Pentagon Press Briefing on 8/15/24

A few things at the top, and then happy to take your questions. (00:04) Yesterday, Secretary Austin spoke with his UK counterpart, Secretary of State for Defense, John Healy, to discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues. The two leaders discuss their close cooperation to address shared challenges including countering Russian aggression in Ukraine, the ongoing instability in the Middle East, and cooperation in the Indo-Pacific. (00:26) Secretary Austin and Secretary Healey reflected on the strength of the US- UK defense relationship and committed to continue working together on their many common priorities. Separately, Secretary Austin also spoke by phone yesterday to Ukrainian Minister of Defense, Rustem Umerov, regarding priority security assistance efforts and Ukraine's ongoing operations. Secretary Austin and Minister Umerov also discussed the strong support from allies and partners in helping meet Ukraine's urgent military requirements. Minister Umerov provide an update on battlefield dynamics as well as the impact of Russia's continued attacks in Ukraine. The full readouts of both of these calls can be found on defense.gov. (01:09) And finally, the department continues to closely monitor the situation in the Middle East. As you've heard us say throughout the week, Secretary Austin and the department have taken actions to reinforce the United States' commitment to defend Israel and to protect our forces by strengthening US military force posture and capabilities throughout the Middle East in light of the escalating regional tensions. We remain focused on deescalating tensions in the region while also postured for deterrence and the defense of Israel. The US government also remains very focused on securing a ceasefire as part of a hostage deal to bring all hostages home and to end the war in Gaza. (01:48) With that, I'd be happy to take your questions. Tara.

Hi Sabrina. So let's start with Ukraine. You just did the readout from the call. Did that call include now that Ukraine is on and offensive, does that change what sort of weapons they're seeking and would the US support a different request specifically to support this new offensive maneuvers?

Thanks, Tara, for the question. So in terms of weapons that we're providing Ukraine, in the immediate, it doesn't impact what we're providing them, but you've seen us change the types of weapons and systems that we've given over the course of time. And certainly since the war began back in February and our first security assistance package rolled out, the types of artillery, the types of equipment that they were getting, you've seen that change and evolve over time to where they have sophisticated long range capabilities along with we're training their pilots on F-16s. So you've seen us modify and give different capabilities over time and we reserve that right to continue to do that.

So has anything changed from US decision on supporting Ukraine if it continues to push in further? Will there be any sort of limitations on what Ukraine can or cannot do with the systems that the US has provided?

So I won't get into engaging in the hypothetical, but what I can tell you is that we're in touch with our Ukrainian counterparts. As I mentioned at the top, Secretary had a call with his counterpart yesterday. We're always assessing what they need on the battlefield to be successful. And we believe the capabilities that we continue to provide them, you're seeing those successes come to fruition as they continue to fight along the east and the northern southern part in that eastern area in Ukraine. So we're committed to providing more presidential drawdown packages. I think the most recent one was as of last week. We're going to continue to do that. If there is a change in capabilities or anything that we're providing them, we always read that out in our PDA packages. So we'll keep you updated on that.

Okay.

[inaudible 00:03:52]. Oh, go ahead.

Just one last one. Any indications that Russia is sending in reinforcements to Kursk?

So we have seen some Russian units be redirected from operations in Ukraine towards the Kursk area. These are just early reports, so I can't really say with certainty the numbers or their objectives, but we have seen some movement there. Natasha.

Thanks, Sabrina. So that was kind of my question, I'll phrase it in kind of a different way though. So does the DOD have any assessment of how Ukraine's operation in Kursk may have changed the battlefield dynamics inside Ukraine in terms of Russia shifting resources over the last 10 days? Has that impacted their ability to advance Ukraine's ability to defend given they've also devoted a lot of troops to the Kursk operation?

So right now what I would say, it's still too early to tell. The secretary had a call with Minister Umerov yesterday. Throughout the department, we are engaging with the Ukrainians trying to get a better understanding of their objectives. So I don't have more for you right now. It's something that we're continuing to engage on, going to continue to monitor, but I'm just going to have to leave it at that right now.

