On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby
Via Teleconference
10:45 A.M. EST
MODERATOR: Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining our gaggle today. Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll get into your questions.
MR. KIRBY: Hey, everybody. Good morning. I know you’re all still focused on the news coming out of Syria, as are we. Just a couple of points at the top.
We continue to carefully monitor developments there, as you would expect that we are. The President is staying fully briefed by his national security team, and that will remain the case going forward. This is something that he had been — and the team had been watching develop over the last week or so, and certainly he’s going to stay completely up to speed and informed on it. As a matter of fact, he’s also, as you know, reaching out to counterparts in the region. He spoke with King Abdullah yesterday.
I don’t have any additional calls to read out at this time, but I think it’s safe to say that he will be — he will stay in contact with our counterparts in the region. And he has directed the national security team to do the same.
Jake Sullivan, our National Security Advisor, will be traveling to Israel tomorrow. Certainly there will be a lot on the agenda in those discussions, but Syria will no doubt be at the top of that list.
And then, I think you can expect to see, in coming days, other Cabinet-level and other national security-level individuals traveling to the region and/or having conversations with their counterparts. So, stay tuned for that.
Now, as for what’s actually happening on the ground, it remains an open question exactly how this is going to play out politically. As you know, there are multiple rebel groups that are in Damascus right now, multiple opposition groups that are involved. And as the President said, they’re all saying the right things, but we’re going to have to watch and see what they actually do.
We want to make sure that, at the end of this, whatever the governing authority looks like, whatever institutions are preserved — and again, we noted that the opposition groups have made clear that they want the Syrian army, for instance, to stay intact — that the Syrian people get to determine what their future looks like and that whatever processes are put in place, they are Syrian-led. And we want to assist in that, and we will certainly do that internally and externally.
Internally to the region, we have the ability to communicate with the opposition groups, and we’ll continue to do that. And we also, as I already highlighted, will maintain open communications with counterparts and interlocutors in the region but outside Syria.
We want to make sure that the aspirations of the Syrian people are fully met. They have suffered enough over 14 years. And we’re going to be working very, very hard to do that, particularly through existing U.N.-led processes. But it’s got to be — ultimately, it’s got to be a Syrian-led evolution here towards better and more representative governance.
We believe it is in our interest, our national security interest, that Syria be stable and secure and that, again, the Syrian people are able to determine their future. It’s in our interest in the region.
It is also in our interest that we continue to put pressure on ISIS, and so the counter-ISIS mission by our troops in Syria continues. The President talked about a wave of strikes we conducted on Sunday, 75-somewhat strikes on ISIS camps and facilities. You can expect that that kind of activity will continue. We don’t want to give ISIS an opportunity to exploit what’s going on. They love nothing more than ungoverned space. And back to my first point, we want to make sure that all of Syria is properly governed and that the Syrian people, again, have a say in that.
So, the pressure on ISIS will absolutely continue, because that, too, is very much in our national security interest, and we’ll stay at that.
I want to just briefly also — as I’m sure you guys will ask, and so let me just let you know — we don’t have any additional information on Austin Tice. This development could present an opportunity for us to glean more information about him, his whereabouts, his condition.
But as you and I are speaking here this morning, I can’t report that we have any additional context. We will work this, as we have, very, very hard. And we’ll keep the Tice family as informed as we possibly can. We want to see him home with his family where he belongs. The President mentioned that as well over the weekend, and I can assure you that we are pushing as hard as we can to learn as much as we can, but I don’t have any additional context to share with you today.
I think it’s important, before I leave the topic of Syria, to just take a step back and review some of how we got here. And it is true, I think unequivocally true, that much of the developments that we’ve seen in Syria is an outgrowth of the fact that Assad’s biggest supporters, Russia and Iran, are significantly weakened now. And that is tied directly, as the President said, to unflagging American support for Israel in their fight against Hamas and in the effort to secure a ceasefire with Hezbollah. And it is absolutely an outgrowth of our support for Ukraine that has consistently weakened Russian military forces and certainly caused the Russians to refocus the great locus of their military efforts on that war in Ukraine that they started.
