Department Press Briefing – September 17, 2024

QUESTION: And what information have you gathered so far on this incident?

MR MILLER: We’ll continue to collect information. I don’t have any public readout to give now, but we’re collecting information in the same way that journalists are across the world to gather the facts about what might have happened.

QUESTION: Obviously it doesn’t take much guess work who the most likely culprit would be in terms of doing this, in terms of who the enemy of Hizballah is. Do you have any indications that – to doubt that it would be Israel that was behind the – these attacks?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any assessment to offer one way or other at this point.

QUESTION: And I know you’re saying that, but in terms of what this means, I mean, there’s been for a number of weeks the talk of dialing down or at least of not having a retaliation from Iran over a sort of a tit for tat if you will. How does this play into it? Is there any message that you’re sending to Israel in terms of what to do next or, for that matter, to Iran, to Hizballah in terms of how to respond to this?

MR MILLER: So I never want to either comment or speculate about the impact of any one incident, especially in the early stages of an incident, and I’m not going to do so here. That’s been our consistent policy to try and avoid doing. I will say that our overall policy remains consistent, which is we do want to see a diplomatic resolution to the conflict between Israel and Hizballah. We want to see one that allows the tens of thousands of Israelis who have been displaced from their homes and the tens of thousands of Lebanese who have been displaced from their homes to be able to return home. And that’s what we are continuing to pursue.

QUESTION: I’ll let others take.

MR MILLER: Yeah, Humeyra.

QUESTION: Just a couple of follow-ups on that, Matt. So how concerned are you about escalation now after this attack?

MR MILLER: So again, I don’t want to draw any specific conclusions about this incident yet or speculate about what may – might happen from them. I will say that of course since October 7th, we have seen any number of incidents that have led to the heightened risk of escalation. That has been a feature of the conflict across the Blue Line since October 7th. And so we are always concerned about escalation. We are always concerned about any type of event that may cause further escalation. And it remains our message to both Israel and to other parties that they need to do everything they can to try and reach a diplomatic resolution. That said, we go back to the fundamental – I know people get tired of hearing me say this – we go back to the fundamental issue we face here which is very difficult to get a diplomatic resolution in the north absent a resolution to the conflict in Gaza, absent a ceasefire in Gaza, which is why we continue to push for that ceasefire because we think it’ll help make it much easier to reach a resolution.

QUESTION: So how do you see this incident impact the Gaza ceasefire talks then?

MR MILLER: I think it’s – I think it’s too early to say. Look, this is an incident that just occurred in the past few hours. We’re continuing to gather information about it. I wouldn’t want to – I wouldn’t want to speculate or make any predictions about —

QUESTION: Okay. A couple —

MR MILLER: — what might happen.

QUESTION: A couple of other – a couple of things more. Hizballah has accused Israel of sort of launching this attack. You said you’re gathering information. Is there anything in that information that would lead you to sort of reject that accusation?

MR MILLER: I just don’t want to offer any type of assessment on this incident one way or the other at this point.

QUESTION: Are you trying to make an assessment, though? Like in your gathering of information, are you going to be able to offer an assessment tomorrow or the next day, or is the United States going to be completely like this is nothing to do with me, I’m not going to offer any —

MR MILLER: We are continuing to gather information. And when we have something to say about it, we will certainly say it.

QUESTION: One —

MR MILLER: But not before then.

QUESTION: Okay. One final thing. Regardless if it – if this incident, although it’s a little bit hard to sort of leave that aside right now, but over the past couple of days, we have heard Prime Minister Netanyahu especially talk about the – how unsustainable it is in the north and the border. And last night, the cabinet basically said military action would be needed for – to allow thousands of residents to go back to their homes. They’ve effectively expanded the objectives of the war. So is the – is – does the United States see military action from Israel more likely in light of that?

MR MILLER: So we agree that it is unsustainable for tens of thousands of Israeli families to be displaced from their homes, just as it is unsustainable for tens of thousands of Lebanese families to be displaced from their homes. All of them need to be able to return home. So then you take – you go to the question of what’s the best way to achieve them being able to return to your – to their homes, and it is our judgment that a diplomatic solution is the best way to get them back to their homes. Because if you look at what a military conflict would entail, it’s hard to see how that gets those families on either side of their border back to their homes quickly. So that’s why we continue to push both – we continue to push for a diplomatic resolution of this conflict.

QUESTION: But —

QUESTION: Follow-up?

QUESTION: May I follow up?

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I follow that? You say you’re gathering information. How are you gathering that information? Do you expect to have an independent U.S. assessment, to follow on Humeyra’s question?

