James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
2:12 P.M. EDT
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone.
Q Good afternoon.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, with all of the foreign policy news happening this mor- — this morning, or throughout the day, we wanted to have Admiral Kirby join us in the briefing room to take some of your question.
And as you know, the Denmark Prime Minister is here with — meeting with the President currently, doing a bilat. So, he'll give a preview of that. And as you also know and are tracking, the UK Prime Minister, Sunak, will be here on Thursday as well.
And the Admiral can take any questions that you all have with the busy foreign policy news.
All right. The floor is yours.
MR. KIRBY: How you all doing today?
So, as Karine said, this afternoon, the President is meeting with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark. That meeting just started, and it's really designed to help strengthen the deep and enduring ties between the United States and Denmark. This is a visit that the President has been looking forward to for quite some time, and there's a — a pretty fully agenda.
Obviously, they're going to review our efforts as NATO Allies and close partners to strengthen transatlantic security, bolster economic prosperity. They're also certainly going to discuss our unwavering support for Ukraine in the face of Russia's brutal aggression. And in that context, I think you can certainly expect that they'll raise the issue of the F-16s and the mutual consortium that we have put together to try to advance some — as an initial step anyway — training of Ukrainian pilots.
And, of course, they'll coordinate on a range of other issues, including energy security, climate change, and other global issues that, of course, we'll have a readout for you when it's — when it's over.
I'd also just like to highlight, quickly, as you've from the Departments of Treasury and State, the United States is now taking additional action to combat Russia's malign influence in Moldova.
The individuals that were designated today were part of a plot to capitalize on protests in Chisinau to — that were designed to seize the Moldovan Government House and conduct an opposition meeting.
These actors provoked, trained, and oversaw groups in democratic countries that conduct anti-government protests, rallies, marches, demonstrations.
And the U.S. government is going to continue to support the Moldovan government and their people in their efforts to combat coercive activities that undermine democracy there.
With that —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. Go ahead, Ed. Welcome back. I haven't seen you in a while.
Q Good to see you. John, good to see you.
In the span of a week, we've now had two close encounters — one at sea, one in the air — with the Chinese military. Are these isolated incidents, or is China becoming more aggressive?
MR. KIRBY: Sadly, Ed, these are part and parcel of an increasing level of aggressiveness by the PLA, the PRC's military, and particularly in the area of the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea. One — the air — air intercept was over the South China Sea, and the maritime intercept that you talk about was in the Straits.
And, sadly, this is just part, again, of a growing aggressiveness by the PRC that we're — that we're dealing with, and we're prepared to address it. You heard Secretary Austin speak to that out at the Shangri-La Dialogue just this past weekend. And we're going to continue to keep the lines open with the Chinese to make it clear how unacceptable those particular intercepts are.
Q There was that handshake at the Shangri-La conference. Has there been any other conversation between U.S. and Chinese officials (inaudible)?
MR. KIRBY: Well, I think you know we have two officials in Beijing right now. The senior director for China, Sarah Beran, here, and Dan Kritenbrink from the State Department are in Beijing as we speak.
Q I know you have to be very careful about the words you choose, but what is — in describing this — but what is the best way to describe what China is doing in the air and on the seas?
MR. KIRBY: I'll try to give you an answer, but I sure would like to hear Beijing justify what they're doing.
That said, these are intercepts. Now, look, air and maritime intercepts happen all the time. Heck, we do it. The difference is, when we do it, when we feel like we need to do it, it's done professionally, and it's done inside the — the inter- — international law, and it's done in accordance with the rules of the road.
These two that you saw recently — and there's — they happen — they have happened with more frequency than we'd like. Not all of them are unsafe and unprofessional, but these two were.
You saw on the air intercept that they forced our — our aircraft — an RC-135 — to basically go through their jet wash. That — that — you saw the bump in the cockpit. That shows you how close that Chinese fighter was to our jet.
And in the — in the maritime intercept in the Taiwan Strait, it's 150, 140, 150 yards. Speaking as an old sailor myself, I'll tell you, that's pretty close when you're — when you're in open waters like that. And you can see the head of steam that that — that that Chinese vessel had on it as it crossed the bow of one of our destroyers. No call for that. It's unsafe. It's unprofessional.