Does the secretary support the operation given that he spoke to Umerov and now probably has a better understanding of what they're trying to achieve?

Well, what I can tell you is that we're still trying to learn more about it. We're still trying to learn more about what their objectives are. So I'm not going to get further into what they discussed on the call or our support. What I can tell you is where we are supportive, and that is Ukraine continuing to defend itself and that's why you've seen us provide packages at the rate that we do and not the consistency that we do. And that commitment hasn't changed and the president has been clear that we're going to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. So I think we'll just leave it at that. (05:43) Yes, over here.

Yeah. Thank you so very much. I have two questions, one on Iran, one on Afghanistan. Let's start with Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, yesterday said that non-tactical retreat in any field, including the military, leads to God's wrath. How does the Pentagon interpret that? Does it suggest Iran is still considering a retaliatory attack on Israel or it includes that Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, is backing down?

Yeah, I'm not going to speculate on comments that the supreme leader makes. What I can tell you is what we're doing in the region is that you've seen from some of our announcements that the secretary has made, is that we are moving additional capabilities into the region so that regional tensions can calm and so that we're bolstering our security presence should we need to defend Israel if Iran were to attack. We don't want to see that happen, which is why we've been very clear, and you've heard Secretary Blinken speak to this as well, and Secretary Austin, when they were on their trip in the Indo-Pacific together just a few weeks ago, that we've been very clear with Iran directly, publicly and privately, that we do not want to see this broaden out into a wider regional war.

If Iran retaliates against Israel, how does the Pentagon assess the threats from the proxies in the region in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen? What strategies are in place to counter these groups if they join forces with Iran in any sort of coordinated attack against Israel?

So appreciate the question, but as you know, I'm just not going to engage in a hypothetical on if, what, and when could happen. What I can tell you is what we're doing, and that is exactly what I said earlier, is that we've increased and enhanced our regional presence to send a message of deterrence, to send a message that we don't want to see this widen out to a regional war. And when it comes to attacks on our forces, you've always seen us take measures we need in order to respond. And if there were to be any attacks on our forces, whether it be in a Iraq and Syria, we always reserve that right to respond at a time and place of our choosing. But I'll just leave it at that. (07:57) Dan?

So on Ukraine and the situation in Kursk, could you just maybe clarify a little bit about what's happening on the battlefield and how to interpret it? You were indicating that Russian forces have had to be diverted from areas in Ukraine, from Donbas to help defend Kursk, is that correct?

So what I would tell you on the actual battlefield, and as you know this, is we usually let the Ukrainians speak to what's happening on the battlefield. So I would let them really speak to their objectives and what they're looking to accomplish in Kursk. We too are trying to learn more about their objectives and goals. In terms of what I said about Russia, again, these are early reports, but we are seeing some movement of Russia units being directed towards that region. But in terms of numbers or what their objectives are, I don't have that for you right now.

Is there an indication though that Russian supply lines and communication lines have been damaged or strained because of the operation in Kursk that they're having trouble supplying their troops in Donbas, for example?

So I don't have that assessment right now, so I wouldn't be able to speculate on that. (09:07) Lucas.

Sabrina, this spring you sent reinforcements to the Middle East, but that did not deter Iran from carrying out a major attack on Israel on April 13th. Why should this time be any different?

Well, Lucas, thanks for the question. I actually think you should take a step back and realize what we did accomplish on April 13th. Yes, Iran did attack Israel in an unprecedented manner, but I'll remind you that on that day, we shot out of the sky 90% of what they threw at Israel, and that was an incredibly intricate operation with the Israeli military, our military, and our partners and allies in the region. So while you can focus on the fact that Iran did launch that attack, I think it's incredibly important to remember what US forces did that day and the fact that we will stand with Israel again and have said that very publicly and privately. (10:05) So getting to your question of what's to stop Iran doing it again, well, Lucas, we demonstrated our air power on that day in quite a professional manner. And again, I'd point to the fact that over 90% of what was shot towards Israel was taken down by either our forces or partner forces or Israeli forces. So if I were Iran, I'd be thinking about that. And as you've seen, we're removing the [inaudible 00:10:38] to the region, we've accelerated her movement into central command. And I'll just leave it that.

