LIVE: Department of State Daily Press Briefing (Nov. 20)

All right, good afternoon. Matt, kick us off. You had nothing? I had nothing to start with. All right, well, let's start with Ukraine today. The security alert put out by the embassy, first off, can you be more specific as to what led to that? So you're right, you saw the security alert that went out early this morning, overnight, our time. The embassy put that alert out based on a possible threat of a significant attack on Kiev, something that we take very seriously and led to the temporary change in posture at the embassy. We expect the embassy to return to normal operations tomorrow. I can't get into, obviously, the specifics of the threat, but it's something that we always monitor closely. We take the safety and security of our personnel very, it's very important to us. We take it extremely seriously, and that's what led to the change in posture today, and we expect it to resume normal operations tomorrow. Okay, well, did this threat materialize given the time here now? It's after dark now. So I'm not aware of any significant strikes that have happened yet today in Kiev, though, as you know, Ukraine has been the subject of incredibly tragically significant strikes over the last few days, and there's always a threat to more strikes. We base our security posture based on the best assessments we make of all the information available to us and try to be incredibly cautious to protect our personnel. All right, and it didn't actually result in a reduction of any staff, right? No, no, no one has left Ukraine as a result of this. There were just people that were going to come into the office that didn't come into the office today, and we expect them to come in tomorrow. Okay, and then on the landmine decision, what can you tell us about that? So I can confirm, as you heard the Secretary of Defense speak to earlier today, that we are providing the Ukrainian government with non-persistent anti-personnel landmines. We have been providing them with anti-tank landmines for some time, but this is the first time we are providing them with anti-personnel landmines. There are a few things that I think are important to note about this new provision of equipment to the Ukrainians. One is that, as you have heard the Secretary say many times, we always adapt and adjust our policies based on real-world events, and the real-world events that we have seen are Russian advances, specifically Russian infantry advances in eastern Ukraine, and these non-persistent anti-personnel landmines are designed to blunt those types of infantry advances. They are very different from the landmines that the Russians have deployed and that you have seen other militaries, including our own military, deploy decades ago. The landmines that the Russians have deployed in Ukraine—and there are somewhere around two million landmines that the Russians have deployed—will remain a threat for decades. They can go off at any time and harm not just soldiers, but civilians, and will long outlast the conflict. What that means is they are battery-powered, and the battery will expire somewhere between four hours and two weeks, at the most two weeks from when they are deployed. The landmines will be deployed, and then within two weeks, if they have not been detonated, they become inert, so they will not pose a threat to the civilian population at the end of the conflict. That said, they also have a high metal content, so they are easy to detect and easy to remove. We know Ukraine is going to have to conduct an operation at the end of the conflict to remove unexploded ordnance already, both from the two million landmines that Russia has deployed, as well as other unexploded ordnance. They have already been conducting that type of operation in some of the territory that they have recaptured, and the United States is committed to provide them $284 million to support those efforts. The Ukraine has said that Russia was trying to sow panic by circulating fake online messages about a massacring missile and drone attack. Was the temporary change in posture of the embassy a result of those messages online, or was there something more? I'm not going to speak to the information that we rely on to make our security assessments, but we always base those assessments on a broad range of factors, and we look at a number of sources of information, including open source information, including intelligence information that we have, including information that we get from our partners, and we make the best decisions possible in real time to try to protect our personnel, and we'll continue to do that. Okay, and then Ukraine has reportedly fired a volley of British Storm Shadow cruise missiles into Russia today. Do you have any information on this, and has the U.S. given a heads up? I can't speak to that. I can't confirm it. Alex, go ahead. I'll come to you next, Jane. Can you clarify about what you know? He has been under attack, missiles, drone, for weeks or more. And recently, last week. So what new do you know? What do you mean, what new do I know? I'm sorry? So as you heard me say in response to Matt's question and response to Daphne's question, we receive and look at security information from a number of sources and look at potential threats from a number of sources. We obviously don't disclose those publicly, not productive for us to do so. We had specific information that led to us to make this