Return to Transcripts main page

New Day Sunday

Trump: If Iran Attacks, We Will Hit 52 Iranian Targets; Terrorist Attack Near U.S.-Kenya Military Base Repulsed; Lawmakers Return To Impasse Over Trump Impeachment Trial; Lawmakers Chant "Death To America" In Iranian Parliament; California Firefighters Head To Australia To Aid Bushfire Battle. Aired 6-7a ET

Aired January 05, 2020 - 06:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[06:00:15]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump on Saturday issuing a serious threat to Iran. "Let this serve as a warning that if Iran strikes any American or American assets we have targeted 52 Iranian sites."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any further action against Iran requires congressional authorization.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Iran continues to be in a state of mourning but at the same time is vowing retaliation.

The secretary of state said that the U.S. remains committed to de- escalation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the administration understands that there's a serious risk of consequences here. It's unlikely that the Iranian regime is going to now come hand in hand to the negotiating table and say, OK, you killed our number two guy, let's talk. We're ready to surrender.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY WEEKEND with Victor Blackwell and Christi Paul.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning to you. Happening right now, thousands in Iran are flooding the streets. The country is paying tribute to the top general who was killed in that U.S. drone strike. And hours from now Qasem Soleimani's body is expected to be transferred to Tehran for an official ceremony.

CHRISTI PAUL, CNN ANCHOR: Back here in the states President Trump is sending another loaded warning to Iran saying if they attack again -- quote -- "we will hit them harder than they have ever been hit before."

BLACKWELL: Also in Washington, skepticism is mounting about the evidence used to justify killing Soleimani. PAUL: We're also following breaking news out of Kenya where al Qaeda affiliate al Shabaab is claiming responsibility for a strike near a military airstrip. We're going to have the latest on that attack in just a moment. Our reporters and correspondents are spread out across the globe. They're covering all angles of these stories.

BLACKWELL: Let's start this morning with CNN's Kristen Holmes. She's traveling with the president in south Florida. Kristen, the president he laid out pretty sharp warning to Iran. Tell us about it.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Victor, this is a serious escalation. I cannot stress enough, this is the complete opposite of what the administration said that it wanted to do. Not only did the Trump administration say that it wanted to de-escalate this crisis. World leaders were begging both leaders of Iran and of the United States to de-escalate this situation.

There are a lot of global concern, a lot of alarm bells going off, but President Trump went on a twitter tirade. I'm going to pull up what he said earlier in the evening. Essentially saying, "Let this serve as a warning that if Iran strikes Americans or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites."

Then he went on to warn Iran that it will be hit very fast and very hard. Again, a clear escalation here. He also said that a lot of those sites, 52 sites were important to Iran or to Iranian culture. And he didn't stop there.

I'm going to pull up the most recent one here where he said, they attacked us and we hit back. If they attack again, which I would strongly advise them not to do, we will hit them harder than they have ever been hit before.

Now this is all coming after the administration warned members of Congress that they expect retaliation from Iran within weeks and it comes as you said, Victor, a skepticism is rising about whether or not there was really an imminent threat. So, all of this kind of circling around Washington as President Trump leaves later today to head back to the Capitol.

PAUL: So, Kristen, is there any sense what the consequences are if President Trump carries out a threat like that?

HOLMES: Well, there has been a lot of talk about this being a threaten of war crimes. So, if you -- if you break it down, here's why. We looked at those series of tweets there and as I mentioned those 52 sites President Trump talks about Iran and Iranian cultural sites. That is a very clear no-no.

If you look at the law of war, essentially there are a lot of parts of it that refer to cultural sites. They are off limits. Cultural property should be safeguarded and protected. It's just one part of that law of war.

But I do want to mention one caveat here which is that President Trump does not exist in a vacuum. This is a huge decision and it will be unlikely that military officials would allow this to happen. Remember, he has to consult with the Pentagon.

And if he's going to continue strikes like this, he would likely have to go through Congress. So you want to put all of that there and get a sense of what it would look like. But that is not stopping Democrats from lashing out on Twitter saying that he's talking about committing a war crime.

You can see here a series of tweets where you see Elizabeth Warren saying that he's threatening to commit war crimes. You see Senator Murphy saying that it's a war crime. And then actually the last one is the former director of the government ethics office essentially saying that Twitter should take President Trump off of Twitter because he is threatening war crimes there. So reaching out to the White House seeing exactly what they meant by that -- what President Trump meant by that.

