• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing, August 20, 2015

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 20, 2015

Index for Today's Briefing

IRAN
SYRIA/REGION
INDIA/PAKISTAN
PAKISTAN
EGYPT
KOREAN PENINSULA
UKRAINE
IRAQ
YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA
CUBA
TURKEY
THAILAND
SOUTH SUDAN
DEPARTMENT

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:06 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. I don’t have anything at the top. I do want to welcome – got a group in the back of future information officers. Is that what – that’s how you say it? Yep, all their heads are going north and south. After today you probably will regret this career choice – (laughter) – but I hope not, and I look forward to talking to you after it’s all over. But no announcements, so we’ll go to you, Brad.

QUESTION: So I wanted to pick up on something we addressed yesterday, and that was the report we had about the Iran IAEA PMD inspections. And I ask because an Administration-controlled Twitter account seemed to – or sought to imply that it was somehow wrong without directly challenging any of the facts. So do you want to say for the record what fact as presented in the story you challenge?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think I would point you to – quite frankly, I’d point you to comments made by the director general of the IAEA, Mr. Amano, today where he made it very clear that the IAEA is not giving over responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. In fact, he said that that completely misrepresents the manner in which that they do important verification work all around the world. So I mean, what – so what’s changed here is him actually coming right out and saying that they’re not giving over responsibility for inspections to Iran, nor would they do to any other nation.

Everything else we said I would stand by. We’re confident and more than comfortable with the – with the technical arrangements that the IAEA has to assure that they can properly address concerns about possible military dimensions of Iran’s program in the past. As I said to you yesterday, we already have a good footing and knowledge of what that past activity was. Just as importantly, we are very confident that this very aggressive inspection regimen that’s in place in the deal going forward --

QUESTION: Future --

MR KIRBY: -- for future is the strongest ever peacefully negotiated. So I think what you’re seeing is a reaction to the notion that Iran will just get free license to self-inspect, and as I said, the director general of the IAEA himself made it clear that that’s not true.

QUESTION: Notions aside, the points in the article that Iran would take the soil samples, Iran would take the videos; there would be seven points within Parchin, two points outside; that there wouldn’t necessarily be any IAEA inspectors in the facility --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: You don’t challenge those per se?

MR KIRBY: Well, as I said yesterday, Brad, I’m not going to comment about the contents of a draft document between the IAEA and Iran. Even the director general wouldn’t go so far as to reveal the details of what is a confidential agreement between him and another nation, nor do they do that with any country around the world.

QUESTION: So then how do you know that it’s – this is not extraordinary in its parameters if they don’t – if they’re not revealed for anyone?

MR KIRBY: How do I know if what’s not extraordinary?

QUESTION: Well, you seem to imply that this is normal, that these are procedures they do everywhere in the world.

MR KIRBY: No, no, no.

QUESTION: But we have people who say this is pretty abnormal – actually it’s extraordinary.

MR KIRBY: So two things. One, again, I’d point you back to what the director general – his comments about self-inspections, which I think was pretty clear. And then, number two, yes, you had – in your story there were a lot of other details that I am not in a position to nor would I comment from the podium about, because it’s a draft document between the IAEA and Iran. It is a document between the IAEA and Iran and even the director general spoke about the confidentiality of that, so it would be completely inappropriate for me to get into any haggling over the details in this leaked document.

QUESTION: And then I just wanted to ask because you brought up the difference between past possible military dimensions and the inspections going forward.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you assure us that for the future inspections regime – their future work – international inspectors will be able to get into Parchin?

MR KIRBY: Well, I – what I would tell you is – and Secretary Kerry has talked about this – that it is a very – it is an extraordinarily robust, more aggressive than we’ve seen in history in terms of peacefully negotiated inspection regimes. It’s much more aggressive and it goes – there’s – it’s – it exists on various levels. Not all of it is human inspections. There’s other monitoring capabilities that are going to be at play all the way from the mines to centrifuge activity. And again, I would just say we’re very confident that in the intrusiveness of this regimen that’s been established by this deal, that we’re going to be able to ensure that Iran is in compliance with their requirements under the deal.

QUESTION: I ask because I think on April 3rd, shortly after the Lausanne or the – maybe the day after the Lausanne framework, your predecessor, the acting spokeswoman, said it would be very hard to imagine – very difficult to imagine a final deal where inspectors do not get into Parchin.

MR KIRBY: Well, what we’ve --

QUESTION: And now you’re not saying definitively that now that you have a final deal, inspectors will get into Parchin.

MR KIRBY: What we’ve said, and Under Secretary Sherman made this clear too when she came up and spoke from this very podium, that the IAEA will have the access they need to sites that they need to get to, including military sites, in keeping with the agreement – the parameters of this deal. So we’re very comfortable that IAEA’s going to be able to get to go where they need to go.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MR KIRBY: Now, I’m not in a position to tell you every place in the country that that’s going to come up.

QUESTION: Well, I’m only asking about one.

MR KIRBY: I know that, but as I said, they will get to go where they need to go --

QUESTION: It’s a pretty big one.

MR KIRBY: -- including military sites. We’ve said that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: They will get to go where they need to go, including military sites.

QUESTION: So if they don’t get into Parchin, we’re to assume that you’re comfortable with that? Because you’re only confirming --

MR KIRBY: I didn’t say that. I didn’t --

QUESTION: You’re only confirming that you’re comfortable with the access.

MR KIRBY: I didn’t – I said – Brad, they’re going to be able to go where they need to go --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- including military sites. And if – and as you know probably better than I do, there are – that there’s a – there’s a protocol in place. If access is denied, there is an opportunity, as you know – this is the whole 24-day argument – that the partners to this agreement have a protocol established to be able to deal with denials of access. So we’re very comfortable, including military sites, where we need to go – where they need to go they’ll be able to go.

QUESTION: Does that include Parchin?

QUESTION: Two things on this, if I may. One is --

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry? I – Justin, I’ve answered the question.

QUESTION: Well, I know, but it’s just so odd that you won’t say that word, since that’s what we’re all talking about. You’re saying “military sites,” but it’s like you’re avoiding the real question that Brad kept at: What about Parchin?