So just to be clear, the message to Iran right now is, "If you launch another major attack, the US and its allies will shoot down these missiles and drones." That's the message?

I don't think we've actually been delicate in our messaging to Iran. We've been very

Very clear that if Israel is attacked, we will come to the defense of Israel. You saw us do that on April 13th. I'm kind of paraphrasing what you're saying there. We will do that again. Should Israel be attacked, we absolutely will come to Israel's defense.

Does part of that defense of Israel also include potential strikes inside Iran?

Yeah, so I'm just not going to go into any hypotheticals, Lucas, but appreciate the question. Jeannie.

Thank you, Sabrina. Excuse me. Two questions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. Former Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu recently visited Iran and promised missile support to Iran. Normally, Iran provides Russia with the weapons to be used in the war in Ukraine. Will this affect the world between Israel and Iran and Hamas?

So just making sure that I understand your question, Jean, you're asking about a visit by Shoigu to Iran and how that could impact the Middle East?

Yes,.

So I can't speculate on that visit. I would say that I think separately we've seen a deepening cooperation and relationship between Russia and Iran as Russia continues to engage in its unlawful war in Ukraine. So we've seen that deepening partnership. We've seen Russia continue to seek weapons out from Iran. While I can't speculate on what this visit entails, we've seen these visits of leaders happen over the course of the last two years. (12:48) In terms of how this plays into the Middle East. Look, Iran has a choice. I think we've been very clear on our messaging when it comes to the defense of Israel. We are going to stand in the defense of Israel just as we did on April 13th. But I'm just not going to speculate out onto anything else.

But the North Korea is providing weapons to Hamas. And do you think Israel will be threatened if the arms trade between Iran and North Korea continues?

Well, look, I think Hamas certainly has a network of being able to be financed by Iran. I mean, these are Iran proxy groups engaging in acts that we saw happen on October 7th. Israel has a right to continue to go after Hamas, and that's what they're doing in Gaza. I haven't seen some of these reports that you've referenced. I'm just going to leave it at that. (13:51) Lala, it's nice to see you back in the briefing room.

I want to ask you one question about Bangladesh. Has the Pentagon ever sought access to the one Bangladeshi island called Saint Martin Island in Bay of Bengal, to have some military footprint over there?

I'd have to refer you to INDOPACOM and Central Command. More on that. I just don't have more for you on that.

And secondly, during this visit of India's Defense Minister Rajnath Singh next week, what were the main topics or issues which the Defense Secretary Austin wants to raise with India?

Yeah, so thanks for bringing that up. Of course, we're looking forward to a visit, but I just don't have more for you right now. I'm not going to get ahead of the Secretary or any meetings that he's doing. As always, we will have a readout of his meeting, but I just don't have more to provide on the front end, but we will on the back end, as we always do.

In the next six months of this administration, what are the things that Secretary wants to accomplish on the India-US defense front?

I think there's many things that the secretary has laid out at the beginning of his tenure that include always following the NDS that is our north star. So our relationships with the Indo-Pacific, meeting our pacing challenge with the PRC, that of course is in cooperation with our partner India. And the Secretary is coming off of his 11th visit to the Indo-Pacific. We've hosted his Indian counterpart here at the State Department, at the White House as well. So the relationship with India remains one of great importance. It's one of great importance to the Indo-Pacific as well. And as you mentioned, there's a visit coming up and when we have more to share on that, we certainly will.

Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah, [inaudible 00:15:40], yep.

Thank you. I have a couple of Ukraine. So Ukraine is asking for permission to use Western weapons for a longer-range strikes inside Russia to build momentum during its course operation. Is this something that the United States is considering?

So I don't have anything more to provide on long-range deep strike capabilities. We have given them capabilities and worked with the Ukrainians on setting those parameters, but those haven't changed.

Why is this still considered to be escalatory, given that there has been no major response from the Russians to the incursion of Ukrainians into their territory? I mean, it seems like that every red line that Russia draws, Ukrainian military is erasing now.

