Rubio reacts to Russia helping Iran target US troops

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Look, we had a good conversation, a frank conversation. I'm not going to tell you what we talked about, because these diplomacy doesn't work well when you run to the microphones afterwards. Suffice it to say, I'll tell you what I told you yesterday. The United States, the President's been clear that we want, if we can, we are prepared to play a constructive role in bringing about an end to a senseless war. And we're ready to do that. And we, of course, expressed that. And we've expressed it in other means. So we talked about other things as well. [00:00:23] Speaker 2: Did you talk about Russia sharing information with Iran targeting U.S. troops? [00:00:27] Speaker 1: Well, who says that they are? [00:00:28] Speaker 2: Are they not? [00:00:29] Speaker 1: Who says they are? [00:00:30] Speaker 2: Peg said the knowledge that Russia was enabling in some ways, Russia and China. [00:00:33] Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's a different question from what you just asked me. Who said they're doing that? [00:00:37] Speaker 2: They've been reporting that there's. [00:00:38] Speaker 1: Reporting in the media? Yeah. Oh, then it must be true. It's in the media. It's a leaker. I'm not going to, let me say, let's imagine that were true. I certainly wouldn't discuss it in the press. I've already told you guys yesterday something, and I was very clear about it. Nothing that Iran is doing, nothing that anyone's doing to help Iran is in any way increasing their ability to target Americans. What you need to all understand, because we've explained this repeatedly, is Iran has spent, the better part of 20 years, not just sponsoring terrorism, but building long-range rockets, short-range missiles, and drones. And they were intending to build them a lot more. They were intending to double their stockpile. The stuff you're seeing them use now, they were going to double that. And they were going to use that and hide behind that to say, we're untouchable. We can now do a nuclear weapon, and you guys can't touch us, or we'll overwhelm your air defenses. Which is why the president had to address this threat. And he did, and he should have. Another president should have done it earlier. The world will be a safer place because we addressed it. Unfortunately, you know, in the short term, it creates disruptions. But you know what's really disruptive? A nuclear weapon in the hands of these radicals. [00:01:33] Speaker 3: In Ukraine, do you sense that the momentum is shifting a little bit in the conflict? And if so, does that manifest in what itself? [00:01:40] Speaker 1: I think it's a bloody war. I think it's a very bloody war. I think, you know, Russia is now suffering strikes deep in their territory. That's something you didn't see. At the end of the year, the winter is still going to hit Ukraine. And they're, you know, obviously going to have to defend their airspace. People suffering every day. I think it's the only conflict, I've been told, it's the only conflict that anyone in the military can recall where the killed in action rate is higher than the casualty rate. That's how bloody it is. The Russians, I believe, are losing upwards of 5,000 to 6,000 soldiers a week. That's a staggering number. [00:02:12] Speaker 3: Does Lavrov sort of express that? [00:02:14] Speaker 1: Well, look, guys, I mean, when I have these talks, these things don't work well. Unless I come out here and characterize what the other side is saying. Suffice it to say that, I think it's obvious to everyone that this war is very bloody. And look, Ukraine's played a tremendous price as well. I mean, we've seen, you know, civilian deaths, strikes in Kiev. We've seen some of that increase. Certainly, I mean, this war has not been good for Ukraine either. So I think both sides should have an incentive to bring it to an end. That's been the challenge, is an end that both sides can accept. And we've tried and we'll continue to try to see if we can, you know, find a middle ground that brings this about. And we're prepared to play that role. The opportunity presents itself. We've expressed that today and we've expressed it in the past. [00:02:49] Speaker 4: Mr. China launched live fire drills in the Taiwan Strait and apparently used water cannon on Philippine vessels near Scarborough Show. Yeah, those are two separate incidents. Two separate incidents, right, as your Chinese- [00:03:02] Speaker 1: Yeah, look, I mean, on the- Well, look, I mean, they know where we feel about those issues. Obviously, we publicly expressed ourselves on the missile launch. It's a destabilizing event. And what's happened with the Philippines, you know, obviously, we saw that, too. The whole world saw it and it's disturbing, you know. And these challenges and these claims of sovereignty over territory are a growing challenge. That's why we continue to reiterate our commitment to our treaty partners, but also our commitment to freedom of navigation and respect for territorial rights in the region. And it's one of the cornerstones of our engagement in the Indo-Pacific and especially via ASEAN. And I made that point in every forum that we've had here. [00:03:37] Speaker 2: Sir, President Trump, he said on True Social that the U.S. is going to bomb and destroy a bridge or power plant every time that Iran targets a