[06:05:04]

But I cannot stress enough that this is a serious escalation at a time when world leaders and the administration say they want this to de- escalate.

BLACKWELL: Kristen Holmes, travelling with the president. Kristen, thank you very much.

PAUL: CNN's Dianne Gallagher is following all the developments out of Washington. We know, Dianne, as Speaker Pelosi says the war powers act notification that was delivered to Congress -- quote -- according to her -- quote -- "raises more questions than it does answers."

What do we know about any congressional briefing since that strike?

DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And, Christi, Victor, I think it's important to point out that that was a classified document that was sent over to Congress which means that they're not at liberty to have any sort of discussion about it. Something that Speaker Pelosi pointed out continues in her words to leaves the American people in the dark.

Now we do know that Defense Secretary Esper is expected to brief the full Congress sometime next week. But in the meantime, members of Congress, specifically Democrats, have been relying on briefings to staff and information from there. And sources say that several Democrats have been unconvinced that this was a necessary attack. That there was any sort of truly imminent threat from Soleimani that required his killing.

Now sources tell us that on Sunday when President Trump was presented with a host of options about what to do in terms of Iran, that some left the room surprised that he had chosen killing Soleimani, one of the more extreme options presented to him. Skepticism from Democrats has been rebuked by those associated with the administration and other Republicans saying that the threat was, indeed, imminent and trying to lay out as best they can at this point why they felt this way. Take a listen to National Security Advisor Ambassador Robert O'Brien.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT O'BRIEN, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I can tell you it was very solid intelligence. Soleimani was traveling around the region working out a plan to attack Americans with his proxy allies, with Iran's proxy allies and Syria and Lebanon and in Iraq. We had the intelligence. We knew he would -- that he was in the process of planning these attacks and we acted to defend American lives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Now, I think it's important to point out here that when asked what imminent means we received different answers. Everything ranging from potentially days to weeks to months. So, Victor and Christi, there seems to be is a disagreement or perhaps just squabbling at this point on exactly the definition of imminent and whether or not your definition warranted that attack.

BLACKWELL: So let's talk about the potential for retaliation. Most analysts and experts believe that there will be as Iran has promised. Is there a time line, a window that has been declared by this administration? Tell us what sources are saying about potential retaliation.

GALLAGHER: So we're told the administration has privately been talking and told members of Congress that they expect retaliation within the next few weeks. But once again, this time line here seems to be in question. And discussions within national security and defense agencies range anywhere from within the next few days to potentially a long-term plan that Iran is sort of, again, playing the long game here.

Now when we're talking about what could happen. There's, again, not a whole lot of answers here. It could range anything from cyber attacks, something the Department of Homeland Security has already warned Americans to be vigilant about, the potential for cyber attacks, to watching some of these -- this equipment, machinery move in near U.S. interests in the region. We're talking about airbases in Iraq, potentially Kuwait, Qatar, and then there is also the potential for these Iran proxy sleeper cells here within the United States and in Europe.

But I have to stress that at this point it appears they do not know and they are simply trying to rely on whatever intelligence that they can get on this. Iran is, again, pretty bold about the fact they expect retaliation to come. But once again don't know if it's going to be the next couple of days or if it could be a year from now.

PAUL: Right. Good point. Dianne Gallagher, thank you so much.

BLACKWELL: Let's go now to CNN's Arwa Damon in Baghdad. Arwa, there was this extraordinary session of parliament that was scheduled for today to happen at about this time. But there is some confusion. What are you learning?

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it has not started yet. Although let's preface all of this by saying that that's not entirely unusual. Whenever you have something controversial that is meant to be debated quite often parliamentarians fail to show up because they haven't quite sorted out or ironed out their positions just yet or quite simply because there are a series of closed door investigations that are happening. What we do know at this stage is that there are a number of different and competing bills that are being put forward.

[06:10:03]

You have some of the more hard line Shia parties that want to see legislation that is going to end America's troop presence in Iraq. These parties are saying that for quite some time now. They have been asking for this quite simply because America's presence here generally speaking is viewed as being by them at least controversial and inflammatory.

And then you have other parties, mostly the Kurds and the Sunnis who want to see a more measured approach. Some of them are floating ideas that perhaps they could draft something that would lift immunity for U.S. troops. Others are saying, no, look, we need to keep the status quo going because of the vital role that the U.S. plays in the fight against ISIS and in the training of the Iraqi security forces.