MR MILLER: So I don’t want to prejudge what we’ll say in the days to come. I can tell you what we’re doing right now is gathering information through all of the ways in which we usually gather information.

QUESTION: And have you been in touch with any Lebanese or Israeli officials in the wake of this?

MR MILLER: I can’t read out every contact that we’ve had in the last couple of hours. It’s only been a couple hours since this incident happened. But of course, we’re gathering information through diplomatic channels as well as other channels about this incident.

QUESTION: There are reports that the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon was also injured in this attack incident. Are you concerned about Iran taking advantage of this to also – and any —

MR MILLER: So we’ve seen those reports. I think it’s —

QUESTION: Any indications that they plan to?

MR MILLER: First of all, apologies for interrupting in the middle of a question.

QUESTION: That’s okay.

MR MILLER: I’ve seen the reports. I don’t want to speak to what the implications might be before a report is confirmed. But certainly, as is always the case, we would urge Iran not to take advantage of any incident, any instability to try to add further instability and to further increase tensions in the region. That has been our message to Iran since October 7th.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up, and you offered a line on it, but just to make sure it’s airtight – so the U.S. was in no way involved in terms of supporting this operation, offering intelligence, in no way was the U.S. involved?

MR MILLER: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay, and no part of the U.S. Government – I understand you speak only for this department, but such disclaimers have been offered from State before – you were not given a heads up, right?

MR MILLER: We were not aware of this – this incident, no.

QUESTION: Okay. On ceasefire talks, is the expectation still that a renewed bridging proposal is expected to arrive this week?

MR MILLER: So I have not put a timetable on that. I think I was asked about this a number of times yesterday, and I said I’m not going to put a timetable on when we might put forward a further proposal. We are engaged with – we continue to be engaged with the other two mediators in in the conflict, Egypt and Qatar. The Secretary is on his way to Egypt right now. He’ll be meeting with Egyptian officials about a number of things, but squarely on the agenda is how we get a proposal that we think would secure agreement from both parties. I don’t want to put a timetable on when we would put that proposal forward, because ultimately we want a proposal that’s going to get to yes, and it’s very important that we, as you’ve heard the Secretary say, stop the haggling back and forth. And so we want to – when we present a proposal, we want to know it’s going to get to yes, and that’s the work that we’re doing with our Egyptian and Qatari partners this week.

QUESTION: Are the Qataris involved? Because I understand that the Secretary is in Cairo specifically speaking on discrete topics with the Egyptians, but are the Qataris or Israelis going to be looped in as part of these discussions? Or —

MR MILLER: So we are – so the Secretary is in Egypt having bilateral meetings with Egypt.

QUESTION: Right.

MR MILLER: But we continue to discuss on a daily basis this process with the Qataris as well as in a different format with the Israelis. The Israelis are – obviously they are not a mediator, so we don’t have the same types of discussions with them as we do with Egypt and Qatar, but we do continue to have discussions about this with all of those parties.

QUESTION: I have one more on Ukraine for later.

MR MILLER: Yeah. Hiba.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR MILLER: Hiba, go ahead. I’ll come to you, Said.

QUESTION: I know that you won’t – you don’t want to comment on what’s happening. But until now, the figures – we don’t know the accurate figures of what happened in Lebanon. Some are talking about 3,000s, 4,000s. We have civilians and they’re – also the Iranian ambassador, also sons of members of parliament from Hizballah lost. Do you – I mean, the question – do you think that this is a legitimate target for any party to do that, whether it’s Israel or someone else – because there are Hizballah targets in this – if it’s attack or incident or whatever you want to call it?

MR MILLER: So let me not comment with specific – with respect to this specific incident in answering the question only because there are a lot of reports out that I – in many cases are not yet confirmed. And as you well know, sometimes in the early hours – the reporting you see in the early hours tends to be somewhat off the mark. It gets supplemented with additional facts as time goes on. So I will just say what we believe are legitimate targets and what are not legitimate targets. Obviously we believe that civilians are not legitimate targets for any type of operation and that no country should be targeting civilians. No country, no organization should be targeting civilians. Terrorist members of a terrorist organization are legitimate targets for countries to launch operations against, and those are the principles that we hold ourselves to, and those are the principles we expect other countries to uphold in their operations.

QUESTION: Okay, Matt, and you were also saying that it’s hard to achieve a diplomatic solution on the northern front with – between Hizballah and Israel unless we have a ceasefire in Gaza. This would be more helpful. Also Hizballah is saying the same, but the Israeli wants to change their situation, the current – they don’t want to go to October 6th. They want to change the current situation, not the same way it was before October 7th. Do you support that?

MR MILLER: So what do you – in what way do you mean they want to change the situation?

