State Department Briefing With Matthew Miller

Good afternoon, everyone. Sorry to be so late. I think you understand. Things rolled out. I thought you were waiting until the Secretary finished. He finished with his opening remarks and then is going through giving awards now. He was still speaking when we got the two. Anyway, doesn't matter. When I looked on the YouTube feed, he was not still speaking. So maybe you were on a delayed feed, the one that we were watching. Oh, the one on state.gov? Is that a delayed feed these days? Maybe it's buffered on the AP version of it. Not the AP version. The one that we were watching inside the office, he was finished. All right. Either here or there. Let me start with some opening comments. Secretary Blinken has been on the phone today with a number of his counterparts in the Middle East about the situation in Syria. He has so far today spoken with Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ex-Patriots Amman Safadi, Emirati Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nayan, Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, and Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdullahi. These calls followed his conversation yesterday afternoon with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fedan. In these calls, the Secretary has underscored the points he made in a statement he released earlier today, that the United States fully supports a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition that leads to credible, inclusive, and non-sectarian governance. He has also outlined several principles that we believe should be upheld during the transition process and formation of a new government. Respect for the rights of minorities, facilitation of humanitarian assistance, the prevention of Syria from being used as a base for terrorism or posing as a threat to its neighbors, securing and safely destroying any chemical weapons stockpiles. The Secretary has also reiterated in these conversations that all nations should support an inclusive and transparent process and refrain from interference, and made clear that the United States will recognize and fully support a future Syrian government that results from this process. As you have heard the President and the Secretary say over the past couple of days so far, Hayat Tayyar al-Sham is using the right words, but we will, of course, judge them not by those words, but by their actions over the coming days, the coming weeks, the coming months. The Secretary will continue his engagements with counterparts in the region over the coming days and discuss the principles he outlined in his statement further. And of course, he will continue to emphasize in all of these conversations that the United States ongoing support for the Syrian people throughout this transition. With that, Matt Lee. Right. Thanks, Matt. I have one thing I just want to ask you about this statement that came out just before the Human Rights Ceremony about the authority for visa bans against people who are officials, authorities who are involved in the wrongful detention of people. Don't you have the authority to do that already? This was outlining, we had under a different authority to do it in some circumstances, but this was kind of refining and expanding our ability to use those authorities with respect to wrongful detentions. I'm happy to get you a more detailed. Please do, because I just don't understand why adding a layer of, I mean, it seems to me. It refers to the way we exercise those authorities under different provisions of the law, and I'm happy to get you a technical expert to talk about that. But I mean, it just seems kind of pointless, since you already have this authority. You've used it before, and so I don't understand why you need to be using it. I can guarantee you this was explained to me. It's a very detailed technicality under the law. I want to go to Syria. Can you explain to me this whole idea of when you say you're prepared to recognize a new Syrian leadership that does these specific things that you've outlined? Whatever happened to the old, what had been a mantra for decades, that you don't recognize governments, you recognize states? And what does it mean that you would recognize a new leadership that meets these criteria? So I don't think I'm qualified to speak to a State Department mantra that dates back decades, since I've not been here for all that time. But I can tell you when we speak to this, what we mean is, look, you have seen this group, HTS, take control of some of the levers of power. You have seen them work to name an acting prime minister. And the United States does not have standing diplomatic relations with Syria, right? We withdrew our embassy a number of years ago. We recognize Syria as a state. We have not recognized HTS as the governing authority in Syria. We have not recognized them as the government of Syria. And so what we are making clear is, before we recognize a government of Syria, a particular government of Syria, these are the steps that we think are important to be followed. OK, and what would that recognition entail? Reopening the embassy? So I don't want to get ahead of the process. We're obviously not there. This isn't something that's going to happen overnight. There needs to be a Syrian-led process that plays out over the coming weeks. But we thought it was important, on behalf of the United States, because we do have a number of authorities that we have exercised with respect to Syria over the past decade-plus, especially with sanctions, but also with our diplomatic relations. We thought it was important that we make clear what we think are the principles that should be upheld during this transition process and during the formation of a new government. Right. Are you aware of any other country where you recognize a state that you don't recognize the government, other than perhaps Venezuela? Well, Venezuela, certainly, that was going to be the one I was going to mention beyond that. What happened when the US recognized Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela? I would refer you to a spokesman for the previous administration for an answer to that, because that happened during their time in office, not ours. Yeah, but I'm asking you what recognition means. I mean, that recognition of Guaido in Venezuela didn't result in the reopening of the embassy? It didn't result in the reopening. It's a very different situation, because that is a different situation when you have a figure who we recognize as the government, but actually isn't in control of the levers of power. You would have a different situation, potentially, here, where you have an entity that is in control, at least, of some of the levers of power inside Syria right now, certainly not all of them. So it's a different situation. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you mean. I mean, the Taliban, you never recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, and yet Afghanistan was recognized as a state. I don't think it's that complicated. You have seen the United States and other countries around the world refrain from, certainly in periods of transition, refrain from recognizing governments for extended periods of time, in some circumstances, and withhold recognition of new governments. And what we are making clear is these are the principles that we think ought to be pursued on behalf of the Syrian people before the United States would take that step. OK, and then lastly on Syria, is there any new information about Austin Tice? And can you give us any updates on Barbara Leith and John Bass? So I know Barbara and John are still in the region. I talked to them earlier today. I actually don't believe they're still in Jordan, but I can't. It wasn't a video conference. It was by phone, so I don't know exactly where they are. But I believe they're still in Jordan. They are still in the region. As it relates to Austin Tice, I don't have any new information to offer today. We do continue to believe that he is alive, and we continue to make clear in all of our conversations, either with entities on the ground in Syria or with entities that may be in communication with those on the ground in Syria, that we have no higher priority than the safe return of Austin Tice to his family. I'm just wondering if you have had any direct contacts with the rebel group HTS, and if you're looking to have direct contacts with them. Are you still going through different channels there, notably Turkey? I don't have any contacts to speak to from here, and I'm going to refrain. I think, other than speaking at a high level about our priorities and that we have ways to communicate with all of the relevant entities, at least indirectly, in some cases directly. I should note that HTS, of course, is only one of a number of groups who are players in the Syrian political scene. I'm not going to speak to them in detail from here. We have the ability to get messages to every one of the relevant groups inside Syria and let them know what our priorities are. And you've seen the political principles that we released today that we think ought to guide the transition process and formation of a new government. We have, of course, other priorities as well, the return of Austin Tice, ensuring that ISIS can't use this opportunity to seize new territory and launch attacks on American interests, preventing the conflict from spilling over beyond the borders of Syria to neighboring countries. We have the ability to make those concerns known to all of the groups, but I'm not going to speak to individual contacts. But can you say that you're looking to have direct contacts with what you actually designated as a terrorist group? So just to confirm one thing I spoke to yesterday, there is no legal barrier to us speaking to a designated terrorist group. We have the authority to do that under US law. That said, I'm just not going to get into individual conversations. We have made clear, I'll leave it at this, we have made clear to all of the relevant parties inside Syria what our priorities are, both in the immediate term and what our priorities are over the intermediate term for the transition process and the formation of a new government. Now, this is a question the Secretary called for an inclusive process, non-sectarian, protecting minorities, pretty high, ambitious goals. How do you plan to use your leverage as the United States to get those effectively done, and then to have the rebel group form a government that is respecting those criteria? Let me speak to this really in three buckets. First of all, it's just to say that it is important. I will get to the question about US influence and how we can use our influence in this question. But it is important to remember, first and foremost, that this needs to be a Syrian-led process, and it is not one that can or should be imposed from outside Syria by any country, by any foreign party. That, of course, includes the United States and includes other countries in the region as well. That's the first thing that I think bears always repeating when it comes to discussing this issue. The second thing is we are going to consult with our partners in the region, as the Secretary already has been by phone, to try and drive alignment on some of the principles that you saw us outline. Because we think it's important that all parties sign up for these principles. We think they're principles that really should gather widespread support inside Syria and outside Syria as well. And then third, look, as I said in response to Matt's question, the US has imposed a number of sanctions on Syria. We have suspended diplomatic relations with Syria. We have made quite clear for some time that Syria should not be treated as a normal country. You saw us object to the readmission of Syria to the Arab League before Assad had taken any of the steps that the Arab League and other countries had called on him to take to engage with other political actors inside Syria. So we have all of those various authorities and abilities at our disposal. And we will make clear to all the relevant actors inside Syria that these are the kind of steps that we want to see them take before we consider a change in United States policy. And just last question, how do you square, when you said that it has to be a Syrian-led process inside Syria, how do you square that with the fact that everyone in the region and outside is involved right now precisely in this process? So first of all, how is it going to be Syrian-led when you