ship in the street. Is he talking about civilian infrastructure there? Do you think that is an effect- [00:03:48] Speaker 1: This is what he's talking about. Iran is begging us, okay, both directly and indirectly, let's do a deal, let's talk, let's talk. Iran is begging every day. The problem with Iran is every time they make a deal, the people that are in charge there, they either break it or they want to change it. So it looks like they're not ready to make a deal, so they're going to continue to pay a price. And every night the price gets higher and higher and higher. And that's what's happening now. And until maybe in a few days they'll be ready to make a deal once they realize that this is not a winning proposition for them. And that's what the president is outlining. The idea that this is going to continue, it's not going to continue this way. The price will continue to get higher every single night until they come to their senses. Right now apparently they haven't come to their senses, and so the president doesn't see a lot of utility in responding to their overtures at this point. Because, frankly, Iran is clearly not ready to make a deal, at least not one they're willing to live by. [00:04:36] Speaker 5: But is he talking about civilian infrastructure? Yesterday you were saying you were hoping that there would be de-escalation in the Red Sea, and the Houthis now attack two Saudi ships. What is your reaction to that? [00:04:48] Speaker 1: Yeah, look, I hope that they'll stop. They shouldn't really do that. They got suckered into this by the Iranians. You know, the Houthis largely were smart and stayed out of all this throughout the conflict. But they now apparently have gotten themselves suckered into this, going after Saudi Arabia and their ships. And by the way, that's, you know, I was reading reports a few hours ago that there was actually a Saudi fuel ship that's flagged Chinese. It's a Chinese ship. Are they going to blow up the Chinese ship? And this becomes a problem for China. This will become a problem for the whole world. But I hope that will de-escalate because I think the Houthis, frankly, got snookered into this thing by the Iranians. And they were smart to stay out of it, and they should stay out of it, and they should stop. We'll see what happens there. Obviously, it's not a positive development. We'll see what happens. [00:05:30] Speaker 6: Secretary, what prompted the easing of... [00:05:33] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, man. I love his little court reporter thing. It's cool. Why didn't the rest of you guys have this? This guy's the smartest guy here. Look at that. He's a trendsetter. I know, he is. You better catch up. All right, go ahead. I'm sorry. [00:05:41] Speaker 6: Yes, what prompted the easing of sanctions on Hong Kong last week? In terms of letting the executive order expire? [00:05:49] Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it wasn't easing of sanctions. The executive order expired. The conditions underlying some of those elements no longer existed. There remain other individuals that remain sanctioned nonetheless, despite... The executive order is a partial expiration on certain individuals, but not on others. It just depends on the light of it. And, you know, the justification and rationale behind that original executive order had sort of... The circumstances had changed in the president's judgment. But there are individuals... There are still a significant number of individuals in Hong Kong that remain sanctioned, that were not covered by the executive order. And that remains in place. And obviously, that was raised with us yesterday. But we don't see a change any time in the near future on that. [00:06:26] Speaker 7: Mr. Secretary, Russia lead out of your meeting also, once again, mentions Anchorage proposals. Can you please clarify what those proposals are and how relevant are they today? [00:06:36] Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, there was no... I mean, proposals, we know, they've been reported. They call it 3 plus 2, they're trading a terrible... But those failed. You can't have a peace deal unless both sides agree to it, and the Ukrainians would not agree to it. And so that's why that effort didn't work. So we'll have to find new suggestions and new ideas, because certainly that one, it was not acceptable to Ukraine at the time. And I don't think it's acceptable to them now, either. In fact, it's probably less acceptable to them. So, you know, when peace comes, it'll be because of some new idea and some new concepts. And we're prepared to offer some of those in the right setting and form. If the opportunity presents itself and the conditions are right, we're prepared to play that role in a positive way. [00:07:14] Speaker 8: In terms of putting more strategy in terms of the sides, in terms of freedom of navigation operations, will you be conducting more of that soon? [00:07:29] Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, look, we're a treaty ally. I mean, the United States and the Philippines have a treaty. And so we will live by that treaty. We're committed to supporting our treaty partners. And, you know, obviously, we've already done quite a bit. In fact, there was a U.S. Coast Guard vessel in the region at the time that this happened and actually helped stand between the two sides and allowed the individual who was injured to be rescued