On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby
Via Teleconference
1:38 P.M. EDT
MODERATOR: Hey, everyone. Thanks for joining. Sorry, there’s a little backlash on our end.
Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll get into questions. Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Hey, everybody. Hope you’re having a good Friday, even though it’s wet.
I actually have more than a few comments, so it’s going to take me a little bit to get through all these things. So if I were you, I’d grab a comfortable chair or something to drink, maybe a snack or two, and buckle up here.
So, look, at the top I want to start with the joint statement that was issued last night by President Biden, President Sisi of Egypt, and the Amir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim.
The President, throughout the week of course, has been continuously engaged on the situation in the Middle East.
On Monday, he spoke with King Abdullah of Jordan and convened his national security team to discuss military preparations for a potential attack from Iran or Lebanese Hezbollah against Israel. He has directed that we do everything possible to defend Israel, and that’s what we’re doing. He met again yesterday in the Oval Office with Secretary Austin and his team to address ongoing military preparations.
On Tuesday, the President spoke with Sisi and Tamim on the hostage deal and a way forward to close remaining gaps and to see if we can get this deal concluded. That’s what led to the joint statement yesterday, which, as I know we briefed yesterday on, makes very clear that now is the time to close this deal.
We are already in preparatory discussions for the senior meeting that will take place on Thursday in Doha or Cairo. The Prime Minister of Israel immediately welcomed this initiative and confirmed that his team will be there and that they’ll be prepared to finalize the details for implementing the deal. Qatar and Egypt are working on the Hamas side to bring them to the table as well.
The statement last night has also been endorsed by partners and allies around the world. Already today, you’ve seen statements from heads of state like those from France and Australia.
We’ve seen some statements from some quarters in Israel, over recent days, attacking the deal. I just want to underscore how wrong this is, not only in substance, but also jeopardizing the lives of the hostages and running counter to Israel’s own national security interests.
Some critics, like Mr. Smotrich, for example, have claimed that the hostage deal is a surrender to Hamas or that hostages should not be exchanged for prisoners. Mr. Smotrich essentially suggests that the war ought to go on indefinitely, without pause, and with the lives of the hostages of no real concern at all. His arguments are dead wrong. They’re misleading the Israeli public. And I want to take just a moment, if I could, to address some of those claims.
This deal, as negotiated over months, fully protects Israel’s national security interests. In fact, on the 3rd of July, over one month ago, Hamas accepted the key terms that had been demanded by Israel: Israeli forces do not withdraw entirely from Gaza during the first phase of the deal, even as the lives of the hostages — all the hostages in the category of women, older men, those who are wounded and sick — are saved and returned to their families.
On suggestions that prisoners should never be traded for hostages and that doing so at this stage is somehow a surrender, let me remind you that most of Hamas’s top leaders are now dead. Hamas’s organized military structure and capacity has been destroyed. Israel has now completed nearly all of its major military objectives, other than the explicit war aim of bringing the hostages home.
And, yes, sometimes prisoners are traded for hostages. We just returned home to their families 16 innocent people, including four Americans, in exchange for a number of Russian criminals. It does not mean that they’re equivalent. Evan Gershkovich is not equivalent to Vadim Krasikov. But sometimes, countries that value the lives of their citizens, as we do in the United States and as Israel does, make these kinds of trades to save lives — innocent lives. There’s no surrender in that. It speaks incredibly well of our principles and our values, what we stand for.
I even saw one claim today — again, by Mr. Smotrich — suggesting that the mediators of this deal, which includes the United States, would impose, quote, “a surrender agreement” on Israel. Now, think about that for a minute. He’s saying this as President Biden is actually directing the United States military to the Middle East to directly defend Israel against a potential attack from Iran or other Iranian-backed terrorist groups. President Biden is fully prepared to defend Israel yet again, with the United States military. And again, this is the second time that he will have done this in four months.
The idea that he would support a deal that leaves Israel’s security at risk is just factually wrong. It’s outrageous. It’s absurd. And anybody who knows President Biden and how staunchly he’s been a defender for Israel, for the entirety of his public service, ought to be ashamed for thinking anything different.
Simply put, the views being taken against this agreement, the views expressed by Mr. Smotrich specifically, would, in fact, sacrifice the lives of Israeli hostages, his own countrymen, and American hostages as well, and flies in the face of the national security interests of Israel at this critical stage of the war.