But all of this, of course, is coming against a backdrop of something that is quite unprecedented. This type of a strike happening in a sovereign nation is having a significant blow back, one that is potentially not only going to affect the relationship between Washington and Tehran militarily, but politically as well.

BLACKWELL: Arwa Damon for us there in Baghdad. Arwa, thank you.

Let's go down now to that terror attack we mentioned at the top of the broadcast. Authorities there say at least four terrorists were killed attempting to attack an airstrip near a U.S. military base.

PAUL: This is in Kenya. CNN Farai Sevenzo is with us from the Kenyan capital Nairobi. Farai, what are learning and what happened?

FARAI SEVENZO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Christi, Victor, good morning.

Look, it's -- Lamu County is where the Manda Bay airstrip is. And it sits very near a kind of army base called Camp Simba which houses many partners trying to fight al Shabaab, including the Kenya Defense Forces, including the U.S. Africa command lead by Director of Operations Major General William Gayler.

The Americans have just released a statement to us right now which I should give you a bit of a taste of. And they say that the Manda Bay airstrip is secure and that al Shabaab resorts to lies, coercion. They have been issuing various statements claiming that they have some kind of victory over there. But that is not the case.

As you mentioned four terrorists were killed. Kenya Defense Forces tell us. We are also learning from the county commissioner of Lamu who tells us that several suspects have been arrested, carrying weapons and improvised explosive devices. Now just to give you a bit of background, just last Sunday U.S. and Somali army people attacked al Shabaab in their bases. And, of course, on Saturday last week an al Shabaab truck bomb killed 85 people in the capital of Somalia, Mogadishu. It is a massive scourge throughout the region.

This al Qaeda affiliated terror group known as al Shabaab they have attacked Lamu County which is a beautiful, pristine white beaches, huge tourist attraction. Had they succeeded in this attack on Manda Bay airstrip it would have been very bad news indeed. Not just for the U.S. and its allies given the geopolitical tensions around American soldiers at moment, but of course the many innocent tourists that visit countries like Kenya.

At the moment we understand that that attack has been repelled. And, of course, we are seeing black smoke coming out and Kenyan Defense Forces says that is because some fuel tanks near the airstrips were hit. Back to you, Victor, Christi.

PAUL: Farai Sevenzo, thank you so much for the update. We appreciate it.

BLACKWELL: Jake Tapper will have a lot to talk about on "STATE OF THE UNION" today. And he has the absolute right guest for the conversation starting with secretary of state Mike Pompeo, also former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senator Elizabeth Warren and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff there with Jake. Be sure to watch at 9:00 Eastern right here on CNN.

PAUL: Well, Congress is back on Washington this week. Democrats and Senate Republicans still deadlock over the Senate impeachment trial. Will anyone budge on their positions? Will we see some movement this week?

BLACKWELL: Plus, the 2020 Democrats are on the campaign trail. They're challenging the president's airstrike that killed Iran's military commander. Coming up, how foreign policy could shake up the race for the White House.

PAUL: And the fires that are just devastating Australia are still raging endangering scores of residents, the country's precious wildlife. We're going to show you the latest pictures we have and find out how officials there are trying to protect both.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:17:27]

BLACKWELL: Lawmakers return to Washington this week to face a standoff over the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have not budged on their positions. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she has not handed over the articles of impeachment, an action required to start the trial.

Now according to this "New York Times," the Trump administration is withholding emails about frozen military aid to Ukraine. Let's talk about this now with political reporter for "Washington Examiner," Emily Larsen. Emily, welcome back.

EMILY LARSEN, POLITICAL REPORTER, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Thank you.

BLACKWELL: So, first, let's start here. This week starts with far more information than last week started. There's the reporting from "The New York Times" about the emails from Mitch Mulvaney -- Mick Mulvaney, I should say, and the confrontation of the president in the Oval. That was on Monday. Then the just security emails that were released.

Are Republicans concerned that as this goes on that their job becomes harder in the Senate?

LARSEN: Republicans do not appear to be outwardly concerned right now although the move here for Democrats and one of the reasons why Pelosi might be choosing to withhold articles of impeachment is to get some more movement from some of the more moderate senators so hopefully that they would side with Democrats in whatever Senate trial would continue as far as creating the rules for the Senate trial and also what witnesses would come about or if any at all.

