Department of State Daily Press Briefing 8/05/24

Sit down.

Sorry about that.

It’s okay. Good afternoon, everyone. Good to be back after a little bit of time on the road. Start with some opening comments before I turn to questions. Earlier today, Secretary Blinken spoke to Qatari Prime Minister Al Thani and Egyptian Foreign Minister Abdelatty about tensions in the Middle East, the latest in a series of diplomatic engagements he has held over the past few days with counterparts in the region and around the world, including calls yesterday with G7 foreign ministers, and Iraqi Prime Minister Sudani.

(00:32)
The Secretary has delivered a consistent message in all of these engagements. We are at a critical moment for the region and it’s important that all parties take steps over the coming days to refrain from escalation and calm tensions. Escalation is in no one’s interest. It’s not in the interest of any one country. It’s not in the interest of the region, and it’s certainly not in the interest of the millions of civilians who just want to live their lives free from violence and conflict. The secretary is also making clear through these engagements that the United States continues to see a ceasefire in Gaza as the crucial step to helping calm broader tensions. In addition to, of course, securing the release of hostages and addressing the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza. He’s reiterating that all parties need to look for reasons to say yes to an agreement, not look for reasons to delay or say no. As the secretary has emphasized, this is an important moment for the region and it’s critical that parties make the right decisions over the coming days.

(01:33)
Turning to Bangladesh, we have seen the announcement that Prime Minister Hasina resigned from her position and departed Bangladesh. We are monitoring the situation carefully. The United States stands with the people of Bangladesh. We urge all parties to refrain from further violence. Too many lives have been lost over the course of the past several weeks and we urge calm and restraint in the days ahead.

(01:56)
We welcome the announcement of an interim government and urge any transition be conducted in accordance with Bangladesh’s laws. Finally, we are deeply saddened about the reports of human rights abuses, casualties, and injuries over the weekend and past weeks. We share our deepest condolences with those who lost loved ones and those who are suffering. [inaudible 00:02:17]

Yeah. Thanks, Matt. Welcome back.

Thank you. Same to you.

Thank you. On the Middle East.

Yeah.

Your comments in the opening suggest that you are quite concerned about the risk or the potential for a much wider war. What exactly is the State Department doing in terms of preparation for that possibility?

So we are concerned about the risk of the conflict escalating, the conflict spreading. It’s something as you know, we’ve been concerned about since October 7th, and there have been various times over the course of this conflict that the risk has been especially acute. Now, of course is one of those times. And so what we are doing, the secretary and others in the State Department are communicating with all the relevant parties in the region to make clear, as I said in my opening remarks, that escalation is in no one’s interest and asking that people use their diplomatic relationships to make that clear to others in the region.

Okay. My specific question, and I’m sure there’s tons to say about your outreach to other countries, I’m talking about internally within the US government, what is being done to prepare for the possibility that there is a wider war and that there will be American citizens in need.

So there are a few different things. So let me take a broad answer to that before getting to the specific last one. Obviously, you’ve seen the Defense Department make certain announcements with regard to forced posture. Deterrence is an important part of encouraging de-escalation and so we will continue to take steps along that regard. Of course, we prepare for the possibility of further conflict.

(04:07)
That being said, I want to just make it clear in answering the question that we don’t think conflict is inevitable or should be inevitable or that increased conflict is inevitable. We’re going to continue to work to try to prevent it from happening, but of course we prepare for all possibilities. That has been the case since October 7th. Obviously, you saw that over the weekend we sent out a message to American citizens in Lebanon, making clear that Lebanon is a do not travel country.

(04:36)
It’s a level four country, and we issued a security alert encouraging US citizens who wish to depart Lebanon to book any ticket available for them, even if that flight does not depart immediately or does not follow their first choice route and we’ll continue to monitor the situation and make assessments and take actions based on response to real-time events.

All right. So last one. You’re saying that a wider war is not inevitable and you don’t think it should be inevitable, but do you think that an Iranian response or an Iranian attack on Israel is inevitable whether or not that leads to a broader war?

So I can’t speak to what may or may not happen. That is a decision for Iran to make. We have been sending consistent messages through our diplomatic engagements, encouraging people to communicate to the government of Iran. That escalation is not in their interest and that we will defend Israel from attacks. And that escalation does not serve Iran’s interest. It doesn’t serve the interest of anyone in the region. So I don’t want to say it’s inevitable. Certainly the risk is there and that’s why we are pursuing these diplomatic engagements.

From your perspective is any kind of Iranian response an escalation?

I don’t want to prejudge from here what our view of a response might be other than to say we don’t want to see Iran take further action. And that’s the message we are consistently delivering to our partners in the region.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you, Matt. Welcome back. Given some of the tough rhetoric that we’ve seen reported between the US and Israel specifically about whether the US would bail out Israel should it escalate another time after this one, are there any limitations being placed on US involvement in what’s expected to develop in the company coming days?

So I don’t know what you mean by limitations. We have made clear that we will defend Israel against attacks from Iran against attacks from terrorist groups. That is a part of our long-standing, ironclad commitment to Israel’s security. At the same time, as I made clear in my opening comments as the secretary made clear in comments he made on the road last week, we don’t want to see any party take steps to escalate this conflict.

By limitations, I mean there’s a difference between intercepting and defensive actions versus engaging in counter-strikes or even preemptive strikes which have been floated by the Israelis as a possibility. Is there anything that the US is drawing lines in front of in terms of those actions?