QUESTION: In what way? They don’t want Hizballah fighters on the borders, they want, like, a buffer zone. I mean, are you able to achieve that? Who —

MR MILLER: So we do want to see Hizballah fighters withdraw from the border and agree to the parameters of the UN Security Council resolution that was passed some time ago, which they have been in violation of. So we do want to see that. That is absolutely true and has been our policy for some time. And I would just note that with respect to the – one of the reasons it’s so hard to get a diplomatic resolution without calm in Gaza is that’s what we’ve heard the head of Hizballah say many times, right. He has made clear that as long as the conflict in Gaza continues, they’re going to continue to launch missiles and rockets and drones across the border at Israeli villages, Israeli towns. And so that’s – that is the impediment that we face, and we very clearly take him at face value given the actions that Hizballah has shown to be true over the past 11 months. It doesn’t change what we have to do and what we’re trying to do and we’ll continue to stay focused on.

QUESTION: One more question on this, Matt. The Israeli argument is that we cannot – and I mean, if we keep the situation as it was on October 6th, we are just – we cannot prevent another October 7 from the northern borders. Do you believe this is an accurate assessment by them?

MR MILLER: So certainly we want to see a long-term resolution to the security situation that Israel faces in the north of Israel, and we want to see a long-term solution to the insecurity that civilians in southern Lebanon have faced. And so you look at this in stages, right? The first thing that we want to get is a ceasefire in Gaza – which I know you’ve heard me talking about that for the last few minutes – because we think that would allow us to unlock a diplomatic resolution across the Blue Line. We would like to see as part of that diplomatic resolution a cessation of hostilities. And then ultimately, we would like to see some kind of long-term diplomatic resolution, like those that have been reached in the past and at times have broken down. I’m not going to get into the details, because those are the things that we would have to negotiate, but it all starts with a ceasefire in Gaza, and that’s what we’re working on.

But the fundamental – to answer your question fundamentally, we don’t want to see a situation where Israeli families in northern Israel are living in constant fear of their lives from terrorist attacks. We do want to see that situation change. The question is how you get there, whether you get there through a diplomatic resolution or whether you get there through military action. And we – it continues to be our firm belief that the best way to do it is through a diplomatic resolution.

QUESTION: Matt, a follow-up on this?

QUESTION: Follow-up on this?

MR MILLER: I promised I’d come to you next. Then you, Michel. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Again, as Hiba said, you don’t want to talk about it because you don’t have the – any assessment yet, U.S. assessment. But things on the ground are moving. Hizballah already is accusing Israel of doing – of considering this incident as an attack. The Israelis are putting their relative forces in high alert. There are some reports that Israel will declare soon that the northern front is the main front in this war. Do you still believe that your influence is capable of holding this conflict from not exploding into a regional war? Because it seems that it’s slipping from your hands.

MR MILLER: So it is not – I understand why you pose the question to me. It’s not just a question for the United States. It is a question for every party in the region. Of course it’s a first-order question to Israel, it’s a question to Hizballah, but it is a question to all of the other countries in the region about what type of region that they want to live in.

So the United States is going to continue to push for a diplomatic resolution. We’re going to continue to talk to our partners in the region about the need to do – to avoid any type of steps that would avoid escalation of the conflict. But ultimately, as is always the case, this is a question for parties in the region and what kind of world and what kind – they want to live in and what kind of future that they want to have.

We continue to believe that the solution to the situation in Gaza, the situation across the Blue Line, the broader instability that the region faces, is to tone down the rhetoric, tone down the tensions, tone down the hostilities, get a ceasefire in Gaza, move to a diplomatic resolution in the north, and set the conditions for broader regional stability. But that requires actions not just by the United States but by parties in the region who have some agency of their own.

QUESTION: But, I mean, you say it’s not a question for the United States —

MR MILLER: No, I said it’s not just one for us. Yeah, I get – I know why we get these questions, but the countries and entities in the region have agency, too, for the decisions that they make. And so we will continue to impress upon them what we believe is in their interest and what we believe is in the interest of the region, but these are decisions that countries in the region have to make and entities in the region have to make for themselves.

QUESTION: But don’t you see that you are putting your both hands on this conflict and not allowing somebody else to take any actions to pressure Israel? You’ll not allow the UN Security Council to put any pressure. Any other countries or international agency in the world who will criticize Israel with an action, you will go against. And so you are actually holding this conflict with two hands and not allowing others to act.

MR MILLER: So first of all, I think the evidence of the past 11 months would very much contradict the idea that we can prevent any country in the world from criticizing Israel, because there has been inordinate criticism of Israel. There have been resolutions passed at the —

QUESTION: I meant of action.