decision, but I'm not going to get into disclosing that here for obvious security reasons. But, and I don't think this should be a controversial statement. We have no higher priority than the protection of the Americans who work in our embassy, and we are going to continue to put their safety first. And it appears other embassies in Kiev, Italy, Greece, and Spain, special embassies also are not operating today. Is there any coordinated effort? I will let those embassies speak to their operations. And what about American citizens living in Kiev? Do you have any call on them? We have, Kiev is a do not travel area for American citizens. We have long said that American citizens should not travel to Kiev. That advice has not changed. Thank you. Please come back to me later on. Can I just follow up on the use of UK supplies to storm the Sharii missile? Sure. Is Ukraine discussing or consulting or informing the US of use of missiles provided by the UK or the US? So we consult with the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian military about a broad range of tactics that they can use to defend themselves, but I'm not going to speak publicly to the use of another country's weapons, not US provided weapons. I will defer to the governments of Ukraine and the UK to speak to that. Sorry, just to follow up on that. There are also reports that the US is thought to have provided navigation information for the use of those missiles. Can you confirm that? I'm not going to speak to that at all. Can you give us a readout of John Bass's meeting with the Ukrainian foreign minister yesterday who called for this meeting? What was the purpose? The Ukrainian foreign minister was in town, as you know. So the secretary saw the Ukrainian foreign minister last week when he was in Brussels, had a conversation with him about what we are prepared to do to ensure that Ukraine is positioned for success on the battlefield in 2025, how we can continue to support them, updated him on some very concrete steps that we are taking. And I think I'll leave it at that. The Ukrainian foreign minister was then in town yesterday. The traveling back from the G20 in Rio. So John Bass took that meeting. But it was to continue those discussions about how we can support Ukraine militarily and how we can support them diplomatically. Can I switch to the Middle East? Sure. Let me just say one thing. Are you aware of this? No, you can't. I was saying no to Jenny, you can't. This will be really quick. Are you aware of the notification of Congress going up that you're going to cancel half of Ukraine's debt? 4.65 billion? I am. And if you recall, when Congress passed the supplemental appropriations bill back in April, I think, forgetting exactly when, it contained a provision for us to elect that allowed us to provide a certain amount of economic assistance to Ukraine. And some of that economic assistance was provided in the form of loans. And we had the option under the bill to cancel those loans at our discretion. And then Congress has the option to pass a resolution of disapproval to overturn that cancellation. So we have taken the step that was outlined in the law to cancel those loans, provide that economic assistance to Ukraine. And now Congress is welcome to take it up if they wish. And if they do pass something, a resolution of disapproval, then it won't happen? So I'm going to get a little over my skis on what the law exactly calls for here. I think I would be surprised if Congress took that step given the overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress for providing assistance, but we will follow the law. It was in the last few days. I don't know when. Matt seems to be aware of it becoming public. I'm not sure exactly when we made it, but it was steps that we were taking this week. Jenny, I thought you wanted to... For Ukraine. Oh, okay. Thank you. Such a generous colleague. So rare in this room. Yeah. Jenny, this better be a Ukraine question, or Jenny's going to come back and reclaim her time. Yeah, Ukraine and North Korea. Zelensky said that 100,000 North Korean troops would be dispatched. And also Ukraine... I'm sorry, Ukraine said that... Yeah, Zelensky said 100,000 North Korean troops would be dispatched. Also, the video shown by How many casualties and wounded have North Korean soldiers suffered so far? I don't have an assessment to offer from here. The second question, the South Korean National Intelligence Service has announced that North Korean troops are being deployed to the Russian army and are participating in the war in Ukraine. It has also confirmed that North Korea is providing Russia with self-prepared artillery and rocket launchers. What do you think about this? So I don't have a further assessment to offer today than what we've said in recent days about the deployment of North Korean soldiers to Kursk. We continue to see them in Kursk. We have seen some of them begin to take part in combat operations, and that makes them legitimate targets. Anything else on Ukraine before we go? I said Ukraine. Jenny, go ahead. I'm happy to come to the Middle East, but I'm going to start with Jenny, who's next in line, next in the queue for Middle East. On the Lebanon negotiations, I know Hoxton is traveling or may have arrived in Israel. Do you feel that you have closed the gaps? Are you optimistic about potentially securing a deal in the coming days? We continue to make progress towards reaching a