Pentagon Press Briefing on 9/19/24

... and conduct attacks against civilians as well as U.S. citizens, allies, and partners throughout the region and beyond. USCENTCOM will continue to work with our partners to aggressively pursue ISIS, which remains a threat to the region, our allies, and our homeland. (00:16) Shifting gears, yesterday, Secretary Austin spoke by phone with his Israeli counterpart, Minister of Defense Gallant, to review regional security developments and reiterate unwavering U.S. support for Israel in the face of threats from Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah, and Iran's other regional partners. The secretary emphasized the U.S. commitment to deterring regional adversaries, de-escalating tensions across the region, and reaffirmed the priority of reaching a ceasefire deal that will bring home hostages held by Hamas and an enduring diplomatic resolution to the conflict on the Israel-Lebanon border that will allow civilians on both sides to return to their homes. (00:57) And looking to tomorrow, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks will travel to Baltimore for the naming ceremony of SSN 812, a Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine. Secretary of the Navy Carlos del Toro will announce the name of the future submarine during that ceremony. The deputy secretary will serve as the ship's sponsor, representing a lifelong relationship with the ship and the crew. The announcement will take place aboard the USS Constellation in Baltimore's Inner Harbor. In support of the National Defense Strategy, the department remains committed to investing in a ready, modern, and capable naval force and continues to make strides in bolstering our submarine capacity to meet global threats. (01:39) And finally, also tomorrow at 10:00 A.M., Secretary Austin and Chairman Brown will host a ceremony commemorating National POW/MIA Recognition Day in honor of those Americans who were prisoners of war and those who served and never returned home. The ceremony will take place on the Pentagon River Terrace Parade field with remarks by Secretary Austin and General Brown, and a flyover of UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters flown by the Army's 12th Aviation Battalion from Fort Belvoir in missing-man formation. The ceremony will also be live-streamed on Defense.gov. And with that, I'd be happy to take your questions. Lita.

Thanks, Sabrina. Two things. One, has the Pentagon ordered any changes or shifts with ships in the Mediterranean Sea to better prepare for any potential NEO? And has the State Department requested any help for a NEO? And then just secondarily, how concerned is the secretary that the recent military attacks by Israel, the pagers and the walkie-talkies, will contribute to an escalation in the region?

On your first on state and requesting a NEO, I'm not tracking any requests for a NEO. As we've said before, we have a number of plans and we're a planning organization. Should we need to, we're always prepared to conduct one if we needed, but I'm not tracking that we've received a request to do so. Further, leading onto that question, you asked about force posture changes. I'm not tracking any additional force posture changes in the Eastern Med or in the central command area of responsibility. Should that change, we will keep you updated on that. (03:34) In terms of the attacks that you referenced, first and foremost, the U.S. was not involved in any way, so I don't have anything to add on these particular separate incidences that we've seen. Separately, we are always concerned about escalation, and that's something that you've seen us reiterate throughout the readouts that the secretary has done with whether it be Minister Gallant or with other leaders around the world. We're certainly concerned about escalation. We know regional tensions are high. That's why you've seen such a push from different officials across this administration to push forward on a ceasefire deal. We believe ultimately that the best way to lessen tensions in the region is through diplomatic means, and that's what the secretary's working toward.

Did the secretary make that point to Minister Gallant?

In pretty much every call, the secretary always reiterates the need to see... We want to see regional tensions quell, and I'm not just talking about in the last few days. These are calls from the very beginning. We've never wanted see a wider regional conflict. That's why you've seen us search different assets to the region at different times. We've had multiple carrier strike groups in the region. We had a carrier strike group in the Eastern Med. We have different capabilities there now. Certainly something that's on the secretary's mind, it's on the president's mind, and this administration is working night and day to ensure that there is not a wider regional war. Joe.

Thanks. How many times has the secretary spoken to his Israeli counterpart since Sunday?

Since Sunday, the secretary spoke with Minister Gallant on Sunday. He spoke with him twice on Tuesday, and then again yesterday, which was Wednesday.

So he spoke to him before and after these attacks were reported in Lebanon over two days. What's his reaction? What's his response? Did he support? Was he informed ahead of time? If he was, what was he told? And so what's his reaction to these attacks?