And as to why they're doing it, I think, again — I think that's a great question to ask them. What I would tell you from our perspective is: We're flying, we're sailing, we're operating in international airspace and international waters, and both of those incidents were in com- — in complete compliance with international law. There was absolutely no need for the PLA to act as aggressively as they did.
It won't be long before somebody gets hurt. That's the — that's the concern with these unsafe and unprofessional intercepts. They can lead to misunderstandings; they can lead to miscalculations.
When you have pieces of metal that size, whether it's in the air or on the sea and they're operating that close together, it wouldn't take much for an error in judgment or a mistake to get made, and somebody could get hurt. And that's just got to be unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to them as well.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Jacqui.
Q Thanks, Karine. John, you just said that this was a — these two incidents are part of a pattern of increasing level —
MR. KIRBY: That's right.
Q — of aggressiveness. So why was it appropriate to send two senior officials to visit China on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre?
MR. KIRBY: A couple of things. First of all, it wasn't timed to the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square. Number two, it wasn't timed specifically to deal with these intercepts. You can imagine a trip to Beijing by U.S. officials takes some time to plan, so it wasn't timed to these events.
That said, both these U.S. officials used the opportunity to raise our concern over these two intercepts that I just talked to Ed about. Absolutely raised the concerns that we had.
Now, we had raised those concerns through our embassy as well, so this wasn't a new message that the Chinese were hearing.
But I think you can also understand, Jacqui, that particularly when times are tense, particularly when there's a risk of miscalculation, and particularly when the PLA is acting as aggressively as it is with no reason whatsoever, that's the time that you want to be able to have a conversation, whether that conversation is over the phone or face to face.
Now, this visit was very much in keeping with our larger, longer efforts to keep the lines of communication with the PRC open. And we'll see where this goes after that.
Q There's been some criticism, though, of the administration for sending officials on that anniversary. Was that decision a messaging misstep?
MR. KIRBY: We would not call it a misstep. I mean, this was a — a long-planned trip. And this is the way the schedules worked out. But the — I think, honestly, people will be — criticizing the timing of Tiananmen Square are just making a whole heck of a lot out of nothing.
It wasn't timed to do — to do anything with — with the anniversary. And again, both these officials were nothing but candid and direct about our concerns, particularly over the intercepts. And of course, they brought up issues of human rights as well, as we always do.
It's important to have these communication vehicles open. It's important to be able to have those kinds of conversations. And I think we're a whole lot less worried about the date on the calendar than we are about what's on the agenda when we start talking to them.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Terry.
Q Aside from expressing verbal concerns and communicating with Beijing our displeasure with this, is the United States kind of letting any kind of response to back China down from its increased aggressiveness?
MR. KIRBY: We have continued to convey that message to them. I mean, obviously, we're not in control of their military and their military assets or their military leaders. They — we urge them to make better decisions about how they operate in international airspace and sea space.
Whether they acknowledge those rules of the road or not, they are the rules of the road. And for a nation like China that continous- — continuously touts international law and sovereignty and territorial integrity, you would think that they would understand when a vessel or an aircraft is operating, in fact, in international airspace and sea space. We're going to keep standing up for those rules of the road. We're going keep standing up for that international law.
And as I said earlier, we're going to keep flying, we're going to keep sailing, we're going to keep operating where international law allows us to. It's an important concept, freedom of navigation — whether it's in the air or on the sea. It's an important concept that the United States is going to continue to stand up for.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Darlene.
Q Thank you. On Ukraine, what is your understanding of whether the counteroffensive has begun? Has it begun?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not going to be talking for the Ukrainian military. That's for them to speak to. And I think you heard them say earlier today that they — that they're conducting some offensive operations. But I won't go beyond that. That's for them to speak to.
What I can speak to is how hard we work to prepare them to be ready. So whether it's starting now or starting soon, or whenever they decide to step off and whatever they decide to do, the President is confident that we did everything we could over the last six, eight months or more to make sure that they had all the equipment, the training, the capabilities to be successful.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Jenny.
Q Thanks. Back to China. Do you think, though, all of these incidents are sort of an effort to intimidate or impact other channels of communication that you are trying to keep open? Or do you see them compartmentalizing the military sort of realm from you guys trying to send Blinken over there and Yellen over there and Raimondo?