and brought back for medical treatment. So we're already here. We're already present. We have a role. And we're not going to abandon our allies. We've made that abundantly clear. We're going to have to have a good relationship with China. Okay, these are the two most powerful economies in the world, two large militaries, two nuclear powers. We have to have a relationship with China. We want it to be as positive as it possibly can be. But that won't come at the expense of our allies and our partners in the region or our presence here either. [00:08:14] Speaker 2: Sir, it's been a day since we asked you about the Saudi nuclear agreement. Have you had a... [00:08:20] Speaker 1: Well, let me refer... No, but let me refer you... I know that was in the press the last few days, but let me refer you back. I think it was in November of last year when the Energy Department entered into this agreement. So the details are there. Obviously, even when the official announcement is made, it will have to go through a congressional notification process. And then we can talk more in depth about it. But suffice it to say that the U.S. is always looking for cooperation agreements with allies. I mean, Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner of the United States. And I think, without speaking in specificity about that deal, but in general, we're not the only country in the world that offers nuclear technology. And when countries decide they want to pursue a peaceful civil nuclear program, we'd prefer them do it with us than do it with some other country. It allows us to have influence over the direction that it goes. It allows us to make sure that there are safeguards in place, things of this nature. And in the case of Saudi Arabia, they've been an important strategic partner for us, so it would make sense for us to enter into such an agreement. But obviously, the details of it, once it's released, you'll see it, you'll be able to understand it. And more importantly, it'll go through its congressional review process, which is a key part of this, you know. And so there'll be a lot more questions answered at that time. [00:09:25] Speaker 2: Would you be comfortable with Saudi Arabia enriching and reprocessing agreement? [00:09:28] Speaker 1: I'll let the agreement speak for itself. Suffice it to say that any agreement that we're going to make with any country in the world on civil nuclear energy is going to be one that will have safeguards in place to ensure that it can't be turned into a weapons program. And one of the best safeguards is to make sure that American technology and American companies are the ones that are involved in doing it. If, on the other hand, a country pursues nuclear technology with another country, well, then we don't really control those safeguards. So, again, Saudi Arabia seeks to have a peaceful civil nuclear program. Other countries do as well. We have a similar agreement in place now with the UAE. And U.S. companies are the world standard in providing that. And so we are always looking for opportunities, by the way, not just in, you know, conventional reactors, but in small modular reactors, which is an area that we are increasingly around signing MOUs all over the world to help do as well. To countries that are exploring civil, peaceful nuclear energy, the United States wants to be their partner of choice. And we're always looking for opportunities to be able to make sure that our technology and our companies are the ones that are providing that. Does anybody over here have questions? Because this side is really lopsided. Go ahead. [00:10:33] Speaker 4: You just put sanctions on China's moonshot AI for apparently distilling. [00:10:37] Speaker 1: I don't have any announcement on that today. Go ahead. [00:10:39] Speaker 3: Should we say that Saudis agree to the additional protocol? It's sort of the gold standard. And if the administration is trying to stand up to say that non-proliferation is a problem in the Middle East, shouldn't that be the barrier? [00:10:50] Speaker 1: Any agreement that we would make on civil nuclear energy with Saudi Arabia or any other country is going to have safeguards in place to ensure that those cannot ever be turned into a weapons program. I mean, that's the gold standard. And obviously, we live in a new era. There are competitors that we face, so we'll have to adjust individual deals to that reality. We're not the only show in town, but we're the best show in town. But we want to make sure that it's our companies they're picking. So, again, we understand any deal we enter into with any country will have to go through a congressional review process. And so we will ensure that in order to get congressional approval, we're going to need to have those safeguards in place. Whether they're structured differently from other deals in the past or not will depend on the individual deal. [00:11:30] Speaker 9: On Cuba policy, you said in recent months— [00:11:32] Speaker 1: I'm in Asia. You're asking me about Cuba. That's far. [00:11:34] Speaker 9: But you said yesterday you're the main guy on Cuba policy, so we should ask you. [00:11:38] Speaker 1: No, I said most of all you guys were asking me a question about people that are involved in Cuba policy. So no one's more involved in it than me, so go ahead. [00:11:43] Speaker 9: This is a good question for you. So you said in recent months that the economic