So in terms of the attacks that we're seeing in Lebanon, we were not aware of either incident of what happened on Tuesday or on Wednesday. We're continuing monitor what's happening in the region. I'm not going to be able to go beyond what General Ryder also read out at the podium from the secretary's calls. But what I can tell you is that I just don't have more to provide on these incidences. But to what Lita is asking, on the larger point on regional escalation, that's something that of course we're worried about. We're concerned about. That's why you've seen us move the assets that we have to the region, which does send a message, I think, to anyone that would want to attack our forces or attack Israel, that we are there in their self-defense. But we've been very clear from the beginning. We do not want to see a wider regional conflict, and that's something that's certainly on the secretary's mind.

Well, just finally, previously, you guys have said that you had seen the Iranians' posture to respond to the assassination of a Hamas official in Iran months ago. Do you guys still see that posture that they're ready or thinking about responding? Has that increased since these attacks in Lebanon? Because I think it's been reported that the Iranian ambassador was also wounded in these attacks.

To my knowledge, we haven't seen any change in their force posture. We'll continue to monitor. I can only speak for U.S. forces and what we are capable of doing and how we are postured. And I'll remind you that the capability that we have in the region is more than we had on April 13th when Iran did launch that attack against Israel, so we're confident in the ability that we have there right now to protect our forces and, should we need to, come to the defense of Israel as well. Yes. Hi.

Thank you, Sabrina. What happened over the past couple of days, regardless of who the culprit is, it just doesn't help putting out the fire in the region and doesn't help the efforts at all at preventing anything wider in the region.

Is that a question?

Yeah. Is that correct?

I would say that any attack that is going to escalate tensions in the region is not going to be helpful to de-escalating any tensions. Ultimately, what we want to see is a ceasefire deal come through. We want to see hostages come home. We want to see the war that's happening in Gaza come to a close. And that's why you're seeing so many efforts from different parts of this administration continuing to engage in the region and trying to get a ceasefire deal in place. And we keep getting close, and I would refer you to the State Department and others to speak more to that framework, but that's what we ultimately want to see in place. Anything that adds to raising those regional tensions of course is not going to be helpful, and that's why the secretary has been clear. You'll have to remember, and you can look back at some of our statements from then on October 8th when we were moving assets to the region, when the Ford was moved to the Eastern Mediterranean, we were talking about

... not wanting to see this escalate to a wider regional conflict. And we've been very consistent in that since the beginning.

Considering all of that, the Israeli government are now saying that they're entering a new phase in the war and now they're going to focus on the north. God knows how long that is going to take because the last one has been going on for more than 11 months now, and we can't even talk about a distant dream of this ceasefire now. It was 90% just a couple of weeks ago. Now they're not even talking about the possibility of a ceasefire. So when all of this is happening, can you please once again reiterate that we are fully behind Israel militarily no matter what happens, no matter what your policy is, we'll come to your defense?

So just on the... What the comments that you're referencing came from Minister Gallant. I would refer you to his office to speak to that. I'm the spokesperson for the Secretary, not him. We are there. The movements that you've seen us made are there also to protect our own forces in the region that have come under attack in different places in the Middle East. The President has been very clear that we are there to support Israel and their self-defense should they need it. And I mean, you don't have to be reminded, but on April 13th, they were the recipient of a massive attack from Iran. So should that attack or something like that ever happen again, we have forces in the region to help defend Israel. And that is a commitment that you've seen this administration make. Louis.

Yes, there's some media outlets in Israel and I believe in Axios that are reporting that Secretary Austin has postponed a trip to the region specific to Israel. Can you provide any details on that please?

Yeah, thanks Louis for the question. As you know, we haven't announced any upcoming trips, so I don't have anything to announce today. When we are ready to announce a trip, we certainly will keep you updated, but I just don't have more to share on that. Oh, go...

Can I go follow-up with another question?

Sure.

The Secretary and Minister Gallant have been speaking quite frequently. And during those communications pre and post, I believe one of the readouts from the Israeli side, I think it was on Monday night, said that the opportunities for a diplomatic solution in Lebanon were decreasing. Is that an assessment that is also shared here by the Pentagon in the wake of that conversation?

Well, in terms of the ceasefire deal, I would refer you to the State Department who's really the lead on that. But I can tell you that we do not believe that the deal is falling apart. We believe that that is the best way to end the war that's happening in Gaza and to lower those tensions in the region. And that's why you keep seeing administration officials from all across this administration go back into the region and continue to engage different countries, different partners there to try and bring a deal closer together. Because ultimately what we're talking about is bringing hostages home and an end to what has been, I think it was referenced earlier, an almost year-long conflict. And that's what I think everyone wants to see is this come to a close and see a new path forward for the Palestinians in Gaza and see our hostages come home. (12:22) So no, is the deal done? I don't think so. We're still working towards that every single day, but we need the commitment from all of those involved to make sure that it can be put into place. Joseph.