MR KIRBY: No, I don’t think I’m avoiding it at all, Justin – including military sites. Parchin’s a military base --

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR KIRBY: -- so it would be inclusive of military sites.

QUESTION: So two questions to follow up on Brad. One is: Without commenting on the specifics of any draft or final agreement between Iran and the IAEA with regard to looking at Iran’s PMD, was there any specific item in the story that – factual item in the story that was wrong? I don’t want to know which one it is, but there are times when you guys will say this was inaccurate without saying specifically what because you can’t comment on the specifics. So was there anything you can specifically say without identifying it that was inaccurate – not notions, not imaginations, not speculations, not headlines, but facts?

MR KIRBY: Well, as I said to Brad, I’m not going to get into speaking about the details of a draft document between --

QUESTION: I’m not asking about the details.

MR KIRBY: Arshad, I know, if you’d just let me finish.

QUESTION: Yep.

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into speaking about the details between – of a draft document between the IAEA and Iran or any other nation for that matter. And I would just, in terms of – in terms of the story itself, I would point you back to what the director general said himself in his statement, that the notion that they have given over responsibility to Iran for self-inspections is not the way they do business and misrepresents the – not just the arrangement they have with Iran but with any other nation. And so that’s the point. And if there’s a bone of contention that we can speak to, it would be that. But beyond that, I’m simply not at liberty to talk.

QUESTION: And the second question: Is it your understanding, as it is mine, that there are prior cases where the country that is subject to IAEA inspections has itself conducted sampling and taken photographs or videos that it subsequently provided to the IAEA?

MR KIRBY: I am not an expert on nuclear inspections or the arrangements that the IAEA has with various countries around the world. I would refer you to the IAEA. I am grossly unqualified to answer that question.

QUESTION: I think you’ll find that there are such instances in the past.

MR KIRBY: I’m simply not at liberty to say. That’s a question for the IAEA. But what I would like to go back to is Secretary Kerry’s confidence in the rigor that is applied in both the inspection regime going forward, which we talked about, as well as the IAEA’s ability through this arrangement, which they should speak to, but through this arrangement to be able to account for the possible military dimensions of Iran’s past program.

QUESTION: And that confidence is – I mean, he said that publicly earlier in the summer – that confidence remains the same wherever the IAEA now is in its negotiations with the Iranians about a final agreement on PMD – or a final agreement on inspections regarding PMD?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Could I ask the follow-up now? First of all, could you clarify that Parchin is a military facility and not a nuclear facility? Is it a nuclear facility?

MR KIRBY: I’m – we know it as a military site, Said.

QUESTION: As a military site. And it may have some, like, exploratory labs or something, correct?

MR KIRBY: You should talk to the folks in Tehran about that.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, the other things is on --

MR KIRBY: Thanks for filling in that, Brad.

QUESTION: -- on the IAEA. The IAEA, as far as similar arrangements or agreements and so on, is there an effort here to sort of make the IAEA do something that it has not done with other countries or with other agreements, similar agreements, with Iran?

MR KIRBY: Are you suggesting – sorry?

QUESTION: No, I’m saying this – this suggestion that the IAEA has made special agreements or private agreements on the Iran deal to allow them something that they did not allow others. There is no special treatment here is there, as far as you’re concerned?

MR KIRBY: Well, you would have to talk – you –the IAEA is better positioned to speak to their arrangements. And again, the director general’s also made very clear that he’s not going to get into the details of the arrangements. They work out these arrangements bilaterally with the countries around the world with which they work, and so I would let them speak to this.

But I think if you look at his statement --

QUESTION: I have.

MR KIRBY: -- today he’s been very clear that “The arrangements,” he says, “are technically sound and consistent with our long established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way.” I mean, it’s right there in his statement.

QUESTION: So you are – then you’re happy or satisfied that this statement should put this issue to rest?

MR KIRBY: Yes. Well, we were satisfied before he had to issue this statement, which he issued in response to a story in the Associated Press. But even before the statement, the Secretary was very clear that he’s very confident and comfortable in the arrangements, the technical arrangements – and I said this yesterday – that the IAEA has with Iran over this.

QUESTION: Is that the same as the – same story that was brought up during the hearing with Secretary Kerry some couple weeks back? I mean, wasn’t there at the time also talk about some sort of special arrangement or special agreements with Iran? Would you say that these stories are the same?

MR KIRBY: This --

QUESTION: Remember – I think if you go back a couple weeks or whatever it is, during the hearing I think somebody brought up that the IAEA had special agreements with Iran – secret agreement, that’s what they called it, secret agreement.

MR KIRBY: So --

QUESTION: Is this really – is this a different issue or is it the same old issue?

MR KIRBY: It’s the same in terms of – what this article gets to is the confidential arrangement that the IAEA has with Iran, as it does with nations around the world with which it’s associated. This is not the story – and I don’t believe that the Associated Press alleged that this was some new thing at all. And it’s not. So two points. One, it’s – the arrangement referred in the article is not a new thing. Number two, it’s not some secret side deal as it has been colloquially known. This is standard procedure for the IAEA to have these confidential arrangements with other countries.

And as – again, I’ll go back to what I said before – Secretary Kerry’s familiar with the parameters of it; so is Under Secretary Sherman; so is Secretary Moniz. They – and he remains confident that the IAEA will be – and this is a point that’s getting lost here – will be able to do its job to properly account for PMD – possible military dimensions – and then moving forward, with having an extraordinarily robust inspection regimen going forward.

QUESTION: Can I just issue a rejoinder? It’s not – you say it’s not a secret side deal, but it’s true that it’s neither – it’s not public and it’s confidential, correct – which is colloquially known as secret?

MR KIRBY: It’s not a secret side deal. It’s a confidential arrangement between --

QUESTION: And it’s not part of the actual agreement, but it runs parallel to the agreement because it deals with the roadmap for settling PMDs – is that correct?

MR KIRBY: Right, right.

QUESTION: So parallel, not side; not public, but not secret? Is that the position?