And there’s just no way to look at it and see otherwise. They are both significantly distracted and weakened by the efforts in the Middle East and in Europe and American support for our allies and partners in both places.
It isn’t just that Russia and Iran were unwilling to help Assad after 14 years; it is that they were unable to. And again, the United States played a major role in that.
Lastly, if I could, just a programming note. Jake will be meeting this afternoon with hostage families, right on the eve of his travel to Israel. And as I mentioned earlier, certainly Syria is going to be at the top of the agenda. But without question, the most important thing Jake is going to want to talk to the Israelis about is how we can try to get a hostage deal in place so that we can get their loved ones back home where they belong, get them the answers that they deserve and that they need. And so, he’s going to be having another opportunity to have that conversation with them today.
I would remind that this has been a regular drumbeat for Jake. He does this on a routine basis, keeping them informed and updated. I am not in a position today where I can tell you that we have a deal that is on the brink of completion; that is not where we are. But it is fair to say that we are working this extremely hard. We do think there’s an opportunity here to get a hostage deal in place, to get these families reunited, to get a surge of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. But again, there’s an awful lot of work that still has to be done. Hamas continues to be the obstacle to that outcome, but we’re pressing on it really, really hard.
With that, I can take some questions.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our first question will go to Aamer with the AP.
Q Hey. Thank you both. Just had a couple of Syria follow-ups. Does the administration have any concerns about Israel moving its troops into the buffer zone in Golan Heights? And also, with Israel’s military operations in Syria, does it have the U.S. blessing to attack chemical strategic weapon sites?
And then, just finally, you sort of talked about the nexus of Ukraine in the fall of Assad. Has the administration, in its interactions with the incoming administration, been making that argument and perhaps trying to make the pitch for why there needs to continue to be Ukraine support?
And if there’s anything generally you could offer on the coordination briefing of the incoming Trump administration, how that’s gone down with what’s going on in Syria. Thanks.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, Aamer, there’s an awful lot there.
Look, on the Israeli operations over and around the Golan Heights, I’m going to let the Israelis speak to that. I would point you to what they’ve already said, that these are exigent operations to eliminate what they believe are imminent threats to their security, and we certainly recognize that they live in a tough neighborhood and that they have, as always, the right to defend themselves. But I’m going to let them speak to what they’re doing and the particulars of it.
There is, as you know, a 1974 disengagement agreement that that all parties have signed up to. We obviously still support that agreement, and we’re in close touch with our Israeli counterparts here, as these things kind of develop.
I will say, just on the chemical weapons piece, I mean, we do know that Assad had preserved at least some capability that he had proven in the past willing to use it on his people. And, look, you know, there’s a lot of uncertainty right now, as I said in my opening statement, about how the political situation is going to unfold. Lots of different rebel opposition groups involved here. Not all of them are groups that we countenance, at least not officially.
So, we too have concerns about the existence and potential use of chemical agents in Syria. So, I think I’d just leave it at that.
As for your question about the discussions with the new team, let me put it this way: Nothing that we’re doing and nothing that we’re saying ought to come as a surprise to the incoming team. We have the ability and have had conversations with appropriate officials in the incoming Trump team, particularly about what’s going on in Syria but also what’s going on in Ukraine and in the Middle East writ large. So those conversations have happened. They are still happening. And I have every expectation that, going forward, Jake Sullivan and other leaders here in the National Security Council will, as appropriate, continue to keep the incoming team informed.
They will decide for themselves what policies they might want to keep in place, what approaches they might want to continue and which ones they won’t. I can’t speak for what their prerogatives are going to be. All I can speak to is what our prerogatives are, and I kind of lay a little bit of them out in my opening statement.
We believe it is in our national security interest that Syria emerge from this as a stable, secure, sovereign state; that the Syrian people have a say in determining what that sovereignty looks like, what their government looks like. It’s got to be a process that meets their aspirations as they define those aspirations. That’s in our national security interest.