Importantly, countries not only around the world but across the region, including those with peace agreements with Israel, have endorsed the statement last night and called for this deal to be concluded without delay. The UAE, just a few hours ago, says, quote, “The UAE hopes that the parties will not delay this any further.” End quote.
So, look, President Biden is going to continue to do what’s right. He has Israel’s back against Iran and its proxy groups. He has Israel’s back on this deal. He won’t allow extremists to blow things off course, including extremists in Israel making these ridiculous charges against the deal. It’s the right deal at the right time. It will save lives. And you know what? It’s going to also advance Israel’s security. It brings relief as well to civilians in Gaza. And so, we’re going to do everything we can to get it done.
Now I’d like to switch to Africa, if I could.
On Africa: The United States continues to push for peace, increase humanitarian assistance and support for communities in dire need throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. That’s why, this week, we announced nearly a billion dollars in lifesaving humanitarian assistance for the crises in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, Sudan, and eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.
This announcement brings the total U.S. humanitarian assistance in Sub-Saharan Africa to nearly $3.7 billion so far in fiscal year 2024.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Ambassador to the DRC, Lucy Tamlyn, and the U.S. Representative to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture, Jeff Prescott, announced nearly $424 million in new humanitarian and health assistance that will provide urgent food assistance, healthcare, nutrition support, shelter materials, water sanitation and hygiene services to crisis-affected communities in the DRC. This assistance includes 50,000 mpox vaccines and funding which will help respond to the current mpox outbreak in the DRC and other affected countries in the region. And, of course, it also reaffirms the U.S. commitment to the people of eastern DRC, where warring parties recently agreed to a ceasefire to be effective on the 4th of August.
And yesterday, the Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, Uzra Zeya, announced nearly $536 million in lifesaving humanitarian assistance. This includes $516 million through the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration, and nearly $20 million to USAID’s Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance — responding to needs among the nearly 38 million refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced people, stateless people, and conflict-affected people across the Sub-Saharan part of Africa.
As these significant announcements in the span of a single week make clear, the United States remains firmly committed to the people of Africa as they continue to face conflict, health risks, and other crises in protracted situations in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, eastern DRC, Sudan, and, of course, elsewhere.
All these events undermine regional and global security and require urgent attention from likeminded allies, partners, and donors around the world. And we’re going to continue to do our part, pressing for peace and prosperity to prevail, and we’re going to keep working with those allies and partners and other likeminded nations to see that they do the same thing.
Now, if I can switch to Ukraine.
Today, the United States is announcing another new security assistance package for Ukraine, underscoring our unwavering commitment to them as they continue to battle back against Russian aggression. This would be our 63rd tranche of equipment since August of 2021 and the 10th since the President signed the national security supplemental in April.
Included in this package are Stinger missiles; more 155- and 105-millimeter artillery ammunition, which has been instrumental; and anti-armor systems as well.
Today’s announcement comes on the heels of yet another Russian attack that has killed Ukrainian civilians, this time on a supermarket in eastern Ukraine, which killed 12 people and wounded more than 40, doing nothing but buying groceries.
The Biden-Harris administration will continue to support Ukraine’s critical security and defense needs, working with more than 50 allies and partners to help Ukraine prevail.
And with that, we can open it up to questions.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our first question will go to Steve with Reuters.
Q Hey, John. Do you have dollar figure on that new assistance to Ukraine?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, it’s $125 million.
Q Okay. And, John, is there anything new you can say about whether the United States provided intelligence to Austria regarding the Taylor Swift concerts?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, Steve, I think hopefully it doesn’t surprise anybody that the United States, of course, has an enduring focus on our counterterrorism mission. We work closely with partners all over the world to monitor and disrupt threats. And so, as part of that work, the United States did share information with Austrian partners to enable the disruption of a threat to Taylor Swift’s concerts there in Vienna.
Q And lastly, if you could indulge me one more, we’re hearing this: that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard deputy commander is being quoted as saying that Iran is set to carry out an order by Supreme Leader Khamenei to “harshly punish” Israel over the strike against the Hamas leader in Tehran. Do you have reaction to this? Does this suggest that something is imminent?
MR. KIRBY: Well, I won’t get into the intelligence assessments one way or the other, Steve. I think you all understand that.
We’ve heard, you know, some pretty bellicose rhetoric as well out of the Supreme Leader. All I can tell you is that, as I said in my opening statement, the President is 100 percent committed to helping defend Israel, and we have put military capabilities in the region of a sufficient quantity and quality to do just that.