resolution. As you know, we almost had additional meetings with the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament before leaving Beirut for Israel. He's now going to Israel to discuss the outlines of a potential deal. We continue to believe a deal is possible. We continue to believe a deal is in the interest of all relevant parties, and we're going to continue to push to close one. Where do things stand in terms of sustaining the LAF, them relocating to secure the border? We have had important conversations with our Lebanese counterparts. That's one of the things, of course, that Amos has been discussing with them during his trip. It's one of the things that we have been discussing separate from the trip with other partners in the region and with other partners in Europe about how people can provide financial contributions to the LAF, whether they're countries that can provide training to the LAF, whether they're countries that can provide other types of operational support to the LAF to ensure that it can perform the important role that it would have to play in ensuring UN Security Council Resolution 1701 is fully implemented. Do you feel that those gaps have narrowed? Are they in a position, is it just political will at this point? I really don't think I should get into characterizing negotiations with the parties or kind of negotiating in public, so I'm going to decline to answer that one. Go ahead, and I'll come to you next, Michelle. As well as chiefs that they've given feedback on the U.S.-drafted ceasefire proposal, is any of the feedback something you'd consider non-starter? Again, I'm just not going to negotiate in public in any way about this issue. Okay, and you said that they approved the track of indirect negotiations through the Speaker of the Parliament, but rejected the notion that Israel would be able to keep striking Hezbollah even after a truce is reached. Is that something you find workable? I think, again, I'm going to rely on my previous answer. Just look, when it comes to any of the underlying provisions of a potential deal that we're still trying to get over the finish line, I don't think it helps for me to in any way comment on the shape of the deal in public. We have a special envoy who's in the region trying to negotiate those issues and get to the finish line now. Okay, and the Senate is due to vote later today on three resolutions of disapproval that could block offensive weapons sales to Israel. Backers say that Israel must do more to protect civilians and that the U.S. should not be complicit in human rights violations. What's the administration's position on these resolutions? So I would defer to the White House to speak to administration position. I don't know that they've issued a statement of administration policy, but when it comes to the underlying issue involved here, we continue to support Israel's right to defend itself. We continue to see a significant threat from Iran, both directly—we've seen Iran launch two rounds of attacks against Israel—and indirectly through its proxies in the region. Okay, and then just on the U.N. Security Council vote this morning, your allies, France, which has hostages held in Gaza, and the U.K. both said the resolution firmly calls for the release of hostages. And to most people reading it, there's little difference between this language and what you abstained on in March. So why did the U.S. feel the need to block the resolution? So it's a good question. The resolution does call for the release of hostages. What it doesn't do is link the release of hostages to an immediate, unconditional ceasefire. And we have made clear throughout this process that we cannot support a resolution that calls for an unconditional, immediate ceasefire and delinks it from the release of hostages. There are still seven American citizens who are being held hostage in Gaza, and we are not going to walk away from them. And so we worked in good faith for several weeks to try to get to yes on this resolution, to try to get to a resolution that we can vote for. As you know, we have voted for a resolution in the Security Council resolution already this year that called for a ceasefire, but it called for a ceasefire with the release of hostages. And that is our position. We firmly believe in it because we want to see those hostages come home. And I would kind of turn the question around and ask, why is it that the countries pushing this resolution couldn't actually link the two? Why they wouldn't agree to link the ceasefire to the release of hostages? What is it to the release? What is it about the release of hostages that they wouldn't support when linked to a ceasefire? It seems to us, plain common sense, that if there's going to be a ceasefire, the Hamas shouldn't get to continue to hold the hostages. And so we want to see the two linked, and that will continue to be our position. We will continue to look for ways to find consensus with other countries on the UN Security Council. But because of that language, it's not, this resolution is not something we can support. But as you pointed out earlier this morning, this resolution did contain a call for release of hostages. What was defective about it? The defective is that they were not linked. We believe it's important that you get a ceasefire, you get a ceasefire that secures the release of hostages. And we proposed a number of different formulations that would link the two, and that