Pentagon Briefing on 9/25/24

… need to engage. Just because they haven’t spoken every day doesn’t mean that our teams haven’t been in communication. Again, he engages with Minister Gallant on a pretty regular basis, and when we have more to share on when the next call happens, we’ll certainly read it out.

(00:15)
But just because he hasn’t had one every single day this week doesn’t mean that we’re not engaging with the Israelis. You’ve seen, maybe, not from this building, but other agencies part of this administration engaging the Israeli counterparts, so we’re continuing that dialogue. Fadi.

Thank you, Sabrina. Is there any support that the Pentagon is providing to the Israeli military in the current situation in Lebanon?

In terms of any ground support or air support-

Any support.

No.

Even in terms of intelligence?

No. No support.

Not even intelligence sharing?

No.

So, up until, I guess, unless there’s some changes, you’ve been describing what’s happening as defensive operations.

Mm-hmm.

I believe in the first day, almost 500 civilians were killed, including women and children in Lebanon. Civilian infrastructure has been damaged severely. Almost 1,300 airstrikes. Today, up until 3:00 PM Beirut time, more than 50 towns and villages have been hit by Israelis.

(01:18)
International organizations are describing what happened the first day as the highest death toll in Lebanon since the end of the civil war.

(01:26)
So, I’m just curious, what criteria are you using to describe what’s happening as defensive operations?

Well, Fadi, I think I’d have to point you back to October 8th when Lebanese Hezbollah attacked Israel following the brutal attack that Hamas launched on October 7th. So, these are still defensive operations. We understand the threat that Israel faces. We are not supporting their operations when it comes to Lebanon.

(01:54)
The support that you’re seeing, or what you’re seeing when it comes to US forces in the region is for our own force protection, and should we need to come to the defense of Israel like we saw from that large-scale attack from Iran, we’ve positioned forces to do that.

(02:08)
But when it comes to Lebanon, US military has no involvement in Israel’s operation, so just want to lay that flat. In terms of some of what you just referenced, this is exactly why we’re pushing for a diplomatic solution. We don’t want to see innocent civilians lose their lives. We want to see a de-escalation happen, and you’re seeing engagement from all parts of this administration, including at UNGA right now.

(02:35)
We’re calling for a de-escalation and we believe that a diplomatic off-ramp is the best way to resolve what’s happening on that northern border.

Last question.

Sure.

Did any official in the Pentagon communicate any concerns about Dahieh death toll among Lebanese civilians? I mean, we know in Gaza, that was a constant conversation. Has anyone raised that issue in relation to Lebanon?

Without getting into more details of the Secretary’s calls with Minister Gallant, we are, of course, always concerned of civilian casualties. We’re seeing some of these strikes take place in areas where there are civilians.

(03:15)
We are also seeing Israel notify populations to clear those areas. Our focus, and you’re seeing a full-court press here from the United States government and this administration, we want to see a diplomatic solution and we want to see it urgently.

(03:30)
And that’s why you’re seeing engagement, whether it be at UNGA or in calls that the secretary is doing with Minister Gallant, and not just at his level, but at other levels as well. We don’t want to see any action taken on either side that would lead to further escalation. We want to see this de-escalate and the best off-ramp for that to prevent an all-out war is through diplomatic means.

Thank you.

Tom.

Thanks, Sabrina.

Yeah.

How confident are you that you can achieve a diplomatic off-ramp, especially given the past nearly 12 months where the US has been unable to broker any kind of sustained ceasefire in Gaza?

(04:08)
So, for the situation with Hezbollah and Israel, how confident are you that we’re not going to see a full-scale conflict?

Well, I push back on that respectfully. We have seen periods where there has been a ceasefire put in place and we have seen the ability to get… We were talking months earlier about humanitarian aid being able to get in. That was something that this administration brokered, to make sure that we could get humanitarian aid and supplies in.

(04:35)
So, look, and not to reiterate just what I said to Fadi, but you’re seeing a full-court press from this administration at all levels for diplomatic solution. Nothing is off the table.