And it’s also in our national security interest that ISIS can’t exploit it and that the pressure needs to be kept up on that group.
So, that’s — we’ve been very, very open about that with all of you. We’ve been open about it with ourselves. The President has made sure that we’re focused on those two national security interests. And we certainly have been open about it in our conversations, as appropriate, with Trump officials that are coming in.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Michael with McClatchy.
Q Thanks, Sam. John, you just mentioned (inaudible) on Austin Tice’s whereabouts and condition. Obviously, the President said the administration believes that he’s alive, on Sunday. Can you help just square that circle for us? How do you know that he’s alive if you don’t know where he is or his condition? And do you have high-confidence sources, like the Tice family has said, telling you that he’s alive and was being held in the Damascus area? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, look, I’m obviously going to be a little careful here, because, you know, we want to see him back with his family, and I’m not going to get into intelligence information here in an on-the-record gaggle.
I would just tell you that our going assumption is that he’s still alive; that we have no indication, no information to the contrary. But we also don’t have complete information about where he is or what his condition is. So, I’m just being as honest with you as I can. No indication that he isn’t alive, but also no indication about where he is or what his condition is.
And that is why, as I said in my opening statement, we believe that the developments in Syria could present an opportunity to gain more context, more information, which could then potentially give us options for how to move forward. But the goal remains the same: We want to get him back to his family, where he belongs.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Andrea Mitchell with NBC.
Q Hi, John. Thank you. With reference also to what the Israelis are doing, that buffer zone, if you could be a little bit more — do you think that these are appropriate defensive moves? Are you at all concerned, if they’re not temporary, that this could provoke other reactions from other neighbors? In particular, what concerns might you have about what Turkey does with the PKK and others, including the SDF, whom we support in the northeast region? Thank you very much.
MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Andrea. At the risk of sounding like a broken record — again, we support this disengagement agreement from 1974. I’ll let the Israelis speak to what they’re doing.
The only thing I would say differently or additionally to what I said before on this question to Aamer is that, as things go forward, what we want to see from all actors inside Syria and outside Syria are actions that help the Syrian people get to governance that they can believe in and governance that, again, meets their aspirations. We don’t want to see any actor, inside or outside, take actions or do things or espouse policies or programs that run afoul of that process. And that’s why the President is going to stay engaged with our counterparts outside Syria, and we are going to maintain communications with those inside Syria to make sure that that’s where we go.
Again, I’d point you back to what the Israelis have said. This is an exigent move. They’ve said publicly that they don’t envision this being some sort of a long-term set of operations. And so, I think I’ll just — I’ll leave it there. We don’t want to see any actor, again, move themselves in such a way that makes it harder for the Syrian people to get at legitimate governance.
And then, you know, you asked a little bit about the Turks, which is sort of a tangential thing to what you’re — I think your first question.
Look, number one, the Turks have a legitimate counterterrorism threat that they too have a right to deal with; they too have a right to defend their citizens and their territory against terrorist attacks. And they have come under those kinds of terrorist attacks in the not-so-distant past. So we recognize they have that right, and they’re an important NATO Ally.
We have interest, as I said, in going after ISIS, and that means partnering with the Syrian Democratic Forces. And that will continue. And where those two goals overlap, or potentially conflict, we will have — as we have, we will have the appropriate conversations with the Turks about how both those outcomes can be achieved. And I think I’ll just leave it there.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to David Sanger with the New York Times.
Q Thanks, John. Two questions for you on this. First is, there was a brief reference before to the chemical weapons action that Israel is taking, and they’ve also announced that they sank whatever there was of the Syrian navy overnight as well. Is the U.S. providing intel? And obviously, we’ve been tracking their chemical weapons sites for more years than I can think. Is there any U.S. help going on to them, even if it’s just intel support and so forth?
