what i said was there's no reason why our work on a hostage deal needs to be affected or impacted by what happened over the weekend or what we do about what happened over the weekend. and we will respond. we still want to keep the work going, our shoulder to the wheel on this hostage deal and we'll have to see where it goes. i also want to repeat what i said earlier, we are not overly sanguine here, not cocky, we understand there is a lot of hard work ahead and that work ahead of us diplomatically certainly might be affected by events elsewhere in the region, not just what happened in jordan and what might come as a result of that. but no reason why it should and that's why we will stay at that task. >> thanks, kirby. given -- does the white house acknowledge the previous retaliatory strikes it has taken in the region have been ineffective at protecting

american troops? >> the strikes that we have taken in the past have definitely had an impact on degrading and disrupting the activities of some of these groups. clearly they have decided to keep conducting those attacks and now it's had lethal consequences for american troops and so we will weigh an additional set of options before us, the president will make his decision to respond appropriately. the attacks need to stop. >> does the president have all the legal authority he believes he needs to respond to these attacks? >> yes. >> what is the legal basis? >> constitution, commander in chief, self-defense of our troops. president has the authority to take the action he needs to protect our troops and our facilities overseas under article 2. >> thanks. the president faces a great deal of political pressure here at home with the republicans, for

example, calling for direct strikes on iran. does the president feel that pressure and how much does that pressure weigh on his decision-making? >> the pressure the president is feeling, if you want to call it that, is to make sure we can continue to protect and defend our national security interests in the region. first and foremast. his mind is solidly as i put in my opening statement on the families that just got the worst possible news you can and troops in the hospital trying to recover. number two, on the vital mission sets the troops are performing across the region, counter isis region. that's the pressure he's under to make sure the troops get the support they need, resources they need and the mission is able to continue and that our national security interest in the region, wide and varied, are preserved and protected. >> one other thing if i may. you said earlier that this attack was escalation, but the united states doesn't want a

war. do you believe iran wants a war? >> that's up to iran to decide and to speak to. i can't, as i said earlier, speak for the supreme leader. i would not do that. clearly there is a calculus by the irgc that conducting these attacks is worth the risk that they are taking and we obviously are going to keep working to change the calculus. >> thank you. so secretary general stoltenberg is in washington. what are you hearing from the nato allies, sharing concern about the possibility of a wider war? >> talking about the middle east? yeah, we are glad the secretary general is here, he met with lloyd austin this morning and with jake later today. i won't speak for our allies or the secretary general. i think it's safe to say many of our european allies share

concerns of the middle east. many are willing participants in our coalition and the red sea to protect shipping there. so clearly they have concerns about that, and i have no doubt that secretary general will raise those issues with jake and did raise it with secretary austin. >> another question if i may about the u.n. agency helping palestinian refugees. many allies are suspending aid to the agencies, but many say the warnings of the famine and so many palestinians displaced. the agency says it will run out of money very soon. do you fear that suspending the american aid to this agency is going to deepen the humanitarian crisis in gaza? do you have a plan b, an alternative to bring it to the palestinians? >> i think a lot will depend on what the investigation finds and

accountability and corrective measures unrwa will make. these are serious allegations, even though it's a small number, percentage-wise, of the 13,000 on the ground in gaza. this is serious and they are taking it seriously. we understand they are dependent on donor contributions and the united states has been the leading donor for many, many years. we have suspended our contributions to unrwa pending the results of this investigation, all the more reason as i said this investigation, be credible, transparent and thorough, and frankly, timely. >> thanks, john. thanks, karine. i want to ask about the border. president biden talked about shutting down the border. on the basis of national security. are there not steps that he could use under executive authority to some measures to seal some of the border efforts? >> he said he's willing to use executive measures and if he gets the bill passed, if he gets

border funding, and includes those authorities, he'll use those authorities. >> why wait 'til congress? >> we need legislative support for border security measures and need funding to be able to put in place border security measures the president can utilize. he has put u.s. troops down there to alleviate some of the responsibilities of border patrol but we need this funding. >> and ask about venezuela. is the president considering any steps to take against venezuela, whether it's tightening sanctions -- >> sandra: we are going to keep monitoring the white house press briefing, john kirby, and karine jean-pierre a short time from now, the misidentified drone, he cannot say that's what happened. and responding to the attack, there is no easy answer, we do