would call for a ceasefire that includes the release of hostages. And I don't understand, hold on, let me just say, I don't understand what could be objectionable about that language. Well, right. Well, no, but I guess the point is, other people don't understand what could be objectionable about the language that you just vetoed. What is objectionable to us is that it calls for an immediate ceasefire and the immediate release of hostages. It calls for an immediate ceasefire. And we don't think that Hamas, if you get, because let's be clear about when people talk about an immediate ceasefire, what they mean is they mean for Israel to immediately stop fighting. You think Hamas is going to respect the UN Security Council resolution calling for the release of hostages? No, we don't think they are at all. Because we think they ought to be linked together, because then you get international support. Hold on, you can get international support, get the backing of every country in the world behind this proposal, behind this position, which is the one that the president outlined back in May, that we did get a Security Council resolution that we supported. I think that's an incredibly powerful way for the world to speak, and we're disappointed we couldn't do it here. Well, yeah, okay, but so what would have been, I guess, would you prefer that the hostage release be put in the sentence before the ceasefire? We think it needs to be linked together, that the ceasefire... But how much more linked can they be? You could say, for example, so we put together a bunch of different, bunch of alternative formulations of the language. I'll just give you one here, a ceasefire that secures the release of hostages, a ceasefire and... And you propose that language and people... Maybe not that exact language. We proposed a number of different formulations of the language that were not accepted, and I, for the life of me, can't understand why they weren't accepted if the parties, backing the resolution, really wanted to get to something that could pass the Security Council. Michel. Yeah, I think we can answer a couple of questions on Lebanon. Do you think that Israel has achieved its military goals there and they're ready to withdraw? So I will let Israel speak to assessing its military objectives. I will say that on behalf of the United States, what we have seen is them accomplish a number of important objectives. When you look at what they outlined at the opening of this conflict, when they said they wanted to go into Lebanon to clear out Hezbollah infrastructure close to the border, we have seen them over the course of the last couple months really be quite effective in clearing out Hezbollah infrastructure close to the border, which is why we believe we're in the place that we can get a diplomatic resolution now. They have pushed Hezbollah back and I think it's important to have a diplomatic resolution that allows the Lebanese armed forces to come in and effectively patrol the area in southern Lebanon to prevent further Hezbollah, or I should say a return of Hezbollah forces. And do you have any guarantees from Israel that they will withdraw from the south? You know, that gets to the underlying issues in the proposal. I'm just not going to speak to them here. It's still under negotiation. And what role will the US play in this agreement? Are you ready to send American troops to Lebanon to observe the implementation of the deal? So I respect the continued attempts to get me to talk about underlying issues in the proposal. And you should not read one way or the other my refusal to comment on them to be an endorsement or rejection of any of the things that are put before me here. It's just I'm going to draw a bright line that when it comes to this proposal that's under negotiation now, I just don't think I should be commenting on it. Finally, how will the US guarantee that Hezbollah won't receive the arms from Iran through Syria in the future? So again, there's a proposal that we are working that I'm not going to comment on. But of course, the supply of arms through Syria into Lebanon is something that has been a great source of destabilization for Lebanon and has been a source of great destabilization for the region. It's something we're incredibly focused on. Thank you. So today at the IAEA, Mr. Grossi said that one of the fruits of his visit to Tehran was Iranian agreeing to cap its stock of 60% uranium. And he said that it's Iran moving in the right direction. Do you share that assessment with Mr. Grossi? Let me take that back and get you an answer. Okay, second one. Are you willing to give Iran a chance and not to push for resolution along with the E3 censure in Iran for non-compliance? So we continue to stay tightly coordinated with our E3 partners. I don't have any announcements to make today. But we're working with them and strongly support efforts to hold Iran accountable. So a yes or a no for tomorrow on their voting? Come back tomorrow. I'm not going to preview it from here. It's an action that hasn't taken place yet. Back to the sanctions you announced on Hamas members yesterday, including the ones in Turkey. A report suggests that these individuals were transferred to Turkey as part of the 2011 Gulag-Shelek prisoner exchange deal, which was mediated by the United States and the UNACR. And according to Turkish sources, this transfer was made at your request in 2011. So could you please provide a