So there's already been a little bit of discontent from senators Collins and Murkowski. But there would have to be four Republicans to have movement on that. So far Mitch McConnell has been very good at keeping his caucus together.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

LARSEN: And so it's unclear how long that this withholding of impeachment articles will be politically good for the Democrats.

BLACKWELL: Yes. Let's talk about that because McConnell says that he's going to start this week and intends to -- quote -- "continue the ordinary business of the Senate." Pelosi, Schumer, they have not received or secured any assurances. Give us a bit more of a taste of the maybe the uneasiness or the degree of confidence that rank and file Democrats still have in the strategy of holding on to the articles until they can get something for them.

LARSEN: Well, one thing that is going to increase confidence for Democrats a little bit is so much attention being directed now towards the situation with Iran, which is going to be distraction from impeachment trials and place less pressure on Democrats to certainly hand those articles over.

[06:20:15]

But the one thing that is going to very troubling for them if this continues is that their whole argument for continuing with impeachment despite unlikeliness of the Senate convicting the president was that this was based off of principle and this was important and that was one of the reasons why it was important to get this rushed through. So now depending on how hung this -- these articles are withheld, that really lessens the argument the Democrats had that this was something that they were doing off of principle and it makes it look like more of a political exercise rather than one that they're trying to project.

BLACKWELL: So, let's talk about the potential of maybe more articles of impeachment. Let me read for you this exchange between federal appeals judge Thomas Griffith and this is Doug Letter, a House general counsel on Friday.

Judge Griffith asks, there've already been two articles of impeachment that have been acted upon. Are you here to say that there may be a third? And Letter says, "There might be, yes, absolutely."

And Griffith then asserts that, the House Judiciary Committee has not finished with its work on impeachment. And Letter says, "Nor has the intelligence Committee."

Now this would I guess expanding this to the Mueller report is there anymore support for that now that there was a month ago? And that's the potential for more articles of impeachment?

LARSEN: I would say right now the chances are a little bit low. There are certainly all of those moderate Democrats in the House who did not budge on impeachment when it was only the Mueller report and revelations from the Mueller report being considered. And it was only until after revelations about Ukraine that they came out and support for impeachment.

So that will be something politically troubling for the -- for the House members that ultimately tips the needle over to pursuing impeachment. But the House is still pursuing some legal action relating to Mueller report findings and also still investigating it, so there's always a potential for it but right now it doesn't seem incredibly likely.

BLACKWELL: All right. Emily Larsen with us from Washington. Emily, thank you.

LARSEN: Thank you.

PAUL: Next we are seeing anger and outrage in Iran overnight.

Iranian lawmakers with fists in the air chanting death to America in parliament this is after the U.S. drone strike took out one of their top commanders. We are live in Tehran when we come back.

BLACKWELL: Plus, after years of debate over LGBT clergy members and gay marriage the United Methodist Church has come up with a plan to split the denomination. We'll talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:25:39]

PAUL: So glad to have you with us here. Twenty-five minutes past the hour. I'm Christi Paul.

BLACKWELL: I'm Victor Blackwell. Good to be with you.

PAUL: So right now thousands of people are in Iran together as the body of slain general Qasem Soleimani makes its way through the streets.

BLACKWELL: Earlier dozens of Iranian lawmakers chanted death to America as they met in parliament.

(VIDEO PLAYING)

BLACKWELL: Let's get now to CNN's Fred Pleitgen. He's reporting extensively on Iran and joining us now from Tehran. And, Frederik, those chants are just a bit of the dramatic moments from that session. Also we have not got this exclusive reporting from you on what the potential response will be from Iran.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, exactly, Victor. And, you know, one of the things that we've heard pretty much from all levels of politics here in Iran and from the military as well is that Iran is going to retaliate. There will be response and there will be revenge. We heard that from Iran supreme leader, from Iran's president as well.

So, I spoke to the main military adviser of Iran supreme leader. Someone who's extremely high in the hierarchy and very close to the power center of this country. And I asked Hossein Dehgan, what exactly is the response going to be? And he said there will be a response that will be a military response and it will be against military targets but that Iran does not want a wider war with the United States. Let's listen in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOSSEIN DEHGAN, MILITARY ADVISER TO IRAN'S SUPREME (through translator): The response for sure will be military and against military sites. Let me tell you one thing our leadership has officially announced that we've never been seeking war and we will not be seeking war. It was America that started the war. Therefore, they should accept appropriate reactions to their actions.