MR. KIRBY: It's difficult to know for sure, Jenny. I mean, obviously, when you fly and sail as aggressively — and you saw the video for yourself; I mean, you don't need me to tell you how aggressive it was — you're trying to send some kind of a measure — a message. At the very least, it's — it's a statement of some sort of displeasure about our presence in that part of the world.
But as the President said very clearly in Hiroshima, we are a Pacific power; we're not going anywhere. We've got serious commitments in that part of the world. Five of our seven treaty alliances are in the Indo-Pacific. The vast majority of international economic trade flows through the Indo-Pacific. We've got real needs there, and we're going to stay there. And we're going to continue to strengthen and revitalize those alliances and partnerships.
So, again, I can't speak for the PRC. Wouldn't do it. But if the message that they're trying to send is that we're not welcome or — or our presence needs to be diminished, or they want us to stop flying and sailing and operating in support of international law: not going to happen.
Q Would you say though, as this is going on, that you're continuing to make progress in setting up these visits for Secretaries Blinken, Yellen, and Raimondo?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I think the fact that we were able to get two officials there — to Beijing here — while we're talking is a good sign. We want to keep those lines open. It's important, especially, as I said, now.
So, in general, without predicting what the next visit is going to be or by whom or when: Yes, we are feeling like we are making progress in terms of opening up additional lines of communication.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Janne.
Q Thank you. Thank you, Karine. And thank you, John. I have two questions. National Security Advisor Sullivan said last weekend that the United States proposed a talk with China and Russia for nuclear disarmament. As you know, North Korea has nuclear weapons, whether we (inaudible) it or not. Do you think nuclear disarmament — the talk with North Korea are possibility of resolve the North Korean nuclear issues? Or will you continue to wait for the talks with the North Koreans?
MR. KIRBY: It's not about waiting, Janne. We have made it clear to Kim Jong Un and the regime in Pyongyang that we're willing to sit down without preconditions to talk about the denuclearization of the Peninsula. That hasn't changed. We're not — it's not about waiting. We continue to send that message.
What we haven't gotten is any indication from Pyongyang that they're willing to engage in those kinds of talks, but the offer still stands.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Andrea.
Q Yeah. John, I just want to ask — go back on the China question. Is there some possibility of sequencing the visits differently? So, Secretary Yellen has talked about sequencing being an issue, which sort of implied that, you know, perhaps Blinken should go first. But given the challenges and the sort of political and — realm and the military realm, does it make sense to foreground the economic visits first and have the economic team go first in terms of visiting?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, that — that — that's putting that cart way ahead of the horse right now.
I think we're glad that we were able to get this visit in Beijing, and we'll see what they come back with.
I mean, clearly, one of the goals was to advance the communication with the PRC and see what we can do to get these higher-level visits in play. We're just not there yet to talk about sequencing or specific scheduling. But, you know, look, we're hopeful, and we'll see what they come back with and what we're able to talk about.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go —
Q On the NATO, John — can I just —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.)
Q On the NATO Secretary General succession thing: This is an issue. Do you know whether the President intended to speak with the Danish Prime Minister about that today and whether he has any thoughts about the importance of having a woman lead NATO for the first time?
MR. KIRBY: That is not the purpose for the trip, not the purpose for the conversation. I sort of detailed in my opening statement what they're really going to focus on.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Asma.
Q If I can shift gears to two different topics. One is, how do you all interpret Saudi Arabia's decision to unilaterally cut oil production?
MR. KIRBY: We'll let them speak for their decision to cut production. What we're going to stay focused on is making sure that there's a balance between supply and demand.
You see the price of oil was not dramatically affected by this announcement of these additional cuts, and the price of gasoline continues to come down.
So the President is going to stay focused on what's best for the American people, what's best for our economy, and making sure that we're — that we're looking after those needs. And we'll let the Saudi Arabians speak for themselves in terms of this decision to cut.
Q And then, on a separate topic, I also wanted to ask you about another visit from a foreign leader coming up later this month: India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.
Q I know you will have made a very large focus in this administration on the divide between autocracies and democracies, and there have been questions about the health of India's democracy under Narendra Modi. I wanted you to articulate why have the invitation for the state dinner. And then I have a follow-up (inaudible).