not seek escalation or another war, and the u.s. will respond at a time of its choosing. but certainly takes you back to all the moments where this president warned "don't," john. and now many, many, many attacks later the question over how we are responding continues to get bigger. >> john: and how many times over the last number of months did we say the president can say don't all he wants, iran is not listening, it's telling its proxies to keep up the attacks, and one of these days americans are going to get killed and now it's happened. >> sandra: this banner, irgc feels the attacks are worth the risk, jason chaffetz still on set with us. you had a strong reaction, yeah, risk versus reward and not seeing a whole lot of risk to continuing with these attacks. >> there's never been a consequence that they can't tolerate. so, 160 attacks, people that are now dead, i'm tired of admiral kirby telling us the president

is going to give an appropriate response. how about a disproportionate response. how about responding up and saying we are the united states of america, you are not going to be pushing us around and have such an overwhelming response that iran can't handle it, cannot afford to do this yet again. until the president takes that kind of posture instead of appeasement, to make sure they get the money and go easy and proportionally do it, the troops are in danger. >> the proper way forward to get the supplemental passed. >> in response to m.j.'s question earlier, sounds like the administration has ruled out strikes in iran. >> we are not looking for a war with iran. not looking to escalate the tensions anymore than they have been escalating. everything we have done designed to deescalate the tensions. that said, this was a very serious attack.

it had lethal consequences. we will respond and respond appropriately. i'm not going to telegraph what that's going to look like. >> the question, if you are actively considering targets inside iran and your answer was we don't see conflict with iran. and administration would view strikes in iran as escalation, and does the administration not hold iran responsible or the loss to truce troops is acceptable. >> the chance to say it again, i'm not going to telegraph punches for the president of the united states, we will respond appropriately and you are right, this attack had lethal consequences which these attacks in the past have not had, and as i said in my opening statement, as we work through what those options are, we'll be mindful and informed by the fact that there are now three american soldiers that have been killed.

>> clear, obviously, that don't didn't work. does the president have any regret over not pushing -- punching back harder in any of the prior responses that he's taken to these proxy attacks on u.s. forces? >> i think i would push back on the idea we didn't push back harder. we have taken significant action against iran economically, we have certainly taken some additional and more aggressive steps to go after these groups. we are certainly taking aggressive action against the houthis to try to defend shipping in the red sea. this idea that somehow we have just whistle passed the graveyard here and walked away from the challenge that iran poses is not just borne out by the facts. these proxy groups have been attacking our groups and facilities in iraq and syria well before the administration as well. >> for instance, mike waltz said this morning that when you are trying to play defense constantly rather than punching back in a meaningful way, the

blood is on this administration's hands. what is the response from the white house to an accusation like that? >> what i would tell you and i would tell the congressman is we are mindful of what iran's doing in the region and we have taken aggressive action against these proxy groups and on their influence in the region, and there are decisions yet to come. so, let the president make his decisions, let him weigh these options and then we'll act. the groups have choices to make and we are going to do everything we can to make sure they make the right choice here. the idea that we have somehow laid down and not pushed back on iran is simply not borne out by the facts. >> john, in israel over the weekend -- >> sandra: so john, you have to ask yourself, what was the original messaging from the white house and administration and joe biden with don't. was it don't kill any americans, was it don't attack our u.s. bases, was it don't show any

escalation here? because now he's saying the difference with now the more than 160 attacks here is that with this case, people died. but was that the red line? they never said that. >> john: the effective impact when he said don't, don't, don't, telling iran don't listen to a thing i say, which they didn't, and kept on attacking us and now we see the result of that. jason chaffetz still with us. jason, if the white house chooses to hit back against these iranian proxies, whether it be hezbollah, whether it be hamas, whether it be the houthis rebels, i mean -- those groups are just canon fodder for the iranian regime unless the president hits back against iran proper, is anything going to change? >> no, no, you heard admiral kirby very clearly say we are not going to telegraph what we are going to do. maybe it's time to telegraph what we are going to do.

you attack america, you fire shots at america, you come after americans, i will kill you. you are -- your life will be over. that's what -- think about the men and women who were in the theater of war. if your son or daughter is out there serving and this president won't say boo other than don't, what does that message send? you have to speak the language of iran and the proxies. peace through strength. what ronald reagan would do or donald trump would do. and crystal clear, not just cute don't, don't, obviously that did not work. >> sandra: so it's perhaps there was some indication there, john, maybe you heard it as well, he doesn't want to broadcast the president's actions, maybe there are big plans here to respond if there are, they are not detailing them and certainly not telling the american people what the next step is. >> john: i know somebody who would know if there are plans. let's bring in our chief national security correspondent