The only thing that can end this period of war is for the Americans to receive a blow that is equal to the blow they have inflicted. Afterwards, they should not seek a new cycle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PLEITGEN: So the Iranians are essentially saying they are going to retaliate but they do want it to end there. Of course, Victor, we know the president has been tweeting a very different tune overnight into the night.

He says that if the Iranians do retaliate against the U.S. that they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. And the other thing that's really enraged tensions here in Iran is the fact that the president also tweeted that he had designated or the U.S. had designated 52 targets in Iran including sites that are important to Iranian culture.

And I put that to this military adviser as well. And he said that if that were the case that they would consider that to be a war crime and in that case the gloves would come off for Iran and there would be a direct military confrontation with the United States.

So some tough talk really ripping into President Trump in that interview just as Qasem Soleimani's body makes its way through Iran today. We saw some of those pictures of when it in Ahvaz, in the southwest of Iran as hundreds of thousands of people turned out there. Really a day of mourning here in Iran of course also a day of heightened anger at President Trump and the United States, Victor.

BLACKWELL: Frederick, I wonder if you gleaned from your conversation with the advisor to the ayatollah if the response will be something that, as we've seen from Iran in the past, has a bit of distance, a bit of deniability, or does Iran want a bold exclamation point that the U.S. and the entire world will know is in response to the attack that killed Soleimani?

PLEITGEN: That's a very good question. Very important one. You're absolutely right.

In the past what we've seen from the Iranians, when they have taken military action that a lot of it did have the air of deniability. And then, of course, there were other actions as well. Like for instance, when they shot down that U.S. drone where it was pretty clear that it was Iranians who were behind. In fact they said that they were the ones who did that.

I think in this case they want the action to be very clear. But they also want the action to end there. They say that they are going to do something that is in direct response to the killing of Qasem Soleimani that will be proportionate as they have put it and they don't want things to escalate from there. They say at that point they don't want a wider war.

[06:30:03]

They don't want the conflict with the U.S. to escalate any further.

What exactly that will be, obviously, no one knows at this point. But, certainly, the two things that we glean from that interview that seemed extremely important, is that they say they are going to use their military to respond, they are going to hit military targets. It's unclear, of course, where those military targets would be in this region.

And one of the things that we've heard from the Defense Department from the Trump administration is that the U.S. in the region here is definitely hardening its defenses for something like a response from the Iranians, which, of course, the U.S. says its expecting sooner rather than later. Victor?

BLACKWELL: All right. Fred Pleitgen for us there in Tehran. Fred, thank you. PAUL: Thank you, Fred.

Let's talk to retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton now. Colonel Leighton, good morning to you. I'd want to get your reaction, first of all, to this new news this morning.

CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, good Morning, Christie.

It's pretty sobering to hear General Deghan on the Iranian side say the things that he said to Fred Pleitgen. My initial thought on this is that the Iranians are probably going to target U.S. military installations, perhaps U.S. military personnel in the Middle East would be my guess at this particular point in time.

So if they do that, that could affect military installations throughout the gulf region, it could affect senior officials. There could also be an effort to go after American intelligence targets or American diplomatic targets. So those are the kinds of things I'd be looking for.

This -- I agree with Fred. This is going to be a very public response because it needs to be a public response from the Iranian point of view. So if they do this, like they say they will, it will be something we'll be hearing about and talking about when it happens.

PAUL: We heard Fred say the intention here is that they will retaliate and then their hope is that that would be the end of it. How realistic is it?

LEIGHTON: Not very at all, I think, Christie. I think what would happen in a case like this is the natural tendency would be to escalate. We would not allow the death of an American official or an attack on an American base to go unanswered. And President Trump basically indicated that that would the case with his tweet about the 52 targets that we have ready to go for Iran. That would be the kind of thing that we would perhaps see.

And the danger of escalation given this kind of talk is still very high, although both sides seem to be seeking an off ramp. At least that's what the Iranians seem to be saying this morning.

PAUL: The president of the U.S. just sent 2800 troops from Ft. Bragg, North Carolina yesterday back into the Middle East. Do you anticipate that that plan may be modified in some way in terms of where they would be doing their work?