MR MILLER: — at the UN. Countries are free to take the steps that they want. You have seen a number of them across the world do that.

As for other countries, look, we are involved in this because we see it as our responsibility, as one of the world’s powers, to try and get involved and reach diplomatic resolutions and try to bring stability. We would welcome other countries’ involvement in trying to tone down tensions. We would welcome the involvement of other countries in trying to reach a diplomatic solution either to the conflict in Gaza – as we’ve seen with Egypt and Qatar directly engaged as mediators – or to the situation in the north. There is, in many cases, a paucity of other countries willing to step up and take that job.

QUESTION: Matt —

QUESTION: Matt, on this one?

QUESTION: Well, so you would welcome Iran?

MR MILLER: We would certainly welcome Iran stopping funding terrorist organizations that are behind these attacks —

QUESTION: And Russia?

MR MILLER: — and behind much of this instability. Look, if Russia —

QUESTION: And China?

MR MILLER: If Russia – let me say, China we’ve been very clear on a number —

QUESTION: Can I ask —

MR MILLER: — let me – a number of times that we would welcome their positive involvement. With Russia, Russia has this burgeoning security relationship with Iran. If they were to use that influence with Iran to tell them to tone down their support for terrorism, we would absolutely welcome it. Now, I don’t think that’s going to happen, but we would certainly welcome taking those steps.

QUESTION: Okay. But just to make the point – I mean, I get to play devil’s advocate here – when those countries tell you that maybe you should do something by toning down your support for Israel, you say no, that’s not just – that’s just not going to happen, correct?

MR MILLER: We obviously have a different assessment of what’s productive and what’s not.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR MILLER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Going back to Lebanon, you said that you consider targeting terrorists as a legitimate act. Then Hizballah is a terrorist organization by the U.S. Does that mean that you support such operation that happened today and that targeted Hizballah?

MR MILLER: So again, when I gave that answer, I said I want to be very clear that I’m not answering with specific – with any specificity regarding this incident, because we’re continuing to gather facts on it. But in general, yes, of course we support operations to target Hizballah militants, who continue to launch terrorist attacks against civilians. Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorism and a right to carry out legitimate attacks against terrorists – not civilians, but terrorists. So as a general proposition, yes, of course.

QUESTION: And one on Iran. Iran president has said today or yesterday: “We are brothers with the Americans… They should put an end to their animosity towards us by demonstrating their generosity in deeds.” Do you have any comment on that?

MR MILLER: So certainly we have a great fondness for the Iranian people. There are tremendous connections between the American people and the Iranian people. There is a large Iranian diaspora inside the United States and close family-to-family ties that we believe are incredibly important.

But when it comes to the regime, ultimately we’ll judge them by their actions, not their words. And if he wanted to show brotherhood with the United States or with other countries in the world, the way to show brotherhood would not be through rhetoric. It would be by – to stop arming and encouraging terrorist groups, to stop nuclear escalations and blocking the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency; it would be to stop plotting to kill political opponents, stop transferring missiles and drones to Russia, and ultimately to stop cracking down on the human rights of its own people.

QUESTION: A follow-up, Matt?

MR MILLER: No, let me go to Hiba, then —

QUESTION: One, one —

MR MILLER: Then, Said, I will – I promise you. Let me just – Said, there’s never been a briefing where I’ve skipped you. So Hiba, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up. When you are calling on other countries to step up in the region, who do you mean? I mean – Matt asked you about China and Russia, but other countries. What are you talking – for the Lebanese, for example? Who can step up?

MR MILLER: So I would – my answer to that would be, we would welcome any country that would play a positive role in trying to calm tensions in the region. So every country has different roles that they can play. Obviously – I’ll just give you some examples – Egypt and Qatar are playing a direct role in trying to mediate the conflict in Gaza and reach a ceasefire. Other countries at times have been incredibly useful in delivering messages to Iran that it should refrain from any escalation. And we would encourage any countries in the region, or outside the region for that matter, to play productive roles in trying to de-escalate tensions.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Guita, go ahead.

QUESTION: In response to Michel, you just said what you want – can to do help the situation. The Iranian president also said that it was willing to go back – adhere to the JCPOA. Now, are these items that you just – actions that you just mentioned, could those be maybe something that you would expect Iran to do before U.S. would be willing to engage?

MR MILLER: So I would say as a matter of first instance, before you talk about any sort of nuclear accords, Iran needs to stop blocking the work of the IAEA. That’s a first. They continue to block the work of the IAEA, the legitimate work of the IAEA. That is a first thing before you can even get into that type of discussion.