jennifer griffin. we understand the pentagon has a target list it has shared with the white house. are they going to go to that list now? >> a target list, there's been a target list. there is a campaign that has been drawn up for the president. the president has met with his national security team, including members of the pentagon, including lloyd austin back in the pentagon for the first time since his surgery, twice in the last 48 hours. what i can tell you from our reporting is that the -- we were trying to figure out how this drone got into the base because the defensive measures taken at other bases has been successful in shooting down drones in the past and what i can tell you is that it appears to have been a combination of human error and technical error. there was a u.s. drone returning to the american base tower 22 on the jordanian border around the same time as this iranian drone and a case of mistaken identity,

it seems, that the iranian drone was allowed into that air space and then it was also flying quite lower told, and it was disguised by the fact that a u.s. drone was expected to return at about the same time. there were about 350 troops as you know, sleeping at the base, and this iranian proxy drone hit a barracks where they were sleeping. and eight were taken to iraq, not to germany, three of them may end up going onward to germany, but mostly traumatic brain injuries that they were suffering from, those 34 injuries that we have been reporting on. john. >> john: tragic coincidence with the drone returning at the same time. had it not be, this might be a completely different story. but still american forces were being attacked nonetheless. jennifer, thank you. sandra. >> sandra: lieutenant general keith kellogg, fox news

contributor and former national security adviser to vice president mike pence. thank you for being here. u.s. will respond at a time of its choosing says john kirby. american soldiers are now dead. we have over 160 attacks that have happened. if not now, when. >> sandra, thanks for having me. reaction to listening to admiral kirby is oh, oh, he has telegraphed something. they are not going to respond very aggressively at all, and he sits in the council, when the national security team meets in the situation room, he's there and he's heard the president and the president will give his guidance, commanders in ten, and say these are the limits i want to look at, left and right, and the defense department, state department, the defense intelligence agency, all of them come in and give responses and their options out there. and he was giving you the tell. the tell, no escalation, no war with iran. less than what you or i might have imagined it's going to be,

and that concerns me greatly. because i was hoping, thinking, believing that maybe they were going to try to respond hard enough to bring everything back into a box and have some containment in the middle east. i'll go back to 1988 when the u.s.s. samuel roberts, hit a mine in the persian gulf, wounded, not killed, wounded ten tailors, president reagan eliminated half the iranian navy. the iranians are kind of expected this. they said don't blame us, they are nervous what the reaction is going to be and i believe listening to kirby and where he was sitting at and the guidance from the president, it is not an escalation response, it's a muted response and back in the game where we have been before and you'll lose soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines again

until they say enough is enough, and bring discipline to the area. they are not going to based on what i'm hearing. >> sandra: as far as the actual response if you were to detail precisely to iran how you would respond to this attack, what would it be? >> well, i would send a very clear message and the clear message is you counter value targets you are coming after if you need to and basically saying we are going after personnel and after equipment, going after facilities, and you make it a super escalation response. the reason is, it's not because of what's happened at tower 22, but it's what's happening in the region, and what's happening with russia. what's happening with china. sends a message enough is enough and we are not going to tolerate. unless you do the superescalation, everybody is under -- uncomfortable, tell the

supreme leader he is vulnerable, and the nuclear facility where they are enriching uranium, that's a target as well, and ships, and a second round, third round, fourth round. the only way to bring it back online with the organization that is a terrorist state, that is iran, hit and hit hard. and if you don't, they will respond and continue to respond. bring me in the target list, a heavy hard list, i understand the risk and consequences and go forward with it. either personnel, equipment, facilities, whatever they have. >> sandra: there is obviously a lot at stake here. general keith kellogg, joining us on the breaking news out of the white house as briefing is ongoing. our thanks to jason chaffetz as well on the breaking news. general, thank you. >> thanks, sandra.

>> john: texas is doubling down on the fight to protect its border, coming to a head at that park in eagle pass. matt finn spoke with the texas attorney general paxton. what did he have to say? >> well, john, texas is not complying with the biden administration demands to allow border patrol back into this property and paxton is doubling down on that, refusing to allow any federal agents on to this property. and instead, texas attorney general paxton fired back a letter to the biden administration with his own list of demands. paxton is asking the federal government to provide proof by february 15th that supports its claim the federal government has ownership over this specific piece of property through a previous easement. paxton tells me if the biden administration can confirm, it has the rights to the land texas would allow the feds back in but

for now, texas will continue to stand its ground. >> seems unlike lay what they are saying is true, since we can't verify it, with we have not seen records indicating that they are correct, hey, show up and give us the information that demonstrates that you are correct. and i doubt they'll be able to do that. >> also we had this new video of presumed coyote takes off his valuables on land in mexico, he gets into the river and guides that family with a very young girl illegally across the fast moving water, he dumps the family, swims back to mexico and then takes off running. demonstrates what we see so often, coyotes and illegal guides making money off of our border. also point out this afternoon, one area of compromise in this dispute, john. the state of texas is allowing border patrol access to the boat launch here, so the border patrol can control the rio grande river behind me.