(04:49)
We don’t assess that either side wants a larger-scale, wider regional conflict, but we’re doing everything that we can to prevent that from happening, and that’s why you’re seeing the engagements that the president is doing from the secretary, and then, on down in the building.

What I appreciate that you don’t want to speak for Israel. Are you able to share anything in terms of what you’ve seen along the Lebanon-Israel border in terms of movement either side of it? Does it look like there’s a ramp up towards some kind of a incursion?

Right now… Well, without characterizing Israeli operations and letting them speak to them, for themselves, it doesn’t look like anything is imminent.

(05:30)
What we’re seeing on that northern border is an increase in the tit-for-tat going back and forth strikes between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah, and that is our concern. We are concerned about a miscalculation. We don’t want to see a wider regional conflict, and that’s why, in every conversation that we have, in the conversations that are happening in New York, we are continuing to press for a diplomatic resolve. Jesse.

Thank you so much.

Yeah.

We all know that Secretary Austin is always in contact with his Israeli counterpart. Does the secretary have any objections to the way Israel is conducting its operations inside Lebanon?

In terms of?

In terms of, as you may know, targeting civilians. Maybe, carpet bombing to the villages along the border?

Well, I mean, something that we’ve raised is we don’t want to see this escalate, and any time that there is actions taken that could further escalate the war, or like a broader conflict, that we want to avoid a regional war.

(06:47)
The secretary, in all of his conversation, urges, restraint and urges the Israelis to consider civilian casualties, and that’s something that we’ve said from the very beginning.

(07:00)
Look, I’m not going to get into more details on their private conversations, but of course, it’s something that the secretary discusses with his counterpart and will continue to raise.

I mean, could you confirm if the secretary told Gallant that they need to avoid the infrastructure in Lebanon?

I think what I can tell you was what I reiterated earlier is that, of course, we’re always concerned where there are strikes in areas where there is a concentrated civilian population. That’s something that the secretary raises on his calls with Minister Gallant. It’s something that, at different levels in this building, we also raised with our Israeli counterparts, but I’m just not going to be able to go beyond that. Liz.

Thanks, Sabrina. On China’s ICBM test launch, a US defense official said earlier today, that China gave the US warning it was going to do this launch. Was that through military channels, or diplomatic channels?

I don’t have more specifics to provide on the channels, but we were given some advanced notice, but I’m just not going to get into more specifics of that.

(08:01)
I will say that that is a good thing, and that is moving in the right direction in terms of getting that advanced notification and that further reduces the risks of any misperception and miscalculation. So we certainly welcome that.

Were any US citizens at harm by this test in any way during it, or following it?

Not to my knowledge. Yeah. [inaudible 00:08:24]

Just a quick question. Israeli officials have said their strategy with Lebanon is escalate to de-escalate. Does the Pentagon think that’s a viable strategy for how to conduct operations with Lebanon?

So, I’m not going to characterize the Israeli’s operations. What I can tell you is only our view and our perception is that any type of escalation that could lead to a miscalculation, we don’t want to see. We want to see steps that lead to de-escalation, and frankly, steps that lead to a diplomatic off-ramp, which we believe is the best solution here. That’s what we’re pushing for. That’s what you’re seeing happen at UNGA.

(09:07)
That’s also what you’re seeing the secretary continue to emphasize in his calls with Minister Gallant. And when he has the next call, that will be something that I’m sure he would reiterate as well. Okay.

I think-

I just want to clarify.

Uh-huh. Sure.

In response to Tom’s question, you said it doesn’t look like anything is imminent. Was that in reference to a Israeli incursion into Lebanon?

I believe the context was in terms of a ground incursion. So, I was saying in that context, it doesn’t look like something is imminent. But again, I’d refer you to the Israelis to speak to their own operations. Rio.

Thank you.

Yeah.

A follow-up question on Chinese ICBM launch.

Of course.

So, what’s your assessment of this unusual ICBM launch into the Pacific Ocean, and do you think this is a provocative action, and especially do you think they want to send a message to the US?