have Turkey on one side? So it is a great question. And the real answer to it is that you don't start from zero with this. All of the actors inside Syria, all of the actors inside the region, have to deal with the long history of what came before. And there's been a very brutal civil war in which you had a number of internal actors, at times supported by external forces as well. And all of that needs to be dealt with going forward. But that's why we outlined these principles, to make clear that despite everything that has preceded where we are today, what principles ought to guide the formation of a new government going forward are kind of the opposite of what Bashar al-Assad used to guide the country and led us to this situation. So respect for minorities inside the country, the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, something that we saw the Assad regime block on a number of different occasions, the prevention of Syria being used as a base for terrorism or a threat to its neighbors. All of those are principles that we think are important, as well, as I said, the other countries refraining from external interference. Can I follow up on that? Go ahead. I'll come to you. HTS specifically, you said they're saying the right things, but it depends on what their actions are in the coming period. Are they saying those things publicly, but have they communicated that to the United States? You know, I'm not going to speak to private conversations. I think here's what I'll say. So as they moved into Damascus over the coming days, the leaders of HTS have been having a number of conversations with parties in the region. Obviously, they have a longstanding relationship with the government of Turkey, but they have relationships with other countries, as well, and they have been having conversations with different countries. And one of the reasons the Secretary had these series of calls today was not just to lay out the United States principles, but as he does in all of these calls, he wants to listen to what these other foreign ministers have heard in their conversations among the region. Of course, that would include what HTS is saying. Now, I'm not going to read those out publicly, but we are, as well, listening to hear what they say privately. But ultimately, it matters much less what they say privately and what they say publicly than what they do going forward. We have seen over the years any number of militant groups who have seized power, who have promised that they would respect minorities, who have promised that they would respect religious freedom, or would promise that they would govern in an inclusive way, and then see them fail to meet those promises. So we really do mean it when we say what's important is watching how they actually behave in the coming weeks. And so this foreign terrorist designation, HTS seems to have installed this interim leader, Mohammed al-Bashir. My understanding is he's been an administrator in areas that they've controlled. Does the US consider him sort of part of HTS for the purposes of the terrorist designation? I don't have any assessment. I'd have to go. It would be really a fact-based assessment. And if there are people that have done it inside our department, I'm not aware of it. So I don't have any assessment of what we consider him to be or not to be. And you said it doesn't stop you from talking to people. But just to be clear, if there is an interim government formed with members of HTS who passed that test, there will be some limitations on how the US can assist. Certainly. We're getting into the realm of hypotheticals. But certainly, if an organization is a designated foreign terrorist organization, we don't have the ability. No one has the ability under US law to offer support for such an organization. That's different, of course, than communicating with them. And you mentioned in relation to Austin Tice that this is part of your conversations with entities on the ground. Could you say specifically that that's like a message that you've sent to HTS, that Austin Tice is a priority? It is a message that we have sent to HTS. I'm not going to speak to direct communications. But in all of our communications with parties that we know talk to HTS, we have sent very clearly the message that as they move through Syria liberating prisons, that our top priority is the return of Austin Tice. And we want anyone who is operating on the ground in Syria to be on the lookout for him. And if so, if they do find him, to help return him to us safely and as soon as possible. Has HTS provided any reassurance on that particular point? I think at this point, I probably ought to draw the line and not get into underlying details. Yeah, Syed. Yeah, I mean, a lot of sentiments have been expressed, such as Syrian-led smooth transition, unified Syria, although we are seeing it being dismembered before our eyes and so on. But nobody speaks of the Israeli attacks. 300, they struck 300 military sites. So why is that? Why are you not talking about what Israel is doing to Syria, what it has done to Syria in the last 24 hours? Destroyed the Navy, destroyed all the air force, and did all that. Is the purpose, and that's my question, is the purpose to have a demilitarized Syria, disarmed Syria? I will let Israel speak to its own operations and what it is they are trying to accomplish. I will say that on behalf of the United States, we're going to discuss these matters with them privately before I opine on them publicly. I would say that broadly speaking, we of course don't want to see any action that makes a Syrian-led process more difficult and we ultimately want to see a peaceful process forward, not an escalation of the conflict. So you think, what you're saying is that what Israel is doing, whether it's conquering the rest of the Golan and so on, the attack that it's conducting, it is like 35 kilometers from Damascus and so on, that is a private matter? So is that a private matter? Is that an Israeli decision? No, so first of all, let me just point out, with respect to the location of Israeli forces, and I'm not attesting one way or the other. I know there are conflicting claims about where they are and they have strenuously denied that they are close to Damascus. They have said that