the state of texas does not want biden's border agents on this property, and removing or touching its razor wire. that's the area of contention, john. >> john: and the border patrol union supports the state of texas saying hey, they freed us up to enforce the law elsewhere. matt, thank you. coalition of former fbi officials warning about new and imminent danger at the southern border. chris swecker, former fbi assistant director. the letter said a current specific threat that maybe one of the most to menace the united states at this time. you say october 7th attack, saw in israel, is a possibility here. expand on your fears.

>> yeah, we are trying to call out in an a political way, open border, 1800 miles of open border the greatest risk in our lifetime. we can shut the front door or guard the front door if you will at airports and train stations and other modes of transportation, but if we just open up our border. all our intelligence agency, we don't know who is coming in, no way of vetting, 800,000 got-aways, we have close to 2 million migrant encounters or people who come in -- >> john: more than that. 2.5 million. >> 1.8 million got-aways and about 800,000 encounters, i may have my facts off -- here -- >> john: let me put it out, we have the numbers. between october and december of 2023, 50% who were apprehended at the border, part of cross

border migration, were on the terror watch list. fiscal year 24, year to date, 83,500 estimated got-aways. fiscal year 23, 860,000 known got-aways, and then about 2.5 million people total who came into the country illegally. when you are dealing with numbers like that, when you consider what 19 terrorists did in 2001, what's the risk to the country here? >> you can't even measure it. i mean -- when you don't know who is coming into this country, you can just blend in. i mean -- there's -- as i said earlier, there's no way to vet these people, you can't look at somebody and tell what country they are from. it's an unacceptable level of risk. we know that hezbollah and other terrorist organizations have been infiltrating into this country for a long time and they are professionals. now all it takes 2 or 3 trained

professionals to conduct a devastating attack in the united states. catastrophic. >> john: so here what else you warn in part in the letter you sent to congress, the threat we call out today is new and unfamiliar and it's modern history the u.s. has never suffered an invasion of the homeland and yet one is unfolding now. military age men from across the globe, many from countries or regions not friendly to the united states are landing in waves on our soil by the thousands. now, immigration proponents would say oh, this is a lot of anti-immigrant alarmism. what do you say to them? >> yeah, again, i mean -- everybody is for legal immigration. it's just not a political issue here. this is -- this is about securing -- border security is national security. you have to know who is coming into this country, and again, we just can't vet these people that are coming in. it represents the greatest, as i said earlier, the greatest

threat in our lifetime. we have intelligence agencies working over time, but all of the security measures that we have taken since 9/11 are totally compromised because of this open border. we just don't know who is coming in. >> john: wow. that -- that is not alarmism, not coming from your mouth. chris swecker, good to talk to you. thanks for joining us. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> sandra: and now, john, a live look at the pentagon, a briefing is set to be underway any moment, the first since those three american soldiers were killed by an iran-backed drone. we will take you there live when that begins. >> john: take a look at this, a woman in los angeles riding on the front of a car. not because she wanted to, but she was trying to save her dog that was being dognapped along with her car. deroy murdoch why it's another example of crime out of control

nationwide. stay with us. so when my windshield cracked, i chose safelite. they replaced the glass and recalibrated my safety system. that's service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month.

i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.

>> the secretary general is personally horrified against accusations in unrwa. they will be held accountable including criminal prosecution. >> john: scandal only getting worse. suggests that united nations staffers in gaza helped hamas fighters launch their october 7th terror attack. state department correspondent gillian turner has more. this report also uncovered staffers' ties to other terror groups. >> gillian: we have obtained a copy of the dossier the israelis provided to the biden administration. reveals ties between u.n. staffers and islamic jihad, and that dozens of them worked with hamas to carry out the terror attacks. a couple examples in the