So I’m not going to get into the conversations that we have with any of our allies or partners in the region other than to say there’s a general rule, we don’t want to see escalation, and that is a statement that applies to all parties to this conflict.

Given the secretary’s calls, the president’s personal outreach to King Abdullah in Jordan, can you say whether the Jordanians are as willing as they were in April to engage again in the coming days development?

I’m not going to speak to that in detail. Obviously, in April, we were able to put together a coalition of countries that were willing to defend Israel against attacks from Iran. We do believe it’s important to continue to defend Israel against attacks whether they come from Iran or whether they come from Iran’s proxies. We of course have conversations with our allies and partners about that, but I’m not going to detail those publicly.

(07:57)
Again, I do want to say that we don’t think these attacks should be inevitable. We don’t think that they should happen. We don’t think that they’re in Iran’s interests, but of course it is prudent for us to take steps to deter and eventually if necessary, defend against those attacks should they occur.

Without specifying countries individually, are you confident that you have at least the same level of coalition that you had assembled in April?

I just don’t want to speak to it publicly. We are committed to the defense of Israel against attacks from Iran and its proxies, and I think I’ll leave it at that.

Okay. Two more questions. One, are there any preparations being made to evacuate US citizens from Lebanon at this stage?

So we always plan for all contingencies, and that’s not just a statement I would make today. That is something that has been clear since October 7th. We have planned for all of the possible contingencies, including the broadening of this conflict, including the escalation of this conflict. Our posture as it relates to American citizens in Lebanon today is that we recommend that US citizens who can depart Lebanon find a way to do so.

Okay. But nothing specific on the potential of an evacuation?

I don’t have anything to announce here, but as I said, we always prepare for all contingencies.

And on prospects for a ceasefire deal, which this department and others, other agencies in the US government have been stressing is a crucial key step. I mean, it appears notable that the talks over the weekend in Cairo were hours long. The CIA director was not there. Not to say that in absence of us an altogether absence of the US presence, but isn’t that an indication that there’s nowhere to go on ceasefire talks right now? I mean, how would you characterize them? Are they not stalled?

So I wouldn’t characterize them as stalled. I would characterize them the way we’ve said before, which is we have reached an agreement on the framework. That agreement still stands. Nothing that’s happened over the course of the past week has done anything to erode the fundamental agreement on the framework to this ceasefire that stands. Also, what’s true is that we continue to have other areas where we need to bridge the differences between the two parties.

(09:57)
Look, ultimately it’s not a decision the United States can make. It requires the parties to take these choices and it requires the parties to get to yes and not look for reasons to delay and not look for reasons to say no. And so the message that we have consistently communicated to everyone in the region is we want to see a ceasefire. We think a ceasefire is in the interest of Israel, it’s in the interest of the Israeli people, it’s in the interest of the Palestinian people. It is in the interest of the broader region. So we are going to continue to use all of the diplomatic muscle, all of the influence that we can bring to bear to push to get this ceasefire over the line.

And since this is the first time we’re hearing from you specifically, I mean, would you say that the assassination of Haniyeh who was of course a lead negotiator in these talks was at least not conducive to seeing them [inaudible 00:10:45]

The President spoke to this over the weekend, and I think I’ll let his word stand. He said it certainly didn’t help.

I have another one for Russia later.

Okay.

Thanks.

Jordan has, of course been heavily engaged with the Iranians as well. President Biden had a call today with his counterpart in Jordan. Can you say if any messages to Iran have been disseminated through the Jordanians or any other channel urging escalation?

So I will let all of the countries in the region speak to what diplomatic engagements they might’ve had with Iran. But obviously, one of the points of the engagements that we have had is to urge countries to pass messages to Iran and urge countries to make clear to Iran that it is very much not in their interest to escalate this conflict that is very much not in their interest to launch another attack on Israel.

(11:33)
And so I’ll let countries speak to the degree to which they’ve had those conversations. But I can tell you in the engagements that we have had, every engagement that the secretary has had, not just over the weekend, not just today, but going through to last weekend, he has heard a consensus position from all of our allies and partners, both in the region and around the world that they don’t want to see the conflict escalated. So certainly I would expect that some of them would pass that message along and impress that point upon the governor of Iran. But I’ll let each individual country speak to their particular conversations.

So there’s a consensus position against escalation, but is there a consensus on whether Iran does have the right to launch any kind of retaliatory action?

So the consensus position is that Iran should not take further action. That’s what we hear over and over is that further action just raises the tensions, raises the risk of the conflict spreading and getting out of hand. Look, the last time we found ourselves in this position when Iran launched attacks against Israel in mid-April, you saw a series of attacks and then ultimately the conflict didn’t widen further. It’s not to say that those attacks were in any way acceptable. Of course they weren’t. That’s why we’d helped defend Israel against them.

(12:51)
But that was a moment of real peril for the region and we were able to chart a path that ultimately got us through that time without it tipping into a wider war. But every time you have one of these cycles of escalation, you have a risk of parties miscalculating. You have the risk of them taking actions that get out of hand or that have unintended consequences. And that can affect the ceasefire negotiations. It can affect the risk of broader conflict. And so the message that we are consistently sending is, don’t take this step. You don’t need to. It doesn’t serve anything and it only puts the entire region at risk.

[inaudible 00:13:30].

Alex, go ahead.