And then the second just goes to your argument that because of the U.S. actions that have weakened the Russians and the Iranians, and the Iranians’ inability to strike Israel, you thought that the administration made it possible for all of this to happen. I’m sure you’ve heard the alternative argument here, which is: Had Netanyahu listened to President Biden’s advice and not attacked Hezbollah, which we were discouraging him from doing for fear of a wider war, that, in fact, it’s unlikely that you would have seen Assad fall. So I was just wondering if you would just take that head on.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah. I’m not going to — as you know, we have robust intelligence-sharing with Israel, as you might expect we would, and I’m not going to characterize what that looks like.
I’ve already kind of responded to the issue about our view of what they’re doing. And again, I’d point you back to what they’ve said, that these are exigent circumstances and non-permanent operations that they’re conducting.
On the counterargument, as you put it, for going after Hezbollah: Again, I think you need to take a step back here. And I don’t think it’s — I don’t think that anybody should overemphasize one particular operation, whether it’s against Hamas or against Hezbollah, as being the game changer here. It is the sum total of American support for Israel and their ability to defend themselves. And it is very much — and this is a point that I think is getting lost here, David — very much this ceasefire, in fact, that we mediated between Israel and Lebanon, and Hezbollah, that sent a strong signal to people in the region that Hezbollah was done, Hezbollah was out of it. They weren’t going to come to Hamas’s assistance, and Iran wasn’t going to be able to rely on them. And don’t mistake for a moment that there weren’t groups in Syria that paid attention to the fact that Hezbollah was no longer in the fight.
But I think the fact that in the aggregate we have been robust in our support of Israel’s right to defend itself, and backing that up with real arms and ammunition, as well as diplomatic efforts, played a real role here.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Karen with the Washington Post.
Q Just to (inaudible), as you say, beat a dead horse: On the Israeli actions in Syria, the U.N. Envoy for Syria gave a very strong statement this morning about what the Israelis are doing. They’re both in the disengagement zone and (inaudible) in Syrian territory itself — I mean, they’re in Quneitra — and some of the air strikes. And said, “This has to stop.” You said you recognize the disengagement agreement. You said, ask the Israelis what they’re doing. The Israelis have said what they’re doing. The question is not what are the Israelis doing. The question is does the United States agree with it.
And separately, on the north, Turkey and the SNA have said that their forces have pushed the SDF out of Manbij and across the Euphrates River. The SDF said this morning that that’s not true, that there is fighting going on in Manbij. Does the United States believe that the SDF should just move across the river and let the Turks take that over? Or what is our position on that particular (inaudible), not only in and around Manbij but other places?
MR. KIRBY: On the first question, Karen, I really — at the risk of just repeating what I’ve said before, which I’m sure nobody wants to hear again, I really don’t have anything more to add. I’ve addressed this question about Israel’s operations in and around and over the Golan Heights, and I’m just going to leave it there.
On your second question, we’re not in a position to verify the exact operational status of Manbij. We have been in close contact with the Turks about this, and certainly remain in close contact with the Syrian Democratic Forces about trying to make sure they stay focused on the counter-ISIS mission that we are partnered with them on. That’s our priority, and we’re going to continue to do that.
And one of the reasons why we have said publicly in the past that some of these operations elsewhere along that border, conducted by Turkish military forces, are problematic is because it does have that risk of pulling the SDF away from the counter-ISIS mission, which we don’t want to see happen. And those are conversations that we’re having with the Turks as well.
And as I said in my opening statement, you’re going to see continued outreach by the national security team with counterparts in the region about what’s happening in Syria. And I can assure you that some of those conversations are going to be with our Turkish counterparts as well.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Amy with Foreign Policy.
Q Thanks. On the call on Sunday night with a senior administration official, if I recall, they said that the U.S. has contacts with all groups in Syria, which presumably includes, then, HTS. Could you just give us more detail on what those interactions have been like, what channels you’re using? And have you explicitly communicated what steps you’d like to see from them to see them get delisted as a terror group?
MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to go into great detail about what the vehicles actually look like. There are some opposition rebel groups that we have communicated directly with for many, many years. There’s open lines of communication, and they stay open and we use them.
Now, there are other groups where we communicate in various other ways, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. But I don’t think it’s helpful for me to go into the mechanisms that are in place at this early stage.
I would just reiterate what the senior administration official said, which is absolutely true: We do have ways to communicate with all of them, and we are pulling on those ways, as you would expect that we would.
And then, your second question sort of implies that we’re on a path towards delisting. And I would just say that there’s no — there are no discussions right now about changing the policy with respect to HTS, but we are watching what they do. As the President said, Mr. al-Jolani and others are saying all the right things. This only just happened within the last couple of days, so we got to watch and see what they actually do and the degree to which they make good on their pledges.
So we’re just not at a point now where we can have a serious discussion about delisting anyone at this point.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Arlette with CNN.
Q Thank you. If I could just touch again on the communications with these rebel groups. Has the U.S. specifically spoken with Mohammed al-Bashir since he’s been named the caretaker, or are there plans to either directly or through an intermediary?
And you also talked a bit about how there’s coordination with the Trump team on all of these topics relating to the Middle East. Does President Biden specifically plan to speak with President-elect Trump about the situation in Syria since Sunday?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t have any conversations with al-Bashir to speak to, but I’ll tell you what I’ll do: I will take that question. I’m not aware of any conversations that anybody has had with him at this early stage, but I’ll take the question.
And then, I don’t have any additional conversations with President-elect Trump to speak to at this point. I would say that we remain in touch with his key incoming — the people he’s designated as his key national security team leaders, and certainly that includes Jake’s ongoing conversations with Congressman Waltz. But I don’t have any specific conversations with President Trump to speak to at this time.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Lara with the Wall Street Journal.
Q Hi. Thanks for doing this. I just wanted to follow up on my colleague’s question about your discussions with Turkey. I’m wondering if you’ve specifically — if the administration has specifically spoken with them about refraining from attacks on the SDF, particularly in the northeast. We’ve seen reports that they’re attacking Kobani today, so I’m wondering if those talks are going on through diplomatic channels.
MR. KIRBY: I won’t get into the details of the discussions, Lara, but as I indicated, we have and will remain in close touch with our Turkish counterparts to deconflict as best we can and to make clear what we believe our national security interests are in Syria. And as I said in my opening statement, one of those is the counter-ISIS mission, which does require partnering with the SDF.
Q And then also, just — I wanted to follow up on the chemical weapons question as well. The Israelis have said that they’re making some moves to ensure that chemical weapons don’t — Assad’s chemical weapons don’t end up in the wrong hands. Does the U.S. have any role in this at the moment?
MR. KIRBY: I think I sort of dealt with this question a little bit earlier. I mean, we’re not involved in the Israeli operations that they’re conducting. These are Israeli operations, and I’m going to let them speak to them.
Again, we remind that the Israelis have made clear these are temporary measures to ensure their own security. They have a right to defend themselves. And as I said earlier, you know, we certainly share concerns about the potential existence of and/or potential use of chemical weapons in Syria. And I think I’m just going to leave it at that.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Robbie with Politico.
Q Hey. Thanks for doing this. First, what’s the White House’s view of how Assad’s fall, if at all, has altered the prospect for hostage talks with Sullivan going to Israel, even indirectly?
And second, going off of Lara’s question on the U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters, as you know, the Kurds oversee about 50,000 ISIS detainees and their families in those camps in northeast Syria. Are you urging Turkey to halt — to urge its own militias to halt that offensive against Kurdish forces? And is there any fear of instability in the northeast risking the security of those camps? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: I’m sorry, what was your first question? I missed it.
Q Just on — how has the fall of Assad, if at all, altered the prospect for hostage talks with regards to Gaza, even indirectly? You talked about Sullivan going to the region, possibly new pathways to negotiations there.