system can't improve unless there's a change in the political system. But you have—you've been very vague about what that change in the political system would entail. Can you give us some more details with the Communist Party staying power, but a different leadership? Would the Castros still be in power? Would— [00:12:01] Speaker 1: So you want me to give you details on our plan? Yeah. Okay, not today. No, I'm not going to do that. I'm going to tell you this. No, no. Here's what I told you, and this is the truth. The people who are in charge of the country don't know what they're doing. They don't know. They don't know how to fix their economy. They don't know how—they don't understand basic concepts. And I think the challenge that Cuba has faced for the last 15 years is they want to somewhat improve their economy, but they're afraid that if they improve it too much, they'll lose political control over people. That's the challenge that they face. So I think for us, we're looking for an opportunity to influence the direction that that goes because it's 90 miles from our shores, and we want Cuba to be prosperous. We want Cuba to be free. But in that sense, you know, on the level of detail you're asking me, suffice it to say that as long as the people that are in charge think the way these people think and act the way these people act, it's going to be difficult for them to make the changes that need to be made in order for Cuba to have a better future because they just really—they either—they don't understand that some of them are incompetent, and some of them just basically don't understand, and others are just so recalcitrant that they'd rather, you know, destroy the country than ever walk away from a failed ideology, although I think the number of people in that category is less than it's ever been. But for the most part, it's just people that don't know what an economy is supposed to look like. They really don't, because they've always relied on foreign sponsors. That regime has survived on, you know, on subsidies from the Soviet Union and then from Chavez. This is the first time they don't have a sponsor that's giving them subsidies for free, and they don't know what to do with themselves, because all they've done is freeload off these countries for all these years. The people of Cuba deserve better than that. Did you have a question? Yeah. What are your thoughts on the appropriate defense spending for allies like Japan and the Philippines? What is my opinion on— Defense spending, appropriate defense spending. Well, we've communicated that to them, but look, at the end of the day, I still think that, you know, these are partners and allies, but we want countries to assume more responsibility for their own security. And for the most part, I think the countries in this region agree. And so the U.S. will continue to do its part. But by the same token, we're now, in many cases, dealing with advanced and wealthy economies who have the ability to spend more on their own defense, and they should. I think the primary responsibility of any government is the national security of their country. So, you know, but I wouldn't—I don't think it's a point of conflict between us and the region. [00:14:18] Speaker 10: Yeah, look, again, we have a treaty agreement with the Philippines that we intend to keep. [00:14:33] Speaker 1: We have a treaty agreement that we intend to live by, and we have had a longstanding defense partnership. We don't view that as a hostile act towards anybody. We view it as keeping our commitments to long-term allies with whom we have many shared values, shared history, and we hope shared future. [00:14:50] Speaker 11: Venezuela, you said that next month, I think, they're going to start this transition talks. First week of August, yeah. Yeah, between the interim government and— [00:14:56] Speaker 1: The 2015 Assembly. [00:14:57] Speaker 11: The 2015 Assembly. Is there going to be a direct role for Maria Corina Machado and her opposition movement at one time? [00:15:02] Speaker 1: Well, that's up to the Venezuelans to decide. I'm sure she can play a role if they allow her, you know, if they want her to. But the 2015 National Assembly is the government that we recognized up—you know, that's the government we had recognized up until these changes when we have these interim authorities. But we think it's a really good development. In the end, I would say that in order for Venezuela to have the reconciliation that that country requires to move forward on all these other projects, every element of Venezuelan society needs to be represented. And obviously, Maria Corina represents an important element of that. I mean, she's got supporters there and people that are supportive of her. And there are others as well. But a reconciliation process, we are there to facilitate it, not to dictate it. And we will certainly provide guidance and support in the direction that it moves forward. We think it's important for the country to do that. And there's a lot to work on. I mean, if you think about in a country like that, that's been under a regime now for 20 to 25 years, political parties have to transition from being street protest movements to electoral forces. You have to have a free and open press so you can communicate it. You have to have an electoral council that will actually accurately count the votes. You have to have enough security in the streets to