dossier. one u.n. staffer kidnapped an israeli woman on october 7th. another raided an israeli kibbutz that day and another doled out ammunition to hamas fighters. despite the atrocities, the white house says they are relying on the u.n. to investigate itself, essentially, and find out how things went so disastrously wrong. >> they are deeply, deeply troubled by what we have heard. we are in touch, obviously, with the u.n., in touch with israel, and others, and so that's, we are going to continue to have those conversations. >> gillian: trump administration officials say u.s. intelligence has known about links between the u.n. and terrorist organizations for literally years. take a listen. >> we knew a lot of that money was going towards educating with the most antisemitic education tools available. we should have stopped funding unrwa, we did, the biden administration turned it back on. and i would not be shocked if

there was not just a dozen, but dozens and dozens and dozens of u.n. employees. >> gillian: four months prior to the october 7th terror attacks, the biden administration gave the u.n. in gaza another $154 million at the time unrwa said by providing unrwa flexibility and how it utilizes the u.s. funding, and to prioritize spending where it is most needed. to us, this is a sign of trust. now, unsurprisingly, john, the u.s. was the largest donor to unrwa last year in 2023, giving them a total of 206.8 million u.s. tax dollars. the u.s. has now pulled funding from the organization while the investigation is going on in addition to ten other countries who have followed suit. john. >> john: as shocking as this is, not much of a surprise to many

who have long criticized the u.n.. now this. >> it was really scary. i thought i was going to die. my last resort to stand in front of the car and tell them not to go, and they drove into me and pushed me on to the hood and i just wasn't gonna leave the car at that point and i held on and they took off. >> sandra: unbelievable. that woman seen there, seen here clinging for her life on the hood of a car. this is driving through downtown los angeles, after her dog was stolen. she says the driver of the car stole her french bulldog. before then taking off, dragging her with them, the woman said she is not badly hurt but her dog is still missing. the incident is yet another reminder of the crime crisis felt in u.s. cities. great to have you here. this horrific. so, she's at her lunch break, feeding her bulldog, little do we know it's one of the most popular small breed dogs out there, and they are sought after

highly by thieves, especially in los angeles where they are very, very popular and expensive. so, there is four people in the car, by the way, they take the dog. she thinks i'm going to jump on the car, that will stop them. no, they drove off with her on the hood of the car, she was clinging to the windshield wipers. what's happening? >> another example of the total chaos in the country and the reason, we are a society without consequences. whatever you want to do, go ahead and do it. last week in california, a woman stabbed her boyfriend 108 times, death penalty, no, 100 hours of community service, apparently she smoked marijuana with him, well, you were high, off you go. here in new york last week, david crow was arrested, he's been stalking taylor swift 30 times, arrested, let go, arrested again, arrested last

week, released, one hour back he was at taylor swift's place going through her dumpster. and after the riots and protests regarding the hamas attack, a big protest at the democrat national committee, they shut the place down, had to put the buildings on lockdown, democrat members were inside the national committee unable to get out. total mayhem. guess how many got arrested, 1, 1 arrest. we live in a society, if you have a great idea something awful, do it, you will get away with it. >> sandra: now companies are telling their workers like in oakland, don't leave for lunch, stay inside, don't go out, it's not safe. kaiser is telling workers to avoid going out for lunch in oakland, an oakland kaiser worker on that. >> it's just kind of scary in general, not even just to go to work but coming outside, you know. if you can work at home, work at home. if you have to come in, just be safe about it. >> sandra: ok, if that's not bad

enough and the woman clinging to her car because her dog is stolen, thinking the thieves would stop, they just keep on going. she then posts a missing dog poster and then she fell victim to another hoax, somebody said i have the dog, chases her down for $50 and gas money. i mean, where does this end? this is bad. >> yeah, it ends in social meltdown. a result or consequence of people seeing prosecutors like georgia gascon in l.a.. prosecutors in quotes, saying the justice system is based on prejudice and get the person out, and get people out of the criminal justice system to the street to go back and do what they want. >> sandra: and guess what, then people can't go out on their lunch hour. >> and here in new york city,

al al alvin bragg, and you have to have a justice system which people are able to get back out and return to criminal careers while the rest of us you law abiding people suffer. >> sandra: it's a white kia forte, and the dog, onyx. she said since this has gone viral she felt it helped her allot, she felt so alone, and when she found out the video on the car went viral, brought her a sense of community that people are at least trying to find her dog and care about what happened there. >> and as a crime victim, she's not alone, unfortunately. >> sandra: great to see you, deroy. >> john: we heard from the white house and john kirby for the first time after the three service members were killed by that drone attack in jordan. now let's go to the pentagon where the deputy press secretary, sabrina singh is addressing the media. >> we will not tolerate