MR. KIRBY: Well, look, Hamas has got to be looking out at the world today and realizing that the cavalry is not coming to rescue them. And so, one would hope that recent developments in Syria reinforce for them that they are just increasingly isolated and ought to take a deal.
So, certainly, when Jake goes to talk about the potential for a new hostage deal, he goes with, obviously, the developments of the last few days in the background of all that as context. And it remains to be seen whether Hamas will move, but they absolutely ought to move because there is nobody coming to their assistance. They can’t rely on Hezbollah. They certainly can’t rely on Iran. And this is the time to make a deal. So we’ll see what happens. They have consistently been an obstacle on that.
And then, on your second question, we are absolutely concerned about these detention facilities in Syria. They’re not — you mentioned some in the north and the east. There’s actually some in the north and the west as well. Some of these detention facilities do house ISIS fighters, largely of a lower level, but nevertheless ISIS fighters. And so, we are talking to all of our counterparts, including the Turks, about the status of those detention facilities and about our collective concern of the potential for them to be opened up or for people to be able to get out.
Now, I will remind — or maybe you know this — I mean, most of them in the east are run by the SDF, who are our partners. And so, you know, we know we can rely on their ability to continue to properly safeguard those facilities, the ones that are in the east. But it is a concern, no question about it, and it’s part of the conversations that we’re having.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Keleigh with NewsNation.
Q Hi, John. Thanks for taking my question. Kind of following up on President Biden and then President-elect Trump, both on, you know, foreign policy, kind of talking about different developments, either with Syria or in other places, I’m just curious how this may affect or have an impact on the remaining 41 days or so of President Biden trying to cement his foreign policy legacy. So, this in regard to Syria as well as in other conflicts.
MR. KIRBY: I’m not really sure how to answer that one, except to say that, as I sort of mentioned at the beginning, we believe that developments in Syria very much prove the case of President Biden’s assertive foreign policy and our constant and unrelenting support for partners and allies.
One of the things that he started doing at the very beginning was revitalizing alliances and partnerships that, as we came into office, we believed had been let to lapse, or disrespected or ignored, and he turned that around to a fare-thee-well.
We have closer relations in the Indo-Pacific than we’ve ever had before and improved trilateral cooperation between Japan and South Korea. We have the AUKUS deal, which is now putting Australia on a path to a nuclear-powered submarine. NATO is bigger and stronger than it’s ever been before. And where there weren’t alliances, President Biden created coalitions to get things done, such as the 50-plus nations to go support Ukraine and the 20-plus nations that are helping us in the Red Sea defend against Houthi attacks against commercial shipping.
I think what the President is focused on with the time that he has left is continuing to use this assertive foreign policy and the advantage that our alliances and partnerships give us to see better outcomes. We’re starting to see bet- — well, you know, certainly it’s early goings in Syria, but we believe that this assertive foreign policy has impacted events in Syria. It remains to be seen where it’s going to go, but also to finish
so many of the things that we started, and one of those things is to try to get a ceasefire deal — or, I’m sorry, a hostage deal with Hamas.
But, I mean, my goodness, just since the election, you know, we’ve brokered a ceasefire with Lebanon, between Israel and Lebanon. And he cemented a huge economic opportunity in Africa with the Lobito rail corridor, which you all probably saw last week. And we secured deals with China on artificial intelligence. And we brought additional people that were wrongfully detained from China back home. And all this is just since, you know, Election Day.
So what the President is focused on is, with the time he has left, continuing to move these balls forward. And again, I think you’re going to see that.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Danny with the AFP.
Q Hey there. Thanks for that, Admiral. Just a couple of things. Firstly, at the G7 virtual meeting this Friday, what is the President going to be discussing with the other leaders in terms of Syria? Are they going to be coming out with some kind of agreement on backing a transitional government, for example?
And secondly, just wanted to ask what you guys think of the fact that the possible incoming Director of National Intelligence previously met with Assad. Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Syria and Ukraine will absolutely be on the agenda for the G7. We’ll have more to say about that agenda as we get a little closer to the end of the week. So I don’t want to steal anybody’s thunder, but you can bet that those two topics will be front and center. And again, we’ll have more to share.