MR KIRBY: Brad, I mean, I appreciate the wordplay, but the point I’m trying to make is that this notion that this was some sort of under-the-table kind of thing --

QUESTION: I didn’t say that. You said --

MR KIRBY: I know you didn’t. But there are people out there, critics who are referring to it as a secret side deal as if it was some under-the-table, underhanded effort to try to get around the appropriate amount of transparency of this deal, and it is not. It is very much the same in terms of framework that they have with other countries. Now, each country’s different because each nuclear capacity and capability of each country’s different.

QUESTION: And not every country tried to covertly develop nuclear weapons, correct?

MR KIRBY: Exactly. So there --

QUESTION: So it should be strongest possible, in theory, correct? Given that this country tried to covertly develop nuclear weapons.

MR KIRBY: I would just go back to say that we’re very confident and comfortable that this arrangement, as it has been worked on between the IAEA and Iran, will do what we need it to do for the deal that’s been put in place by the P5+1 and Iran, which is to prevent them from having a nuclear weapons capability.

QUESTION: Well, John, some of the critics who are saying that this is a “secret side deal” – and I say that in quotes – are influential members of Congress and have obviously in the last 24 hours, they’ve come out and basically called into question the fundamental integrity of the deal that was struck between the P5+1 and Iran because of these reports. What is it going to take to persuade members of Congress to accept that what the IAEA is doing with Iran is standard operating procedure, is not something untoward, something unique, something that is going to be detrimental to the U.S. national security interest? Does it mean that Mr. Amano needs to have a briefing, a classified briefing, with members of Congress and show them what’s in the document in a classified briefing in order to persuade them of what you’re trying to say from the podium?

MR KIRBY: Mr. Amano’s already spoken.

QUESTION: He already did.

MR KIRBY: He’s already done that. And they don’t, and nor should they, share the actual agreement itself. But he’s already talked to members of Congress in a classified setting about the parameters of this.

QUESTION: But – yeah.

MR KIRBY: So back to Said’s question, this is not a new – this is not a new thing.

QUESTION: But if they did not actually see the document that spells out the agreement between the IAEA and Iran --

MR KIRBY: I wasn’t in the room. It was a classified briefing, so I’m not able to characterize what they were shown or not shown or what was discussed. But the director general himself went to Capitol Hill to explain this.

QUESTION: Right, but if we take these senior senators and congresspeople at their word, they don’t believe that the deal is a good arrangement. They are much more inclined to believe what the Associated Press reported on Wednesday. Would the U.S. advise the IAEA to actually show that document, that deal to members of Congress in order to quell their concerns about what is actually going on? Would that be advisable in the U.S.’s view?

MR KIRBY: The Secretary has explained, Under Secretary Sherman has explained, Secretary Moniz has explained our understanding of this arrangement in classified briefings to Congress. The director general of the IAEA himself has explained the parameters in a classified setting. The United States is not going to take a position to try to compel the IAEA to do things that are outside what they hold to be the limits of their obligations when it comes to sharing the technical details of a confidential arrangement.

QUESTION: Two truisms: Ronald Reagan was known for saying, “Trust, but verify.” Take a look at the actual deal. People in Missouri like to say they’re from the “Show Me State.” Why not actually put the document before those members of Congress who are extremely skeptical and who are working actively to try to get disapproval for the deal?

QUESTION: In a classified setting.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: Again, the director general has already made a trip to Capitol Hill to explain to the best of his ability to do so. And I would point you again to what he said today, that these arrangements under this roadmap agreed to between Iran and the IAEA are confidential, and he has a legal obligation not to make them public.

QUESTION: Does that --

MR KIRBY: There’s a legal obligation not to make them public.

QUESTION: I’m sorry – that doesn’t necessarily preclude showing them to a member of Congress in a classified setting.

MR KIRBY: He has already been up to Capitol Hill and talked about this.

QUESTION: I know that, but – can I finish?

MR KIRBY: But you’re --

QUESTION: But saying it is not the same as showing the document.

QUESTION: Can I finish? Can I finish? Can I finish, please? Showing it to a member of Congress in a classified setting does not seem to me to mean that he has made it public. It means it has been shown to someone in a co-equal branch of the U.S. Government in a classified setting where they are under obligation not to disclose it. So where is the harm intrinsic in that? It’s not making it public.

MR KIRBY: You’re asking the wrong guy, Arshad. I’m not the director general of the IAEA. The man went to Congress, went to Capitol Hill in a classified setting, and explained the parameters. What he said, how much detail he went into, what, if anything, he showed them, I don't know, nor would it be appropriate for me to know that. This is an arrangement between Iran and the IAEA, which is – he’s under a legal obligation to preserve the confidentiality of that and he has to do that.

QUESTION: Right, but my point is that showing the agreement to a member of a co-equal branch of the U.S. Government in a classified setting does not necessarily – or indeed does not broach its confidentiality. And while you are not the director general of the IAEA, you have an interest in securing at least a veto-proof vote in the U.S. Congress to get the deal through. And so it seems to me a reasonable question to ask why shouldn’t you go to the IAEA and say, look, can you just show the full details of this in classified setting to members of Congress to try to allay their concerns?

MR KIRBY: We don’t believe that that’s necessary given the fact that the director general has already been to Capitol Hill to explain.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: I have a question on the implementation of the JCPOA. Can you confirm now that, according to Politico, Ambassador Stephen Mull has been – the State Department is considering naming him as the person who will be overseeing the implementation of the agreement?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any personnel announcements to make today.

QUESTION: Well, you can’t confirm or even deny the report? (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any personnel announcements to speak to today.

Yes.

QUESTION: The AP article points to a draft document. Under Secretary Sherman said in congressional testimony that she had seen a draft document. Has Under Secretary Sherman, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz – have they seen what would ultimately have been the final draft, the final document of this IAEA-Iran deal?

MR KIRBY: I would just point you back to what the under secretary said herself, that she has seen a draft document.

QUESTION: So we can’t confirm that she has seen the final document or even saw it before the deal was finalized in Vienna?

MR KIRBY: I would just point you back to what she said and what she has seen. More importantly, the Secretary, Under Secretary Sherman, Secretary Moniz are aware of the parameters of this arrangement and, again, as I said at the outset, are more than comfortable that it will allow the IAEA to do its job with respect to this agreement.

Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: And we can say confidently that they don’t believe that something has changed from a draft document to the final --

MR KIRBY: I’m just going to go back to what I said before, that they’re more than comfortable with the arrangement and the fact that it will allow the IAEA to do its job with respect to this deal.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Could I – thanks, John. Could I just squeeze in a slightly different question about Iran --

MR KIRBY: I would love to have a different question right about now.

QUESTION: -- then we could go back to this for the remainder of the briefing afterwards. But Britain is planning on opening its embassy in Tehran this weekend. Does this department have a position or a statement on that? Are the British jumping the gun, moving too quickly? Do you support their embassy reopening? And could you give us an update on internal discussions here about the possibility of ever reopening a U.S. embassy in Tehran?

MR KIRBY: I have nothing to report with – about an opening of a U.S. embassy. We don’t have diplomatic relations with Iran. And I would point you to the United Kingdom to speak to their own plans with respect to diplomacy. It wouldn’t be for me to comment on it.

QUESTION: So they can do whatever they want; we don’t mind, no problem?

MR KIRBY: Last time I looked it’s a sovereign country, and they can make these decisions for themselves.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: John --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- a follow-up on that. Is it a good thing that the UK and Iran will --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to characterize it or comment on it. This is – these – I’ve seen these reports and it’s not for me to confirm their accuracy, and it’s certainly not for the United States to speak to. If the reports are true, then this is for the United Kingdom to speak to.

Yes.

QUESTION: The foreign minister in Iran welcomed today the Security Council presidential statement on Syria, which implies they are accepting the principle of Geneva for a political change in Syria, the transition in Syria. Do you see this as a significance – significant change?

MR KIRBY: I think what it – again, I won’t speak for Tehran. But I think if it speaks to anything, it just speaks for the validity of the UN process here and international community concern about where the conflict’s going and the fact that a political transition is necessary.

QUESTION: But this is the condition the Secretary was saying that for Iran to play a role in a peace settlement in Syria, they must accept the Geneva principles. And now this welcoming the statement that included the Geneva principles implies that they are accepting these principles. I mean --

MR KIRBY: Again, I would let Tehran speak for itself with respect to this. Nothing’s changed about our positions – our position about the legitimacy – the lack of legitimacy of the Assad regime to govern, and the fact that what needs to happen is a political transition in Syria to a government that’s more responsive for the Syrian people.

QUESTION: But the fact that they unanimously agreed on this statement – the Security Council – is really a watershed event. I mean, for the first time in two years. So you do expect some sort of a political process in the aftermath, maybe on the sideline of the General Assembly?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I mean, certainly – you’re talking about next month --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- at the General Assembly.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: I mean, obviously, the issue in Syria will be a topic of great discussion there. What’s going to happen on the sidelines of it, I wouldn’t get ahead of. I’d point you to the UN.

QUESTION: Let me ask you about the thinking in this building on Iran’s participation, because Geneva I is one thing; Geneva II was a different thing altogether because the opposition talked about regime change and the government only talked about terrorism. So – and Iran was not there, but the Saudis were there. So at the time it was perceived as Iran should have been involved. Do you look positively at any Iranian role in this process, perhaps because they do have a great deal of influence in Syria? Correct?

MR KIRBY: Look positively on any Iranian role? I mean, Iran has --

QUESTION: In a would-be Geneva III or something.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, we want the Geneva process observed, obviously. And what we want is a political transition in Syria. We’ve made our position very clear about the future of Assad and his regime. Obviously, we want – we don’t want anybody to play an unhelpful role in what’s going on in Syria. To date Iran has been unwilling to play a helpful role inside Syria. And look, we’ve made very clear our concerns about Russia’s involvement and propping up support for Assad, which only permits him to continue to brutalize his own people. So we’ve been very honest about the roles that certain nations are playing, helpful and unhelpful.

What we want, obviously, is to see this political transition succeed according to Geneva, and so we would – so I would – the way I would say this is we want everybody in the region, in the world and the global community, to support that process.

QUESTION: John, a quick follow-up to that. Are you saying that you see the role by Russia and Iran in Syria as, in essence, attempting to buy more time for Assad?

MR KIRBY: I would let Russia and Iran – this gets to their discussions, I think, is what you’re getting at. I’d let them speak for themselves about what they discussed. Again, I’d go back to what I said before. We want everybody in the region to play a helpful role, a constructive role through the UN to get to a political transition in Syria to a government that’s responsive to the Syrian people. And that is why Secretary Kerry called this meeting in Doha, the trilateral meeting between Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, and why he continues to want to work through that group to try to help support an eventual political process.

QUESTION: Is there any new information indicating that Iran and Russia are maybe willing to drop their insistence that Assad be part of the solution?

MR KIRBY: You’d have to talk to Russia and Iran about that. Nothing’s changed about our position on Assad.

QUESTION: What about the talks between Kerry and Lavrov? Did the Secretary get a sense that Moscow is willing to – in their talks, that Moscow is willing to change its view of Assad going forward in terms of his role in Syria?

MR KIRBY: Again, it’s – you’d have to talk to Foreign Minister Lavrov and Moscow about what their intentions are in terms of this political process. What’s important, Pam, and that we don’t forget here is that you’ve got those three countries – Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States – talking and will continue to talk about a political process going forward. And as we said at the time, a political process that recognizes the importance of the opposition groups in helping effect this political transition. What Russia and Iran – what their stance might be on Assad is for them to speak to. I can only speak for our position – and that has not changed – that Assad --

QUESTION: Does that mean – does that mean you dropped your reservation about inviting Iran to Geneva second?

MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary spoke to this himself. There’s no plans to invite Iran into these discussions right now.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: New subject?

QUESTION: No, can we stay on Syria for just one more? Today, there were rockets fired from Syria into Israel, and as a consequence, the Israelis are now, as we speak, are striking back. Are you aware of this or --

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: -- do you know of the developments?

MR KIRBY: You’ve got your iPhone, I don’t.

QUESTION: No, no, I mean this is --

MR KIRBY: No, I don’t --

QUESTION: This happened, like, several hours ago. I’m sorry.

MR KIRBY: It’s okay. I don’t have anything to report on that.