MR. KIRBY: India is a strong partner on very, very many levels with the United States. You saw that, in Shangri-La, Secretary Austin announced some additional defense cooperation now that we're going to pursue with India. Of course, there's an awful lot of economic trade between our two countries. India is a member of the Pacific Quad and a key friend and partner with respect to Indo-Pacific security.
I could go on and on and on. There's — there's innumerable reasons why India certainly matters not just bilaterally between the two of our nations, but multilaterally on very many levels. And the President is looking forward very much to having Prime Minister Modi here to talk about all those issues and to advance and deepen that partnership and that friendship.
Q And then, the follow is: Is this administration at all concerned about the health of democracy in India?
MR. KIRBY: India is a vibrant democracy. Any — anybody that, you know, happens to go to New Delhi can see that for themselves. And certainly, I would expect that the strength and health of democratic institutions will be part of the discussion.
And, look, we never shy away — and you can do that with friends; you're supposed to do that with friends — you never shy away from expressing concerns that we might have with anyone around the world.
But this visit is really about advancing what is now and what we hope will be a deeper, stronger partnership and friendship going forward.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Kelly O, go ahead.
Q John, with Ukraine being an important topic this week, with the Prime Minister today, and the UK here this week, when you consider the President's investment — the United States and allies' investment in Ukraine — does the President want to see Ukraine adhere to some of the President's wishes with respect to aggressive moves within Russia, with reports of the covert action on the part of Ukraine having an ability to act inside Russia?
MR. KIRBY: Well, I can tell you the Ukrainians have already spoken to some of these, quote, unquote, "raids" and in — I know then denied participation in them. So I'll let them speak to that.
What I can say, Kelly, and we've said this before: We don't encourage, we don't enable, and we don't support strikes or attacks inside Russia.
Our effort — and we have been exceedingly plain about this with the Ukrainians — our effort is to support them in their self-defense, in defending their territory, their sovereignty. That's what's been violated here by Mr. Putin and Russia. And that's what we're helping them get back: their independence, their territorial integrity. And that's — and that's where the focus is.
And I'm not telling you anything here in this briefing room that we haven't said privately to the Ukrainians in terms of expressing our concerns about that.
They know — they know our concerns. They have provided us, all the way up to President Zelenskyy, assurances that they will respect those concerns.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Emel.
Q Thank you. Thank you, John. I hope you can clarify one thing. On Taiwan: President Biden, in Japan, during news conference, when asked about Taiwan, he said that there is a clear understanding among most of its — our — our allies that if China were to act unilaterally, there will be a response.
What did he say? What did he mean by response? Was that sanctions? Did he mean unilateral — sorry, military intervention?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I'm not going to go beyond what the President said. He has said that before, that we don't want to see the status quo changed unilaterally. We certainly don't want to see it changed by force.
And the other thing the President said, and he said a gazillion times, is there is no reason for it to, because nothing has changed about our One China policy. We don't support independence for Taiwan.
Now, we obviously do support their self-defense capabilities, and we'll continue to do that.
But there's no reason for this tension in the Taiwan Strait to devolve into any kind of conflict.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Jeremy.
Q Thanks. Hey, John. I understand that you don't want to characterize whether or not we're witnessing the beginning of this counteroffensive —
MR. KIRBY: That's right. I don't.
Q But is this within the timeframe of when Ukrainian officials told Americans that they could potentially begin a counteroffensive? Are — are we within that timeframe?
MR. KIRBY: I — I'm just not going to go there, Jeremy.
I mean, they — they need to have the right and the responsibility to speak for their own military operations and — and how they're conducting them and where and when.
And I — I just — it wouldn't be appropriate for us to speak to that.
Q Okay. And, secondly, President Zelenskyy told the Wall Street Journal that he needs more Patriot missile batteries and air defense to protect both the civilians in Ukrainian cities, as well as frontline troops, from Russian airpower. Is the U.S. in the process of identifying additional Patriot batteries that they could potentially send or additional air defense? Could we see some of that (inaudible)?
MR. KIRBY: What I would tell you is we've been prioritizing air defense now for many, many months. And in this last package, one I think we just talked about last week, there were additional interceptor missiles.
So, without getting ahead of announcements to come, I can assure you that air defense remains top on the list of the kinds of capabilities that we're going to continue to make sure Ukraine has.
Q Are Patriot batteries — and I know that those are tough, because they're fairly scarce. So is that a possibility?