continued attacks on american forces and we will take all necessary actions to defend u.s. military men and women deployed and do so at our choosing. over the weekend the secretary received regular updates on attacks against u.s. forces and participated in a briefing with the president and his national security team. secretary austin returned to work at the pentagon. he hosted the nato secretary general for a bilateral meetings, they discussed the war in ukraine, next nato summit and to strengthen trans atlantic security. and also met with president biden toe white house and later today will host again the nato secretary general alongside secretary blinken and the national security adviser. additionally the secretary's tentatively scheduled to visit walter reed for a follow-up appointment this evening. as the doctors said in the statement on friday, secretary austin continues to recover well and is expected to make a full recovery following his treatment for prostate cancer. and with that, i would be happy

to take your questions. thank you. >> thanks, sabrina. a couple things, number one, since secretary austin has now returned to the building, can you tell us whether or not we will be able to see him in the briefing room. >> i don't have an update just yet but something we are certainly working towards and keep you updated. >> and then secondly, update on the number of wounded and any breakdown between air force and army on that? and also any update on the perpetrators of the attack. there's been a lot of chatter about kh. can you tell us whether that is the leading suspicion right now. >> sure. number of injuries right now, assess there are more than 40 that have been injured. we do expect that number to continue to fluctuate as our service members as you know tbi report symptoms later on so the

number could grow. in terms of attribution for the attack, we know this is an irgc-backed militia. it has the footprints of hezbollah, we know iran is behind it and certainly as we have said before here in this briefing room iran continues to arm and equip the groups to launch these attacks and we will certainly hold them responsible. >> clarification. you said you know iran is behind it. you know that iran or iranian leaders were behind this attack as in planned, coordinated or directed it? >> we know iran plays a role with the groups. they arm and equip and fund these groups. i don't have more to share in terms of intelligence assessment

if leaders in iran were directing this attack. but what i can tell you, is that we know the groups are supported by iran, and therefore they do have their fingerprints on this. but i can't tell you more in terms of who directed the attack. jen. >> sabrina, did this drone take off from an irgc base in syria? >> i don't have more on the point of origin just yet of where it originated from. >> was it human error that failed to recognize it was an iranian drone coming to the base? >> something central command is looking into to find out exactly what happened. as i mentioned at the top, they are doing the assessment on this. they are working through what they need to do to make sure our service members, whether being in jordan, iraq and syria, are further protected. but i just don't have more to share at this time. >> what kind of drone struck the base? the same being used by the russians in ukraine? >> it's something we are looking at right now, assessing the drone. i don't have more to share just

yet. >> you said iran was behind the attack. what does that mean? have you seen evidence of financing or directing, anything specific to this attack, not just generally, but specifically. >> so maybe i need to clarify further from what lita had mentioned. we know iran funds these groups. we know the irgc-backed militias are responsible for attacks on troops in iraq and syria. beyond that, doing intelligence assessment. i can't give you today -- >> attack thinking of tehran. >> we know iran funds the groups but don't have more to share on that. as a general matter, general. >> and second thing, you've talked about how the conflict is contained, the gaza-israel conflict is contained. now that u.s. troops has been attacked in another country, are you willing to say the conflict is no longer contained and it's spreading? >> i would not say the conflict is spreading in that we have

seen over 100 attacks on u.s. forces, unfortunately, over 100 attacks on u.s. forces, we don't see the conflict widening as it pertains to gaza, but the attack was escalation as it killed three u.s. service members and as the president has said, we don't seek conflict, don't want to see a widening of a regional war but we will respond to the time and place of our choosing. >> when troops have died in another country. >> well, again, but they have also been launching these attacks since october 17th and again, we can't discount the fact the attacks are incredibly dangerous, put our service members at risk but they have not, up until yesterday, inflicted lethal harm. they have been minor injuries and minor damage to infrastructure.

>> if you could address the broader trajectory for american forces in iraq and syria and will these attacks affect the ongoing discussions between the united states and the government of iraq about the future of the american presence there, or have there been some reports the united states is reviewing plans for the future troop presence in syria. can you talk about how this will or will not impact that on those deliberations. >> i think what you are referring to is the higher military commission we discussed last week. we are focused with working with our iraqi partners to how to respond to the attack that claimed three u.s. service members. we remain committed to the hmc process and will continue to focus on it at the appropriate time. i don't have anything to preview on troops levels or changes in iraq and syria, but we are committed to the hmc process and that is ongoing. >> could you just say -- would i