Said. We didn’t take too long.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you what kind of message is Israel sending by doing this attack today while a high-level American envoy – doing this to do precisely the opposite of what they did. What kind of message are they sending?

MR MILLER: Said, I don’t —

QUESTION: Are they just saying – I want to understand further. I know. I mean, I’m just following up on – on that point. So – because Israel has like a tradition of doing that. I mean, every time there is a high-level American visitor, they either increase settlements or they attack or they increase their attacks, and do things like this. So obviously they’re not really interested in what you’re calling for – diplomacy. Isn’t that true?

MR MILLER: Said, I don’t have anything to add about this incident than what I said in response to the previous questions.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: I will say, with respect to diplomacy, as I said in response to one of the other questions, countries have to make their own decisions. But we continue to believe that a military escalation to this conflict will not achieve Israel’s goal of returning the people who have been displaced from their homes to their homes quickly in any case.

QUESTION: No, I mean, I just want – I’m talking about not the incident itself but the pattern in which Israel has been basically well-known for, for over many, many years. I mean, we all remember when President Biden was vice president that he went there for the first time and they had this announcement of settlements and so on. There is sort of a tradition.

Okay. So let me go – take you back to the legitimacy of targets and so on. Yesterday, a group of settlers attacked a school in Jericho. They beat up the students. They broke their bones. They beat up the teachers and so on. Are they a legitimate target? Should they be a legitimate target by the same kind of definitions that – in which you have defined the other targets?

MR MILLER: Are civilians who the settlers attacking legitimate targets? Absolutely not. Of course not.

QUESTION: No, I am saying the settlers who are – who have attacked the civilians. Should the settlers be a legitimate target?

MR MILLER: The settlers should be held accountable through law enforcement means, Said, not through —

QUESTION: I’m not —

MR MILLER: Hold on. Not through any type of extrajudicial process or military process. They should be held to account by law enforcement, which is what we would say about any type of violent attacks on individuals, that the law enforcement ought to held – hold them accountable to the full extent of the law.

QUESTION: Although they do take the law into their own hands time and time again very violently.

MR MILLER: Absolutely, which is why we believe they should be held accountable and, as you’ve seen the United States make clear through our own actions, if and when Israel does not step up and hold people accountable, we will do so ourselves.

QUESTION: Right. I know that you can – you’ve – in years past you designated, like, another group as a terrorist organization. Should armed settlers like this that you keep sanctioning and so on be also named as terrorist organizations?

MR MILLER: I’m not going to speak to any type of designations before we would make that – any such determination. But we will continue to hold extremist settlers accountable for violent actions.

QUESTION: All right, couple more questions. Now, yesterday, there were a group of UN experts that basically called Israel to be a pariah state, and they’re calling for, of course, a ceasefire and so on, and because – over what they termed as genocide. And my question to you is: Back on June 10th, there was a UN resolution which you pushed for, which you basically made a good case for, 14 people voted for it or 14 members voted for it in the Security Council, Russia abstained and so on, but the resolution passed. So why not go back and try to implement this resolution? Will the President or will the United States take advantage of this UNGA meeting to basically enforce such resolutions?

MR MILLER: We are trying to enforce that resolution, Said. The way to enforce that resolution is to reach a ceasefire. If you remember what that resolution called for, it was a ceasefire to the conflict in Gaza.

QUESTION: Right. Right.

MR MILLER: And the Secretary is on his way to Egypt right now to try to finalize that ceasefire as one of a number of administration officials who’ve been working to get that ceasefire over the line in the past few weeks.

QUESTION: But although the – it seems the Israeli prime minister keeps moving the goalposts. He keeps moving the goalposts, now including Lebanon, including this and so on, as to the – they’re the ones that keep changing the terms of the resolution that Hamas has agreed to, the mediators have agreed to and so on.

MR MILLER: So while I’m not going to negotiate in public, Said, I think it is well known, it’s been well reported, and I’ll – spoken to it from here that we have seen Hamas make additional demands through this process as well.

QUESTION: Okay. And finally, I know you’ve said that you don’t want to talk about a timetable as far as the new proposal is concerned and so on. Is it likely to occur between now and the gathering in New York next week?

MR MILLER: When I say I don’t want to give a timetable, I mean it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Right. But you said – I mean, we’re talking – we’re talking – we’re not talking about that. We’re talking —

MR MILLER: Said – no, I just – when I said I’m not going to give a timetable, I’m not going to then come and put a four or five-day timetable on it. I very much mean —

QUESTION: We’re talking about the venue. Maybe they would take advantage of —

MR MILLER: A venue that is time-bound, so no, I’m not going to make any predictions.

QUESTION: Matt, can we go back to the Secretary’s travels? Can you help us understand why he’s not going to Israel on this trip given every other trip to the region since October 7th he has?