Hey, Matt. There does seem to be consensus that something is coming and that something is coming soon. Now, I was wondering if you could speak to reports that the secretary told his counterparts, the G7, that this could happen today or tomorrow and why you think that the timeframe essentially has shrunk compared to last time when Iran took a bit more time to prepare for their response?

So I’m not going to speak to those reports. And again, as I’ve said, we don’t think this attack should happen and we are working to try to prevent it from happening.

… so I’m not going to give you any kind of delineation of when we might be in a window or a potential window of attacks that we’re trying to prevent in the first place. So that’s the focus that we have is trying to impress upon everyone in the region that escalation is in no one’s interest and they shouldn’t take further escalatory steps.

Have you seen any indication that Iran is preparing or Hezbollah is getting ready? I mean, obviously Hezbollah might be the more dangerous party because they’re closer and their stuff might be pre-positioned.

I’m not going to speak to any type of intelligence assessments or other things that we might see other than a note that Hezbollah consistently launches attacks across the border at Israel. It’s not something that they would necessarily have to prepare for. You look at just about every day over the past few weeks, there have been attacks that Hezbollah has launched on Israel. So it is an ongoing conflict across the blue line that we are attempting to manage and attempting to ultimately reach a diplomatic resolution to.

And then just lastly, have you heard indications from Hamas after Haniyeh’s funeral, now that they are going to come back to the table, have they told the Qataris, the Egyptians that they do plan to continue engaging?

I don’t want to speak to the substance of negotiations other than to say that we continue to engage with our Qatari counterparts, our Egyptian counterparts. As I said, the Secretary had a call with the Prime Minister of Qatar early today, who of course is one of the lead interlocutors. And I think I’ll leave it at that other than to say the interlocutors, our interlocutors, Qatar and Egypt, are making clear to Hamas the same thing that we believe, which is that they need to continue to work to get to yes, in an agreement.

Thanks.

Yeah. Just on those… The Secretary had calls with the Egyptians and the Qataris. What are they saying about… As has come up, you’ve got one side, they’ve been the interlocutors in these negotiations, one side has just assassinated the lead negotiator. Are they willing to continue hosting these talks when it seems like one side has just taken an action that seems to threaten up their position as mediator?

They are. And we continue to express our gratitude for the role that both Qatar and Egypt have played in trying to reach a resolution to this conflict and trying to reach a ceasefire that we eventually want to turn into an end into the war, and of course, beyond that into broader peace and stability. Both of those two governments have put an extraordinary amount of work into reaching a ceasefire as we have put an extraordinary amount of work and they remain committed to trying to push forward in negotiations and reach an ultimate deal.

And just in the question of an Iranian response, so in April there was an Israeli attack on an Iranian diplomatic facility or consulate facility. I think at the time there was never a conclusion from the US whether it did count as a consulate facility or not. Now we’ve got an attack on Iranian territory. Do the Iranians have the right to self-defense in this case?

So I’m going to answer that question this way. The right is one question. What’s productive is another, and ultimately we don’t think it’s productive or conducive to anyone’s interests, including Iran’s to conduct further actions, be they retaliatory or not. Any further action by Iran just raises the risk of increased tensions, it raises the risk of further response from Israel or from other parties and ultimately gets us into this position that we have worried about from the beginning that you get a conflict that can spiral out of control.

(17:53)
Now we are working to prevent that from happening. And I think the point that we are trying to make to all the parties involved is that they all have agency as well in trying to prevent that from becoming an eventuality. And so that requires all parties, including Iran, making the appropriate decisions in the days to come. And that means not taking steps that could lead to a wider conflict. We think it’s incumbent upon them to make those types of decisions.

In the interest of consistency though, your message to the Israelis is this is not helpful or that’s the President’s words. I guess people would expect you to maybe go a bit further than to say this is not helpful when you’re making these kind of requests of the Iranians not to respond.

I mean, the President said that he didn’t believe it was helpful and the Secretary said on Thursday that all parties should stop taking escalatory actions. And I don’t think we could be any more clear than that. Go ahead.

Just a brief follow up on Alice’s line of questioning, at least one airline has said that they’re going to avoid airspace over Iran and Iraq in the coming days. Is that advice that’s come from the United States? Is there a security assessment for US airlines particularly? I don’t think it [inaudible 00:19:08] Iran-

I would defer to the FAA to speak to that. It’s not something that I’m aware of from here. So yeah.

Thank you, Matt. Welcome back.

Thanks.

Good to see you. Matt, a new response to Libya and to Simon as a matter of fact. You urge the Iranians, it’s not in their interest to respond and so on, but at least do they have the right to respond? I mean, is that part of self-defense?

So I just answered that question.

On the issue of self-defense.

I just answered that question in response to what I got from Simon. A right is one thing, taking steps that are productive and are conducive to the interests of their people, that are conducive to the interests of the broader region are another question. And in no way would a retaliatory action by Iran in any way serve the interests of the Iranian people or the broader region.

And that’s precisely why I’m asking because you mentioned the word right. So you are acknowledging that they do have the right to respond.

No, I did not acknowledge that. I acknowledge the question.

Okay. Then let me ask you, if this let’s say happened in any of the Western capitals, wouldn’t they be sort of obligated to respond?

I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical, Saeed.