Thank you, Sabrina. So back to the four or five phone calls between Secretary Austin and Minister Gallant. Is it fair to say, because if we read the press releases here at the Pentagon and we see the Israeli reports, it looks like Secretary Austin is not on the same page with Minister Gallant when it comes to reducing tensions, avoiding any incursion in Lebanon. Is it fair to say that there are some differences between Secretary Austin and Minister Gallant?

Well, I won't speak for Minister Gallant. I can only speak for Secretary Austin. I think there is a shared agreement that no one wants to see this broaden out to a wider regional conflict. There is also an agreement that we want to see a ceasefire deal put into place. The parameters of that deal and how it gets implemented, those are still being negotiated. And again, I would refer you to the State Department and the NSC who's really lead on some of those negotiations. But I certainly think there's agreement between both countries that we do not want to see a wider regional conflict.

What you're saying now, this is your vision towards the conflict in the region, do you believe that the Israelis are listening to these points that you mentioned?

I think they're certainly listening. You wouldn't see this amount of communication between Secretary Austin and Minister Gallant.

Are they accepting it?

Yeah, so I appreciate the question. I'm not going to go beyond the readouts. What I can tell you is that every time that the Secretary engages Minister Gallant or anyone else in the region, these are direct conversations that are being had about not wanting to see this widen out to a broader regional war. And they have conversations about other things too, whether it's operations being conducted within Gaza, whether it's tensions growing on that northern border. There are conversations. I would push back on the premise that they're not listening when there are so many conversations between the two of them so frequently that of course there's engagement, we can agree to disagree at times, but I'm just not going to be able to provide more than the readouts from before. Yeah. Yes.

Thank you. I have a question on the PDA for Ukraine. So it looks like Congress is struggling with passing the CR now, so why not to choose what seems to be a more straightforward path and just formally notify Congress about the intention to use the remaining authority to secure this amount as it has been done before?

Well, we do plan to use the authority that we have allocated for... We do plan to use the amount that's allocated for authority. It's being able to extend that authority to use it beyond the fiscal year that we are working with Congress on. So there is every intention that we want to use every dollar and cent of that authority. But the issue is also we can't draw down packages without those capabilities on our shelves. So that's something that we're also working with. And I'd remind you too, that during the six month that we didn't have that supplemental package, we weren't able to restock our shelves. So that's why we need Congress to offer this extension to allow us to continue to dole out those PDA packages.

But my understanding is that it can be extended without Congress passing in other legislation if the State Department just notifies the Congress that there's an intention to use that. So why not to choose that path?

Right now we're working with Congress to extend this authority. Look, there is bipartisan agreement in Congress that we are going to continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes. And you're seeing that on both sides of the aisle. So I think that there is agreement on we're going to continue to support Ukraine. We're working with Congress right now. When I have more to share I will.

One more. Do you have maybe a number for how much money remains from those recalculated accounting errors for aid for Ukraine? Do you have any more of that?

I can tell you that we have $5.9 billion left in Ukraine PDAs, all but a hundred million of which expire at the end of the fiscal year. So it's a total of 5.8. I don't have the recalculated costs from some of those other packages, but that's the total that we have right now. Tony. I know you're going to ask a PDA question.

Try this another way.

Sure.

You've had since April to spend all this money. You guys move with a laggardity on a lot of stuff. You had a $1 billion PDA and then the rest have been in the $250 million range. Why have you not obligated all this, use this authority to this point? This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Well, Tony, the reason why we haven't been able to send out what you're saying is larger packages is because we have to have those systems, those capabilities, those munitions on our shelves. If we don't have something on our shelves, we can't just send it out. And so that's part of the reason why you've seen a range in size of these packages. But they are metered and they are also done that way because that's how the Ukrainians also receive some of these capabilities and it helps them also be able to process it, get it to their front lines or wherever they need it to go. This is a system that was put in

... in place early on. If you just sort of dump a bunch of things on the battlefield and capabilities, that also doesn't help. We are taking a metered approach that we've worked out with the Ukrainians on this.

Did you say there's inventory shortfalls in what? Rockets and missiles and projective gear? I mean, can you flesh it out a little bit? It seems kind of surprising.

We're always assessing our readiness. So against any package that's drawn down, it's always assessed against our readiness. So if the services, the Chairman, the Secretary, do not feel that a certain package can have certain things or amounts in it, then we won't draw that down until we can backfill ourselves.