We can have a very long conversation about this. I will tell you that the weapons that we are providing them, and not just, you have to remember, this is not just the United States. This is a coalition of countries coming together through the UDCG, providing weapons and capabilities and support to Ukraine. We believe the best way that they can be effective on the battlefield is by knitting those capabilities together and continuing to push forces back to regain their sovereign territory. That doesn't necessarily happen by doing long-range, deep strikes within Russia. And of course, we're worried about escalation. So just because Russia hasn't responded to something, doesn't mean that they can't or won't in the future. And that's something that the administration is always weighing. (17:11) But you have to remember that what Ukraine has been able to do whether it's from us or other countries, they've been very successful in being able to take back their sovereign territory and they still continue to do it. This is not something that's going to end in a day, although it could if Putin decided to withdraw his troops from Russia. But certainly Ukraine, it's going to take time, it's taking training. And what I will tell you is what you know is that our commitment is with Ukraine for the long haul. We'll leave it at that. (17:41) Yes.

Thank you so much for opportunity. Couple weeks back a White House Middle East advisor led delegation visited Saudi Arabia along with the Pentagon and State Department officials, had talks there. And just last week, we have seen that US lifted ban on Saudi Arabia offensive air to ground mutations. So question is, is this is part of ongoing Saudi Arabia-US and Israel trilateral deal in the context of Saudi Arabia and Israel normalization?

Yeah. So we put out a statement on that from the State Department or from the White House, I would refer you them to speak more to that. That has to do with FMSC also, so I just would refer you to them.

Secondly, Saudi Crown Prince just suggest some Congress people that he's at the risk of being assassinated because of normalization talks for this. Armed forces chief in Saudi Arabia, he's the man who is rightly engaged with United States and maybe in direction of the Israel as well. So how concerning it is for the United States?

I haven't seen those reports, so I just can't offer a comment on that at this time. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you, Sabrina. Yesterday, State Department's deputy spokesperson told me at no point the US government did discuss the US military withdrawal in Iraq. And soon after these comments, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry issued an statement and they said, there are no US forces in Iraq except for military advisor under the umbrella of the International Coalition, and there's discussion to terminate these advisors in Iraq. Could you tell me, do you have any US forces troops in Iraq?

So as you know, we have forces in Iraq and we have forces in Syria. And those forces they're committed there to ensure the defeat of ISIS. And we work with the Iraqi security forces to do that, that you've asked me about it before. So I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. If you're asking about the Higher Military Commission, those talks continue and are ongoing and they are continuing, and you've seen us do readouts of every time those talks happen here or whether it's in Iraq. But I don't have an update on where those stand right now.

The Iraqi government says that there's no US forces, they're advisor. What's the different between the US troops, forces, in Iraq and the advisors?

So I haven't seen those comments, so I'm not going to directly comment on that. But as you know, because we've talked about this before, we do have forces in Iraq that actually have been attacked before, which you've also asked me about. And so their mission there is to ensure the defeat of ISIS, and we work with the Iraqi Security Forces to do just that. So while you're referencing someone's comments, I just haven't seen them, so I just don't have more to share on that. Charlie.

Thank you, Sabrina. With the Abe Lincoln headed to the vicinity at haste, this has been repeated. It still won't be there for a number of days, so it'll be irrelevant if Iran or Hezbollah were to strike. Is the plan, the strategy, to have two carrier strike groups in the vicinity at the same time and maybe have an overlap of the Roosevelt?

So I'm not going to speak to timelines or how long one carrier will remain in the region and the other will depart right now. What I can tell you is the Secretary directed the Lincoln to accelerate towards the central command area of responsibility. And while I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals, we believe that we are postured in a way that we need to come to the defense of Israel. Even if the Lincoln is not there, we would be able to do so with the carrier that we have there, which is the TR, and other destroyers that we've moved closer to Israel should we need to come to their defense.

It still doesn't answer the question, why. Why speed up? Why? What's the rush?