their forces on the ground are in the buffer zone and I spoke to this at length yesterday. But no, but when it comes to their operations, I think it's appropriate for us to speak to them privately first, ascertain what it is they're doing before we opine on that publicly. They're a close ally of ours and that's what we're going to do. Yeah, but so, you know, just one more on this. So is it the wish of the United States of America to see a Syria that is disarmed, that does not have an army, does not have an air force, that probably has militias like this? Is that the purpose in the end? We do not want to see, that probably has militias? Is that what you're saying? No, I'm just saying, you know, you probably, we do not want to see, that one's easy. We do not want to see a Syria that has militias. Look, ultimately, so, so, so you laid out the principle and one of the things that you heard us say is we want to see Syria that's not a base for terrorism, it's not a base for terrorist organizations, not to say that every militia, of course, is a terrorist organization. But no, sorry, give me a second. We have outlined the principles that we think ought to guide Syria as it goes forward. Beyond that, these are questions for the Syrian people to have to answer as it relates to what type of government they are going to form, what type of military they are going to maintain. And when it comes to the actions that Israel has taken over the past 24 hours, like I said, let us have these conversations with them privately. I know that this is obviously not our last press briefing that we are going to hold in the Department of State. We will have more to say at a later time. My last question on this point. Would you call from this podium or any other podium on Israel to cease and desist from its military attacks on Syria? Sayyid, this is basically the same question you asked me in another four minutes. Sayyid, let me answer the question. You asked the same question, you are going to get the same answer. That's how it's going to go. So I do think it's appropriate this time for us to have that conversation with them, find out what it is actually that they are trying to accomplish. And then after we have done that, we will certainly have more to say. Okay. You said you wanted to talk to the Israeli privately. But Netanyahu himself said that we have destroyed 70 to 80% of the Syrian army assets. So that will set the military capabilities of the new government to decades to come. So how are they supposed to defend themselves if they have a chance to become a sovereign, stable power in the region? First of all, my position on this has not changed from 30 seconds ago when Sayyid asked the underlying question. No, no, Nadia, let me just finish. Nadia, Nadia, please let me finish. I swear to you I will not interrupt the question if you pay me the same respect and not interrupt my answer. So I'm just not gonna speak to an operation that we haven't had the ability to have an in-depth discussion with them about yet. I think that's appropriate. We wanna learn more about what they're trying to do. We wanna learn more about the facts and then we'll certainly have more to say about it. Look, when it comes to the provision of weapons inside Syria, I don't think that one of the challenges facing people inside Syria right now is a shortage of weapons inside Syria. If you look at the civil war of the last 13 years now, if anything, there has been a surplus of weapons and munition on the ground in Syria. But that said, to respond to your question, I think it's appropriate that we take our time and assess this before we have more to say. Okay, in the statement that the Secretary released this morning, it says that they're calling on the transitional government to secure both chemical and biological weapons. So, how are these people, who are they he's calling on? How are these people who haven't even formed a government, how are they supposed to secure these weapons? And second, would you entertain that in this case, like a UN team mandated by the Security Council will go to Syria and secure these weapons? So, a few things about that. Number one, it is the responsibility of those who are taking the reins of power inside Syria, first and foremost, to secure and destroy any chemical weapons that they find in areas that they control. That's the first answer to the question. And obviously, you have seen HTSC's territory, and it certainly is quite possible that in the territory they've seized, there are chemical weapons stocks. They may not have full inventory of those yet, of course, they've only been in control of Damascus for a couple of days. But that is the first answer to the question. The second answer to it, though, is that there is an emergency session of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Executive Council that has been called, that will meet this Thursday to address the recent developments on the ground and the current situation on the ground in Syria. And when it comes to this question of inspections and verifications, it is the responsibility of that organization to conduct verification efforts under its mandate. Not any of the member states, not the United States or other states, but the OPCW. So we will await the outcome of that meeting on Thursday to define a path forward. We, of course, have full confidence in the OPCW and its ability to carry out its mission. Okay, going to the Golan Heights, I'm sure you've seen Netanyahu's statement yesterday. He said the Golan Heights is gonna be part of Israel now and forever. Considering that this administration, when there was attack on Majdal Shams, I believe like five months ago, you called it Northern Israel. So you're really legitimizing, give legitimacy to the Israeli control over it. So what's, how can we believe that this administration or any administration, we're not gonna let Netanyahu go against international law, which we know that's been illegally occupied since 1967? So I would just say with respect to the Golan Heights, of course, the United States recognized several years ago control over the Golan Heights. That's just as a factual matter. Now, when it comes to other disputed areas, we have long made clear that we wanna see a two-state solution. When you talk