I’m not going to comment on individuals that the incoming team and the President-elect are — that he’s looking at or has announced for various jobs. That’s not our place here at the National Security Council. We’re focused, as I said earlier, on certainly, in the national security space and the foreign policy space, executing on the President’s agenda and trying to finish out the time we have left in the strongest way possible.
MODERATOR: Thank you. And unfortunately, we only have time for one more question because we’re about to get kicked out of our room. So, over to James Rosen.
Q Okay, thank you so much, Sam. And thank you, Admiral. I actually have two questions.
First, senior administration officials have acknowledged that the fall of Aleppo to HTS came as a surprise to the U.S. intelligence community. What accounts for that intelligence failure? And from where did HTS, apparently under the nose of our intelligence community, acquire all of its weapons, training, and funding? That’s the first question.
MR. KIRBY: You want to go with number two first, or you want me to just take that one?
Q If you would take that one, please.
MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to talk about intelligence issues here in this gaggle, James. As I said, we’ve been watching events unfold here for more than a week in Syria. We’ve been staying abreast of it as best we can, keeping the President abreast of it.
No doubt that things have moved quickly. I’m not going to deny that one bit. And we believe, as I mentioned to David Sanger — we believe that a factor in the fast nature of this was, in fact, that the ceasefire deal between Israel and Lebanon, that that sent yet another strong signal to folks in the region that Iran’s so-called Axis of Resistance was a lot weaker than people had anticipated.
Q Before I go to the second question, you have nothing you want to say about where HTS derives its support from?
MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to get into that at this point.
Q Second question: I want to follow up on what David Sanger asked you and give you an opportunity to defend President Biden and his legacy, but also take issue with some of what you’ve had to say here so far.
This notion that the Biden administration played this indispensable role in creating and handing over to the incoming administration a vastly revamped Middle East marked by Israeli triumphs over Iranian proxies, and this corresponding diminution in Iranian power and capability.
From the Israelis’ perspective, contrary to what you said, which was that President Biden’s support has been unflagging and unrelenting, it has, in fact, flagged and relented at various points. To wit, President Biden himself publicly proclaimed Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks to be, quote, “over the top.” He withheld at least one arms shipment from the Israelis, and he used the world stage repeatedly to denigrate and otherwise criticize Prime Minister Netanyahu and his conduct of these conflicts.
Indeed, much of what the Israelis have done that has served to weaken Iran has been done against the advice and warnings of Mr. Biden and his national security team. So my question is this: Isn’t it disingenuous, at a minimum, for the Biden team to be crowing over this checkered record of support for our closest strategic ally in that region?
MR. KIRBY: No.
Q You don’t want to address anything else or the fact that he said it was over the top, the fact that he withheld an arms shipment from them, the fact that he’s been so critical, the fact that he advised against the very offensive against Lebanon that you’re now saying was so critical to the fall of Assad?
MR. KIRBY: I don’t think your (inaudible) merits a response, James. It’s just wrong on so many fronts. And I’m not going to belabor everybody’s time by going through it point by point.
This is the President who put fighter aircraft up, not once but twice, to defend Israel. No president has done that before. No president has gone to Israel while they’re at war, like President Biden has done. And no president has done more to send shipments and arms to Israel so that they can continue to defend themselves.
I could go on and on, because the premise of your question is just so incredibly wrong, but I’m not going to do that and waste everybody’s time. If you and I — you want to have a conversation, I’m happy to talk to you offline on this. But, my goodness, there is so much wrong with your question, it just befuddles me. And I don’t have the time to address it right now.
MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you, James.
That is all the time we have for our gaggle today. I know we have a lot of hands still raised. I’m so sorry we weren’t able to get to you.
As always, reach out to the NSC press distro, and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as we can. Thanks, everyone.
11:29 A.M. EST