Look, I mean, as you know, when the TR was initially moved into the Central Command area of responsibility, she was eventually going to leave. We were going to have another carrier come in and backfill. We accelerated the

... Abe's movement to the region, because we know tensions are high right now, and we want to see them de-escalate. These are all defensive moves. They do send a message of de-escalation. They send a message of power as well that we will come to the defense of Israel should we need to. That's why you've seen it's not just the carrier. You've seen us move also a squadron of F-22s there as well. You've seen us move destroyers closer to Israel. This is all done to send a message of deterrence, and I'll leave it at that.

Give us an update on the USS Georgia.

The latest update that I have is that she's not in the Central Command area of responsibility right now. Not yet. Yes?

Thank you, Madam. Two questions, please. One, unrest in Bangladesh still continues. As far as US military is concerned, have they ever ... If Bangladeshi military have ever asked any help from the US military in [inaudible 00:22:58] before or now on-

Not to my knowledge. We have not received a request for assistance. But also that I can't speak for the State Department, so I'd refer you to the state to speak more to that.

Second, madam, today is India's 77th Independence Day. Yesterday, India shown to the world military might on the streets of Delhi, and including Defense Minister Mr. Rajnath saying that like Lalit Shah is coming this week in Washington while he's also there. My question is as far as US-India military-to-military relations are concerned, this will be his first visit in Washington, at the Pentagon, after a long, long time, and now third term of Prime Minister Modi. This will be visit first time after Prime Minister Modi visited Moscow, military-to-military relation between India and Russia. So how the military-to-military relations now will be India and US and before now India and Russia?

We still have great military relationships between our two countries. The secretary visited India on one of his trips to the Indo-Pacific, as I told Lalit earlier. But India is an important partner when it comes to the Indo-Pacific, and much of the NDS that continues to guide this department is focused on the Indo-Pacific and our pacing challenge of China. India has shown to be a great partner in that. So our military-to-military relationship is strong. (24:28) Ahead of a visit, again, I'm not going to get ahead of that. We will always have a readout, but I'm not going to get ahead of the secretary.

Thank you, madam.

Yes?

[inaudible 00:24:37].

No, go ahead.

All right. I want to ask Charlie's question a little bit differently [inaudible 00:24:41].

I was definitely pointing to this gentleman over here in the blue blazer, Noah. I will come back to you. Go ahead.

That's fine.

Yeah.

[inaudible 00:24:46].

Mm-hmm. Sorry, Noah, I'll come back to you.

Sorry, I just mistook.

Also on deterrence forces, so same topic. Has the force posture changed for those forces that have been moved in the region in light of the ceasefire negotiations ongoing? Just broader, does the administration see the Doha negotiation as an opportunity to avoid a broader conflict in the region?

I think certainly the negotiations to reach a ceasefire deal would de-escalate tensions and would avoid or has the potential to avoid a larger regional conflict. But it's also really important to remember that it's not just that. It's about getting our hostages home. There are still Americans that are hostages. It's also about ensuring that aid can get into the people, the Palestinian people, who desperately need it in Gaza. (25:35) So there's a lot of components to the ceasefire talk and the framework that has been put together. But that's something that ... For more details on that, I would refer you to the State Department to speak to that, and the NSC as well.

But has the force posture changed for those deterrence forces in light of those negotiations going?

You mean like heightened ... We don't typically talk about that. So I'd refer you to CENTCOM for any further details. Noah.

Glad I'm not wearing a blue blazer today. Do you have any updates on any new US assets that have reached the CENTCOM AOR in recent days? Just to broaden Charlie's question out a bit.

I think CENTCOM put out a statement when the F-22s had come in. But beyond that, not to my knowledge.

Mm-hmm. Then to follow up on the Ukraine's objectives, note that you said we're still looking for a bit. Is there a reason that Minister Umerov wasn't able to offer further clarity on that? I'm just wondering why there needs to be more exploration after the call.

Yeah, thanks for the question, Noah. Look, I'm just not going to get into more specifics or details of the call. We have asked for more from the Ukrainians. I'm just going to leave it at that. Jared?