be right to say that this lethal attack on american forces and the potential for a response, which president biden has kind of foreshadowed explicitly, would you say that it will not have an impact on u.s. plans for the troop presence in iraq and syria or too soon to say that? >> i think it's too soon to say that and remember that the hmc was happening and announced back in august of 2023. the attacks on october 7th did delay some of those conversations from happening and the discussions from starting with hmc but we are still committed to that process, committed to the iraqi government, and we are going to continue to do so. but i don't have anything more to preview on what that means for our force levels. >> can the pentagon confirm any of the reports that the reason the drone wasn't shot down is because the troops on the ground thought it was a returning american drone? >> i've seen those reports. that's something that central command is assessing but i don't

have more to share at this time. >> you say it's escalation because troops have now died in the attack but not a spread of a different country. any indication the attack or the equipment or the way it happened, any of that, was a different kind of attack than what we have been seeing in iraq and syria, or was it simply an escalation and people died because they were not able to shoot it down, didn't detect it the way they are in iraq and syria. >> to my knowledge, nothing new or different about the attack than we have seen in other facilities that house our service members. unfortunately, this attack was successful but we can't discount the fact that other attacks, whether it be iraq or syria, were not intended to kill our service members. it is a true tragedy that three of our service members died, and of course central command is looking into what can be done when it comes to our air defenses and looking into this incident to determine how best

we can move or how best we can further strengthen our air defense systems. >> this base less well protected than other bases in iraq and syria? >> not to my knowledge. >> can you talk more about what this unit was doing in jordan and also you have said that iran has backed these groups, which have launched these attacks. is this attack that has killed three service members an act of war by iran? >> well, look, i think i said this earlier. we don't seek a war with iran. we don't seek to widen this conflict. we have said and we will continue to call out the fact that iran does fund and equip these groups and provide them the capabilities that they use to attack our service members, whether it be iraq, syria or jordan so we will not hesitate calling that out. we certainly don't seek a war and don't see iran wanting to seek a war with the united states. we are there in iraq and in

syria and i think your original question was what were the service members doing there. they are there in support of the defeat isis mission. that is their purpose there. they are part of a named operation that this department has and is committed to in both iraq and syria. so yeah, i'll leave it there. >> i would like to follow up. how is this not a regional war between united states and iranian proxies in yemen, syria, iraq and now jordan. >> we are not discounting that tensions are high in the region by any means. in october 17th, we are not discounting the fact they are targeting the military members with the intention of trying to kill them but don't seek a war. we don't want to see this widen out to a broader war. and again, attacks on our service members happening in iraq and syria, to bring it back

and to look at what's also happening in the red sea, don't seek a wider war there, either, but will respond when it comes to commercial ships or our ships or our partner vessels being targeted and jeopardizing international trade and putting at risk innocent mariners. so we don't seek war but will take action, and respond to attacks on our forces. >> thank you, two questions. one on north korea and one on russia, and launching cruise missile into the east coast yesterday, do you assess that north korea continued negative actions will lead to biden military action? >> yeah, thanks, janie. we are monitoring these activities and will not comment on intelligence but have been very clear on the threat posed by the dprk and their military programs and our commitment to the republic of korea and japan

continues to be iron clad. >> one on russia. russia defense ministry spokesman criticized the united states saying that the u.s. is dragging south korea into the ukraine conflict. then he warned that if south korea supported ukraine he would stop relations with south korea. >> yeah, i think quite to the contrary. you see countries all around the world supporting ukraine's cause and the fight for their democracy and the fight for their sovereign territory. we are coming up on the two-year anniversary of russia invading ukraine. russia is seeking help from partners like iran, like north korea to continue to fund itself in the war against ukraine and like-minded nations like the united states and other countries stand in alliance in support of democracy and support

of a sovereign country who was invaded by its neighbor, unjustly invaded by its neighbor and very proud of the coalition we have built in support of ukraine. >> what's the total number of attacks since october and the total number of injuries? >> yeah, just a sec here. so from october 17th to january 29th, we are tracking approximately 165 attacks, 66 in iraq, 98 in syria, and the one yesterday in jordan. and on injuries, being i am tracking approximately 80 u.s. personnel have received nonserious injuries since the attacks began. >> have there been any attacks today and where? >> i believe there was an attack earlier today. i don't have the exact location. we can get you that. i don't want to speculate but we can get you that information after. >> you said just about 160

attacks. just this month there's been a little over 50. so there have been around 114 or 15 from october 17th to last year. so, and you guys have responded, the u.s. has responded to few of these attacks. but in order to deter, and that came out in statements from the secretary and from other u.s. officials. these attacks have continued, now they have escalated, not just into the red sea, now to jordan, a third country. the deterrence does not seem to have worked yet. is the department considering altering or reviewing the policy to deter the militias from injuring or killing u.s. troops. >> ultimately a decision the president will make and read out earlier he has convened his national security team frequently within these past few days. i'm not going to get ahead of