MR MILLER: So I’m not going to speak to where and will he might – where he might fully go, because obviously he’s on the trip. Sometimes we do add stops, which is not to say that we will be heading on to Israel. It’s not something he intends to do now.

He is traveling to Egypt for a couple of specific reasons: one, because we want to conduct this strategic dialogue with Egypt, something that we have been planning for some time. We have a number of important bilateral issues with Egypt that we want to discuss in the context of that dialogue; but two, there are some issues that we need to engage with the Government of Egypt on as it relates to this ceasefire proposal that we are trying to bring to fruition. So that’s why we are moving to – that’s why we’re in – that’s why he’s in Egypt. They’re one of the mediators. We have some discreet business to do with them when it comes to this proposal and think it’s important to do.

QUESTION: And you didn’t see it as important to then go to Israel and continue to try to build political pressure around this deal?

MR MILLER: The proposal is not ready to present to Israel at this point, so it would be premature to – be premature to be presenting such a proposal or doing any other diplomatic engagements around it before we have it ready.

QUESTION: And then one more on the American killed in the West Bank. Has the Israeli government identified which unit in the IDF was responsible for her killing yet?

MR MILLER: I do – I don’t know if they have. I’m not aware if they have. They may have to other people inside the department. I’m happy —

QUESTION: Is the U.S. pressing them for this information to be able to conduct your own sort of assessment whether U.S. weapons were involved, for example?

MR MILLER: We are pressing them for a full, transparent investigation. Obviously as part of that – that investigation, it would include the unit. I don’t think this is information that would be ultimately difficult to come by, and without saying what we will or won’t do, obviously whenever there are any type of incidents such as this, it is the type of thing that we conduct our own assessments when it comes to fulfilling our own obligations under U.S. law.

QUESTION: Is there any sense that it could be anything but a U.S. weapon given the number of weapons that are given to the IDF for use?

MR MILLER: I don’t think I can say one way or the other when there’s an ongoing investigation.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have one on Ukraine, unless there’s another Middle East.

MR MILLER: Go ahead, yeah.

QUESTION: This morning Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield described President Zelenskyy’s victory plan. First, she confirmed that the U.S. has seen it, and she said it lays out a strategy and a plan that can work. I just want to confirm first that main State Department has also seen the plan and shares this view.

QUESTION: Is there a timeline associated with the implementation of the plan?

MR MILLER: I think I ought to let President Zelenskyy, whose plan ultimately this is, speak to the details of it.

QUESTION: Okay. And on the question of Ukraine’s use of long-range American-provided missiles in Russia, the Secretary and Foreign Secretary Lammy said that discussions would continue during the UN General Assembly next week. First, want to confirm you have no policy announcements to make today regarding that.

MR MILLER: Correct.

QUESTION: So if indeed this decision hasn’t been made, and hasn’t been made tacitly, is it the U.S. view that the Ukrainians don’t need this capability urgently enough that it merits additional weeks of discussion?

MR MILLER: I don’t think you should draw any conclusions about us conducting the type of deliberate process that we have always conducted when it comes to providing Ukraine the tactical assistance they need, providing the capabilities that they need to win this war. The Secretary spoke to this in – well, you were on the trip. You know. You don’t want to hear me repeat what he said about how we have to be deliberate —

QUESTION: Elaborate.

MR MILLER: — and careful, and ultimately make sure that with everything that we provide them there’s a strategic rationale for doing so. And so we’re – we continue to engage in that process with them.

QUESTION: Absolutely. But you and the Secretary have described this as a critical point for the Ukrainians, a pivotal point on the battlefield as well. So there’s no concern about the length of this deliberative process regarding this one policy?

MR MILLER: No. As you’ve heard the Secretary of Defense say, there is no one capability that ultimately, by itself, is the magic wand that is decisive in this conflict. There are a number of different capabilities that taken together can help Ukraine win this war, and that’s what we continue to provide them, and we will continue to assess whether there are additional capabilities, additional tactics, additional techniques that we ought to provide to them. And when we assess that it is in their interest and the interests of the United States to do so, we’ll do so.

QUESTION: And just one additional point of attempted clarification: Is it the U.S. position that other Western countries who have provided long-range weapons to Ukraine should wait for consensus before they greenlight the use of their own weapons by the Ukrainians?

MR MILLER: So those are conversations that we have privately, and I think I’ll keep those conversations in private diplomatic channels.

Alex.

QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Let me little bit follow up on Olivia’s question. Announcement and decision – so you don’t have announcement to make, but that doesn’t mean that there is no decision.

MR MILLER: I just don’t have any announcements about change in policy to make.

