the 20th of January, and you will continue to see the President, as Commander-in-Chief, lead those efforts.
And so, I expect you’ll also see quite a bit of activity on advancing our national security interests in this administration over the next four months as well.
Q Are you preparing for the possibility of the other, potentially, one candidate not accepting the results? And then, you know, how do you — and not accepting that this is — you know, that the security — you know, just how they’re going to go forward with the national security if one person doesn’t accept?
MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to get into hypotheticals, and that wouldn’t be a place for the NSC to comment anyway, one way or the other.
Look, there’s an election coming up in November. Somebody is going to win, and that person is going to be the head of the new administration. And we, here at the National Security Council, take seriously our obligations to make sure that whoever that is and whoever their team is, that they — when they fall in, they fall in on as much context and information that we can provide them to make their decision-making easier. That’s what we’re focused on.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Lara with the Wall Street Journal.
Q Hello. Can you hear me?
MODERATOR: We can. Yep.
Q Great. I have two questions. One on Ukraine. With Secretary Blinken in Kyiv this week, are there any new efforts by the administration to encourage Ukraine to the negotiating table? Is now the time for negotiations with Putin?
And then secondly, on Afghanistan — and, Kirby, I know you were at the Pentagon during that time, I believe — how involved was the Vice President in the Afghanistan withdrawal discussions? Can you talk a little bit about her role there? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: So on your first question, Lara, Secretary Blinken is looking forward to getting into Kyiv to get an update from President Zelenskyy and his team about what’s going on on the battlefield; to certainly talk to them about the kinds of capabilities they’re going to need for battlefield success in the coming weeks and months as winter approaches; to reaffirm America’s support for their efforts to defend themselves and to claim back and claw back territory that the Russians have taken, particularly in the northeast part of the country. And I think, as you would expect, he’ll also talk to them about moving President Zelenskyy’s just peace proposal forward and doing what we can to support that.
He will make it clear, as we have been consistently saying, that it’s going to be up to President Zelenskyy, if and when he wants to negotiate an end to this war. Certainly, a negotiated end is the most likely outcome here. But when that happens, and under what conditions and circumstances, that’s going to be up to President Zelenskyy. And the point that Secretary Blinken will make is that we’re going to do everything we can to make sure that he, if and when he’s ready to make that decision, that he does so from the best possible position.
And so, that’s what this trip is really about. It’s not an arm twisting. It’s about learning, it’s about listening, and it’s about making sure that the Ukrainians know that we’re going to continue to do what we can to support them and, again, put them in the best possible position to negotiate if and when they’re ready.
On your second question: As the Vice President, she was involved in participating in all — and still does — in all major foreign policy decisions of the administration, and that includes the decision to leave Afghanistan, and interagency discussions that I just was talking about earlier on the withdrawal and the execution. She’s the Vice President of the United States, so she was absolutely a participant in all those discussions. So, I’d leave it there.
Q Just on — just a follow-up on Ukraine. Is Secretary Blinken expecting to be briefed on this victory plan that we’ve heard about? And do you or any other NSC officials have any details about it?
MR. KIRBY: You’d have to talk to Ukrainians about what they want to bring up with Secretary Blinken specifically. That’s going to be up to them if they have a, quote, unquote, “victory plan” that they want to talk to them about. I don’t know for sure whether that itself will come up.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Gabe with NBC.
Gabe, you’re on mute. You’re unmuting yourself and then muting yourself. You’re on mute. Now you’re on mute.
Okay, we’re going to — we’re going to move on and try back to you later.
We’re going to now go to Asma with NPR.
Q Hey. Thanks for doing this. I have two quick questions. One is on the sanctions around Iranian Air. John, can you spell out what that means? I’m a little confused, because my understanding is the U.S. doesn’t have flights to Iran. Are you talking about coordination of flights being stopped to European cities? If you could just spell that out.
And then, secondly, on the young woman who was killed in the West Bank, can you also clarify for me why — I know you said that, at this point, there’s not plans for a U.S. or independent investigation. Can you help us understand why you do not believe that that is necessary?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, so let me take your second one first.
What I said was we’re going to watch and see what their now criminal investigation says before we make any determinations one way or another. So, I think we believe that it’s noteworthy that they’ve moved now from a purely military investigation to a criminal investigation. And we believe it’s prudent to let that investigation run its course and see where it goes before we make any follow-on decisions.
I didn’t say absolutely no call for an independent investigation. It’s just that we don’t believe that there’s a need to call for that at this moment. We want to see how this criminal investigation goes forward.
And on the Iran Air, and I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear about that, but this is basically about the UK and E3 partners canceling bilateral arrangements with Iran and those — canceling those bilateral arrangements, which will restrict Iran Air and their services into the UK and into Europe. So it’s about restricting their movement into (inaudible).
Q So, flights. So, commercial flights, (inaudible).
MR. KIRBY: And we are sanctioning them as well.
Q Got it. Okay. So — sorry, commercial flights would be stopped, you’re saying, between — on this airline — between some European cities and Iran. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. KIRBY: That is my understanding, yes.
Q Okay. And when you say that the U.S. is also sanctioning, what does that mean?
MR. KIRBY: It’s — you know, I’d have to refer you to the Treasury Department for more specifics. But we are sanctioning Iran Air as well.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Rafael with La Nación.
Q Thank you very much for taking my question. John, you said yesterday at the briefing, when asked about Venezuela, that you are constantly looking at options going forward, depending on the decisions that Maduro makes. Does this mean that you’re holding back on any new sanctions, waiting to see if there’s a new move by the Maduro regime? Are there any — are you waiting to see the results of the negotiations between regional governments and the Maduro regime?
MR. KIRBY: What we’re waiting to see is whether Mr. Maduro is going to do the right thing and release the election data to the public so that the Venezuelan people can see the degree to which their will was actually met. That’s what we’re waiting to see. But — and we want to see it now.
What I’m — I’m not — this isn’t about holding anything back. We actually have issued sanctions on the Maduro government, and we won’t be bashful about doing it in the future if we feel we need to do it. But what needs to happen right now is Mr. Maduro needs to do the right thing, stop intimidating and falsely charging his opponents, and release the election data.
Q What makes you think that there’s going to be a change in attitude from the Maduro regime or that, you know, the talks between Maduro and Brazil, Colombia, Mexico are going to yield results, you know, towards a democratic transition?
MR. KIRBY: (Inaudible.) And again, the sanctions that we’ve issued, and whatever potential sanctions might be coming, will be done in accordance with our national interests, and they’ll be appropriately calibrated.
MODERATOR: Thank you. We’ll try again to go to Gabe with NBC.
Q Hey, this is Gabe’s producer here. Gabe went to the event. I just wanted to see if we could get any confirmation on these reports that the Quad Summit was going to be held in Wilmington this year, and any information on why it would not be in India.
MR. KIRBY: I don’t have anything with respect to this — a potential meeting to talk about today. Nothing to announce.
MODERATOR: Thank you. And that is all the time we have today. As always, if we weren’t able to get to you, reach out to the distro and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as we can. Thank you.
10:41 A.M. EDT