All right, we’ll deal with something real. Last week, a week ago yesterday, Sunday, and errant rocket or maybe intentional hit a small town of Majdal Shams, a Syrian town, Syrian citizens, and so on. And you said that Israel had a right to defend itself. Not you personally, but I’m saying… So what’s different? I mean, everyone was saying, “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Why doesn’t Iran have a right to defend itself when the guest house, I don’t want to make comparisons, but it’s like the guest house in London or maybe Blair House, anything… I mean, something that really touched the sovereignty of Iran.

So I take the point of your question, Saeed. It is not in any way, however useful at all for anyone in the region for Iran to consider taking such steps because of the risk, as I said, that this could potentially get out of control. And that’s the message we’ll continue to impress on them.

All right, let me ask you on the negotiation, why do you continue to have the notion that Israel is negotiating in good faith when in fact it killed the chief negotiator of the other party? I mean, if you go and treat the chief negotiator, you kill him, people must think that you are not very serious about negotiations.

So I will speak to what we’ve seen in the negotiations and that is first of all, an agreement to the framework and then some other issues that we are trying to resolve going forward. And I’m not going to assess the motives of any of the parties involved. What I’m going to make clear is the position of the United States that we have impressed upon the government of Israel quite directly that they need to work to get to yes on this agreement.

But Israel is not even allowing the food to go in and aid is rotting and they’re not allowing anything to go in. And the situation is very, very dire in Gaza. So if they’re not even showing that kind of gesture, why should they be taking-

So, Saeed, I’ll not quibble, but I think… It’s not a premise. What you stated in the lead up to your question is incorrect. It’s not that they’re blocking aid from coming in. They’re letting aid come to the various crossings. And then we continue to struggle with the security situation inside Gaza of getting out of the crossings. And that’s something that we’re working through with the governor of Israel and the various UN agencies. But ultimately it is always going to be difficult.

(22:45)
We’ve seen that now more than nine months into this conflict. And what we’ve seen is it is always going to be difficult because of the unique nature of Gaza and the unique nature of this conflict to move humanitarian assistance around when you’re in the middle of a conflict between the IDF and a terrorist organization that continues to kind of pop in and out of civilian infrastructure. And so that’s why we continue to work for ceasefire because ultimately that is the way to solve this humanitarian crisis that current plagues the people of Gaza.

And finally, I have one last question. An Israeli American soldier with a US citizen posted videos showing detonation of Gaza homes and mosques and so on. In fact, it’s something that Amnesty called a war crime. If this US citizen comes to the United States, should he be arrested?

That’s a question for the Justice Department. Not the State Department.

Justice Department. Okay, but is that a war crime if you show that you have done that?

So Saeed, there’s no way I can take any video devoid of context and pronounce judgment on whether it’s a war crime or not from here.

Fair enough.

Can I just check on one thing? I think it was the third to last question that Saeed asked. The premise of-

Doubt I can go back that [inaudible 00:23:52].

That Israel had killed, had assassinated the top Hamas negotiator. Is that something that you’re willing to accept and say on the record that it was in fact Israel that did it? Or have I missed something over the course of the last couple of days?

I will let every country speak to their actions. The United States for our part was not involved in any way.

No, I’m not asking if you were involved. I’m asking if you accept the premise of the question that Israel did in fact do it, if in fact the Israelis have told you that they were responsible.

So I am not going to speak to what any other government may or may not have done. I’ll make clear that the United States not only was not involved, but we were not aware of this incident before it occurred. Yeah, [inaudible 00:24:33].

Sorry if this was asked before I walked in.

Not the first time. I don’t meet with you. In general, it happens.

Right. It’s been reported that Iran has sent a message to Israel through a third party obviously, that it will be attacking Israel. Do you think this is a good sign that at least if it’s giving a warning that it will definitely be attacking that it could be maybe more limited and things stop there?

I’m not going to speak to that report. It’s reportedly about conversations between two governments that are not the United States. I’ll let the countries involved speak to it. I wouldn’t want to speculate or comment on it. Sorry. Alex.

Thank you, Matt. You said you expect each individual country in the region to speak up their mind, but Russia happens to be one of them. And Shoigu is in Tehran.

Russia is a Middle Eastern country?

Well, not a regional country, but he said that they are-

It’s a broad definition of the Middle East, Alex.

Yeah, They share borders.

Overly broad, I would say.

But they said they’re willing to cooperate, I’m quoting him, in dealing with current regional-

Quoting who?

Shoigu.

Shoigu.

He’s in Tehran. What is Russia’s responsibility at this point?

Russia’s responsibility. I don’t think we have any… So I’ll aside the question of responsibility, we don’t have any expectations that Russia is going to play a productive role in deescalating tensions. We haven’t seen them play a productive role in this conflict since October 7th. They have, for the most part, been absent. And certainly we’ve seen them do nothing to urge any party to take de-escalatory steps.

They gave you the timing of this trip. Do you see this as an effort to undermine your efforts?

I don’t know what the timing of this trip relates to. Obviously you can look at this two ways. One is any involvement that Russia might play in the conflict of the Middle East. And so far we have seen them play really no role at all. Certainly not any productive role. The other way to look at the possibility of this trip is it is furthering the relationship between the government of Iran and the government of Russia. And Russia going around tin cupping looking for support for its illegal invasion of Ukraine. I don’t know that’s the purpose of this trip, but certainly we have seen that security relationship between Iran and Russia before.

Can we move to Ukraine when you’re ready if you want to come back to me?

Go ahead. Yeah, I got it. Go ahead.

Just [inaudible 00:26:58], do you see the UN statement today on UNRWA?