clarification or elaborate on this? So I would say with respect to sanctions, that is an issue separate and apart from any prisoner exchange deal. Members of Hamas who are engaging in terrorist activities are sanctionable, whether or not they were ever part of a prisoner deal. But can you confirm that if you impose sanctions on individuals who were transferred to Turkey in 2011 at your request, is that something you can confirm? No, I'm not going to. So I wasn't around here in 2011. I can't speak to the substance of that deal. But what I can tell you is that it's really a separate question. Someone that's part of a prisoner exchange deal, which I'm not confirming because I don't know the specifics of it, but let's just stipulate that it were true for a minute. That does not in any way give them a free pass to get out of sanctions for supporting terrorist activities 13 years down the road. Who is supporting these? The members of Hamas that we designated yesterday, we designated for being involved in terrorist activities. Yeah, thank you. But yesterday I asked you about the letter that the Israeli foreign minister sent to the UN. And soon after yesterday, the Iraqi prime minister chaired an emergency meeting, ministerial for national security. And in a statement, publicly, they said that we do urge the United States, in cooperation with Iraq, to take decisive steps under the third section of the strategic framework agreement between you and Iraq to help Iraq in self-defending and counter these threats on Iraq, which he means threats coming from Israel. How do you respond to this request from Iraq? So I'll take that back and get you an answer. I have not reviewed that specific letter. And then there are reports in the region that said that the United States has informed Baghdad that Israel's strikes on Iraq are imminent. And you are exhausted from all the pressures you have put on Israel to not attacking Iraq. If the Iraqi government is not taking swift actions against these militia groups, then they will attack Iraq and you are no longer be able to stop them from doing this. I'm just not going to comment on speculative reports in the press. It's been 296 days since the Israeli forces killed Hamid Raab, the Maxim Saber family members. What update do you have on this investigation? I don't have an update today. Okay. So if there is no update on the case that's... Well, remember, I mean, the reason we don't have an update in the case, I think, you know, the last time we talked about this, I talked to you about what we had found in talking to the various parties in the region, which is the Israelis say that they reached out to the relevant NGOs for information. The NGOs failed to provide that. I can't speak on behalf of either of the Israelis or the NGOs about what is true and what isn't, but that's what we've been told by the parties. Right. Yes, yes, yes. And as we've discussed, when we reached out to those parties, they... Correct. I can't speak to the veracity of that on behalf of either party. Right. But given this uncertainty in the air of weapons that the US has sent to Israel, how can the US be prepared to send more of the same rounds Israel reportedly used to kill in their job if all these days later, it can't get to some sort of conclusion on such a woman? Well, again, just with respect to the premise, I think there is an underlying factual dispute that I can't speak to. So I think we need to... But let's set aside the premise of the question for a minute and just get into the overall question. We continue to support Israel's right to defend itself against a persistent threat from Iran and Iran's terrorist proxies. Now, at the same time, we continue to insist that Israel take all precautions to minimize civilian harm, to protect civilians. And I do think it's always worth pointing out that they are operating in a really unprecedented battlefield where they're having to fight against a terrorist enemy that hides behind civilians and hides underneath civilian homes and buildings. It doesn't minimize Israel's responsibility, but it makes it extremely difficult. But this dispute is... The point is not that the factual dispute is something that is a concern to the US if it is giving weapons to a country for which it's unclear what happened when they killed civilians. Is that not part of the point? So the factual dispute with respect to this one incident, but there are a number of incidents of civilian harm, of course. This has been a tragic war, a horrific war that has left thousands and thousands of civilians dead. And the human toll has been an absolute catastrophe, which is why we continue to insist that Israel do more despite the tough conditions that they face. But it's also why we have put the diplomatic efforts of the United States behind trying to end this war and trying to get a ceasefire that would lead to the release of hostages and would lead to an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. And that's what we're going to continue to try to do because this human toll has really been horrific and because we want to see a lasting security situation that doesn't just end the war for a week or for a month, but that provides lasting security for both Israelis and Palestinians. So you talk about these broad efforts to encourage the Israeli government to minimize civilian toll, as you say, in a tough environment. How can the government take these suggestions or demands