any decisions the president and the secretary make on this together but certainly as our statement said yesterday, we are committed to responding and we will do so at a time and place of our choosing. >> and just a second on -- israel and gaza. reports in recent days suggest that the biden administration, including officials from the pentagon, have become more and more frustrated with the civilian death toll and there are considerations of reviewing what types of weapons, weapon sales to review. i know -- state department, is the pentagon, does the pentagon share that assessment, does the pentagon share that frustration of too many civilian casualties in gaza? >> i think we have been pretty clear that we don't want to see any innocent lives lost in this war and we have been very clear both publicly and privately with our israeli counterparts that

innocent lives need to be protected, humanitarian corridors need to be opened, humanitarian aid needs to continue to flow through. of course we are concerned by the death toll in gaza. we don't want to see continued palestinians get caught in the crossfire and we have continued to urge israel to protect those innocent civilians and will continue to do so. >> clarification on the number of injured. the 80 includes those from the most recent attack or no? >> it does not, i'm sorry. >> and then has tower 22, that facility, been targeted previously, either during the israel-hamas war or prior to that in recent years? >> i can't speak to before october 7th. but since october 17th when these attacks have happened, no, tower 22 to my knowledge has not been the target, but as you know, there is, an al-tanf

garrison is close, but nothing on the jordanian side. impacts have always been on the syrian side except for the attack that happened yesterday. >> so previous drone and rocket attacks that have struck or landed near military facilities in iraq and syria, they have not caused anywhere near as much damage nor near as many casualties. is there an assessment why this particular drone caused is much, over 40 people injured, three killed, what was different about this drone or different about the facility that it did not have the kind of protection the other bases do? >> i think what was different about this attack is where it landed. it did impact where living quarters are and i believe it was pretty early morning, so people were actually in their beds when the drone impacted. but in terms -- we have seen these types of attacks before. we are certainly -- that's something that central command

is looking into how they can better refine not only air defenses but prevent future attacks like this from happening again. i'm going to go over here >> as the review is done and the tactics and procedures being changed to prevent this from happening again in the future? >> i don't want to get ahead of anything >> how about back-door channel discussions with iran in anything with the swiss government or -- >> i don't have anything to preview here. >> felicia. >> do you have a number for the attacks in the red sea and the gulf of aden? >> let me see if i do. i don't know that i have -- we can take that question and get back to you. i don't have the running total here. as you know, there were as recently as friday, another attack at a commercial vessel that was transiting. so happy to get you those numbers. >> one more. just on the secretary's meeting with stoltenberg.

did they talk about contingencies if the ukraine aid doesn't go through. >> i believe we'll have a larger read-out. something top of mind for secretary and for many folks across the administration is securing that supplemental funding from congress. we have not been able to supply ukraine with a pda since late december. ukraine is quite literally in the fight for's life as it continues to hold territory and continues to fight for its sovereign territory and push the russians back in the east and the south. so we're going to continue to urge congress to pass the supplemental budget and to give us the funding that we need to start the pda packages. of course, it's top of mind for everyone. >> you think you can do without it? >> no. >> [question inaudible]

do you do you get engaged with the iraqi government on the attack? >> on the attack that happened on our surface members? i don't have anything to read out. >> when you say you're not looking at iran. does that mean that iran is not on the table when your thinking about responding to that attack? >> i'm sorry. i don't understand the question. >> are you taking iranian irgc as an option to respond when it comes to responding to this attack yesterday? >> we're going to respond as the president said and secretary said as a time when we feel that we need to respond. i'm not going to get ahead of the president or any decisions. we don't seek a wider conflict with iran. these are iran proxy groups launching these attacks. we don't seek a wider conflict. we also own the clock here. we will respond at a time and place of our choosing.

>> the iran carries out the attack, do you hold them accountable? what response would be as a retaliation against this attack? >> as you can appreciate, i'm not going to forecast what our response looks like. of course, we hold iran responsible as they are supporting these groups. these groups that continue to inflict casualties on our forces, whether it be in jordan, iraq or syria, we absolutely hold iran responsible because we know that they fund and train and support and equip these malitias that operate in iraq and syria. >> thank you. so there is the position of the department that iran is responsible for this attack that killed three u.s. soldiers in northeast jordan? >> iran bears responsibility becae