But we’re also working, at the same time, in the diplomatic space to try to de-escalate the tensions and to prevent any major escalation of the conflict there in the region and certainly to prevent any all-out war. That’s still our goal here.
I can’t speak to those particular comments, but when we hear rhetoric like that, we’ve got to take it seriously, and we do.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Alex Ward with the Wall Street Journal.
Q Yeah, thanks for taking this. So, John, moving to Ukraine very quickly. It sounds like, from reports, Ukrainian troops have taken about 100 square miles of Kursk. I mean, is this — the administration has always allowed — or not always, but recently allowed these, you know, counterfire strikes over the border, but is this going beyond sort of what the U.S. has openly said it will allow Ukraine to do?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I think I’m still going to be in the space today of letting Ukraine speak to their military operations one way or another. We’re in touch with our Ukrainian counterparts, and we are working to gain a better understanding of what they’re doing, what their goals are, what their strategy is. And I’m going to leave a little bit of space for us to have those conversations before I try to characterize what’s going on.
Q But just — I mean, it’s been four days. So, I mean, this does seem beyond already what the normal, like, you know, fire, counterfire. Is that fair?
MR. KIRBY: Again, I think I’m just going to leave my response the way I left it. We’re in touch with our Ukrainian counterparts, and I’m going to refrain from characterizing what’s going on on the ground here until those conversations are complete and we feel like we have a better idea of what they’re doing.
Q Gotcha. And then, very briefly, on the ceasefire negotiations. I mean, is the expectation — I mean, you guys have said, you know, there’s not going to be a deal that Thursday, but is the expectation that all parties will leave those meetings with something done?
MR. KIRBY: Well, my goodness, that’s what we want to have done. We keep having these discussions and these negotiations with the goal of being able to walk out the door with a deal. And we certainly hope that we can get there soon and that the meeting on Thursday is fruitful and productive. But we’ll have to see where it goes.
We’re glad that Israel has made it very clear and very public that they will send a negotiating team, and they’ll do it in good faith.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Karen with the Washington Post.
Q Thank you. On the ceasefire statement, much of what’s in the statement seems to repeat what’s been said at various times before: “Time for excuses is over.” “We need to move on this. It’s urgent.” I wonder if what has — if anything has changed that has made you more optimistic about this. Has Israel indicated it is prepared to accept conditions that it was not prepared to accept two weeks ago?
And where the statement says, “If necessary, the mediators will present a final bridging proposal,” could you tell us a little bit more about what that means when you say a “final proposal”? Is that a “take it or leave it” proposal? And if they leave it, then what happens?
And separately, I wanted to ask a question about Venezuela — whether the United States has again approached Qatar to try and negotiate with the Maduro government.
MR. KIRBY: I don’t have anything on that last part there, Karen. I’ll take that back and run it by some folks and see. I don’t think I have anything on that. But I can tell you that we are in touch with, as I think we’ve indicated, quite a few partners and likeminded nations on this, but I don’t have anything specifically on Qatar.
Look, on the statement: You’re right. You know, there’s a lot of familiar language in there because nothing has changed about the President’s desire to see the ceasefire deal in place, see the hostages come home, see more humanitarian assistance get in. So it shouldn’t surprise anybody that the language is very similar to what we’ve been saying before. But it was an outgrowth specifically of the conversations that the President had with both the Amir and with President Sisi in Egypt, and that’s sort of what generated the idea for a statement.
Every passing day is one more day that these hostages are in increasing danger and running the risk of additional lives — of their lives being lost. There’s a sense of urgency here, and that’s really what’s driving it. And obviously, there’s the larger context of the increased tensions in the region as well.
So, all of that kind of fed into the phone calls that the President was having over the course of this week and the joint statement itself.
I’m not going to get into negotiating here on Zoom, so I’m not going to go into any great detail about what we mean by a “bridging proposal.” We want to get a deal. We believe it’s possible to do that and that the implementing details can be fleshed out — should be fleshed out, but it’s going to require some leadership on all sides here and some compromises.
And what we’re hoping to get done next week in whether it’s Doha or Cairo — and that hasn’t been decided — is a plan forward for just that: for leadership, compromise, and to get this deal.
But I think I’d better leave it at that in terms of details.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Barak with Axios.