seriously if they are, in effect, suggestions? For instance, just we saw last week after a 30-day deadline that the U.S. gave Israel to improve conditions in Gaza, eight humanitarian organizations found that about 15 of those demands were failures or were insufficient. So let me just cut you off there because I know it's a long question, but if you're referring to the scorecard that humanitarian groups put out last week, there were a number of, just look through, they went through and had like red light, green light, they had a number of different assessments. There were a number of those that were just factually wrong. For example, they said that the Mawassi humanitarian zone had not been expanded. In fact, it has been expanded by around 25%. They said that there had been no progress on humanitarian pauses. In fact, pauses are being instituted. Now we want to see pauses longer, but there are some factual things wrong about that scorecard. So we ought to set the record straight before going off the question. So was that deadline for progress or for achievements? The deadline was to see both, in fact, and we did see significant progress and we saw new achievements at the end of that letter. I think that people have, in some senses, misunderstood why we sent that letter. We sent that letter to introduce a sense of urgency to the situation and to produce action. And it has produced action. We have seen Israel take steps, 12 of the 15 areas, and I went through some of those the last couple days. I don't think I need to go through all of them here again, though I'm happy to if I need to. And there are other things that we continue to press and take more progress on. Now, what we really want to see is that progress actually translate to results on the ground which means trucks getting to people and they're having to get to people in a difficult security situation where trucks are being looted. And we want to see it sustained and that's what we continue to focus on. The people in northern Gaza who are on the brink of famine, they're just supposed to look at this progress? So there have been trucks that have been going into northern Gaza because of the U.S. intervention in this matter, because of the letter that we sent. For weeks there were no trucks going to northern Gaza. You were correct about that. And that's one of the sent the letter because we found that situation to be unacceptable. And as a result of our intervention, Israel began to again allow trucks to go into northern Gaza, including in the areas where there's direct fighting that had been closed off for weeks. That happened because of the letter we sent. Finally, just what does it say that such consistent intervention is needed for a key ally to allow even the potential avoidance? It says that we need to stick at it and we're going to stick to it. Go ahead. I don't have any assessment on it. That would be deeply concerning if true though. We have made clear to the government of Azerbaijan that they need to respect the rights of journalists to go about their, to conduct their jobs. There was a letter written to the Secretary from the Hill on behalf of Kobani Batoglu last week. Do you have any response to the letter? We will respond to the members with the letter, not publicly. And was the COP 29 a missed opportunity? In terms of what? So we continue to press on our advocacy for human rights issues is not connected to any one conference. It's something that happens on a daily basis here. It started before COP. We'll continue after COP. Go ahead, Jalil. It's my first question in this transition period, which I call repentance. Thank you so much. I first want to apologize to you if I have. That's okay. Let's just skip through the drama and get to the question. I'm sorry. I passed the question. I passed it. Please go ahead. I don't want. After these beautiful words, I don't want to ask even a question. Secretary Blinken is on the Hill today. Do you expect him to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the coming weeks? So we have been in communication with the House Foreign Affairs Committee. As you know, back before Congress left for its recess, we made clear that the Secretary would be willing to testify, was willing to testify, would remain willing to testify that they didn't need to send us a subpoena. He was happy to come testify voluntarily. We just had a scheduling dispute with them. We remain in communication with them. We've been in communication with them about that question in the last few days to make clear that the Secretary is willing to come testify as he has a number of times. We're working that out with the committee now. On Venezuela, what changed to prompt Secretary Blinken to call Edmundo Gonzalez the president-elect? So we've, over the last several months, have been giving Maduro time to show progress. Maduro came out and said that he won the election. Obviously, we did not see any evidence to support that and saw evidence to the contrary. We have been calling on him for a number of months, along with other countries in the region and other countries around the world to produce results. He has not produced the results. He has not produced the evidence. And so at this point, we thought it was appropriate to note that Edmundo Gonzalez not only won the most votes, but as a product of winning the most votes as the president-elect of Venezuela. Does that have anything to do with the fact that we're in a