to areas that have been under Israeli control since 1967, we wanna see the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. And you have seen us take a number of steps to try to advance that possibility. And we'll continue to do that. Okay, just one thing I want to clarify just to make sure I heard you correctly. You said that legally, the United States can talk to any terrorist group if they want to, if that advance the interests of the US, right? Correct. Just as a legal matter, strictly legal. Yeah, as a legal matter. That's different than a policy matter, of course, and a policy choice. So what stopped you from talking to Hamas directly since you designated them as a terrorist group and you have a great interest in releasing American hostages instead of going to mediators? Because we have effective mediators who have much better relationships with Hamas than we do for obvious reasons and have the ability to effectively communicate with them. There was never any need for us to have those direct conversations when you have effective mediators like the governments of Qatar and the governments of Egypt. Yeah. Thank you. On the Israeli strikes in Syria, did they inform you ahead of time of these? I don't have any conversations to read out. We need to speak more with them about this before we have anything to say about it. Would you have expected them to? I mean, in scale, these are very significant. Some would make comparisons to the sort of wiping out of the Egyptian air force in 1967. Again, I just don't have anything further to say. We need to have further conversations about them before we comment in detail on the matter. Can I follow up on the status of the Golan Heights? I'm slightly puzzled with what you just said, because you've said the Trump administration was recognized control of the Golan. Because you said last year on this that as a practical matter, the Golan is important to Israel's security. And these were your words then, as long as Assad is in power in Syria, and as long as Iran is present in Syria, there's a significant threat to Israel. Control of the Golan remains of real importance to Israel's security. So has that changed? So obviously the factual situation has changed, but you do have a situation now where you have a period of instability in Syria. You don't have effective control by a government that we know is committed to peaceful relations with its neighbors. So not the same security threats exist. Obviously you don't have the Assad regime there. And you have seen Iran's influence inside Syria weaken quite considerably, but there still is a security threat. That is a practical matter, which is what I'm saying has not changed. What's the legal determination to state upon? Do you recognize as a legal matter Israel's control over the Golan? So that is a decision that was made by the previous administration to recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel. And there has not been a carry-on legal determination made or a contradictory legal determination that's been made in the years since. With regards to the disengagement zone, I know there's some confusion about whether or not the Israelis have gone even beyond the buffer zone, the disengagement zone, and further into Syria. But I mean, there's a chorus of disapproval of this. I mean, the UNDOF, the Secretary General's spokesman has told them to stop. UNDOF informed them ahead of time it would be a violation of the 1974 agreement. You now have Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, all critical allies for you in terms of getting on board the vision that you are trying to lay out for the future of Syria, who have all said this is an attack on Syria's sovereignty, a dangerous development. I mean, what's your position on Israel having invaded that buffer zone? So I spoke to this yesterday. Nothing has changed since then. What precipitated their move into the buffer zone was the withdrawal of the Syrian armed forces, which, as I said yesterday, creates potentially a vacuum that could be filled by any one of the numerous terrorist organizations that continue to operate inside Syria that have sworn to the destruction of the state of Israel. Israel has said that they deployed their forces into the buffer zone temporarily to prevent such a threat from emerging against the state of Israel and against Israeli civilians. Ultimately, we want to see the 1974 agreement upheld. I mean, do you not worry this just further erodes the importance and value of international law? I think it's important that the step that they have taken has remained temporary. Okay, and I mean, on those Golan, I mean, the Golan Heights, the occupied Golan Heights is absolutely littered with the remnants of Syrian villages, of homes from 1967 and demolitions that took place. I mean, many, many thousands of people were expelled or forced to flee. Many of those people will be looking at, you know, what's going on now. You talk about a Syrian process, a Syrian-led future for the people of Syria. I mean, those people had homes and villages back in the occupied Golan Heights. What should they be thinking now that's the U.S. saying to them? So I think, Tom, with any number of questions about where things might go in the future, we need to step back and realize that we are two days now, two and a half days since the fall of the regime. And before we start making grand pronouncements about how things are gonna proceed in the future, it's important to remember that we are in early days. We are just beginning to have conversations with partners in the region about the path forward and trying to get partners to align around principles that we think are important. And we have not yet seen the Syrian people have the ability to make their voices heard. So before we start to get into too far down the road, I think it's important to let the process play out a little bit for us. I just say that, I mean, you talk about pronouncements, but they will say you've already made a pronouncement about the occupied Golan Heights because you've said you recognize Israel's presence there. It's an action that was taken by the government of the United States years ago with respect to anything over the last few days. I think it's important to let the dust settle a