What happens to the 5.8 billion in authority if there's no extension? And this is like free money to you guys, what happens to it? It's that money that goes back to the treasury. It's just authority that goes poof, and you don't have it?

The funding remains. It's the authority that needs to be extended. So we're working with Congress. Again, we're continuing to engage. When I have more to share, we will, but this is something that, as I mentioned earlier, has bipartisan support to make sure that Ukraine is continuing to get what it needs on the battlefield. So we're going to continue to work with Congress on this issue. Okay. Yeah, Phil.

Two questions back on Israel. One is the administration's been quite clear that it's going to do what it needs to do to help Israel defend itself. Does that apply to an Israeli offensive into Lebanese territory? That's the first question. The second question relates to Israeli intentions. You said that the United States and Israel share the desire to not have this escalate into a regional war. Would an escalation in Lebanon be that regional war that you're trying to avoid? And if so, help me understand how there is agreement there between the United States and Israel.

So on your first question, Phil, I think we've been pretty clear from the beginning that we are there in the defense of Israel, should we need to come to their defense. We're not going in and supporting offensive ground operations in what they do, whether it be in the north or in Gaza. And the President has been very clear that you're not going to have US boots on the ground in Gaza. As you might remember, when we set up a maritime corridor that brought close to 30 million pounds of aid through, we did not have US boots on the ground to do that. So the president was very clear at the very beginning on what the United States role is when it comes to Israel's operations. (20:37) On your second question, look, without going down the rabbit hole of hypotheticals and not wanting to define what a broad war would look like, we don't want to see a regional conflict spread. Right now, we believe the conflict still has remained contained into Gaza. Ultimately, the best way for things to resolve and for tensions to lessen is by diplomatic means. And that's why you're seeing such an aggressive push from many different officials across the administration that continue to travel back to the region or elsewhere to engage officials on both sides to make sure that we can reach that type of ceasefire. Yeah.

Thanks, Sabrina. Some 50,000 relatives of ISIS fighters are currently detained in the northeast of Syrian prisons such as al-Hol and Roj. You might know that multiple times, some detainees tried to escape from the prisons. Do you have a long-term plan for the prisons and detainees in Syria?

Well, something that we work with... I mean, through US Central Command. So for more details on how they're addressing the threat of ISIS, I'd direct you to them. But I mean, we've been very clear, and I just read out even at the top on the partnered raid that we did, ISIS still does present a threat in the region. It's very different from what it was in 2014. But to now, it's still something that we continue to monitor, and that's why you see us partner with, whether it be the Iraqi security forces or the SDF, conducting these raids against ISIS cells or leaders.

And the camps or the prisons are guarded by the SDF. So how long will your partnership with the SDF and other partners in the region continue?

Yeah, I don't have a timeline. Yeah.

Thank you, Sabrina. I have a question about recent resolution approved today in the European Union about the use of European weapons in the Russian territories. So some European states such as Italy and a few more did not sign it. So I have two questions. My first question is, does this lack of unity in Europe right now in the use of weapons in the Russian territories may compromise the decision of the US such as the Pentagon, maybe to use different kind of weapons in Russia such as the long range missiles? That's the first question.

Sure. So on the use of long range weapons into Russian territory, our position and our policy hasn't changed. I'd push back on the fact though that it might be this issue that you're referring to, but there is broad unity and cohesion with European countries, the United States and other partners and allies around the world when it comes to making sure Ukraine has what it needs on the battlefield to take back its sovereign territory. And that is evidenced by the UDCG, which has over, I think 50 partners or organizations part of it.

[inaudible 00:24:00] use of weapons into the... I know there is unity. I'm talking about the unity decision.

Yeah, I can't speak for other European countries. I can only speak for our policy and our policy hasn't changed.

And the other question is, does those decision... The negative of some country not to use some weapons and instead of some other European country that want to use your NATO weapons into the Russian territories, will change any plan from the Pentagon? Any strategies that now there is this bigger support from Europe?

I appreciate the question. I can't speak for other countries and their plans if they change their policies. I can only speak for us and our policies. And our policy right now, that has not changed. And I'll remind you that I think a few weeks ago we mentioned that Russia has moved its airfields back significantly out of what you're referring to as the ATACMS. They've moved an out of ATACMS range. So ATACMS wouldn't even be able to be employed in a useful way on the battlefield because those airfields aren't in those ATACMS range. So again, I can't speak for European countries and the change to their policies. I can only speak to ours. And right now, there's no change in US policy.

Follow up very quick. So would be best for all European countries to approve the use of weapons in order to move Russians back and free Ukraine faster from Russia, that would be the best hope?