I saw it right before I came out. We haven’t had a chance to… My understanding is there’s an underlying report that we have not yet had a chance to review.

Okay. Are you willing to comment on it now?

No. No. Let us get a chance to look at the situation and maybe tomorrow we can have something to say.

My question is Russia-adjacent about detainees last week, so if you want to… Okay. One is there were conflicting characterizations of whether Alsu Kurmasheva was in fact officially designated as wrongfully detained. Can you clarify whether she was or not before released?

She was designated as wrongfully detained.

When did that happen?

It happened last week shortly in the days before she was returned home.

Okay. And the family of Marc Fogel in legal proceedings against this department has argued that had he been designated as wrongfully detained, it would’ve also led to his release. Do you have any comment on that?

So I’m not going to speak to questions that involve ongoing litigation for reasons I think you can understand. But I will speak to this issue in generally. First

First of all, with respect to Marc Fogel, we are working to try to secure his release. We work to try to secure his release as part of this deal and we’re unable to, but we continue to call for his release and we continue to work to secure his release. And I think…

(28:15)
Let me just point to the events of last week to talk about our record because I have a number of times stood up here and been pressed: why we haven’t designated certain individuals as wrongfully detained? I think Alex asked me two weeks ago about the wrongful designation of Alsu Kurmasheva.

(28:31)
I think asked me, are we not designating her… is wrongfully detained because she’s a woman or because she’s a Muslim? It was obviously not true, as I said at the time.

(28:38)
And the point I made is: when we say that we are working to get someone’s release, we mean it and our record backs it up. And sometimes we are working to obtain their release when they have officially received a wrongful detention determination.

(28:57)
Sometimes there are other individuals who we say were working to secure the release and they never received that determination. A great example is Vladimir Kara-Murza, who was not determined by this department to be wrongfully detained, but yet we were still able to secure his release last week.

(29:11)
So let me just point to something the secretary said in the statement he released on Thursday when this news became public, and that’s it… He knows… He had a lot of difficult conversations, as you would imagine with the families of those who have been wrongfully detained and others who have been detained overseas over the past couple of years.

(29:28)
And he can certainly understand that there were times that they worried that our efforts would not bear fruit, but we know they never gave up hope and we didn’t give up hope and we continued to work to secure all of their release. And that is true with Marc Fogel and that’s true for every American who is wrongfully detained overseas.

I certainly understand, and I’m not a lawyer for the family, that it’s not maybe a prerequisite or requirement for an American to be released, but it is a fact that three out of the four Americans in this case were designated as wrongfully detained and that led to their release as was Brittney Griner. Just if there’s anything else you want to say to the Fogel family at this particular point.

So I would say to the family, as you’ve heard from others in the administration, that we continue to be committed to securing his release and we continue to work on it, something that we think about every day.

(30:16)
And the same thing that we said to the family of Paul Whelan, when Brittney Griner was returned… And we had tried to get Paul Whelan out as part of that deal and it just simply wasn’t on the table. It wasn’t on the table as part of that deal. And we made clear to Paul and we made clear to his family that we had not forgotten him and that we would continue to work on his release. And that was true and ultimately we were able to get him home.

(30:37)
The same thing is true with Marc Fogel. We continue to work on his release. We really wanted to get him out as part of this deal. We’re not the only party to the deal and we weren’t able to do it, but we continue to work on it.

(30:48)
And just with this question of wrongfully detained, not wrongfully detained, which we get asked about a lot for very understandable reasons, I would just note that there is a statutory review that we have to go through that lists certain factors that we have to apply when making the determination about whether someone is wrongfully detained or not.

(31:08)
And we go through that and we have to apply the law rigorously and that’s what we do. But there are others who, for whatever reason, we have not made the determination at any one time, they have not met the statutory criteria. But if there’s someone that we say that we are working to bring home, like Vladimir Kara-Murza, we’re working to bring them home and hopefully someday we will.

Why was Kara-Murza not wrongfully detained?

So as always, not going to speak to the determination with any one individual, but we go through the statutory criteria with all of them and add all that up and make a determination based on the facts of their case, based on the law that applies to their case, and based on the requirements of the Levinson Act. Does that all add up to a wrongful determination?

(31:49)
And in the case of Alsu Kermasheva, the statutory review, let us to conclude it did. In the case of Vladimir Kara-Murza, it led us to conclude that it did not. That said, we still thought he ought to be released. We still pressed for his release. We were still able to get his release.

Designated day before or day after because-

It was sometime last week.

… I don’t think we know the answer.

I don’t remember. I don’t remember the exact date. It was sometime last week.

It did not happen before the decision wasn’t asked, right? I mean, she was released. When I asked this question last week and Vedant did not have the answer that she was designated.

It happened last week, shortly before her release. I’m not going to get into any further time than that.

If we move to Ukraine please.

Yeah.

Now, the F-16s are in Ukraine’s hands is US’ government willing to untie Ukraine’s hands to strike back military targets to prevent future attacks?

To strike back-

In Russia.

… in Russia. We have allowed the Ukrainian government to strike military targets in Russia.

They’re still able to strike from over 100 kilometers.

So Alex, you and I have been through this before. My answer has not changed today, which is we constantly look at the needs of the Ukrainian military, we assess the security situation and we try to be responsive to their needs.

(33:05)
And that is a process that we have undergone from the beginning. And we make those determinations both when it comes to the specific weapons that we provide Ukraine and the restrictions, if any, that we put on the use of those weapons.