little bit. Matt, on the Syrians meeting, starting the OPCW meeting that you talked, that you mentioned, it's gonna be on Thursday. Yeah. This may not be a question for you, but does the United States believe that Syria remains a member in good standing of the OPCW? And whether it does or not, will they be represented there? So if so, by whom? That really is a question for the OPCW. It's hard for me to imagine that a country that has used chemical weapons on its own country remains a member in good standing, whether there's some technical membership or not. I don't have a- Well, they joined in 2014 after the deal that was broken between John Kerry and Abraham. My point remains, whether they were formally expelled from that, I do not know. It's a question for the OPCW. But do you think that they should be represented? That they should have a representative? I'd have to take that back. So we're at the position where you're in a transition. I don't know who the representative would even be. Take that back and consult with others. So you wouldn't have a problem with the OPCW? That's not at all what I said. I said I need to take it back and consult with others. You're right, I'm sorry. I apologize for interrupting your question. I just wanna know if you're okay with the OPCW having a meeting, an emergency meeting about the chemical weapons in Syria at which Syria is not represented. I need to take that back and consult with our experts on the OPCW here, of which I am not one. Yeah, go ahead. So the Secretary has given his plan or outline of what they would like to see from the Biden administration. How that goes in hand with the plan that the UN might see in the region? How you're coordinating, especially right now with the meetings happening in the Security Council, most of them closed door, because that will bring China and Russia within the conversation. So these are principles that we have outlined that we think every country ought to be able to support now. We're not blind to the fact that Russia has pursued a very different vision when it comes to Syria over the past 13 years. But we will outline these principles in all of our diplomatic engagements, both in the region and in our conversations with our colleagues on the Security Council and other colleagues at the United Nations in New York, as well as UN personnel who operate inside the region. And those will be conversations we'll continue to have over the coming days. In terms of the situation in the region, is the United States worried that because of the diminish of Hezbollah, the situation that is happening in Syria now, the fall of Assad, Iran will feel more motivated to try to pursue their nuclear program and try to accelerate it? So I can't speak to the judgments that the regime inside Iran will make. I can say that if I were them, I would look back at the course of action that they pursued over the last decade plus of trying to support terrorism and further destabilize the region as a strategy that has failed. When you look at their support for proxy groups, they clearly had a strategy that they were pursuing to try and threaten the state of Israel from outside its borders, to launch repeated terrorist attacks against civilians inside Israel, and of course to launch terrorist attacks against other entities around the region. Israelis have not been the only recipients, of course, of terrorist attacks sponsored by the state of Iran. So I would hope that the government of Iran would look at the failed policy that they have pursued and choose the path of de-escalation and better relations with their neighbors and not trying to continue to foment instability and support terrorism. I'm under no illusions that they're gonna have a change of heart, but I would think that would be the wiser assessment. I can tell you that if they pursue a different nuclear policy, we have made clear that we will not allow the government of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Just a quick change, a question. The State Department issued a fact sheet on Monday regarding the accountability actions to counter global corruption and human rights abuses for Indonesia. So can you outline the steps that State Department is generally taking in response to human rights violators from Indonesia? So I'd have to take that back to get you more specifically as it goes to Indonesia. I know that we detailed some of the actions in the statement that we put out. I can tell you that we have made clear around the world that the fight against corruption and the promotion of human rights is a top priority for the United States, and it will continue to be. But with respect to specific actions inside Indonesia, I'd have to get you a more detailed answer. Michel. Yeah, thank you. I have a couple questions now. First, what do you think about the Syrian new prime minister that Giuliani has appointed? Did someone talk to him, or will someone from the administration call him? I don't have any comment on his appointment. We have not had any communications with him as of yet. We started to see on social media some reports of human rights atrocities in the streets of Syria. How are you following these reports? We're following them very closely, and it's why you have heard everyone in this administration, starting with the president on Sunday, emphasize that the protection of civilians must be the paramount priority in the days and weeks ahead. It's something that we will continue to emphasize. It is civilians that have, of course, suffered the brutal horrors of this war over the past 13 years, and as Syria hopefully emerges from this war with a path towards peace going forward, we will see all of the organizations, all of the various factions inside Syria unite around the principle that they ought to protect civilians. Reports said that former Syrian officials have fled Syria to Lebanon. What's your view on that? I don't have any comment on whether that's true or not, nor do I have a comment on it. Of course, any official who is, well, I'll leave it at that. Do you have any updates on the Russian presence in Syria, and did the U.S. help Russia evacuate their positions in Hasakah and other areas in Syria? I am not aware of any assistance by the United States to Russia, and I don't have