QUESTION: Yeah, but they also are – they’re saying that the Syrian regime will pay a heavy price. Are you aware of that?

MR KIRBY: No, I have not seen those comments.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: Yes, sir. New subject, two related questions on India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan are now planning to have NSA – National Security Agency – administration-level talks on various issues, including Kashmir. But politics have already started. But the people are happy – both sides. The politics is that India is saying that only India and Pakistan will talk all those issues, but Pakistani high commission in Delhi wants to meet the – what, so-called, India is saying that those are the terrorists or anti-India elements.

So any U.S. input on these talks between two countries? Again, they are restarting, but there’s still, again, politics.

MR KIRBY: Same answer that I gave you before, Goyal. I mean, we want to see the tensions decreased, and that nothing’s changed about our position here with respect to the tensions in Kashmir. This is an issue that India and Pakistan need to work out.

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: Can I move to --

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, there is this story which has created quite a stir in South Asia today that is in every news site in India and Pakistan which says that the United States is going to decertify Pakistan. It happened once before in 1990 when senior Bush did that and suspended all military and civilian assistance to Pakistan except bare minimum for humanitarian assistance. And that led to a situation which allowed al-Qaida to set up shop in that region. So is it happening again? Are you going to decertify Pakistan?

MR KIRBY: I would refer you to DOD. That’s – you’re talking about these counterterrorism support funds. I believe that is a Pentagon-run fund and program, and I’d point you to them to speak to that.

QUESTION: I just wanted to --

QUESTION: John, if that is a DOD – that’s a DOD program for sure, but if this indeed in the work, would it complicate diplomatic relations with Pakistan, especially ahead of the prime minister’s visit to Washington to meet with President Obama, and also in terms of efforts to help secure the region along the Afghan border?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’m not going to get ahead of DOD on this. They need to speak to their management of this program. What I would tell you from the State Department is nothing’s changed about our strong commitment to supporting Pakistan’s effort to – efforts to eliminate terrorist threats in the border area and throughout Pakistan. And we welcome the consensus from the highest levels of the Pakistani Government about the importance of combating all terrorists.

So bilaterally, we’re still going to continue to work very hard at this relationship, which we know is very important. Is it complicated? Absolutely. But there are common challenges in the region that we want to continue to work with Pakistan to combat. And again, as I said the other day, we need to remember that Pakistan has also paid a heavy price because of terrorism inside their borders. They’ve lost civilians and citizens. They’ve lost soldiers. It’s not a theoretical exercise for them, terrorists; it’s right there. And we’re going to continue to work with them on that.

QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up --

QUESTION: But John, decertification will have very serious diplomatic consequences, too. So don’t you see, the State Department, in this frame of reference? I mean, it is going to – you will have to face the consequences as well; you will have to deal with it. So do you see it happening, the decertification?

MR KIRBY: I cannot speak to a program that we don’t manage here at the State Department. You really need to talk to DOD. As I understand it, no decisions have been made with respect to this. But you – I would point you to DOD. And as for the – I’m not going to comment on a hypothetical about what impact, if any, a change in certification would have except to say that nothing’s going to change from our perspective about the importance of this bilateral relationship and to helping Pakistan deal with this very real threat inside their own borders, and the border area writ large.

QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up quickly. Today there was a question before Secretary of Defense Ash Carter that according to a news report, Dawn in Pakistan has reported that this military aid will be cut off and there’s a planning in Washington – it’s because of Pakistan is not doing enough on Haqqani Network --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- that was basically issue that means the counterterrorism or Pakistan is not doing enough. And this cannot happen without the recommendation from the State Department, of course, if any action Pentagon may take it.

MR KIRBY: So I mean, look, our views on Haqqani Network are well known and we’ve discussed them from this podium at length, and we raise the issue regularly as part of our engagement with the Government of Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan, I might add, has made it clear that it does not differentiate between militants. And this is a commitment from their prime minister, and that they will not allow Pakistani soil to be used as a safe haven for militants to attack other countries – in their words.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Samir.

QUESTION: ISIL affiliates in Cairo and Egypt – they did another bombing in the suburb of Cairo today. Do you have any reaction to this?

MR KIRBY: Well, we strongly condemn the bomb attack that took place in Cairo this morning which targeted the National State Security building. We wish all the injured a speedy recovery. And we want to reiterate our steadfast support for Egypt in this fight against terrorism.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you believe this claim of responsibility by – I think it was Sinai Province – is accurate, or do you have any reason to doubt that they carried this out, or --

MR KIRBY: A group called Islamic State Egypt has claimed responsibility. We’ve seen no indication to – we’ve seen no reason to doubt that claim of responsibility at this opint.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Change topic?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: John, there has been in the past few days another escalation of tension between North and South Korea, highlighted by an exchange of fire in the last 24 hours. Is it the position of this department that the North Koreans this, or do you see it as a regular flare-up related to annual U.S.-South Korean military drills, which have been ongoing since early this week?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’d let the North speak to whatever motivated them. We’re certainly closely monitoring this situation and we are concerned by the firing of a projectile into South Korea from the North. As we’ve said before, these kinds of provocative actions only heighten tensions, and we call on Pyongyang to refrain from actions and rhetoric that threaten regional peace and security.

The other thing I’d say is the United States remains steadfast in its commitment to the defense, the security of the peninsula, to our alliance with South Korea, and we’re going to continue to closely coordinate with the Republic of Korea.

QUESTION: One more question on Korea.

QUESTION: The Russians actually also put out a statement; it was similar to what you said without – but it didn’t have the South Korea protection part in it. Have you seen the Russian statement? It didn’t condemn the North Koreans, but I wondered if you had a position on whether it was helpful.

MR KIRBY: Whether the Russian statement was helpful?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: I have not seen it. We’ll let our statement stand for itself. I’ve not seen their statement.

QUESTION: One more on Korea.

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Yeah. It is announced that South Korea President Park is going to travel to China next month to – in order to participate in the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of World Anti-Fascist War. So what is your assessment about that?

MR KIRBY: Participation in these kinds of events, that’s a sovereign decision for each country. I would tell you, we respect the Republic of Korea’s decision. And for anything else, I’d refer you to their government.