MR. KIRBY: They are. There's not a lot of them, either in our inventory or the inventory of — of nations that have purchased them.
But, again, I don't want to get ahead of where we are.
We know air defense is a priority. And we know how well the Patriots have been performing inside Ukraine, which is, again, why we provided some additional interceptor missiles last week.
All I can tell you is that we're going to prioritize it going forward, and I just don't want to get ahead of announcements.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Steven. And then we'll go to the back.
Q Thanks. John, if I could ask you about the NORAD intercept yesterday.
MR. KIRBY: Yes, sir.
Q If you could help us understand: There was a period of time yesterday where it wasn't clear what was going on. We think we have a sense of what happened — a tragic incident.
But can you walk us through, maybe give us a tick-tock of NSC involvement in this? And was there a point at which yesterday the Commander-in-Chief was informed that there was a wayward plane headed for Washington and might have heeded —
MR. KIRBY: Well, the President was certainly briefed and informed.
I don't have, like, the — I would — I should have brought it with me. I don't have, like, an exact tick-tock, minute-by-minute. But I can walk you through a little bit of how it transpired and the process.
Before I do that, though, I — I do want to express our deepest condolences to the family members, the loved ones of those who died in that crash. Just — just terrible. Terrible news. Nobody wants to get that. And we need to keep them front and center as we talk about this.
But this is part of — you might remember after 9/11, Operation Noble Eagle was stood up. And it's a — it's an organized, operational way of policing airspace, particularly sensitive airspace, over the United States in the wake of 9/11.
And so there are — there are Noble Eagle-like incidents that happen from time to time where private aircraft wander into secure airspace, and we have to notify them to — to leave.
And 99 times out of 100, that's all it takes, is a quick call on the radio, "Hey, you're — you're getting into some airspace you don't — you don't need to be in." And — and usually that takes care of it.
But under this process, if an aircraft — if a pilot is nonresponsive to those requests and continues on course and speed and altitude to enter restricted airspace, then there are — under NORAD's authorities, there are the responsibilities to put aircraft up to — to, again, send the message and — and get — and get a different outcome.
And that's what happened here. Six F-16s from three different air bases on the East Coast — certainly, Joint Base Andrews was one of those three. Launched — launched into the air six F-16s. Three air bases launched to intercept this particular Cessna cite- — citation.
As I understand it, the — the two from Andrews were the first ones to reach the Cessna.
And they had to — they had to turn on the speed to get to them, which is why people here in the District area heard a sonic boom. The — they had to break the sound barrier to get up to speed to get — to get to the — to the aircraft in question.
When they did, they — they did exactly what they're supposed to do: try to get on the radio, communicate to the — to the — to the pilot. That wasn't working. Made themselves visible; that didn't work.
And tragically, it ended, obviously, in — in the crash and the death of all on board.
But throughout that process, there's a conference call that's set up when you have a Noble Eagle incident, where NORAD is on the phone, DOD is on the phone, NSC was on — on the phone in real time, monitoring it, and getting real-time updates from the pilots — in this case, these two F-16 pilots — and so that — so that everybody is in the loop, literally in real time. And that's what happened yesterday.
And, again, at the appropriate time, the President was — was briefed and kept informed.
Q Was he informed while he was at JBA? Or did — was it after —
MR. KIRBY: I honestly don't know the exact moment at which the President was informed, but he was briefed on — on the incident.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Jon, in the back.
Q Thank you, Karine. Thank you, John. I wanted to ask you, going back to the China question and the various episodes which have occurred over the course of the past few weeks involving China's military and our military: At what point does the President pick up the phone, reach out directly with President Xi, and say, "Enough. You can't continue these episodes"? For all the reasons that you talked about earlier, at what point does the President himself get involved in this?
MR. KIRBY: We have sent that message directly to the PRC, as I said earlier, through various vehicles, including the conversations that these two officials, one from the NSC and one from the State Department, are having in Beijing as we speak.
The President will have another conversation with President Xi, and he'll do it at the appropriate time.
And I'm sure that when he does, he'll be just as candid with President Xi then as he has been in the past in terms of our — our concerns, the challenges in this bilateral relationship, but also about the opportunities that still remain and we want to continue to pursue.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right behind you. Go ahead.