QUESTION: Have you guys turned down Ukraine’s request on —

MR MILLER: I don’t have any further – I don’t have anything further to say. These are things that – excuse me – that we discuss directly with our Ukrainian counterparts, and we’ll continue to do so.

QUESTION: Matt, the Secretary said in Kyiv, and also you repeated yesterday, that you guys want Ukraine to win. How do you expect them to win with one hand tied behind —

MR MILLER: We expect them to win by continuing to provide them the billions of dollars in security assistance that we have provided them since the outset of this conflict, the type of security assistance that along with brave Ukrainian fighting has led them to recapture a majority of the territory that they lost to Ukraine in the early days of the war, that the —

QUESTION: Lost to Russia.

MR MILLER: Lost to Russia. Excuse me. Thank you, Matt. That they lost to Russia in the early days of the war, the capabilities that have led them to win the battles of Kyiv and Kharkiv and Kherson and have led them to push Russia back from the Black Sea. Those are the types of policies that have shown success that we will continue to pursue.

QUESTION: Thank you. We just discussed Iran minutes ago. Russia’s Shoygu happened to be in Iran today. Do you have any evidence that the missiles that they have provided have been used on the battlefield?

MR MILLER: I don’t have an assessment to offer of them having been deployed yet. Obviously, as you heard the Secretary announce, we have seen them been – we have seen them be delivered to Iran. I do not yet have an assessment —

QUESTION: To Russia.

MR MILLER: Or Russia. Man, I’m all over the place. (Laughter.) To Russia. I do not yet have an assessment of them having been used on the battlefield.

QUESTION: And Matt, I also wanted to follow up on what you just told my colleagues about Iran’s capability – nuclear capabilities. They are – we have seen reports, and some of them are very compelling, suggesting that Iran might have nuclear capabilities before the end of this administration. If that’s true, why should we trust any word coming out of Iranian president’s mouth?

QUESTION: Thank you. I have one more on Georgia, if I may. It looks like Georgia —

MR MILLER: Let me go – only because we’re short. Let me go —

QUESTION: Thank you. U.S. has imposed sanctions on a Chinese research institute and several companies involved in supplying Pakistan’s ballistic missile program, and this is not the first time such sanctions have been imposed. What are the real reasons and concerns?

QUESTION: Sir, you call Pakistan a partner – a partner fought with the United States in war against terrorism, sacrificed more than 80,000 lives and infrastructure worth billions of dollars, and still paying a price after the pullout of American forces from Afghanistan. And in return it gets sanctions on its ballistic missile program, which is very essential for its defense capabilities. And these are the thoughts of the foreign ministry when I spoke with them this morning.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And they also said that Pakistan considers this action biased and politically motivated. What is your thought on that?

MR MILLER: So Pakistan has been a long-term partner of ours, and I think what this action shows is that there continue to be places where we have disagreement, and when we have disagreements, we won’t hesitate to act on those to protect America’s interests. It has been our longstanding policy to deny support to Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile program, and we will continue to use our sanctions and other – our other tools to ensure our national security cannot be – cannot be impacted, and that the U.S. financial system cannot be used by proliferators.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Which later date?

MR MILLER: We – these are negotiations that we have with the committee. We’ve offered a later date when he’s not traveling overseas conducting important foreign policy interests of the United States or otherwise engaged in these critical meetings that he has to do on behalf of the country. We have offered his testimony, and if they are fixated on this date, we have offered the testimony of the deputy secretary and wish – we wish that they would take yes for an answer rather than moving to this extraordinarily unnecessary and unproductive step.

QUESTION: But he will show up for a hearing? You guys are not fighting the subpoena in court?

MR MILLER: They have – we are not at that point yet. They have moved to – moved directly to contempt when we were – what we thought – we were in what we thought was the middle of the type of negotiation process that the Supreme Court has said Congress must carry out when it comes to asking for testimony from Executive Branch officials. They asked for his testimony; we told them that we would engage with them on a date. They sent a subpoena; we told them that he was traveling to work to try to secure a ceasefire on the date of their subpoena, but we would be happy to accommodate them in other ways. And they for some reason have moved to this extreme step.

I can’t explain it, but we will continue to make clear to them that we will accommodate their legitimate oversight interests to the extent we can. But when it comes to just picking one date and saying the Secretary has to be here when he has for some time planned to travel overseas to try to advance the foreign policy interests of the United States – that is not the type of legitimate accommodation process that the Supreme Court has said the Constitution requires.