In terms of the why’s, I’d refer you to the PRC to speak to that. We monitored the ICBM test. To Liz’s question, again, we did receive some advanced notification of this ICBM test, and we believe that that was a good thing. That was a step in the right direction, and it does lead to preventing any misperception or miscalculation.

(10:20)
What we can do here from the department is continue to press for a more regularized bilateral notification arrangement when it comes to ballistic missile and space launches. And this is something that we’ve proposed with the PRC, and it represents a common-sense confidence-building measures. So, we want to see these types of notifications continue. Yes.

Question about presidential drawdown authority with regard to Ukraine.

Sure.

Could you tell us what the department’s plan is to keep using that after September 30th? We’ve seen reports that there’s a workaround that the department can notify Congress, and then, that is legal. Could you tell us what that workaround is? But also, could you tell us why that workaround is needed?

(11:01)
You’ve got some criticism today from Senator Wicker, saying that the department should have spent this money already, or used this authority, I should say, since April.

Sure. So, on your first question on how we’re going to use the authority, I don’t have anything to announce right now, but what I can tell you is that we’re committed to making sure Ukraine gets the resources Congress approved by the end of the president’s term.

(11:25)
Again, I don’t have more to announce right now, but we’re committed to making sure that Ukraine gets what it has been allotted by Congress. And we are working with the inter-agency to do just that. So, bear with us, and we’ll have more to share soon.

And… Yeah.

In terms of your follow-on question on the criticism, look, I’d have to point you back to the fact that, for six months, we didn’t have a supplemental. So, we weren’t able to refill our own shelves. So, therefore, when you’re not able to backfill and refill our own stocks, we’re not able to send out PDAs.

(11:57)
So, you have to remember, during that time, we still had some existing authority, but we weren’t able to send equipment capability systems out to Ukraine because we didn’t have it on our stocks. During that time, during that six-month lag, because we weren’t able to do that, that also impacts packages going down the road.

(12:15)
So, we’re going to make sure Ukraine gets what it needs in the future, but to push back on that criticism, I would say that, when you don’t have what you need on your shelves, it makes it hard to send out that that equipment in the timetable that Congress gave us when it was authorized.

So, is the plan now to move at a faster rate than you’ve been moving so you can get it done before President Biden ends his term?

I think we’ll have more to share in the coming days. I just don’t have more for you right now. Noah.

Just ask a follow-up on that.

Sure.

Because of the issues in getting the supplemental approved, and certainly, the issues in replenishing stocks, because of that, all of that was known when the supplemental was passed in April. Is there a reason that the funding, or the authority wasn’t extended beyond the fiscal year?

Well, I think, also, Noah, you have to remember that we’re talking about, also, working with the defense industrial base that has to backfill our own shelves. So, there’s a lot of coordination and timing here. We did ask Congress for that authority to extend, and that did not happen. So now, we are in a different place.

(13:19)
So, I can’t go back and answer questions of like what if this happened and when. All I can tell you is that we’re committed to making sure Ukraine has what it needs and we’re going to do it. And that’s a commitment that this president has made. And when we have more to share, we will. Jared.

Sabrina, how comfortable is the department with… with the department’s understanding on what the Israeli military’s intentions, and your midterm plans are in Lebanon operationally? Have the Israelis briefed you on what they intend to do?

So, I’m not going to go into more details of the conversations between the secretary and Mr. Gallant, but it’s something that has been discussed and it’s something that the secretary continues to… In all of his conversations, I think you’ve seen the readouts, it’s something that he asks about and that they discuss, but I’m just not going to go beyond the readout.

Okay.

Yeah. In the back.

It’s being reported that 60 additional US troops are being deployed to Cyprus to help with potential mass evacuations of US citizens from Lebanon. Can you confirm that?

I cannot confirm the number, but what I can tell you is that we are sending a small number of additional US military personnel forward to augment forces that are already in the region.

(14:33)
I’m just not going to be able to provide you more specifics. I know I’ve seen the reporting, I know it’s frustrating, but I’m just not going to be able to confirm more.