LEIGHTON: That's a possibility, although we have a few limited options in terms of where we would base our forces in the Middle East. We have standard bases in Qatar, in Kuwait, in Bahrain. We could perhaps use some bases in other places if we get local permission to do so. But that's basically it. That's where these forces would go. And, of course, the possibility would exist that they could potentially enter Iraq, although that would be a really sensitive and fraught issue with the Iraqis if we did that.

So it seems to be that we would be based outside of Iraq in any type of action that would occur as a result of this would also put the host country at potential risk as well.

PAUL: This has brought a lot of anxiety to leaders all across the world. I want to talk to you about the international ramifications here, because the government of Germany has raised their threat level. The French President, Macron, has had conversations with others leaders concerning the situation in Iraq, specifically.

Italy's foreign minister posted on Facebook that, quote, the use of force has never led anywhere. Is there a leader anywhere, Germany, U.K., France that could intervene and mitigate some of this at this point?

LEIGHTON: Well, I think the Europeans would certainly try to do that. So all of the leaders that you've mentioned, whether it's Chancellor Merkel or President Macron or Prime Minister Johnson in the U.K., all of those leaders could potentially play somewhat of a mediating role in this area.

They, of course, are much more interested in maintaining a relationship with Iran. They still want the Iranian nuclear deal in spite of all the things that have happened to scuttle that particular deal. So they would try to use that as some degree of leverage to have, in essence, a way to get out of this particular crisis mode. Whether or not they can do that though is a really big question.

And I think it's unlikely that they will succeed in the short-term. Perhaps in the long term, they'll have a chance to do so.

PAUL: Colonel Cedric Leighton, we appreciate your service, we appreciate your insights so much. Thank you.

LEIGHTON: You bet, Christie, any time. Thank you so much.

BLACKWOOD: The Department of Homeland Security says a website run by the government was hacked and defaced with pro-Iranian and anti- American messaging.

[06:35:05]

The hacker posted an image of President Trump bleeding from his mouth with an Islamic Revolutionary Guard fist in the president's face. The DHS says the website is offline, under surveillance now.

The official did not comment on who could be behind that act.

PAUL: We are less than a month from the first contest of the 2020 presidential race and foreign policy now front and center. Coming up, how the Democratic candidates are reacting to President Trump's confrontation with Iran.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAUL: With the Iowa caucuses less than a month away now and President Trump's airstrike may have shifted some of the focus now to foreign policy to voters. BLACKWOOD: Yes. Some of the candidates, Senator Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren prioritized economic issues over foreign policy. But the tension with Iran has shaken up this race.

CNN's Arlette Saenz has more.

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Foreign policy has come front and center to the presidential campaign trail since tensions with Iran have escalated after President Trump ordered that strike that killed Qasem Soleimani. The presidential candidates have been very critical of Trump over the weekend for his approach when it comes to Iran.

Joe Biden here in Des Moines, Iowa, warning that any future military action taken against Iran must go through Congress. Take a listen to what he had to tell voters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Any further action against Iran requires congressional authorization, and I support the efforts by Congress to insist and assert their congressional prerogative.

Congressional leaders have to send the message a very clear message to the president, he does not have the authority to take it to war and other war in the Middle East and they will oppose him if he intends to do so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Now, that's an argument that's been echoed by other presidential contenders as well. Bernie Sanders, in fact, has introduced legislation that would prohibit funding for military action in Iran. Elizabeth Warren was also here in Iowa over the weekend saying that the president's actions could take the country to the brink of war.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The fist cause of action is for the Congress to take immediate steps to restrain President Trump from plunging our nation into yet another endless war.

[06:40:02]

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes. Donald Trump has taken us to the brink of war. We don't need more war in the Middle East. We need to stop endless war in the Middle East.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Pete Buttigieg was in New Hampshire talking about this issue as well. In fact, he used the term assassination when it came to the killing of Soleimani. That's something that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have also used. Joe Biden, the lone top contender, not to describe that as an assassination.

Sanders, Warren, and Biden all continue on in Iowa on Sunday while Pete Buttigieg remains in New Hampshire as foreign policy has now become a hot topic with less than a month to go before the Iowa caucuses.

Arlette Saenz, CNN, Des Moines, Iowa.

BLACKWOOD: Of course, we'll continue with all the breaking news that's happening this morning and politics, but we've got to talk about the weather. This winter is settling in and bringing some travel concerns in to the northwest -- northeast, I should say, and with wind and snow.