Yes.

QUESTION: On Ukraine? The Russian representative to the OSCE today said that Ukraine is – they are not only failing to pull their military equipment from the contact line, but they are actually amassing forces even though the local militia have unilaterally withdrawn equipment. Do you call on the Ukraine side to stop amassing troops on the contact line and pull their equipment from the contact line?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, we’ve been very clear that we want that line respected, and I think – I don’t – I’m not going to speak to Ukrainian military movements. That’s – I don’t have that level of detail, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so. I’m not that --

QUESTION: They said regular troops, marines, volunteer units.

MR KIRBY: I cannot – I’m not going to – I can’t confirm from this podium what Ukrainian troops are doing. That said – and we’ve said this before – whatever they’re doing, it’s in response to continued violations of Minsk by Russian separatist forces, which – and I talked about it earlier this week – continue to push forward and use heavy weapons to attack Ukrainian positions. And you don’t have to take my word for it; the OSCE has made it clear, based on their analysis of these incidents, that the projectiles, the artillery, the rounds, are coming from Russian-separatist forces into Ukrainian areas. So --

QUESTION: They said it goes both ways.

MR KIRBY: So whatever – and I’m not speaking for --

QUESTION: The projectiles --

MR KIRBY: Hang on a second there.

QUESTION: -- fly both ways. They --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, they do. They do when --

QUESTION: And some of the violations – you even conceded a majority.

MR KIRBY: I’ve said a vast majority of the projectiles are coming from Russian-separatist sides --

QUESTION: But how are they going to stop if they amass troops on the contact --

MR KIRBY: -- and the Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves against kind of aggression. So what we want is – what needs to happen is the implementation of Minsk, and we need the Russian side to meet their obligations to the Minsk agreement. That’s what needs to happen.

QUESTION: But they’re saying some militia have unilaterally withdrawn the equipment. Why don’t they start there? Why doesn’t Ukraine meet those basic responsibilities to start pulling their equipment away?

MR KIRBY: Ukraine – we’ve already talked about this and we’ve already talked about this. I mean, they have withdrawn from the line of contact. Now, what’s been going on today, I’m not an expert on, but we’ve seen them withdraw. But they also have to react and be able to react and to defend themselves against Russian aggression, which they’re doing.

Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Iraq. I have a couple of questions. First, you just published a fact sheet today on the State Department website about the military assistance and this military sales that you provide to Iraq. It’s very useful, but it’s a little bit confusing. I was going to see if you can tell us – I mean, it’s a DOD question but you published it – it’s your own fault – so I have to ask the question here. If since 2014, since the war against ISIS started, tell us the – how much you’ve provided to Iraq, but have they been military aid, meaning without charge, or have you sold the weapons to Iraq? Because at some point it talks about military sales and at some point it talks about military assistance. So it’s kind of confusing; you don’t know which portion has been free of charge and which portion have you charged Iraq.

MR KIRBY: Why don’t we get somebody who can break that down for you in greater detail?

QUESTION: That would be great.

MR KIRBY: I’m not at liberty right now. I don’t have that kind of specificity of information up here. It’s both. And the larger point that I think needs to be made is that since last summer we’ve accelerated the aid and assistance, military support, that we have given to the government of Iraq and that pace continues, and we’re going to continue to do that to help them beat back ISIL. And it’s not just the United States; other nations are also contributing as well to the degree that they can. As for the exact breakdown, you’re going to have to let us get

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- some experts to sit down and talk to you.

QUESTION: Okay. And also on the issue of the Kurdish presidency. I know we’ve talked about this for the last couple of days, but the issue remains outstanding and the U.S. officials remain in the region talking to the leaders there. The president’s legal tenure expired last night, midnight. Do you still regard the President Barzani as the legitimate president of Kurdistan since he’s no longer by the law the president?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think that we’ve talked about this – that they --

QUESTION: He’s expired since midnight, so we haven’t talked about it, his term.

MR KIRBY: They had meetings in Erbil, as we talked about, and they’ve agreed to postpone the parliament sessions to Sunday to allow additional time for parties to resolve all the pending issues related to the presidential matter.

QUESTION: But do you regard him --

MR KIRBY: And I’d refer you to Kurdish authorities to speak to more about this consensus agreement. So I’m not going to take a position one way or the other here. We were glad to see the Kurdish parties get together, coming to a consensus agreement to kind of – to deal with this presidential issue. And as I said, they’re going to work through the weekend to do that.

QUESTION: So my question is: When you deal with President Barzani, do you still deal with him as the president of the region?

MR KIRBY: I’m not an expert on the constitutional framework there. When Ambassador McGurk was in Erbil with our charge, they met with President Barzani and other Kurdish political leaders, and at their invitation were welcomed back to Erbil to get an update on the political situation. But the decisions that were made and reached were Kurdish decisions.

QUESTION: Just – sorry, two more. I just want to be clear on this. There are two senior U.S. officials that have been there – the ambassador to Iraq and also Ambassador Brett McGurk. Does that mean the U.S. take – took this issue very seriously? How serious did you think the issue was that made you send two official to stay in the meetings for hours, a couple of meetings at least?

MR KIRBY: They were asked to be there by the Kurdish parties.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: They were invited. Ambassador McGurk was just in Iraq for much of this week, and I think earlier in the week I told you he was in Erbil, then he went to Baghdad, then he was invited back to Erbil by Kurdish political leaders because of these discussions they were having. And so he was very glad for the invitation. He and the charge went up there and they did sit in on these meetings, but it was at the invitation of Kurdish leaders and that’s why he was there.

Separate and distinct from that, of course we consider this an important matter. I mean, what’s happening in Iraq politically, militarily, economically, especially as it relates to the fight against ISIL, is of great interest to the United States and to every other member of the coalition. So yes, we take it seriously.

But the third point I’d want to make, and make it strongly, is that these were Kurdish decisions. Ambassador McGurk and our charge went at their invitation. It wasn’t to actively intervene or become involved in; they were invited back to sit in on these discussions. But the consensus that was reached was reached by the Kurdish parties.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Ask a quick question on Yemen?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. Yesterday there were stories that the Saudi-led coalition is using American-supplied cluster bombs in its bombardment of Yemen. Could you confirm or deny that?