Q Thank you. Just a follow-up question on China. We are getting a feel — we're getting mixed messages from China that while Secretary of Defense Austin is not being able to meet his counterpart in Singapore, and yet Kritenbrink, Assistant Secretary, is visiting China.
So, do — my question is: Do you think it's more difficult to establish communication channel, military-military communication, rather than diplomatic?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, that's — has proven more difficult. Sure.
I mean, go back in time to when then-Speaker Pelosi visited Taiwan. The Chinese, in retribution for that, shut down some lines of communication, and one of them was the mil-to-mil line. And that's still not open.
In fact, that's one of the reasons why we want to get Secretary Blinken back over to Beijing, because that was part of — his — his task was to see if he can't open up some of those lines.
Now, it shouldn't take the Secretary of State to fly to Beijing to do that, but I know he's willing to if — if needed.
Secretary Austin has, on his — for his own part, tried to get those military-to-military lines back open for himself. And we have been unsuccessful. And that's unfortunate, particularly because while we spent the first 10 minutes in this press conference talking about these two dangerous, unsafe, unprofessional intercepts.
It's exactly because of that you want to be able to have open lines of communication in the military channel.
So, yes, it has been more difficult, and we hope that that can change.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Sebastian.
Q Thanks. Hi, Admiral. Could you give us a little more preview on Rishi Sunak's visit? And apparently, he is also pressing for his candidate for NATO Secretary General. So, I mean, he's apparently actually going to bring it up. So what do you have to say about that? Ben Wallace — does that sound good to you?
MR. KIRBY: I'll let Prime Minister Sunak speak to what he intends to raise with — with the President. The President is very much looking forward to this visit as well. I mean, obviously, the United Kingdom is a strong, strong ally and terrific friend on so many fronts. I have absolutely zero doubt that the war in Ukraine will be a prime issue of discussion. And the Brits have been right there, literally at the — at the fore in terms of — in terms of helping Ukraine for the last 15 months. And I have no doubt that they'll talk about ways in which we can work together going forward for the future.
I just don't have anything on the next NATO Sec Gen to speak to. The President hasn't made a decision about who the United States would support, and I certainly don't want to get out ahead of him on that.
I will say, while I've got the chance, that — that the President remains very grateful and appreciative of the leadership of Jens Stoltenberg as Secretary General. He's been extended, what, two or three times, I think? And he's just done a masterful job, particularly when you look at what the Alliance has been able to do unilaterally, sometimes bilaterally, in terms of supporting Ukraine.
So an awful lot of NATO business to be done. And I have — I'm sure that they'll discuss a whole range of those issues. But I — I don't want to get ahead of that discussion.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Catherine. Then I'll go to the back.
Q Thanks, Admiral. On the sonic boom situation, was there any effort yesterday to evacuate the White House or the Vice President's Residence as this plane crossed through the airspace? And if not, why not?
MR. KIRBY: I'm going to let the Secret Service talk about security here at the White House. That's not something for me to tackle.
Q Is there any review now of how this was handled, if the response was appropriate, you know, given the risks?
MR. KIRBY: I refer you to DOD to talk to whatever after-action they might do. It's not uncommon after any operation for the military to take a look at how it performed.
Having observed this myself for many years, what I saw was just a classic, textbook response to, in this case, what was an unresponsive pilot, an aircraft, again, with a completely tragic outcome.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Anita.
Q Thank you so much, John. On Iran: Iran is reopening its embassy in Saudi Arabia after a seven-year break, and it was a Chinese-brokered deal. I just wanted to get the U.S.'s assessment on what this could mean, what the implications are. Will this help the security situation in the Persian Gulf or the Strait of Hormuz? Will the U.S. decrease its maritime presence in that area? And how could this affect the Abraham Accords?
MR. KIRBY: Which one of those seven do you want me to take first?
Q All of them, please.
MR. KIRBY: Look, we'll let the — we'll let the Iranians and the Saudis speak more specifically to this.
What I would say just in general is we support more integration, more dialogue, and more transparency throughout the res- — region. And if the Iranians opening up an embassy in Riyadh can help increase transparency of what they're doing and why, if it can de-escalate tensions, if it can lead to a reduction in their destabilizing behavior, including intercepting maritime shipping as they attempted to do over the last several days in the Strait of Hormuz, then all that's to the positive.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Karen.