And just to follow up from the story from last week, is it the Pentagon’s view that it’s acceptable under the laws of war to booby trap civilian objects and place them amongst civilian populations, is that acceptable for any nation to do?

That’s something that… Well, one, without commenting on an operation that the US military had no involvement in, it’s hard for me to get into the hypotheticals. I’m not a lawyer, I’m not going to try and go down and explain legalese from here. So, I just can’t comment further on that operation. Yeah?

Is the US though affecting supply chains, or intercepting supply chains in order to place explosive items within normal consumer objects right now?

Yeah, I’m not going to comment on a hypothetical, or an operation that we had no part of. Yeah.

Thank you, Sabrina. Secretary Austin, on Sunday, told his Israeli counterpart to give time for diplomacy to work. On Monday, we saw that Israel started to bomb Lebanon. And today, the Israel Defense Force has announced that they call up deployment of two reserve brigades to the border with Lebanon.

(15:50)
So, what is the time that Secretary Austin ask Israel for the diplomacy, and do you still believe that Israel listening to you? Thank you.

We do believe that Israel’s listening. I mean, just the fact that they’re listening by the amount of calls that the secretary’s had with Minister Gallant, I think that shows their willingness to hear our views, our concerns, and our… to hear from the secretary. So, I think that’s important to note.

(16:21)
In terms of… I think your question was getting to, are we writing off diplomatic measures, and we’re not. Diplomacy is still the best path forward. There’s always a way for diplomacy. There’s always a way for both sides to come to the table and to have this resolved in diplomatic measures.

(16:43)
From the very beginning, I mean, since October 7th, and then, October 8th when we’ve moved additional assets to the region, the whole focus of this administration has been to not only de-escalate, but to send a message of deterrence.

(16:59)
I think we have been successful in that. We know tensions are high, but we also see that there is a path forward for diplomacy, and that’s why you’re seeing this administration push so hard to get this done. And we’re not going to give up on that. So, we’re going to continue to engage. Sure.

Another question, please. There is some media reports ask, or saying that the US now working with France about a ceasefire, maybe, a deal or plan for Lebanon.

(17:33)
Does anyone from the DOD have evolved, or involved in this negotiation that’s happening right now in the United Nations during the UN Summit in New York?

I don’t have anything on those reports. I mean, I’ve been pretty public in telling you that we’re pushing for diplomatic measures to resolve what’s happening on that northern border, but I just don’t have more to add on that report. And I’m sorry I haven’t seen it. Louis.

Hi, Sabrina. Is the shipment of 2,000 pound bombs for Israel, is that still on hold?

Still paused.

So, the rationale behind that, from what I understand, was when Israel was preparing to go into Rafah to protect civilian lives, limited operations, are there any concerns given the current ongoing air operations that Israel has been conducting, striking in civilian neighborhoods, and I know that we’re seeing secondary effects, so it appears that they are striking the targets, they’re hitting, but are there concerns that the use of these bombs, again, presumably, American bombs, could be putting civilians at risk?

So, you first asked about the 2,000-pound bomb shipment, so that is still paused, so I don’t know what they’re using in their operation, so I refer you to them to speak to that.

(18:56)
There is always a concern about civilian casualties, and that is something that the secretary has addressed really from the beginning, whether it being Gaza or elsewhere. That’s a conversation that we continue to have.

(19:07)
I think in that same vein, we’re also concerned about escalation. And that’s why we don’t want to see any action taken by either side that could lead to further escalation. And that’s what the secretary continues to emphasize, along with always talking about the need to protect civilians.

(19:26)
And you are seeing, I mean, I’m citing public sourcing here, but the Israelis notifying communities and towns on that northern border to clear that area, because they will be conducting operations. We have to protect civilians in the battle space. That’s something the secretary has said. I know you’ve heard him say that before as well.

(19:48)
Our focus, of course, is that, but the best way to protect civilians is, of course, through a diplomatic means, and for this to be resolved through diplomacy. And that’s why we continue to push for that.