Hi, Sabrina. Iranian press is reporting ... State-run press is reporting that an IRGC official has died, who he had been deployed to Syria. His injuries had resulted from a strike, I believe, between July and August. Not a lot of clarity there, but the Iranian press is saying that it was done by coalition forces who are illegally in Syria. Did the United States conduct a strike ... Does the department believe they may have killed an Iranian IRGC official?

Jared, I haven't seen these reports from Iranian state-owned media, so I can't confirm them. I'd refer you to CENTCOM for any details on any strikes. Yes?

Thank you very much, Sabrina. Mr. James Bond Stockdale was a US POW in Vietnam for a long time, and he was honored Medal of Honor as well. He was my teacher at age 15. Then since 25 years, I've been a journalist from Afghanistan, Pakistan, that border region. I'm the only English newspaper there. (27:50) Can you explain to your State Department colleague that journalists who have worked in these terrorist zone areas and who were the first media providers to the US bases over there, they at least treat them with respect. Both Vidhan and Matt since last one year, because of some policy difference, they treat me with so much respect. In this podium, you guys have treated me with so much respect. So is it possible that you at least tell the journalists who are from the war zone areas, they act, their attitude, that everything is a little different than these diplomatic trained journalists? You know what I mean?

Ah. Look, my dear colleagues at the State Department, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here, but-

[inaudible 00:28:38] ... Yeah, I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

No, please. You were going to say something.

I can tell you that this administration, I think, certainly values journalists. Wherever you are in the world, we value your coverage. We value the questions that you ask us here at the briefing room, whether it's in this briefing room or other briefing rooms across the administration. I don't know if you have a question, but happy to take it.

Yesterday, the Taliban were celebrating their three years anniversary of their takeover in Afghanistan. They were flying US-made helicopters. They were driving US vehicles, the military vehicles. I had emailed this office, Pentagon, right before the US withdrawal as well that what's going to happen. So can the US now at least disable these helicopters, these big things, or, no, they have not thought about it?

So this isn't like-

The military hardware that they were displaying yesterday at the Bagram Air Base.

Okay. So, look, I don't have a comment on the types of parades that the Taliban is doing right now, but as the department, as we come up closer to an anniversary, I would say that we are certainly grateful for all those that have served, for their bravery, for their selflessness, for their compassion every single day that they showed while they were in Afghanistan. We certainly honor those that came back and those that made the ultimate sacrifice. But I just don't have a comment to offer on the Taliban.

Thank you. Just last question. Several senior Pakistani military officials has been arrested in the last couple of days, including a spymaster, the general. They were arrested on corruption charges. Senior politicians Javed Hashmi and Georgetown graduates, again a senior politician, Mushahid Hussain, they all complained from the US that the US only contacts the Pakistani military more directly instead of the ... People-to-people relationship instead of the diplomatic. Do you guys ever feel that ... Have anybody ever told you that the people of Pakistan, who many of them support democracy as well, but when their senior politicians say that the US military keeps more focus on the Pakistani military than the diplomatic relation, is that anything of concern to you or not?

So I think two separate questions here. In terms of the reports that you're cited, aware of those reports regarding the arrests. I just don't have anything for you on that. That's really a Pakistani internal manner for them to speak to. (31:15) As you know, the US values our partnership with Pakistan and engage with both military and civilian leaders based on mutual interests. We remain committed to working with Pakistan to support regional stability and our mutual goals, and I'll just have to leave it at that.

Thank you.

Constantine?

Thank you. Just a quick update on JLOTS, if you don't mind. Has the remaining aid that was in Cyprus been finally delivered? Are there any JLOTS components or personnel still in the region?

Hang on, I have an update.

Thank you.

Give me a sec.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. Okay, it's not working, so we're just going to wing it. No, just kidding. Okay. So in terms of JLOTS, there is approximately ... I got it. Hold on. There's approximately six million pounds of aid left on the Cape Trinity. That has not been fully distributed into Gaza yet. We're still working that through. (32:18) In terms of redeployment, and this is what I wanted to make sure that I had for you, 235 soldiers return to Joint Base Langley-Eustis earlier this month, 209 sailors returned to Naval Air Station North Island last week, and an additional ... Approximately 100 will be returning in the coming days. We expect all personnel and equipment to be coming home by mid-September-

[inaudible 00:32:44].