MR KIRBY: I’m aware of reports that the Saudis have used cluster munitions, but I’d refer you to the Saudi Government for comment about specific operational details.

QUESTION: Would you find that alarming or disconcerting if they are, in fact, using American-supplied cluster bombs?

MR KIRBY: I would just tell you that we remain in close contact, regular contact with the Saudi Government on a wide range of issues in Yemen. We’ve urged all sides in the conflict – you’ve heard me say this before, Said – including the Saudis, to take proactive measures to minimize harm to civilians. We have discussed reports of the alleged use of cluster munitions with the Saudis.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: But you don’t oppose cluster munitions in principle?

MR KIRBY: There are --

QUESTION: You consider them a legitimate weapon of war if used appropriately, correct?

MR KIRBY: If used appropriately, and there are end-use regulations about – rules regarding the use of them. But yes, when used appropriately and according with those end-use rules, it’s permissible.

QUESTION: Cuba?

MR KIRBY: Cuba, sure.

QUESTION: And this goes to --

MR KIRBY: You guys have got me flipping all over throughout this book today. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: That’s good.

MR KIRBY: I got to get a lighter book. Go ahead.

QUESTION: There are at least 200 Cuban health care workers in Bogota right now who are waiting for visas under something called the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: They’ve – say that they’ve applied for these visas. According to an agency over at DHS, it’s supposed to take about four to six weeks to process the visas. Some of these folks have been waiting for visas for up to a year. Can you explain, one, what might be the reason for the delay; and two, could you say whether or not the ongoing efforts to normalize relations with Cuba may have affected the implementation of this program?

MR KIRBY: The answer to the last question is absolutely not. And I want to make a couple of small points on this because it’s not a State Department program; it’s a program that’s directed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, and so I would point you to them for more details about this. But it’s not a visa program, Ros. It’s a parole program. That’s what it – so these – this travel is under what they call a parole. It’s not the parole in the sense that we know it in a judicial way.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: But it’s administered by the Department of Homeland Security and allows Cuban medical personnel who are conscripted to study or work in a third country – in – at a third country under the direction of the Cuban Government to then safely and legally enter the United States. And again, I’d point you to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service to speak to the – these cases and what these medical personnel are going through. But it is not at all related to our new policy with respect to Cuba. There’s no tie, no connection.

QUESTION: Okay. Have the Cubans raised any concerns about this program? Have they --

MR KIRBY: They have regularly voiced concern about the program, but it didn’t come up in discussion on Havana on Friday.

QUESTION: And --

MR KIRBY: But their concern about it has been something that we’ve been aware of.

QUESTION: And there is – is there any inclination inside the Administration to eliminate this program, or does the U.S. feel that it’s a useful program?

MR KIRBY: No plan to eliminate – no plan to eliminate the program at this time.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Sure. Oh, yeah.

QUESTION: We’re all here.

MR KIRBY: Look, whatever. You guys should just start sitting together from now on.

QUESTION: Okay. Regarding the recent PKK attacks in Turkey --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Has Turkey requested any American assistance for its ongoing counterterror operations against PKK yet?

MR KIRBY: Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: Has Secretary Kerry had any phone calls with his Turkish counterpart over the threat PKK poses against Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Not recently, no.

QUESTION: And there was a question yesterday asked about U.S. view on Ahrar Al-Sham. Do you have any answer for that?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: There was no question at the briefing. That’s right.

QUESTION: So what are you looking up? (Laughter).

QUESTION: Thursday afternoon.

QUESTION: It’s under seal.

MR KIRBY: I thought I had something in there on that. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’m pretty sure it did not come up at the briefing yesterday. Is that correct?

QUESTION: We can’t talk about it tomorrow.

MR KIRBY: It did not come up at the briefing yesterday.

QUESTION: Have you found anything else good? (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Wouldn’t you like to know.

QUESTION: Can you talk about the ISIS threat on Turkey? ISIS put out a message threatening Turkey. Is that – do you take that.

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry.

QUESTION: ISIS just put out a --

MR KIRBY: You’ve got me all distracted now.

QUESTION: ISIS put out a video message threatening Turkey with attacks --

MR KIRBY: I have not --

QUESTION: -- because they cooperated with the United States and they have allowed America to use the Incirlik base.

MR KIRBY: I’ve not seen --

QUESTION: Videos?

MR KIRBY: -- that particular threat. But again, look, I mean, Turkey is a member of the coalition and is contributing to coalition efforts to go against ISIL. So while I haven’t seen their threat, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was true, because Turkey is an active member of the coalition and they are participating. And we’re grateful for that support.

Yes.

QUESTION: Turkey. John, I don’t know if you have seen the footages and pictures and also reports on the escalation of conflicts between PKK and groups affiliated with PKK with the Turkish state and Turkish police and including the pictures of one of the fighters get naked after she was killed by Turkish police, orTurkish army, and also that the shelling and bombing civilian areas by both sides. So we have not seen any kind of statement by State Department concerning those attacks by --

MR KIRBY: Which attacks again?

QUESTION: In the – in Varto, in Lice, and several other areas near the Diyarbakir where the clash between the groups affiliated with the PKK and also the Turkish state police and army also.

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t have anything on those particular attacks that you’re bringing up. I mean, I just – and as you know, I want to be careful that we don’t get into too much tactical discussion here. Are you talking about attacks between the PKK and Turkey or --

QUESTION: Yeah. It’s also not exactly the PKK, but there are supporters of PKK, like civilian got armed in different areas in Turkey. It’s not in the mountain. It’s in the urban warfares. There are reports on Atlantic, there are reports on Guardian and other places for few days talking about the urban – the escalation of urban warfare between the Turkish police and Turkish army and also the supporters of PKK within the cities.

MR KIRBY: I just don’t have a lot of detail on these particular incidents that you’re talking about. The only thing I’d say, broadly speaking, is we all recognize the threat that Turkey’s under by terrorists, particularly, in this case, the PKK. They have a right to defend themselves against those attacks and we understand that. What I’ve also said is we want both sides to work this out through some sort of process of resolution that’s not violent. And obviously, as a foreign terrorist organization, we call on the PKK to stop using violence and to participate in a process that could solve this between them and Turkey peacefully.