any assessment of their, the current disposition of their military capabilities inside Syria. And finally, is the U.S. planning to reopen the U.S. Embassy in Damascus? So it's not something we have immediate plans to do, but we have made clear the steps that we want to see the government of Syria take, and as the Secretary said in his statement, should we see a process that follows those principles, we are prepared to recognize a Syrian government that does so, and of course, the opening of an embassy is the type of step that would follow such a recognition. Thank you. Yeah, Alex. Thank you, Michael. A couple of questions about Ukraine first. Can you give us more details about today's agreement to provide 20 billion loan to Ukraine, as in USAID guaranteed? None of it will go as a military support as initially expected? I'd have to take back and get you more details. This is something that was contained in the Supplemental Appropriations Act. You know, there was a wide variety of assistance that we were able to provide to that, some military assistance, some direct economic support, some of those were in the form of loans, some of them were in the form of loans that could be forgiven. So with respect to this specific tranche of support, I'd have to take it back and get you some information. Thanks so much. Moving to sanctions question, both Matt's question and Celia's question. Yesterday, you guys announced this my risky sanctions, which is actually backed by the US bipartisan tool to use, did not really include many countries, Azerbaijan, Georgia, many of the countries I mentioned yesterday's and today's abort ceremonies. And today, you're announcing, as Matt mentioned, the new policy that will establish a new set of visa restrictions. What is your strategy here? You guys are just gonna leave in a couple of weeks, you know, handed to the next administration. Why not using what you already have in hand and supported by both parties and the Congress? We are using the tools that we have available to us that are supported by both parties. And we also, when we find it appropriate, are developing new tools that we can use, both in the time that's left in for this administration and potentially to the successor administration. And I know you don't want to talk about previous sanctions that you have not announced yet. But I want to ask you about a decision that you have not made of Ukraine on Georgia. The man who is behind everything we have seen during the past couple of months, let alone last 13, you know, past 13 days, has not been punished yet. Why you haven't punished Mr. Ivanishvili yet? So I am, as you know, because you mentioned it in the preview to your question, I'm not going to talk about any potential sanctions that we will impose on Georgian officials or individuals inside the country of Georgia. We have made clear that we have deep concern with the change in direction that the government of Georgia has taken. You saw a statement from the Secretary last week where he made clear that we are going to use all of the tools at our disposal to hold Georgia accountable for those steps, including rolling out new sanctions. As to what those are and who they will target, you're going to have to wait until we announce them, Alex. So? You're going to have to wait until we announce them. On Azerbaijan, thanks so much. On Azerbaijan, the Secretary today addressed the case of Rufat Safarov. Medard also last week mentioned his case. You know, a gentleman was supposed to be here today at our ceremony, got arrested. But there are multiple arrests that have been taking place since, you know, last week. Medard TV reporters, like six new journalists, have been arrested. And then leading Azerbaijani analysts and civil rights activists also got arrested on Sunday. Do you have any reaction to the latest arrests? So we have been made quite clear to the government of Georgia, and you've heard me speak to, I'm sorry, excuse me, the government of Azerbaijan. You've heard me speak to it from this podium, our serious concern about human rights abuses inside Azerbaijan. You've heard us speak to specific cases, and you will see us continue to speak to specific cases. In fact, you'll hear more from us later today about Azerbaijan. We'll be out speaking up. You'll hear more from us later today about Azerbaijan. Go ahead. Thank you, Matt. You have sanctioned Jolani for his actions in the past in Iraq and Syria. So with the new situation in Syria, are you going to pardon him or still calling accountability for his actions? Are we going to? Pardon him or? Pardon him? Yeah, or. Pardon who? Jolani, or still calling accountability. I don't think we have the. You're still calling accountability for his actions in the past. So we, of course, support accountability, but when it comes to moving forward, we are going to judge all of the parties in Syria by their actions in the past, but also the actions that they take in the coming weeks and days. Okay, and one more question on North Syria. Democratic Autonomous Administration of North Syria stated that a Turkish aircraft targeted Tashrin Dam in Manbij today, so which led the dam out of service and threatening the area with floating. The administration is calling you and the international coalition to intervene urgently to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. First, what's your position on attacking on the civil and also the civilian facilities in North Syria? And secondly, how do you respond to this call from Autonomous Administration in North Syria? So I will just make clear our position, and it's what we have been engaged in diplomatic channels as well as military channels over the past few days, which is we have focused on ensuring the safety and security of respective military forces in Northern Syria to ensure that there are no friendly fire incidents. We have longstanding channels set up to do that, and we have made clear to all the relevant parties that what we want to see is no direct conflict between the multitude of armed groups in various parts of the country. We want them all to respect civilians in the areas in which they operate, and we're making that clear to all of the parties. Has the Secretary Blinken touched at that issue with his Turkish counterpart