Is the secretary, in the future, planning to meet, or travel to Israel in the future?

Yeah. You know, I don’t have any announcements to make in terms of travel, but when we do, you’ll be the first to know. Yes, in the back.

Thanks, Sabrina. You emphasized that the administration-

I’m sorry, I just committed to giving Louis an exclusive on the secretary’s travel.

Thank you for saying that on the record.

Can we view that?

Yeah. Sorry. We’ll discuss later. Sorry. Go ahead.

Thanks. You emphasized that the administration’s position is that you don’t want to see further escalation, and you don’t want to see an all-out war.

Mm-hmm.

Where do you draw the line, especially with regards to a possible ground operation that may be in that?

Well, like I said, I mean, I don’t know that it is imminent and what we continue to push for, and I’m not trying to use a tire talking point here, it’s actually just the fact, is that we do continue to push for a diplomatic resolution here. From the secretary to the Emir agency, that’s something that we continue to engage on.

(21:04)
And in terms of the conflict itself, we still believe like right now, the conflict has been contained to Gaza. There’s no question that there are higher tensions in the region. There’s no question that there’s been an increase in border clashes in that northern border, but we believe that, in order to avert an all-out regional war, it’s through diplomatic means.

(21:28)
And so, we’re going to continue to push for that. And you’re seeing that happen in New York, and you’re seeing that happen here as well. Last one.

Just a follow-up though. How has the conflict been contained to Gaza? You have civilians being killed in Lebanon.

Sure, but what I would tell you is that it’s not how we would characterize an all-out full-scale regional war. What you’re seeing is a trade of fires back and forth on that northern border. I’d point you to October 8th when Hezbollah started launching those. We’re not seeing this widen out to a regional conflict. And that’s what we are concerned about.

(22:03)
And that’s why the secretary, from the beginning, whether it be the Ford, the Ike, the 26th MEU that was in the region, and now, you have the Lincoln there, we continue to position assets in the region to send a message of deterrence, because we don’t want it to scale up.

(22:24)
Yes, we acknowledge that there have been innocent people that have been killed, and we don’t want to see that happen, and that’s why we continue to press for diplomatic means.

Can you take one more?

Sure. One more. And then, I’ve got one in the back. And then, we’ll…

Yeah. I know this is a planning organization. That’s not the answer I’m looking for.

That’s the answer you get.

Yeah. In regards to Lebanon, did the Pentagon put together any NEO plans in case there’s the need for it?

You’re so going to hate my answer.

Yes, I know.

But we are a planning organization.

You are.

We plan for a wide range of contingencies. I will point you back though, to early on last year, or sorry, late last year, but early on after October 7th, when, I think I was up here, General Ryder was up here getting a lot of questions about NEO. I will say we are always a planning organization prepared for any contingency, and we never had to use those plans.

(23:22)
We will always have plans on the shelf so we can dust off at any time, and that is the amazing thing of our military, is we are able to search capabilities to the region. And the secretary did just that.

(23:32)
And we have incredible firepower in the region right now. So, again, I’m not going to get ahead of anything, that’s also a State Department decision to make. But Fadi, to answer your own question, we are a planning organization. All right. Mike, and then, I’ll wrap up.

Yeah. Pentagon always talk, or often talks about deterrence and giving Israel enough to defend themselves. Does this administration, would they like Israel to actually win their battle? Win their war against Hamas, win their war against Hezbollah. Do you have a position on that one way or the other?

Well, I think we’ve said time and again, that we support Israel’s right to self-defense. What a win looks like is, really, for Israel to define. But we are supporting them in their right to self-defense.

(24:18)
And, of course, we understand and know the threats that they’re facing from these terrorist organizations, and that’s why we are supporting them in their fight against the threats that they face on their borders.

(24:35)
But beyond that, I just don’t have more to add. Okay. Thanks, everyone.

(24:48)
I’m happy to stick around, if anyone has off-the-record questions. For those who have not been here before, these are the opportunity-