QUESTION: And finally, Russian President Vladimir Putin is directing the army to add 180,000 troops, bringing the total number to 1.5 million. This would make Russia’s army the second largest worldwide, overtaking the U.S. army, which is – which is third place currently. How is the U.S. planning to respond to this move? Does this concern Western allies at all?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up on Said’s question on the school in the West Bank yesterday.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So earlier this year you announced a policy of sanctioning Israeli settlers who commit violence against Palestinians, and since then you’ve sanctioned several settlers. But you have also said that the establishment of settlements themselves in the West Bank is inconsistent with international law. And since these settlements that house extremist settlers are considered to be illegal, why aren’t any of these sanctions placed on the illegal settlements themselves? Why isn’t there a policy of sanctioning illegal settlements?

QUESTION: But if you consider them to be illegal and they are establishing more settlements as we speak, why not sanction the – since they are illegal, I don’t understand why –

MR MILLER: We have sanctioned people based on violent conduct, which is the authorities that we have under United States law. Ultimately we have a policy question about what the ultimate way is to achieve a resolution to the very difficult situation in the West Bank, and we believe the way to resolve this question ultimately is through the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, something that I know is extraordinarily difficult – it’s why some people have been working on it for decades – but that we will continue to pursue.

Guita – go to —

QUESTION: Matt, can I just make sure that you’re going to – the premise of the questions, which are completely legitimate questions, are that you believe that the settlements are illegal. That is not U.S. policy, is it?

MR MILLER: As I said, we – as I said, we believe they’re inconsistent —

QUESTION: Yeah, but you’re – they’re not —

MR MILLER: Inconsistent.

QUESTION: Yes, exactly. But you haven’t corrected him, and he said “illegal” numerous times, and you have answered such as – that you —

MR MILLER: We believe they’re —

QUESTION: That you think that they are “illegal” – quote/unquote “illegal.” And that is not the U.S. position. Right?

MR MILLER: So our position is – and I’ll just say as a note that I oftentimes don’t go around taking legal questions.

QUESTION: No, I know, but –

MR MILLER: I use my own words, and yes, we believe that they are inconsistent with international law.

Guita, go ahead.

QUESTION: A question on Türkiye. Under Secretary John Bass met with his Turkish counterpart today in Türkiye. I was wondering if you have a readout.

MR MILLER: I don’t, I’m – I apologize. I haven’t talked to Under Secretary Bass or other officials on the trip. I’m happy to take it back and get you a readout.

QUESTION: A question on Mexico. The Mexican government finally enacted this judicial reform that they – it had strong concerns from the U.S. ambassador there. Do you have any comment about this enactment?

QUESTION: Could I just pursue that?

MR MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: The ambassador said that it will affect the investor confidence. I mean, does that still – is that still the case? Is the U.S. still seeing a downward spiral, if you will, in Mexico because of these –

MR MILLER: We stand by everything the ambassador said, and what we’re going to do now is have a dialogue with our Mexican colleagues about how this law is implemented.

Jalil.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Matt. In Pakistan for the first time there is accountability of military generals going on. So we – there is one general of the intelligence who was arrested for corruption. Pakistani people and journalists are very excited, and are hoping that State Department could release the asset details of the Pakistan military generals who have them – tons of them have properties here. Can you, like, make it official?

MR MILLER: I don’t have any update on that, no.

QUESTION: Okay. But do you – is it in your notice that the same channels to transfer the money for the money laundering that they use to bring it to America, it’s the same channels the terrorists use to transfer money to each other as well? And a Pakistani guy just recently has been arrested in Canada for doing a terrorist activity.

MR MILLER: Look, we’re going to continue to enforce all U.S. laws that – as they relate to support for terrorism. But I don’t have any comment on those specifics.

QUESTION: Just a last one. Today Pakistan and Afghanistan has another very interesting diplomatic thing going on. I’m sure you’re aware about their firing each other’s soldiers. Today the Afghan diplomat in Pakistan did not stand for the Pakistani national anthem because he said that there was music with the national anthem. Do you have about these jokes going on in diplomacy in that part of the region, or no?

MR MILLER: No, I – I just don’t have any comment on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: That’s not a matter for the United States.

Go ahead, and then we’ll wrap there.

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

MR MILLER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Let me ask you on Georgia. In response to the sanctions, the prime minister of Georgia stated that this was not the decision of the State Department, but it was made by some other groups. And just now a statement was released from the prime minister’s administration indicating that – and I’m quoting – “With this decision, the American side [has drawn] closer to critical limits.” What is your response to that?

MR MILLER: Closer to who?

QUESTION: To limits.

MR MILLER: To limits. I’m not going to deal with that. I will say in the United States, unlike some countries in the world, it is the democratically elected government that makes our policy choices and no one else.

And with that, I will wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:34 p.m.)