PAUL: CNN Meteorologist Allison Chinchar watching all of that. What do you see, Allison?

ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes. So if you have some travel plans in (INAUDIBLE) cities, like Boston, New York, Washington, D.C. today, you've got some pretty gusty winds. And that could, in turn, cause some delays as we go throughout the rest of the morning.

Right now, wind gusts are up around 47 miles per hour in New York, 28 miles per hour in Washington, D.C. and just about 30 around the Boston area.

But there are other places that are also going to be dealing with some windy conditions. For that forecast, it's brought to you by Celebrity Cruises. Visit celebrity.com to book your award-winning vacation today.

This is the other area we're talking about. You've got potential for very high winds across portions across of the southern Appalachian Mountains and a widespread area across portions of the Midwest. And that's all due to the next system that will be making its way from the Midwest, crossing over the great lakes and into the northeast over about the next 24 to 36 hours.

Not only is it bringing very strong winds but also the potential for some pretty heavy bands of snow, some of which could even be enhanced by lake effect. So you could end up getting some very narrow bands in states like Michigan, New York, even Pennsylvania, where you could get six to ten inches of snow out of this. Most areas will not get that much, however. They'll only to get maybe an additional two to four inches.

Now, fast forward to the next system, a potential nor'easter coming up for the middle portion of the week. It's going to initiate over portions of the Mississippi Valley, bringing rain across areas of the southeast. By the time we get into, say, Tuesday, you start to see some rain across portions of Washington, D.C., but not too far to the northwest of D.C. They could be looking at the potential for a little bit of some mixed precipitation mixing in with some snow.

Then by Wednesday, you start to see the potential for areas of Western Massachusetts and maybe even closer to the great lakes, Victor and Christie, that could end up getting some potential snow as well.

PAUL: All right. Allison Chinchar, thank you so much. CHINCHAR: Thanks.

BLACKWOOD: The fire danger across Australia is becoming more extreme. We'll tell you who is now joining the battle to stop the deadly spread of these massive bushfires.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:45:00]

BLACKWOOD: We've been following this dire situation in Australia, the deadly bush fires. They are worsening. Authorities say people are still trying to escape the flames that pushed them out of their communities. And they say an elite team of firefighters from California's Angel's National Forest are headed in to help on the front lines. And Australia's military is also increasing its presence.

PAUL: The country's wildlife is -- welfare of the wildlife is a major concern. We've seen incredibly heartbreaking images of kangaroos trying to get out, koala bears desperately trying to find cover from the scorching flames. I mean, look at this.

Stuart Blanch, Senior Manager for Australias Land Clearing and Restoration World Wildlife Fund, is in New Castle in the state of New South Wales. He's worked as a conservation scientist for 20 years.

Thank you so much, Stuart, for being with us, Dr. Blanch, we appreciate it.

Help us, first of all, understand what you are seeing, what you are feeling there.

STUART BLANCH, SENIOR MANAGER, AUSTRALIA LAND CLEARING AND RESTORATION WORLD WILDLIFE FUND: Well, I feel like we're in the middle of a war. I feel like there's a war on our wildlife, on our forests, on our communities, people living in the bush. And whatever we try to do, pretty much nothing is stopping the fires. And I've never seen anything like this before.

And I'm used to bushfires. I'm used to living in the bush. And so many of the people I work with say they've never seen anything like this. And the fires -- this is not normal. It's likes fires on steroids. It's not normal.

PAUL: Yes, I think you described it as the burnt forest is looking as though an atomic bomb went of, which makes -- brings us to what so many people are concerned about, not just the people there but the wildlife, particularly the koalas. What do you know about how successful efforts to save them have been?

BLANCH: Well, there's great work by community groups and volunteer firefighters and koala hospitals going out and rescuing koalas and other wildlife, and that's having an impact with koalas (INAUDIBLE). But by our estimates, perhaps as many as 900 million native animals have died or will die in the next few weeks or months because of these fires.

The fires have covered 14 million acres almost. I think that's almost twice the size of Massachusetts. We've never had fires this big and fires are getting bigger and hotter and more frequent and in the forests. And the wildlife is not just getting time to recover.

PAUL: When you've got people who are running out of communities to save their own lives, how do you get to the wildlife and get them to safety?