I think we're getting into a bit of a hypothetical, and I do want to point out, and what the Secretary has said, as someone that has significant experience on the battlefield and understands how these things knit together, the Secretary, whenever he talks about this, we have been very clear, it's not a silver bullet. It's not one capability that's going to win the war or suddenly unlock something for the Ukrainians. It's how all the weapons, all the systems knit together and how the Ukrainians employ those together on the battlefield. That is how they are going to be successful. (26:14) So again, it's not one system that all of a sudden X happens and it's a delusion they've been able to take back all their sovereign territory. It's not a silver bullet. It's how they all work together. And you're talking about US systems, NATO systems, different European systems and old Soviet systems all working together. And that is a challenge and that is why the Ukrainians continue to be... They're employing all these different types of capabilities on the battlefield and still being very successful at doing that. But it is not one system or capability that's going to be that silver bullet. Yeah.

Thank you, ma'am. I wanted to ask about AUKUS Pillar 2 and kind of the efforts to reduce export control restrictions.

There was a release this week, and I kind of understand that there were amendments to arms traffic regulations and licensing exemptions. Does the secretary feel there are further changes necessary to support Pillar 2 in our AUKUS partners as far as trade? And I guess because could you kind of categorize the significance of these export control changes, is this rudimentary or I guess, yeah, what's your feeling on that?

You know, I'm going to take that question for you. I just don't have more details to offer on that one.

Yeah, and my own understanding, I guess, I'd love to know what's the secretary's process of how he helps support these changes? Is it through state or commerce or...

Like for AUKUS?

Yeah, I mean, there's-

I mean, it's, of course, an interagency process and, I mean, we have different levers here throughout the department, whether it's in our policy channels and through the services that all engage on issues and advise the secretary. But look, I will take your question, your first one on that, so we'll certainly get back to you on that.

Thank you, Sabrina.

Yes.

Thank you, Sabrina. Regarding what's happened last two days in Lebanon. So how much damage did you think with your assessment, of course, that Hezbollah has been done because of this explosive? And do you think this steps or this explosives will deter Hezbollah from attacking Israel again? And my last question will be, do you still confidence that the diplomacy still possible to solve this tension, high tension of the border there?

Yes, absolutely. Diplomacy is the best way to resolving the tensions that we're seeing in the Middle East. That's absolutely not a corridor that's closed off. That's certainly a path that you've seen so many, many folks from this administration engage on and continuing to urge forward for diplomacy because that is ultimately the best way to reach a ceasefire deal in Gaza. (29:06) In terms of an assessment on the attack, I just don't have that for you. Yeah.

Yeah. Thanks so much. A quick question on the new leader of al-Qaeda. Some reports indicated that Seif al-Adel apparently moved from Iran into Afghanistan recently. So as you know, he is the new leader of al-Qaeda. Also there are reports that a bunch of other people who are with al-Qaeda or affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS moved into Afghanistan, and they are close with some faction of Taliban like [inaudible 00:29:44]. (29:46) First of all, do you confirm that the Seif al-Adel movement or not? And second, are you concerned or what is the assessment of the Pentagon regarding these reports and concerns that put it out?

Yeah, thanks for the question. I'm just not going to be able to do an intel assessment from here, but I'm just not going to be able to go into those details. Yeah.

Thanks, Sabrina. So you probably saw this, there was a massive explosion pretty deep in Russia in the Toropets region, where Ukraine claimed that they sent a drone and blew up a weapons arsenal. So that was one of the deeper strikes of the war and the explosion was, I mean, the biggest one that's gone on in Russia. So you allude earlier that your policy hasn't changed with deep strikes in Russia. So do you view that as disobeying that request to the Ukrainians?

I think you just said that they used drones, right?

That's what they said, yes.

Our policy hasn't changed, to my knowledge, the ATACM wouldn't even reach what you're referring to. Again, they've moved many of their airfields out of ATACM's range, but our policy hasn't changed.

Okay. So we haven't provided them any drones?

I mean, we've provided them drones, of course, in different packages, but for this particular strike, I'd refer to the Ukrainians to really speak to it.

Okay, but why are you so certain that it was not a US drone?

I would refer to the Ukrainians to speak to that. Our policy, what we are being asked about earlier is on ATACMS and those long-range deep strike capabilities when it comes to that specific capability, I just don't have more to provide on this. I'd refer you to the Ukrainians to speak to that. Okay. Thanks, everyone.

If they're using drones to strike deep within-

Go on.

Thank you.

(instrumental music)