ensure that the ballot box is safe and people aren't being intimidated. There's a lot that goes into an election. Then creating the infrastructure for an election that really was not invested in for a very long time. And in some cases, they were hostile towards. So there's a lot of change to happen. But what it requires is patience, persistence. We have to stay on top of it because these transitions do take some time. They don't need to take a decade or even five or seven years. But they take more than a few weeks, especially when you're dealing with something that's been in place for 25 years, unfortunately, for the people of Venezuela. [00:16:35] Speaker 3: There's some prominent Republicans who have said they want you to take over the Iran negotiations. They trust you. They think that you will prioritize Israel's interests. And they're attacking Vice President Vance. [00:16:46] Speaker 1: Who are these prominent Republicans? [00:16:48] Speaker 3: Senator Xi, the Wall Street Journal opinion page. [00:16:51] Speaker 1: Well, that's not a Republican. That's a newspaper. [00:16:54] Speaker 3: You're a troublemaker of these questions. [00:16:56] Speaker 1: I think you know it leans right. No, no, look, guys, listen. Here's the bottom line. You know who the lead negotiator is? His name is Donald J. Trump, the president of the United States. That's who dictates our policy. He has a team of people that work together on this. We all have a role to play, depending on what the topic is. We have very good negotiators in Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. We have the Vice President of the United States, which is the second highest ranking official, which tells you the importance we've given this file. Obviously, I have a role to play. Department of War has had a role to play. That's how we approach it. This doesn't, I mean, it's a combined effort, and it always should be. [00:17:27] Speaker 3: Do you wish people didn't endorse you to take over the talks yourself? [00:17:31] Speaker 1: I mean, you're telling me about that. But that's not how our system works. That's not how this administration works. It starts at the top. The president is in charge, and he has a team of people that provide counsel and provide advice, but ultimately whose job it is to execute on the president's directive. We have a great team that works very well together. On that topic, we've worked well together on a number of targets. We've worked together as a team on Lebanon. We've worked together as a team on Venezuela. We've worked together as a team on the Thailand-Cambodia peace agreement that was put together. We've worked together as a team. We have a really good core team that works on foreign policy and national security. And oftentimes, it's a multi-agency effort because there's a role for Treasury to play. Sometimes there's a role for energy to play. That's how these things work. It's not one person. It's all these different elements of our government that have to work in conjunction and in concert to execute on the president's directive and on the direction that he's giving us. [00:18:20] Speaker 8: Secretary, you've argued that the ICC threatens the sovereignty of the United States and its allies. How do you reconcile that position with the need for an international mechanism to hold perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity accountable? [00:18:35] Speaker 1: Well, here's how I reconcile it. We're not members of the ICC. We never signed that treaty. We never joined it. And they somehow claim that they have a right, nonetheless, to go after non-treaty members and put heads of state and others in jail. We've long had quarrels with them. And we have lunatics and crazies involved in the ICC that are talking about charging members of the U.S. military, maybe even the president or a future president, with crimes. And it's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. We are not members of that court. We never signed on to that treaty. They need to understand that. If people want to sign on and be a part of that stupid organization, they can. But we're not going to be a part of it, and they're not going to apply their jurisdiction to Americans. That's just not going to happen. We're not going to tolerate it now or in the future. And we've warned them about it repeatedly. And now they're going to see the consequences of ignoring us. [00:19:19] Speaker 5: Mr. Secretary, can I come back to Ukraine, please? [00:19:22] Speaker 1: You want to go back to Ukraine? Oh, as a question, you're saying? As a question, yes. Yeah. [00:19:25] Speaker 5: And you're meeting with Mr. Lavrov. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that Mr. Lavrov told you or asked you or said to you that the U.S. needs to stop arming Ukraine. What was your reaction? And there's a statement. They said that. [00:19:42] Speaker 1: Yeah, I know. I mean, I don't know what their statement said. I know what happened in our meeting. At the end of the day, what did you say? Well, first of all, the U.S. position on it is we sell arms. We sell arms via Pearl, which is an initiative we have through NATO. And that's what we're involved in. There's been no change to our policy in that regard. We want a peace deal. We want the war to end. We're prepared to play whatever positive role we can to end the war. And in order to end this war, we'll require something that both Russia and Ukraine can agree to. That's not going to happen at a press conference. That's not going to happen in one meeting here in the Philippines. That's going to require a lot of work. We invested in the past in it. It was unsuccessful, or at least unfruitful at the time. If conditions and factors have changed to make that possible, we're ready to go. The president's committed to that, and every single day, if we identify an opportunity to make a difference in that, we will. Because in the end, what the president most cares about is not the stuff people are... Well, here's what he most cares about, that people stop dying, that people stop being slaughtered, that Ukraine can go on and live in peace, and Ukrainians can move back to their country and rebuild it, that young Russians aren't being killed at the tune of 5,000 a week in the battlefield. He thinks it's a stupid war. He thinks it's a senseless war. And if we can play a role in bringing it to an end, we're going to use the power and influence of the United States to do so. And we're prepared to do that if the opportunity presents itself, and I hope it has, and I hope it does. And that's what we've communicated consistently to both sides, by the way. [00:21:01] Speaker 7: On that line, Secretary, you said that you are open for new ideas. Now that you've met with Lavrov, are you and the president prepared to sit down with your counterparts, your current counterparts, if they visit Bashar to speak for the funeral? [00:21:12] Speaker 1: Well, I don't know if they're coming next week or not. I think President Zelenskyy had expressed an interest in coming. We've met, I mean, we just saw, we'll meet with them. We've met with them often. We talk to them often. In fact, we saw them two weeks ago in Turkey. I would argue we've probably met with the Ukrainians far more times than we've met with the Russian side. And I'm sure we'll meet again in the future. Whenever that is, we're always open to meeting with them. [00:21:34] Speaker 2: A Trump statement about the bridges and the power plants. Just want some clarification. Do you rule out striking civilian infrastructure? [00:21:40] Speaker 1: I think I saw, you know, guys, I saw Arachi, their foreign minister, who the other day say something about their policies, an eye for an eye. The president's policy is a head for an eye. I mean, honestly, that's what it's going to be. I mean, they will pay a very heavy price for the things they're doing. They're already paying a very heavy price. You guys don't know it because you don't cover it. You're not in Iran. You're not in the street. They don't have a free media. But they're going to continue to pay a very heavy price. Their industrial base has been decimated. Their defense industrial base has been decimated. They're losing launchers. They're losing radars every single night. They are suffering billions of dollars in damage, and their economy is a disaster. But despite all that, okay, these people who are calling us every day, begging, let's do a deal. They send us messages through other countries, third countries. I mean, they're running out of countries to send. Even I had countries here coming up to me. Oh, I just spoke to the Iranians. They want to do a deal. The problem is every time these people do a deal, they either break it or after they make it, they want to change the deal. So they're probably not ready to do a deal yet, but they will be soon because the price they're paying is very high. Despite their tough talk and their flowery language and their stupid Lego videos they put out, I've never seen them, but they put these things out on social media. Despite all that bravado, they are suffering tremendously, and they're going to suffer more until they come to their senses. They're not there yet, unfortunately. [00:22:52] Speaker 2: Which countries came to you? [00:22:53] Speaker 1: I can't tell you who told me that. I mean, they're not betraying the conferences. There's some of them that are here, yeah. And every day I get a text or a call or a signal message from a foreign minister, oh, so-and-so called me. The Iranians want to talk. The Iranians want to talk. But the problem with these guys, in addition to the fact that they're probably fighting with each other, is they make a deal, they agree to something, and then they decide, oh, let's change it after they made it. Or they decide, oh, I know we made a deal, but we're going to violate it. I mean, these people, unfortunately, just, they aren't ready for a deal. I think they'll be ready soon, though. [00:23:22] Speaker 3: Do you think there's going to be a big escalation by the United States in the coming days? [00:23:26] Speaker 1: That's the president's decision to make. They're going to pay a price. They're already paying a price every single night. [00:23:30] Speaker ?: Of course. [00:23:30] Speaker 1: I mean, you can't do the stuff they're doing for free. They're going to pay a price. [00:23:34] Speaker 9: On Russia and Ukraine, did you talk with Wang Yi about any influence that China might be able to exercise to help bring that war to the United States? [00:23:40] Speaker 1: We didn't discuss in our meeting, no. We didn't discuss Russia and Ukraine. We had a lot of other stuff to talk about. [00:23:44] Speaker 6: Secretary, did you discuss with Wang Yi the issue of technology and whether that will be on the agenda for the September