Q Hi. Thank you. Thank you very much. John, without expressing an opinion about your comment on Smotrich, I have to say that — I mean, I’m covering this thing for 20 years. I’ve never heard such a statement from an official spokesperson of the U.S. government about a senior Israeli minister. And what I’m trying to understand is what made you decide to go out like this, at the current timing, against Smotrich. Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: I think a better question, Barak, is: What made Mr. Smotrich decide, in the wake of the joint statement put out and the support that it’s been given not only by other leaders, but by Israel itself — what made him decide to put that statement, that outrageous and absurd statement, out? I think that’s a better question, my friend.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Felicia with the Financial Times.
Q Hi, John. Thanks. Just to follow up on Alex’s question, there are all kinds of videos on social media suggesting that American HIMARS are being used in the Kursk region. Is using American weapons in this way, given that it’s been four days or whatever, does it generally square with the policy that you’ve set with the Ukrainians? Do the Ukrainians understand what the rules are?
MR. KIRBY: I’ll just tell you that, as I said the other day, there’s no change in our policies with respect to U.S. weapons and how they’re used. And I’ll just repeat what I said to Alex: that we’re in touch with our Ukrainian counterparts, and I’m going to reserve judgment or characterization until those conversations are complete.
Q But if I could, is the policy then that they can use the weapons and limited crossfire?
MR. KIRBY: As I said, you know, there’s been no changes in our policy approaches. They are — I would add that they’re using it in an area where we had said before that they could use U.S. weapons for cross-border strikes. The end goal here is to help Ukraine defend itself, and we’re just going to see what Ukraine says about it.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Peter Baker with the New York Times.
Q Hey, John. Thanks very much for doing this. Two quick ceasefire-related questions. You mentioned that the Israelis have committed to sending a delegation to either Cairo or Doha next Thursday. Do you have any indication or commitment, either through intermediaries or what have you, that Hamas is ready to participate in that?
And secondly, in following up on Karen’s question on this final bridging proposal, the statement says “if necessary.” How will you decide if it’s necessary? Is that something you decide on Thursday? Is there a point at which you all say, “Okay, here it is”? You have such a bridging proposal prepared, and the question is whether you put it on the table? Or is it something that you and the Qataris and the Egyptians are prepared to create at some point in the future?
MR. KIRBY: I think to the second question, it’s really going to depend on how the discussions go, what that looks like. And again, I want to be very careful here not to get into too many of the details and negotiate in public.
But I think the short answer is: We will be willing to work to that outcome if, in fact, that’s what we feel is going to be needed. But let’s see how the discussions go.
And on the first question, Qatar has assured us that they will work to get Hamas represented there in Cairo and — or Doha, whatever one it is. And we’re kind of referring to them now in terms of what that representation looks like and who it is.
But they’re working their way through that as we speak. We still have a few days to figure it all out. But Qatar has assured us that they will work to have Hamas appropriately represented there.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Patsy with VOA.
Q Thank you, Sam. Hi, John. I have a ceasefire follow-up. But real quick, can you confirm reporting that Iran is set to deliver hundreds of ballistic missiles to Russia soon?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t have anything to confirm any such
reporting.
Q Okay. And on the timing of August 15 talks, either in Doha or Cairo, how did the leaders arrive on this date? I mean, obviously, this was — this is a few days before the DNC. Did that play a factor at all in terms of scheduling?
And if I may, just a quick follow-up on the Hamas side of it, to follow up Peter’s question: Are you hearing on whether Hamas has received the latest invite, if they have not responded to it? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: I’d have to refer you to Qatar on that. They’re the interlocutors with Hamas. And for communications directly with them, they’d be the one to speak to that.
The date was scheduled, as a result of the conversations we’ve had with our partners in the region, as the best opportunity and the date most available. And it’s based on that and nothing but that. Let me dispel any notion in anybody’s mind that it had anything to do with the DNC coming up. It had nothing to do with that and everything to do with what our partners and our friends in the region felt was a reasonable amount of time to schedule it and set it up.
And again, we’re still — you know, we don’t have a location right now. So, I mean, some of that logistics is still being fleshed out.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Nadia.
Q Thank you, Sam. I actually want to follow on Barak’s question. Do you believe that Mr. Smotrich can derail this deal? I’m just intrigued just like Barak as well. Because Mr. Smotrich has been espousing these extreme ideas ever since the war started. Two days ago, he said that Israel should starve 2 million Palestinians. And we haven’t heard, kind of, condemnation from the White House. So why now? Do you believe that he can sabotage this deal?
And second, if you allow me, the Jordanians said today that they’re not going to allow their land to be used by anybody for any reason. And that’s obviously in reference to a potential attack from Iran. So do you see this a change in the Jordanian position?