two-month lame duck period? And will we see any punitive measures on the Maduro government to try to force him? It has nothing to do with us being at the end of the administration. It has to do with the fact that we were letting some time go by to see if the international pressure that other countries and the United States were putting on Maduro would lead to a change in posture on his part. It has not, so we're going to call the facts as we see them. And in terms of other actions, as you know, we never preview those before we take them. Or I should say seldom preview those before we take them. Thank you, Matt. According to the US Congressional Research Report, Hezbollah continues to hold 13 out of 128 parliamentary seats and controls access to parts of Lebanon and operates inside the country with relative impunity. Given this US Congressional Research Report, Hezbollah enmeshed with the Lebanese government, what is your response to concerns of the Lebanese people and the government responsible for providing Hezbollah terrorists a home base to attack Israel? I don't think it's any secret that we have been incredibly concerned about the role that Hezbollah plays inside Lebanon. And that's why you have seen us continue to support Israel's right to defend itself. It's why you've seen us continue to call for strengthening Lebanese institutions and we'll continue to do that. Well, how can Lebanon be considered faultless given this congressional report? So what we are focused on is trying to get an end to the conflict and to strengthen Lebanon's institutions over the long term so Hezbollah can't play such an important role. I don't think it's appropriate to paint with a broad brush the entire population of Lebanon because there is a terrorist organization inside the country that has been holding their future aspirations hostage for a number of years now. So we're going to continue to work to try and reduce Hezbollah's power in the region. We're going to continue to work to try to cut off Hezbollah's funding sources and we continue to try to work for a secure future for the Lebanese and Israeli people. And what about the Lebanese government still allowing Hezbollah to exist in the government and not getting them out of Lebanon? I think allow is probably not the right way to put that to frame it. Do you want to come back to your question? Go ahead. I'm born in the nursery of journalism so please don't say drama. It's okay, just if you have a question. I'm sorry, if you have a question. I only have two questions. One of them is that in Pakistan recently this federal government organization issued that using a VPN is a sin. At the same time the interior minister has said that anybody, any student who participates in the political rally of Imran Khan, their ID cards will be cancelled, their admission in colleges will be cancelled. Anything you have to say about this? I'm not aware of those specific reports. We continue to believe it's important that Pakistan uphold the fundamental human rights of all of its people. Just one more, sir. And this again is purely a human rights question, I swear to you. Pakistan, whatever I have been seeing as a journalist for 25 years, is purely a human rights issue that I've raised to you. In Palestine on the 10th day I only said that because I saw witness Afghanistan war myself. So I know how the U.S. was treating the people of Afghanistan. It was not the way Israel helped. And the same thing with Afghanistan. My sisters are the first girls who attended college. So for me girls' education is a very personal matter. All these three areas are some of the things I feel like Biden lost the administration because of simply these human rights things that your foreign policy ignored and I raised it in front of you. Do you agree that all these factors have a human rights issue that was ignored? You said lost the administration. Did you mean lost the election? Yes. Look, I'm not going to comment on electoral results. It wouldn't be appropriate for me. Hold on. Let me just finish. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to do so here. But we have put the human rights at the forefront of our policy since day one of this administration and we'll continue to do so. Thank you so much. Yeah, of course. So due to Ukraine's military actions in the past few days, there's been an increased threat of consequences by Russia, not only against the U.S., but also NATO in general, even though NATO is not taking any collective action right now. Do you take this seriously and are you discussing these kinds of threats of consequences by Russia with NATO allies at the moment? So we continue to closely coordinate with our NATO allies about a range of threats that Russia presents both to European security through its aggression, not just in Ukraine, but remember this is a country that also invaded another one of its neighbors, Georgia, and continues to occupy Georgia as it continues to occupy Ukraine. And we continue to discuss with our NATO allies asymmetric threats that Russia makes around Europe and that we have seen in some cases come to fruition around Europe. And what we do with our allies and partners is work to counter those threats and work to hold Russia accountable. And you've seen us hold Russia accountable both by supplying Ukraine with the equipment and the material it needs to hold them accountable on the battlefield, but also with our unprecedented sanctions that we