yesterday in the phone? I'm not, beyond the broad strokes I gave at the opening of the- Have you been clear to- Hold, hold, hold, this is real, let me finish. Beyond the broad strokes I gave at the opening of the briefing, I'm not gonna get into private diplomatic conversations. Have you been clear to Turkey about this issue? We have made clear our principles to all of the parties that we, with whom we discuss these matters. Go ahead. Thank you very much. For inclusive government in Syria, so how differently this time you will engage with HTS along with your partners and allies as you have very failed experience with inclusive government in Afghanistan, and with that, what is fair reason you have to believe such type of violent extremist groups? Those have very clear sectarian mindset in them. They will lead our nation. They have ability to burn a country. Look, so it's certainly clear that all the groups inside Syria have different motivations, have different interests, a number of them have very different ideologies, and what we hope that they will all, or what we think they should all come together around is a peaceful path forward for the Syrian people that respects the various factions and their beliefs and ideologies about how the country ought to move forward, and that's the process that we wanna see play out in the coming weeks. And one on Ambassador Liu's recent visit to South Asia. He visited India and Nepal. This is second visit from these three months, consecutive three months, and we know administration is going to compare to Stano. It is believed these are concluding visits. So from last visit, he excluded Pakistan. This visit, he excluded Bangladesh and Pakistan again. So the reason what both countries, people believe, is that criticism, that is news outlets reporting that there is some involvement. That his views are, what? I'm sorry, I missed that. Ambassador Liu involvement in toppling of the government or something like that. So just on policy matters, so you change things with the Bangladesh and Pakistan with your diplomatic level? I'm not sure I understand the question. So with the end of this administration, you clearly don't relate it to your diplomatic relations. That is very visible from this visit. We don't, very clearly what? Diplomatic relations with Bangladesh and Pakistan. Of course we have diplomatic relations with Bangladesh and Pakistan. But don't relate it with the visits like high official is not visiting Bangladesh and Pakistan. So the assistant secretary is in fact an extremely senior official of the United States government, the one with primary responsibility for that area. And you have seen Secretary Blinken meet with the acting prime minister of Bangladesh in recent months, and you have seen him meet with senior Pakistani officials. So it's very much a priority for this administration. Go ahead. Thank you very much. Today's the death anniversary of a journalist from Pakistan without whom the journalism history of Pakistan is not complete. His name is Rehman Shafrivi, and he was my dad. So my first question is that he stood up against martial law in Pakistan when he started the newspaper. Yesterday, Michael Kugelman and Al-Jazeera reported in this past three days that there is complete cyber martial law in Pakistan, and Pakistan has complete corrupt leaders who have brought in as a regime. Your thoughts on that? So I didn't see that report, but of course we have made clear for some time our position when it comes to Pakistan, which is what we wanna see the rule of law upheld. Today, this member of parliament, Ms. Shandana Gulzar, has stated in a briefing her dad was parliamentarian as well. She said that the Pakistani, the people of Pakistan are extremely unhappy with President Biden, unhappy with President, and that there is a Pashtun genocide. While referring to Palestine, she said that the Pashtun genocide is almost going to start. I've mentioned to you this Pashtun, this is very, in tribal areas, the Pashtuns are getting killed, and political rallies, Pashtuns are getting killed. Your just thoughts on that? Look, so I make it a practice not to comment on every statement made by members of our own Congress. I'm certainly not gonna comment on every statement made by members of legislatures of foreign governments. Let me, only because I have a couple more to get, and we gotta wrap the briefing. Go ahead. Thank you, Matt. Thank you. Thank you for taking my question. There was a Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo today, and I know that President Biden has already issued a statement on October, when the Japanese Organization of Atomic Bomb Survivors won the Nobel Peace Prize. But do you have any further comment on today's award? No, I don't have any beyond what the President said in his previous statement. Thanks, Matt. Indian foreign minister, foreign secretary, has visited Bangladesh, and recently, both India and Bangladesh have expressed concern on the violent attack on a diplomatic mission of Bangladesh inside India. Do you have a comment on that developments and the increasingly aggressive rhetoric directed towards Bangladesh? So, look, we want to see all parties resolve their disagreements peacefully. Thanks, Matt. Yeah. So, you've been talking about processes that pertains to us here, but as it pertains to reconstruction of Syria, will the U.S. be leading or following the international community in that regard? Will the U.S. be giving money toward the rebuilding of Syria? I think you are a little bit putting the cart before the horse. We need to see a political process play out here before we get to discussions about reconstruction and who's gonna fund it. And will the administration take any diplomatic or economic action against China for its continued infiltration of U.S. telecommunications infrastructure? So, you have seen the United States take a number of actions to hold accountable China for its malign behavior across a number of different fronts. And I can tell you that we also raise cyber threats and cyber interference in all of our conversations with the Chinese, and we'll continue to do so. But when it comes to any steps, I'm not gonna preview them before we take them. Thank you. All right, that will wrap for today. Thanks, everyone.