MR. KIRBY: I’ll let the Jordanians speak for themselves on this. That’s not for me to talk to. We’re in touch with all our friends, partners, and allies in the region about the tensions right now. As I said in my opening statement, the President did talk to King Abdullah. I’ll let them speak to what they will or won’t permit or do. All I can is reiterate what we will do. And what we will do is help Israel defend itself if it comes to that. What we’d really like to see, however, is a de-escalation of all these tensions. We don’t want to see any additional conflict, but we got to be ready for if it comes.
And as for, you know, whether or not Mr. Smotrich can sabotage the deal or not, we’re moving forward. This deal needs to happen. The President said it. Now President Sisi has said it. The Amir of Qatar has said it. Heck, even the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu, has said that he supports the deal.
And let’s not forget the proposal that was put forward, the basic framework of this thing was an Israeli proposal. So they’ve said they’re behind it. We just need to get it done.
And, you know, I’ve said my piece on what Mr. Smotrich had to say, and I’ll leave it at that.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Gabby with Jewish Insider.
Q Hey, thank you so much for doing this. One follow-up, I guess related to the Smotrich thread. Since President Biden has been speaking about this deal since the end of May, there’s been numerous occasions where he and others in this administration have said that the onus is on Hamas to get the deal done. And it seems like, certainly, things have changed from then, from when we saw Secretary Blinken talk about this being on the 10-yard line. So how would you describe that change?
And when talking about Smotrich, would you say now that the onus is on Israel, more than Hamas, to be the one that needs to agree to this deal, and that is perhaps holding out at this stage?
MR. KIRBY: The onus is on both sides.
And to your question of what’s changed, I mean, there’s been a — think of it like a river, you know? And as it’s moved along, factors involving the negotiation have changed over time, and both sides have amended or added or detracted certain bits of detail, none of which I’m prepared to speak to, of course. But that’s happened; that happens in a negotiation.
And so, where we are now in the river, where we are now in the stream is that we’re extremely close. We believe that there are basically implementing details that need to be fleshed out. That’s — that the muscle movements are fairly small and achievable in terms of closing the gaps. And that’s where we are, and it’s going to take, as I said earlier, compromise and leadership on both sides to get it across the finish line.
We’re grateful that Israel, very shortly after that statement was issued yesterday, announced that they would be sending a team to the table on Thursday. That was a very positive sign. We’re grateful for that. We need to see now Hamas come through and also agree that they’ll be there. As I said, Qatar has assured us that they will be. So we’re looking forward to getting together Thursday of the next week and seeing if we can’t get this thing closed out.
MODERATOR: Thank you. We have time for one more question, and we’ll go to Hiba Nasr.
Q Thank you, Sam. Thank you, John. John, I want to ask about Lebanon. Do you feel that there’s a daylight between Hezbollah and Iran? And do you feel that Hezbollah may do something or something can happen out of miscalculation on the Lebanese front while you are waiting for a response from the Iranian or from the Israeli, from Hamas regarding Thursday’s negotiation?
MR. KIRBY: Can you say your second question again?
Q I mean, do you feel that something can happen on the Lebanese front while you are waiting and you are trying to bring all parties on the table for the negotiations next Thursday?
MR. KIRBY: Well, sure, anything can happen. I mean, it’s a volatile situation over there, which is why we’ve been working so hard to get it de-escalated.
But we are committed to being represented ourselves on Thursday. We’re glad Israel is committed to it. Qatar has committed that they’ll have Hamas there. So let’s see what we can get done.
But I can’t be perfectly predictive here, as we sit on Friday afternoon, as to what might happen elsewhere in the region between now and Thursday. We certainly don’t want to see anything happen that would derail the plans to get these two sides back to the table together on Thursday. That’s what needs to happen.
As for daylight between Iran and Hezbollah, you’d have to talk to those folks about that. We know that Hezbollah is supported by Iran. We know there’s a strong relationship between the two. A lot of muscle and sinew, a lot of support coming from Tehran. But as for whether they might have diverging views here on what’s going on, you’d have to talk to the leaders there.
All I would say is that we’ve been in constant conversations in the region with counterparts, and we certainly had the ability to pass messages, as we have in the past, to Tehran about what we’re trying to achieve here, what’s important to see, and how much we want to get this ceasefire deal in place and to get tensions de-escalated.
MODERATOR: Thank you. And I think that’s all the time we have for today. If we weren’t able to get to you, as always, reach out to the press team and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as we can. Have a good weekend, everyone.
2:10 P.M. EDT