... as soon as that aid is distributed. As you know, we are committed to making sure that that aid does get distributed into the people of Gaza. But that is still ongoing.

Thank you.

Okay. Yes, in the back.

Thank you, Sabrina. Two questions. First one, do you have any new information about

... about the possible of Iranian attack, if they move some of their assets to prepare for that attack... Because we heard that last days that we don't have anything about that. So, do you have anything, any new information about that?

Yeah, I don't have anything to provide, we certainly wouldn't get into Intel assessments. We remain postured, of course, to protect our forces, and to come to the self-defense of Israel, but I just don't have anything to share on any type of attack. And as I read out in the top, it's something that I know there's keen interest in, we're going to continue to monitor what's going on in the region, but I just don't have more to share, or a crystal ball to predict the who, what, when, where, and how right now.

My second question, do you still haven't seen any signs that Hezbollah wants to start a new war? And do you expect that they would observe a six-week ceasefire, let's say, if the deal were done in Doha, and the Houthis too?

Well, look, I think a ceasefire deal is good for everyone, that's something that the president has been pushing, and you saw him outline that earlier this year, some of the framework component pieces. Those talks are ongoing, it's an important step to securing the release of hostages, some of which are American citizens, we want to see them come home. We do think a ceasefire would certainly deescalate tensions in the region, and that's ultimately what we want to see. Mike, did you have a question?

I do.

Sure.

Ukraine's cross-border operation into the Kursk region was the most significant mission really since the start of the war, this was apparently done without the knowledge of their largest patron, the United States, now, why shouldn't that be considered an intelligence failure, in the part of this administration, this building, and the rest of the IC?

Well, Mike, I'd push back on that a bit, I think some of the things that the Ukrainians demonstrated earlier on in the war is the ability to hold Kiev, and then subsequently Kharkiv, Kherson, they were able to hold major, major cities that, I think back then you were here in this briefing room as well, and speculating on what the Ukrainians would and wouldn't be able to hold. In terms of is this an intelligence failure? No-

Is it a failure that the United States did not know that this happened, until after the fact?

Yep, we were not made aware of this operation, that doesn't mean that it's an intelligence failure, what I would tell you is that we are working with the Ukrainians to better understand their objectives, and I'm not going to go beyond what we had in that readout.

The fact that they didn't let anyone in the administration know. Does that indicate that there's a lack of trust between Kiev and Washington?

No, I don't think so, Mike, I would actually push back on that. We have a very good relationship with our Ukrainian counterparts, the secretary, on almost weekly basis, is speaking to his Ukrainian counterpart, and it's not just a secretary, it's a Secretary of State, it's other administration officials across this administration, including the president. There is deep trust there, and there has to be deep trust. We're on our 61st/62nd presidential drawdown package, we are pouring millions upon billions of dollars into Ukraine to make sure that they have what they need on the battlefield, we are assisting them with their capabilities, we're training their pilots, we're training their infantry to be better, to improve their skills, there's absolutely trust there. As we said, we didn't know about this one operation, that doesn't mean that we're not engaged on other things, and I'm just going to leave it at that. Oh boy, Dan, and I'll take two more and then that's it.

To go back to the Middle East, is there other indications of an increased threat from the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria in recent days? Is there any kind of change in the posture of those adversaries? And then also, given the threat that's continuous to those US forces in Syria and Iraq, that you were talking about earlier, what is the rationale for keeping US troops in Syria, for example, if ISIS is severely degraded and mostly defeated?

So, on your first question, so I'm not going to speak to any force posture changes, I'm not aware of any heightened levels in the recent days, I'd refer you to CENCOM. In terms of the rationale of keeping forces within Syria and Iraq, we are there to ensure the defeat of ISIS, that by no means that ISIS has completely evaporated, they still remain a threat. You might remember from this podium just a few weeks ago, I was asked about a concert that was canceled because of an ISIS threat. So, ISIS remains a very real threat in the region and around the world, were they the threat that they were 2014, 2016, when our forces were at the height of engaging them, and they were outside of Baghdad? No, that threat has evolved, and they have changed their tactics and methods and become degraded because of the global coalition that we've built. But ISIS still remains a threat, and I don't think we're turning a blind eye to that in any way. Okay, two more, one, and then Charlie gets the last one.