have imposed with our partners around the world. So is U.S. and maybe NATO in general ready, can you say ready for the consequences that's been actually put forward by Russia in the past few days, specifically the past few days? Look, I'm not going to comment on every comment that we hear out of the Russian government, some of which are completely inappropriate to the situation at hand. I will say, and Russia knows this, that NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO does not threaten Russia. NATO, this conflict did not start because NATO was looking for war with Russia. NATO continues to not look for war with Russia. It is a defensive alliance and will continue to be so. Can I follow on Ukraine? Thank you. Good afternoon to you. Back to the anti-personnel landmines that the U.S. will be giving Ukraine, you mentioned non-persistent. Earlier this year, does the State Department agree with that description, insidious? The traditional landmines and the landmines that Russia has deployed across Ukraine, the reason they're so damaging is because of the threat they can pose to civilian populations for years after the conflict. The situation here could not be more different from that. Ukraine has committed to only use these mines in non-civilian areas. And remember, we're talking about conflict that is in Ukraine, so they have an interest to use them in non-civilian areas, where areas that civilians are not. But they're also mines, unlike the ones that people usually have in their mind when they make those types of comments. These are mines that are going to be inert and deactive in at the most two weeks from now. So these don't pose a threat to civilian communities when they come back into an area after the end of a war, and you find them stepping on a landmine that they didn't know was there and shouldn't have been in their community. This is a much different situation. Do you have any information or assessment regarding claims by Asif Mahmood, an advisor to the Bangladesh interim government, about preparation for an armed revelation? Additionally, are there concerns about a potential source of arms or the implication of such statements for region stability? I haven't seen that statement at all. I wouldn't want to comment on it. How does the United States view the increasing incidence of assault and legal counsel within court premises across Bangladesh, including the recent attack on the defense lawyer of a senior leader, Amir Hussein Amu? What is the U.S. position on the broader implication of human rights, legal protection, and the rule of law in Bangladesh? Our position with respect to human rights in Bangladesh is the same under this government as it was under the previous government. We want to see the human rights of the Bangladeshi people upheld, full stop. Finally, there are reports that the interim governments in Bangladesh are considering removing secularism from their constitution, which could significantly impact the country's democratic framework and minority rights. What is your comment on that? I just don't have a comment on that. Thank you. Thank you very much. As this administration is about to complete its tenure, are you confident to say that you did enough measures to address the concerns of your partners, specifically the partner who is your partner in Bar and Terror Pakistan, who claimed many times that weapons were left in Afghanistan? I just missed it. Which partner are you referring to? Pakistan. So they claim many times they raised this matter in the U.N. that weapons U.S. left in Afghanistan, or the Taliban are using that. And this is not just a defense side, defense cooperation, but on the diplomatic side, you also see in these four years' terms, a visible diplomatic downgrade was there. Your top of the secretaries and representatives, they just overlooked, they just ignored most of the things. The most recent visit that we observed was Secretary Lew. He visited India and Bangladesh, but not Pakistan. So the last one and a half months, do you have something for Pakistan and any better chances, specifically in diplomatic measures? Look, I'm not going to preview any actions that we might take over the next two months, but as you have heard me say before, we are committed to using every day of our time in office to advance all of the important priorities that the President has set forward. Pakistan continues to be an important partner of the United States, and we expect that to continue for the next two months. All right, go here, and then we'll wrap up. Thank you, Matthew. I was just curious, where do things stand with Iran's nuclear program, and what steps is the U.S. taking to try to mitigate that program? So we continue to be committed to ensuring that Iran never achieves a nuclear weapon. We continue to work with our allies and partners to ensure that's the case, and that will be our policy through the last day of the administration. Is that something, though, where you guys are kind of passing that down to the next administration? Because it seems like the progress is still being made. So this is a threat that has existed through a number of administrations, right? This threat existed when we came into office. It existed when the previous President came into office. As long as Iran continues to enrich uranium in the way that it does, we will be committed to holding them accountable for those actions. And with that, we'll wrap for today. Thanks.