BLANCH: Well, a lot of people are taking, really, their lives into their own hands and going out into the bush before, after or sometimes even during the fires and rescuing animals, particularly koalas from trees. So it's incredible, the bravery of people and their commitment, because they're putting their lives at risk.

But most of the wildlife is being whilst far (ph) from many by people. And nobody knows how many animals are being killed but many, many hundreds of millions are dying. And we've still got probably at least three weeks before good rains hit the east coast. So we will have to wait and count the wildlife impact in the months ahead.

PAUL: And when you describe it looking like an atomic bomb went off, what does that mean for the habitat that would have to be rehabilitated for the animals that would go back into that habitat?

BLANCH: Well, if you can imagine healthy forests, you might have seen on television or movies or if people have visited Australia, massive trees, 30 meters high, full of undergrowth and wildlife.

[06:50:08]

And after the fire, just completely patched dirt, not a single grass, not a single plant left alive. All the trees are either killed or blackened. There might some leaves high up in the canopy, and not a sound, just quiet, the quietness of the bush with no wildlife.

And that's what we're seeing. That's what I've seen. I've seen fires from a few kilometers away, ten kilometers away, flames are very high and clouds reaching perhaps 10,000 feet in the air, massive cloud plumes. And even if animals are not killed by the fire or the radiant heat, they get very confused or die from just the very poor air quality.

And so the impact actually travels further than the forest and millions of Australians and hundreds of millions of animals are choking on that bushfire smoke as well.

PAUL: Stuart Blanch -- Dr. Stuart Blanch, we appreciate you taking time to talk with us this morning, best of luck to you. Keep in touch with us. We want to know how things continue to progress there. Wishing you all the best.

BLANCH: Thank you.

PAUL: And more information on how you can help the victim's of Australia's devastating bushfires, got to cnn.com/impact, and we thank you for doing so.

BLACKWOOD: Still to come, the controversy over a proposal to split the United Methodist Church over gay marriage and LGBT clergy members. We'll go behind this historic divide, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAUL: Well, leaders of the United Methodist Church are proposing a split into more than one denomination to resolve years of debate over LGBT clergy and same-sex weddings.

BLACKWOOD: CNN's Natasha Chen takes a look at the conflict and the proposal that, if adopted, would have a historic impact.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NATASHA CHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There's been little unity in the United Methodist Church on the subject of homosexuality. Now, this wedge among their pews is set to burst wide open because of a proposal from 16 church leaders.

[06:55:01]

BISHOP THOMAS BICKERTON, THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: It's not an authorized group. It's been an ad hoc group that's been put together.

CHEN: The ad hoc group of 16 includes Bishop Thomas Bickerton of New York. He says the group met up after a contentious conference in February.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On the traditional plan, voting is now closed.

CHEN: A majority voted for the traditional plan continuing to prohibit same-sex marriages and LGBTQ people from being ordained.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The traditional plan values unity in doctrine. For United Methodists, the clarion call of the inspired word of God burns in our hearts.

CHEN: Then in the fall of the ad hoc group came together with representatives from all factions of the church. In December, they unanimously agreed on a proposal to allow international groups to adopt their own policies. While in the United States, they would remove current restrictions against LGBTQ people and repeal the traditional plan, give $25 million over four years to the traditional list denomination, who is expected to leave the church and allocate $39 million over eight years to support communities historically marginalized by racism.

BICKERTON: But this provides a pathway for us to eliminate a 47-year debate that's been happening in this church. And, frankly, our people are tired.

CHEN: Another member of the negotiating group, Reverent Keith Boyette, represents the traditionalists. He described the agreement as the most hopeful development in a dispute that has undermined the health and vitality of both local churches and the denomination, in general.

Reverend Brittany Isaac, who identifies as queer, says she's still in limbo. Before this plan is approved, they're still guided by the traditional plan which took effect January 1st.

REV. BRITTANY ISAAC, THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, CHICAGO NORTHWESTERN: I keep waiting for an email from my bishop to say that charges have been filed against me.

CHEN: She said she's concerned but hopeful about what comes next. And it reminds her of the old testament conflict between twins Jacob and Esau.

ISAAC: After (INAUDIBLE), they come together and then they essentially blessed one another in part. And I hope that even though we have to separate that it can be goodwill towards each other as we go.

CHEN: Natasha Chen, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PAUL: Now, we've got some news out this morning, some clarity now on how Iran might retaliate against the U.S. We'll talk about that more in our next hour. Stay close.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:00:00]