Thank you. President Zelenskyy was quoted as saying that he votes NATO to discuss Ukraine, the possibility of destroying missiles in Ukrainian territory. Why is it not plausible in your understanding?

Why is it not plausible for…

NATO to…

So that is a discussion that… as with all NATO discussions, is a discussion to be had among NATO members and a decision that NATO would reach collectively. It’s not something I can speak to from here.

And my final one on Ukraine. Have you seen the video of dismemberment of Ukrainian prisoners, PAOs, in Russia? What is your reaction?

I have not.

Matt, I had one on maybe this…

Go ahead.

Thank you. Matt, on Bangladesh. Bangladesh is free at the cost of hundreds of lives under the shoot on site ordered by Autocratic… by Minister Shekhar Sinha. But the situation is still unclear. Students, leaders, opposition parties, and the army are trying to form a civilian government. Could you please provide more insight into the US position?

So as I said, a few things. Number one, our condolences, of course, go out to those who have been hurt in the violence over the past few weeks. We are focused now on supporting an end to the violence and for accountability. All decisions regarding the interim government should be made with respect to democratic principles, rule of law, and the will of the Bangladeshi people.

Yeah. As you say, the accountability, Shekhar Sinha fled to India and she’s trying to get any of the Western country. Will you allow her to come into the US as she commit crime against humanity largely?

I’m not aware of any request of that nature.

Please, Matt.

Yeah. Go ahead.

Thank you so much-

Guys. Guys. One at a time.

The recent fall, we already know, the Bangladesh government led widespread violence and chaos. What measure is the US State Department or US taking to address the reported atrocities against minorities and general populace in Bangladesh?

So a few things. Number one: I have made, as I made clear, what we are calling for today is an end to the violence and for accountability. Now, as to what accountability looks like, that’s something that should take place under Bangladeshi Law. Obviously, anyone responsible for acts of violence, acts that break the law, should be held accountable for them.

Thank you so much.

Mike.

Yes. Go ahead.

Matt. Thanks. During the time that Bangladeshi people struggle against that fascist ruler and thousands of people got killed, you already informed us that she fled the country this morning.

I didn’t inform you that, I think.

Okay. You stated it. Okay.

I said we’ve seen the announcement she resigned.

Okay. She resigned. Okay. After she left, there is a dozens of dead bodies are pulling out from the Ganabhaban, the official residence of prime minister; there’s a dozens of dead bodies are pulling out next to the parliament. There’s a lots of atrocities are taking place by the government official. Those who are still in power, especially couple of people: army chief of Staff General Waker-Uz-Zaman, who was involved with genocide; Navy Chief Admiral Mohammad Nazmul Hassan, he was involved with the genocide; Air Chief Marshall Hasan Mahmood Khan, they were involved with the genocide.

(36:37)
And they’re the same people are saying, “We are going to the president and form a caretaker government.” So as a matter of fact, when was the last time we heard a killer is going to do the justice for another killer?

So let me say a few things. Number one, with respect to the violence over the past few weeks and the deaths that have occurred, it is vital that we have full and transparent investigations to ensure accountability for these deaths.

Does [inaudible 00:37:04]-

Second, as it relates to the interim government, as I made clear my opening remarks, we think that is important that we focus on the Bangladeshi people’s democratic aspirations and see a path to democratic governance.

Does America support Bangladesh military to install a caretaker government?

We want to see the Bangladeshi people decide the future of the Bangladeshi government.

Thank you.

Janne. Oh, yeah, yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.

Just has there been any contact, as far as you know, with Bangladeshi officials via in the military or in the former government? Or…

I don’t have any to report today. There may have been contacts from our embassy, but I’m not aware of any. Don’t have any to announce.

And just also in terms of some US issues with Bangladesh, the issue, the Rohingya, of course, has been something that’s been quite important between the US and Bangladesh. Is there any concern that this would impact the housing of the Rohingya refugees?

So I think as you know, the United States has provided, I’m going to try to do the number from memory here, I think it’s around $2 billion to assist with refugees in Bangladesh.

(38:08)
And I don’t have any immediate comment on how this change of government might affect those programs. I would certainly hope that it wouldn’t. We think it’s important that Bangladesh continue to provide hospitality to those refugees and will continue to work with them to do so.

Matt, Bangladesh, US embassy is working there?

Hold on. Guys, hold on. Simon, did you have…

Yeah. Well, Sean asked most of my questions, but I did want to ask on… Is there ongoing assistance to Bangladesh, both in terms of humanitarian aid that will continue and also will military assistance continue given, I guess, this is not a coup, but there’s questions over the transfer of power?

So certainly with respect to the kind of allusion in the last part of your question, so we’ve seen… All that we know right now is we’ve seen the announcement from the government that she resigned. We don’t have any further information about how that resignation may have taken place. With respect to… And that goes to the question obviously of financial support.

(39:14)
So with respect to financial support in fiscal year 2023, the United States provided over 212 million in bilateral economic development and health assistance to Bangladesh.

(39:25)
Obviously, I don’t have any announcements with respect to those programs other than that we would like to see them continue because they’re important to our relationship with the people of Bangladesh.

(39:34)
And just to confirm the question Sean answered, it was, we provided nearly 2 billion humanitarian assistance to support Rohingya refugees since August of 2017.