Following up on my colleague's question about ISIS. So, President Biden repeatedly said that over the horizon is an effective program to monitor or to control what's going on in the region, like Pakistan and Afghanistan, what is the Pentagon's assessment on that? Is that effective? How does it work? And also, does the United States still control Afghanistan's airspace? Because the Taliban's Defense Ministry said a couple of days ago that, "We, the Taliban, don't have any control on our airspace in Afghanistan," and they claim that some drones are flying over different cities of Afghanistan, like Kandahar, Jalalabad, and some other areas. Who controls that, the Pentagon-

Well, that seems like a them problem, not an us problem. In terms of are over the horizon capabilities effective? Yes, they are. Charlie.

Yes. Thank you, Sabrina. I'm just curious, going back to Ukraine and Russia, I know the United States has cautioned Ukrainians in using certain weapons that might penetrate deep inside Russia, now that the line of scrimmage has moved forward, are there restrictions on what kind of weapons can be used on Russian soil?

Thanks, Charlie for the question, nothing has changed in terms of our policy. So, the policy that we set out from the beginning in allowing those counterfire measures to take place around that Sumy area, nothing's changed on that, nothing has changed on our long-range fires policy as well. We still believe that with the coalition that we've built through the UDCG, that we are providing the Ukrainians what they need on the battlefield to be successful, in that northeast area region and in the South, and we believe that they have the capabilities to be successful with what we've given them.

But the US policy was never considering that weapons like these might be used inside Russia.

So, Charlie, what I would tell you on that is, once again, on the Kursk incursion, we're still working to get more from the Ukrainians on their objectives, so I don't have more to share on that. In terms of what you were saying on, we've never seen this, you have to remember that, and to Tara's question at the beginning, at the beginning of the war, what we were providing were Javelins and Stingers, what we're providing them today looks very, very different from that PDAs one through 20, possibly. So, you have to remember that every time that the battlefield has changed and adapted, whether it be terrain or capabilities, we have adapted as well. (41:16) So, we're not ruling anything out right now, but as the battlefield dynamics change, we always reserve the right to work the Ukrainians on what they need. And right now, you're seeing them, they have these F-16s that are there, they've showcased that, that was a capability that was not something that they needed at the very beginning of the war, but now they need that. So, I'm going to leave it that. I will take one more question and then we're wrapping.

Sabrina, in the past three years, US forces have pulled out of Afghanistan, the Taliban's taken over, Putin launched a major invasion of Ukraine, Iran carried out a major attack on Israel, it was the October 7th Massacre, the US Navy has been engaged for months in a war, again, in Yemen, against the Houthis, US forces have pulled out of bases in Africa... Has the Pentagon lost the ability to deter?

No, I would actually say quite the opposite. You've mentioned many, many examples there, but what I would tell you is the United States is not in a long protracted war, what you're seeing the United States do, whether it be in the Red Sea and the BAM, we're protecting commercial shipping. What you're seeing us do in the Eastern Mediterranean and the central command area of responsibility is we're protecting our forces, and we're coming to the self-defense of Israel-

[inaudible 00:42:36] Houthis?

So, happy to have a longer conversation about this, but our goal right there, I think you have to separate defeat versus what our intentions are, and our intentions are to allow commercial shipping-

[inaudible 00:42:52]-

To allow... Let me just take this one, Lucas, and finish this up. We have to continue to allow commercial shipping through that Red Sea passage. It's important, it's something that the president set out from the very beginning, and the secretary built a coalition through Operation Prosperity Guardian, of like-minded nations coming together to protect interests from all over the world, sailing through that corridor. So, we remain committed to that objective, and I'm just going to leave it at that.

[inaudible 00:43:23]-

Thank you Lucas, much appreciated.