But again, without speaking to these individual events, I would just say Turkey has a right to defend itself against terrorism, as does any nation.

QUESTION: But will you also call on Turkey to not use terrorism for shelling civilian areas, for killing civilians, teenagers, whatever, as a result of their conflict with the --

MR KIRBY: What I’ve also said – and I’ve said this in many other instances and examples in other parts of the world – is we want for parties to do what they can, everything they can, to protect civilian populations from this violence, and to act in accordance with international humanitarian law. And we’ve said the same thing about Turkey in this regard, that we understand they have a right to defend themselves against terrorists, but we would urge them to use the proper amount of precaution so that the collateral damage and civilian casualties are not a result and that international humanitarian law is observed.

QUESTION: Last one on this: Are you watching closely the developments there, or you just heard these events through the report?

MR KIRBY: Am I what?

QUESTION: Are you watching the developments in the Turkish --

MR KIRBY: Well, we monitor the situation as best we can, but, I mean, there’s a limit to – in some parts of the world as to what your knowledge is, and I just don’t have anything more detailed on that to offer today. And for operational kind of assessments, I’d point you to DOD.

I got time for just a couple more. Yeah.

QUESTION: A very quick one on Thailand: Do you have a little more to share about the Bangkok attack now that the investigation gets kind of international dimension with Thailand asking for the assistance of Interpol?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have a lot. As you know, we have a long history of law enforcement cooperation with Thailand, and we’re going to continue to liaise closely with local authorities regarding the attack. Our embassy in Bangkok has informed Thai authorities that we stand ready to assist with the investigation as needed. I’m not aware of any request that’s been proffered.

QUESTION: So you have any clue of who could be behind of all --

MR KIRBY: No, this is a Thai investigation, and I’d point you to Thai authorities to speak to it.

QUESTION: John, two quick ones on different topics. One is Russia. There are Russian foreign media reports that Lavrov said that Vladimir Putin might be willing to meet with President Obama on the sidelines of UNGA. Is this something that Lavrov and Secretary Kerry have discussed recently?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any discussion about that and I’d point you to the White House for comment.

QUESTION: Okay. And with South Sudan, the talk yesterday between President Kiir and Secretary Kerry, do you know if Kerry called Kiir or if Kiir called Kerry? And also, gunmen in South Sudan shot and killed a journalist yesterday in what might have been a targeted killing, and that shooting of course comes after President Kiir threatened to kill journalists who reported against the country. What – the second question would be: What’s your reaction?

MR KIRBY: Secretary Kerry called President Kiir. As for our reaction, we’ve seen those reports of the killing of South Sudanese journalist Peter Julius Moi, and we’re very concerned about this development. Our embassy in Juba is following this situation very closely. Our condolences, of course, go out to his family, friends, and media colleagues. We call on the South Sudanese authorities and security services to expeditiously and thoroughly investigate this incident. We do not want to speculate on the nature of the incident or any connections there may be to other matters.

Separate and distinct, we are obviously deeply concerned by President Kiir’s comments regarding journalists earlier this week, and we call on him to disavow those words. The United States is committed to supporting freedom of expression, including of the press. Space for media, civil society organizations, and independent voices and views are crucial to building democracy and peace.

QUESTION: Sri Lanka?

QUESTION: John, I have --

QUESTION: A follow-up on that. Just – you said he made those comments about journalists earlier this week prior to the Secretary’s conversation?

MR KIRBY: I’d have to check the timeline, Arshad. I don't know.

QUESTION: Okay. I’m just wondering, was it – because I don’t think it was addressed in the readout of that conversation. Was it raised in the conversation?

MR KIRBY: I’d have to check the timeline. We routinely make clear our concerns about freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Yes.

QUESTION: I have two quick questions on Secretary Clinton’s emails. State Department attorneys yesterday confirmed in a court filing that Secretary Clinton did not have a department-issued mobile device. At this point, is the State Department able to say whether any of her personal devices were certified as secure?

MR KIRBY: There are – I’d just say there are reviews and investigations going on right now, including by our IG and by Congress, and so it’s just going to be inappropriate for me to comment beyond that.

QUESTION: We do understand that the iPad, at least, was not. So knowing that she had no State-issued device, does that raise the gravity of the situation, that it looks like this was all trafficked on personal devices?

MR KIRBY: Again, there’s reviews and investigations ongoing. I’m not going to comment beyond that.

Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Can I do a follow-up on that, John, before you run off, if you don’t mind?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: I know it’s been a long briefing.

Is there not some obligation for official U.S. correspondence by a senior national security official to be secured from potential hacking?

MR KIRBY: Security is always a paramount concern, Arshad. But again, because there’s reviews and investigations going on right now, I’m just not going to be able to comment further.

QUESTION: But as a – as a general – my question isn’t – it’s as a general matter. I know security is a paramount concern, but as a general matter, aren’t official communications of a senior U.S. Government official supposed to be protected from hacking by anybody – by spies, by other countries, by journalists?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, we get – we are victims of cyber attacks every day.

QUESTION: Exactly.

MR KIRBY: And the cyber realm is one that, obviously, we’re always deeply concerned about. And vulnerabilities, when they occur, we do everything we can to minimize those. So it’s a perennial concern here, particularly as the cyber realm continues to change in such a dynamic fashion. But again – so writ large, broadly, of course the communications of senior officials in government and protecting the – protecting them against cyber attack is obviously a concern. And again, I’d point you back to what Secretary Kerry did at the end of last year, which is ask the IG to go take a look at how we’re doing it here.

But with respect to former Secretary Clinton’s arrangements, again, these are things that are – there’s reviews and investigations underway.

QUESTION: But can you say whether it’s a legal requirement – not just that it’s a concern, which of course it is, but is it a legal requirement?

MR KIRBY: I’m not a trained lawyer, but there are any number of federal rules and regulations governing cyber security. And I suspect that many of them will continue to be edited and rewritten as we go through time, as the environment changes.

QUESTION: Can I have one more?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody. Nope. We’re done. Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:12 p.m.)