Can I just take just another question on that? Just taking a step back a little bit. How do you actually feel about the army’s role? How does the United States feel? Do you think that they were productive in this? Is there any concern that an interim role could become more than an interim role as well?

So let me answer that two ways. One, with respect to their role. Over the past several days, we have seen the reports that the army resisted calls to crack down on the protesters. And if those reports are true, certainly that is something that we would encourage.

(40:16)
We made clear, I think, for several weeks now that people have a legitimate right to protest and to peacefully assemble. And we opposed any kind of violent crackdown. So if it is true in fact that the army resisted calls to crack down on lawful protesters, that would be a positive development.

(40:35)
With respect to where we go from here, what we want to see is democratic order. We want to see the Bangladeshi people choose their own government. And that’s what we will be looking for in the days and weeks ahead.

Yeah. Follow-up in Bangladesh.

Let go to Janne.

Thank you. Thank you, Matt.

Next.

Two questions. North Korea announced that it will deploy a large-scale tactical nuclear ballistic missile launcher to do frontlines. What do you think of North Korea’s sudden actions?

We would encourage North Korea to discontinue taking provocative and unproductive steps and return to the negotiating table.

Do you think North Korea’s seventh nuclear test is imminent?

I don’t have any assessment to offer on that.

A quick question. North Korea is currently experiencing many casualties due to flood. South Korea said it would provide humanitarian aid, but North Korea tools only support from Russia. What do you think of North Korea, which selectively chooses humanitarian aid?

So obviously our thoughts are always with the people of North Korea as they’re with the people of any country around the world when they suffer a humanitarian disaster. And

Whatever differences we have with any government, those are not differences with the people of that country. And so, we would hope to see the humanitarian needs of the North Korean people addressed. And I’ll let South Korea speak to decisions or offers that they might’ve made.

Thank you.

[inaudible 00:42:18]. Yeah.

Yes, Matt. I know you didn’t want to answer a question about the limitations… On whether there are limitations on U.S. support to Israel. But, my question, when you say that no one, and your message is no one should say, “No,” to de-escalation, is it applicable to everyone? Is it applicable to all parties? Is this your message to Israel?

Yes. My statement when I said all parties, I very much meant all parties, as did the secretary when he spoke to this last week.

[inaudible 00:42:50].

Yeah, go ahead and then I’ll go.

Thank you. Thank you, Matt. The Iranian security council members spoke to Al-Qaeda’s Al-Jarida newspaper, and they said that the U.S. delegation has visited Iran through Turkey with a mediation of Oman. What’s your comment on that? And has anyone from the State Department or the U.S. government spoke directly with the Iranians on this issue?

So, with respect to Iran, we’ve always said we have the ability to send messages to them or to get messages to them when it’s in our interest to do so. And I’ll leave it at that.

And last time when the Iran attacked Israel on April 13, they said they claimed that they sent white notes to everyone including the U.S. They said the U.S. that they are going to attack Israel. Have you received any notification from Iran on this?

So, let me just say a number of things that there were reports about what Iran said to us last time that proved to be completely untrue. You may remember this, that there were a number of things the Iranian government put out that just flat… About messages they sent to us that just weren’t flatly were false. And with respect to any communications, I’m not going to speak to them now other than to say you should be highly skeptical as always, about reports of what the Iranian government may or may not have sent to us in the message through an intermediary or third party or otherwise.

And last thing, and how did Iran receive your messages through your diplomatic engagements?

I will let the countries who are party to those diplomatic engagements speak to that. As I said, and I think in response to one of the questions earlier, we are making clear to all of our allies and partners in the region and beyond who have diplomatic engagements with Iran that they should press Iran to take de-escalatory steps and refrain from further escalation. But, I’ll let those countries involved speak to any specific conversations.

Thank you.

Ryan.

Thanks Matt. Not sure if you saw there was a report in Semafor that the Wall Street Journal tried valiantly to try to confirm its reporting on the unreal allegations made by Israel-

Yeah.

… talked to American intelligence sources, Israeli intelligence, were completely unable to substantiate them. Does the State Department have anything new about those unreal allegations? And in the future, will the State Department consider allegations coming from Israel differently given that these have not yet been backed up, but such drastic measures-

So, I did see that report, and I think it is a good time to remind everyone that the action that we took was not in response to information that the government of Israel brought to us. It was in response to UNRWA coming to us and UNRWA saying that they had received these allegations from the government of Israel and they found them credible. And so, that was what led us to make the decision that we made. It wasn’t getting anything from the government of Israel. It was when UNRWA itself said they found the allegations credible, that we thought it was appropriate step to take to pause the funding. Now with respect to the underlying investigation, so Sean asked me about, I believe that UN has issued a statement about it earlier today. We have not yet had a chance to review either the statement or what I understand to be an underlying report, but we’ll certainly do so over the coming days and we’ll leave it until we’ve had a chance to do so to pass judgment.

The IDF also announced that they assassinated the Gaza Minister of the economy. I’m curious, does the State Department consider somebody like that to be a combatant?

So, I didn’t see that announcement. I don’t know who the person was. I don’t know if he had an active role in the Hamas military wing or not. So, to be able to answer that question, I’d have to know more about the specific person.

They said he counts because he had a roll over the economy. And the economy has a role over manufacturing. Within manufacturing, there are weapons that are manufactured.

Again, I’d have to look at it in more detailed before I could give you any detailed assessment. Go ahead in the back.

Good afternoon.

Yeah.