leaders? [00:23:52] Speaker 1: Well, that's a broad topic, technology. Like what? What do you mean? [00:23:54] Speaker 6: AI, AI discussion. [00:23:54] Speaker 1: Oh, AI. Yeah, look, I think that they've expressed, they'd like to see some global governance about what AI is governed by. Obviously, I'm not sure we're aligned on that point yet, but that topic has come up. I think they've expressed an interest in discussing what the rules are going to be for how AI is used in the future. And I think that's going to have to be an international conversation. So, you know, we have some ideas about what that should look like and what those standards should be. And maybe they're different from theirs, but we didn't go into great depth on that topic. But it's an issue. It came up in Beijing as well. [00:24:26] Speaker 7: Secretary, just a final point on Iran. Is Iran's policy running out of time? [00:24:32] Speaker 1: With Iran? I just don't think they're serious about making a deal. These guys, I mean, the more the president's gotten to know them, the more he's come to that realization. I mean, he said it yesterday, I believe he gave a speech in Georgia. These guys, the problem with them is you can't make a deal with people unless they're going to keep it. And these people make deals and then they break it almost immediately. Or they decide, oh, let's change the deal. That's not how deals work. I mean, they violated the MOU within days of it being implemented. We kept our end of it. So now they're paying the price for it. And maybe they'll change their mind here over the next few days as they continue to suffer great losses. [00:25:01] Speaker 3: Mr. Secretary, you know the Senate better than most anybody. They're debating the new military policy bill right now after the House passed it. One of the more controversial topics is about fusing the U.S. and Israeli military when it comes to co-production on things. Do you have any sovereignty concerns about that? If there are situations where the United States wants to send weapons, Iron Dome came up with Ukraine when the Israelis... [00:25:24] Speaker 1: You're asking about NDAA? Yeah, I mean, largely the Department of War manages that legislative portfolio. So I'm aware of the provision you're discussing that involves cooperation on technology. And look, at the end of the day, the truth is we do that with countries all over the world, right? I mean, if somebody... Well, I haven't read the specific provision in terms to tell you in detail. I understand that. I understand the topic, though, because it's not new. You know, on air defense, for example, we've long cooperated with the Israelis. Look, if we have a breakthrough in our system or they have a breakthrough in theirs, we could share that in a way to improve our own systems as well. So if they've come up with some novel way of defeating drones, for example, of course we would want to have that and benefit from it. By the way, they're not the only country in the world that we would do that with. We do that with other countries as well. So I think that's the provision you're referring to. And that's something we're already doing. I mean, that's something that already exists. But I don't think there's any... That's different from sovereignty. I mean, it's not like U.S. forces are going to come under the command and control of a foreign general or anything of that nature. [00:26:22] Speaker 3: When Ukraine was asking for Iron Dome, the United States and some lawmakers, including Lindsey Graham, wanted the U.S. to send an Iron Dome battery that was on the East Coast. Netanyahu vetoed that. That was the co-production. [00:26:34] Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. But any time you enter into co-production, we have those restrictions too. I mean, if we provide weaponry to a country as part of an agreement, they can't transfer that to a third country without our approval. That's... We do the same thing. And Israel's not the only country in the world that does it. Other countries do it with their systems as well. That's just a normal way when you do arms sales, part of the restrictions is you get to veto them passing it on to a third country. That's not just us to do it or Israel. It's every country. [00:27:03] Speaker 8: Is President Trump coming to Monday for the ASEAN leader summit in November? [00:27:07] Speaker 1: I think he'd like to. I don't know what the schedule looks like. You know, yet I can't commit him to that trip because I don't control his schedule. But he was there last year. And I think that's something that we're going to talk about. It's an important forum. And I think APEC is a few days after. So, but I'm not... I can't make scheduling announcements for you today. [00:27:22] Speaker 2: Secretary, would you rule out running for the president in 2020? [00:27:26] Speaker 1: Do what? [00:27:26] Speaker 7: I'm not asking president questions. Come on, guys. Do you think this visit has eased concerns about declining U.S. engagement in Asia? [00:27:35] Speaker 1: Are there eased concerns about our engagement in Asia? I mean, we're engaged in Asia every single day. I mean, obviously, this is a conference. We're here. We're participating. But we're engaged in Asia every single day. The Department of War is present all over Asia. The Department of State and our embassies are involved every single day in Asia. We have strong partnerships and economic