I have just a follow-up. There is a transition period off from a caretaker government in Bangladesh. Does America have any plan to assist Bangladesh in rebuilding its economy?

Does it have plans to what? Does the U.S. have plans to what? I didn’t catch the last part.

Rebuilding the economy.

So, we greatly value our relationship with the people of Bangladesh, and we want to see that continued. But, I would just urge everyone with requests or questions about what the future may entail. We are not even 12 hours out from the reported resignation of the Prime Minister. So, I would encourage everyone to just respectfully take a beat before making any long-term assessments. Go ahead.

Thank you.

Just to follow up on the ceasefire negotiations, you said they’re not [inaudible 00:47:22]. What are you basing this answer on? Are you getting any signs from any government in the region that they’re pressing either the Palestinians or the Israelis to actually agree to this ceasefire?

So, it is based on our conversations with the other interlocutors. It’s based on our conversations with the government of Qatar, with the government of Egypt. Now, that’s not to say we’ve come to agreement on all of the underlying issues. We clearly haven’t. We need to bridge those differences. But, we continue to work through it productively with the interlocutors. We know they’re pressing Hamas to accept a deal, just as we are pressing Israel to reach a deal, because we think it’s important to do so, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do in the days ahead.

And do you think it’s possible to press Israel given that it doesn’t seem to be in Netanyahu’s interest at this point to reach a ceasefire? At least that’s what the Israeli media is saying. That’s what a lot of Israeli officials are saying.

So, the media says a lot of things officials say a lot of things. We believe it is very clearly in the interests of the Israeli people. And that’s why, among the reasons why we’ll continue to push for it. Livia, go ahead and we’ll wrap today.

[inaudible 00:48:26] down a little bit, because what’s new about the media reports out of Israel is that now you have the head of the IDF Shin Bet and Mossad being quoted as confronting the Prime Minister and basically saying, “Either give us something to go on or there’s going to be no deal.” That’s a paraphrase. But, does the U.S. not view those reports as credible?

So, I am never going to speak to reports about machinations inside any other government or I don’t know whether the veracity of those underlying reports. And ultimately, it doesn’t change what we’re trying to do. And it doesn’t change our approach, which is what we’re trying to do is reach a ceasefire and the way we’re approaching, it’s continue to work with the parties to try to get one over the line. Nothing about those reports changes our goal.

So, is that not an exercise in utility if the de facto leader of the country is reluctant to-

We do not believe it is. Look, President had a very direct candid conversation with the Prime Minister about this last week, and we will continue to engage with them to make clear that we believe a ceasefire is in their interest just as we believe it’s in the interest of the Palestinian people and work to get one over the line. We will wrap for today. Thanks everyone.

(49:35)
Oh, do you have one more?

Can we just talk about Venezuela-

Yeah.

… for a moment. It’s important.

Yeah. How did we go through without giving you a question-

I’m here to-

There’s a lot going on today. Yeah.

But, can I just ask, the secretary had the call and the statement last week with the opposition there, is the U.S. ready to recognize another interim president similar to what happened earlier with Guaido? Or is it more just a matter of not recognizing Maduro as the-

That’s not a step that we are taking today. Where we are today is we are in close contact with our partners in the region, especially with Brazil, Mexico and Colombia about a path forward. We continue to urge the Venezuelan parties to begin discussions on a peaceful transition back to democratic norms. We continue to call for transparency and the release of detailed tally votes. While recognizing it’s been over a week since the election, and any release of those votes would require close scrutiny given the potential for tampering or manipulation in that timeframe. So no, that’s not a step that we’ve taken as of yet. But, we continue to make clear that the will of the Venezuelan people needs to be respected, and that’s what we’re engaging with our partners in the region about.

Sure. And do you have any reaction to the EU today so it won’t recognize the results? Is there a press for… What’s the U.S. call for other countries in terms of how to approach Venezuela? Is there also an idea that perhaps other countries should take steps of not recognizing Maduro as the victor?

So, we would hope to see all parties take the steps that we have done, which is to call for full transparency, to ask for the full results to be released, and then ultimately to begin discussions about a transition back to democratic norms. That’s what we’re encouraging. It’s what we’re discussing with our partners in the region and our partners around the world. And we hope all countries would adopt that. Ultimately, this is a question about respecting the will of the Venezuelan people. And as we concluded, and you saw in the statement that we released last week, when you look at the tallies that the opposition made public, it’s clear that even if every outstanding vote came back for Maduro, it wouldn’t be enough to overcome the advantage that Edmundo González had. And obviously saw the report in the Washington Post concluding the same thing over the weekend. And so, we’re going to continue to push for respect for the will and devotes actually of the Venezuelan people. Alex, [inaudible 00:52:06].

While we’ve been in here, I was just sent videos from Russian State Media of the apprehensions of both Whelan and Gershkovich. I’m wondering if you’ve seen them and have any reaction to them. The Whelan one shows him appearing to accept a thumb drive before his arrest by masked men. Have you seen these videos?

So, I’m going to rely on a rule I established in my very first briefing, which is anything that breaks while I’m up at the podium, I’m going to take a moment, step off the podium and comment on. So, next time I’m back up here, I’ll be happy to comment on that. But no, if it’s something that broke while I was here, I have not seen them. And so wouldn’t-

I don’t know if it broke beforehand. I was just-

Yeah, I have not seen them, so I assume it broke while I-

Thank you.

… was up here. So with that, thanks everyone.

Thank you.