ties to multiple countries in the region. Virtually every country represented here in ASEAN is someone that we deal with every single day. So there's a lot of competing interests in the world. So I think there's always going to be a concern that America is so focused on one place that it can't focus on another. But one of the great things about our country is that it is a large, powerful country. It has the ability to be present in the Western Hemisphere, in the Indo-Pacific, in Europe, in Africa, in the Middle East, and anywhere else where our interests are vital. Including the Arctic, by the way. [00:28:20] Speaker 2: Do you think it would be easier to make a deal with Iran if the United States didn't wipe out so many layers of their leadership? Trump often mentions that they're on the third tier now. Do you think it would be easier? [00:28:29] Speaker 1: To do what? [00:28:30] Speaker 2: To make a deal. [00:28:31] Speaker 1: Well, I think the first two layers weren't necessarily the nicest people on Earth. So I don't think that, you know, we'll just keep going down the layers, I guess. But I don't, the first two layers were not like reformers. These were not like renaissance men. You know what I mean? So I'm not, I don't think that the layers are the issue here. They're just, look, the system is a, at the end of the day, it's a country run by radical clerics. I think they have political people in their system. I wouldn't call them moderates, but they at least understand, like, that hyperinflation is bad, high food prices is bad, gas shortages are bad. But I think when you get to that clerical level, these guys are just oblivious to all of that, and they're destroying their country. These are the people, understand, Iran is a rich country. Iran could be the richest country in the Middle East if they want it to be, but instead, they take their money and they use it and they give it to Hezbollah, they give it to Hamas, they give it to the Houthis, they give it to Shia militias, they give it to sponsor terrorism all over the world, they give it to try to kill people all over the world, they build drones and missiles and pursue a nuclear weapons program. That's what they spent their money on. If they had spent their money on their people and on their economy, today, Iran could be probably the richest country in the region if you want to know the truth. [00:29:38] Speaker 7: Is the U.S. seeking a regime change in Iran or just change in its behavior? [00:29:42] Speaker 1: I think the U.S. is seeking a denuclearized Iran that will never have a nuclear weapon. The future of Iran, you know, that's obviously, you know, it would be easier to have people in charge that don't want nuclear weapons, but in the end, that's our interest. Our number one interest and the threat they pose to the world is these lunatics in possession of a nuclear weapon, and that's not going to happen, not as long as Donald Trump is president. I don't know if some future president or I know some past presidents have made some bad deals and others just haven't dealt with a problem. But our issue and our concern and our focus is denuclearizing Iran. They can never have a nuclear weapon. I don't know how many times the president has to say that. [00:30:15] Speaker 11: But this group of people who you describe as lunatics, I mean, if they decide to make a deal, the United States... [00:30:19] Speaker 1: Well, some of them are lunatics, some of them are evil. Some of them are evil lunatics. You can be both. [00:30:23] Speaker 11: So the United States is okay, comfortable, leaving these evil lunatics in place. [00:30:26] Speaker 1: They just can't have a nuclear weapon. They can't have a nuclear weapon. I mean, imagine what they would do to the world. [00:30:30] Speaker 11: What changed between now and the beginning of the war when the president made it sound like that was not going to be the case, that regime change was one of the goals of the war? [00:30:36] Speaker 1: No, he never said regime change was a goal. From the very beginning, like from day one of the operation, it was very clear that we were going to degrade their missile launchers, their drones, and their factories. And their navy. Their navy no longer exists. There is no such thing as an Iranian navy. What they have left is a handful of Boston whalers. But they don't really have a lot of... They don't have a navy. They don't have an air force. Their air defenses are crushed from the very beginning. Now, what the president has pointed to is the fact that the people of Iran deserve better leadership. I mean, they slaughter their own people. It's by the thousands. They shoot them in the head. They slaughter them in the streets. Yeah, we don't like that. I mean, we don't think that's good for Iran. But our goal, and our national interest in Iran, is they can never have a nuclear weapon. And that's what they were going to try to do. If they had been able to hide behind double the number of missiles, double the number of drones, that's where they would have been in about a year, had they continued on the pace of construction. Even though their economy was suffering, even though their people were suffering, that's what they were spending their money on, even though they had sanctions. The money that was coming in, they were spending it on those things. That tells you everything you need to know about them. All right, guys. Thank you.