Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Iranian Rockets Hit Iraq Airbase Where U.S. Troops Are Based; U.S. Military Had Early Warning; Trump Tweets "All Is Well"; Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA), Armed Services Committee, Discusses Potential for Deescalation; Iran's Foreign Minister: 'We Do Not Seek Escalation or War'; Iran Fires More Than a Dozen Missiles on U.S. Troops in Iraq. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired January 08, 2020 - 00:00   ET

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

[00:00:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Our breaking news coverage continues. Want to turn it over to Chris for another edition of "CUOMO PRIME TIME" -- Chris.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: All right, thank you very much, Anderson.

I am Chris Cuomo; it's midnight in the east. But now daylight in the Middle East where our military can get a clear view of the damage from Iran's retaliatory strikes on two bases that house U.S. forces in Iraq.

The early good word from the Pentagon and this president is that there is no word of any U.S. casualties. We now know a big reason why. There was early warning to the U.S. troops than an attack was coming.

How about hope for de-escalation?

There's been language from this president and from a high official in Iran that gives the possibility of just that. So let's get into this special edition of PRIME TIME.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): This is CNN breaking news.

CUOMO: All right. The latest word is a U.S. military official tells CNN, troops, that they did have enough early warning of the ballistic missile launches to sound alarms at the al-Asad and Irbil bases in Iraq.

So what does that mean?

That means those in harm's way were able to get to bunkers and safety and hunker down. If true and all are safe, that is a true blessing and also the best indication that this situation may not escalate.

The president of the United States tweeted a few hours ago, quote, "All is well. So far so good."

Now that is an interesting characterization of being bombed in two different bases. But the ultimate analysis is were there casualties? Was there loss? Was there clear reason for another step towards escalation?

The problem here is the president's practicality versus his tweets in the past. He laid out a red line that Iran clearly crossed with its bombing.

Is that the point of action?

So far it isn't. The president says he'll make a statement Wednesday morning. We await that.

Iran put out a statement by its foreign minister who tweeted his country took proportionate measures in self-defense. Here's the important part. "Does not seek escalation or war but will defend against any aggression."

We have global team coverage, of course. Let's begin in Washington with CNN White House correspondent Jeremy Diamond.

Now late obviously on the East Coast.

What is the latest word and the indication of what comes tomorrow?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That tweet from the president that you mentioned is what we're hearing from the White House. That is the latest word that we're getting.

"All is well. So far so good."

Far from the fire and brimstone that we were hearing from the president just a couple days ago as the United States waited to see how Iran would retaliate. We know how they have indeed retaliated with the ballistic missiles fired at Iraq bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq, the president is sounding a cautiously optimistic tone and making very clear that the thing he has his eye on overnight as we prepare to see whether or not the president of the United States will respond with his own military response is this civilian -- is this casualties.

That is what the president is keeping his eye on. He says, "Assessment of casualties and damages taking place now. So far so good."

But as you mentioned, the president set this red line a couple days ago and clearly that red line has been crossed. Remember the president didn't just talk about attacks that would kill American troops; he talked about attacks on U.S. interests as well.

And if an Iraqi base housing American troops is not a U.S. interest, then I'm not sure what else would be.

CUOMO: Hopefully the tweet won't rule with all the other circumstances and counsel he's getting. We'll see. Jeremy Diamond, thank you very much.

Let's go to CNN's Nick Paton Walsh in Beirut.

What do you make of what Iran did as retaliation?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I have to say this is not necessarily a move that was designed to create the maximum number of American casualties. I don't know the exact layout of al-Asad air base.

Normally at an American base at this time of night you would expect troops to be sleeping in large numbers in a tent, surrounded by concrete T-walls to protect them from a blast in the event they didn't get the early warning sirens they got from something like this.

[00:05:00]

WALSH: So unless you get a direct hit upon the actual sleeping facilities, you won't get that many casualties. As we know, Iran's missile technology is not necessarily able to deliver that kind of pinpoint attack.

So we have a dozen missiles fired at two obviously military targets. But the U.S. military on a very high state of alert with very significant and sophisticated antimissile systems, some which may have been in effect already this morning.

So the calculation by Iran's leaders must have either been not particularly well able to grasp what their missiles were able to do or possibly thinking, if they fire in the night like this, it might make a loud bang and statement of military force that they wanted to but not necessarily kill enough Americans to engender a U.S. response.

There's something from this to a degree of an off ramp maybe, that Iran gets to say we have done our bit. America did its bit and everybody moves on to something else tomorrow.

But it's so hard to necessarily predict quite how the Trump administration will react to something like this. It does appears to cross their red line certainly in terms of attacks against U.S. interest.

But you have to look at this in terms of how it makes Iran look in the region. They were making a lot of noise about forcing the United States out. Their supreme leader has been reported to have suggested he wanted to see an Iranian military attack against the U.S. military. He's got that.

But it didn't occur in any way which, thus far, appears to have been that effective. Many, when they heard it, thought it was the strangest way for Iran to respond. A out and out military confrontation between Tehran and Washington, the Pentagon would win in that.

They thought it was more likely they would use different proxies, allies, asymmetrical warfare and other ways of harming the United States if they chose to do that.

CUOMO: Right. Ali Khamenei of course, called for it to come from mainline Iranian military. That's what seems to have happened here. According to the intelligence report. And their good at that, they saw them setting them up and tracked them all the way through. So we'll see what comes next.

Nick, very interesting observations, I appreciate you for them. Stay safe where you are. Thank you.

Let's go to Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran.

Thank you for joining me.

First, what do you make of this notion that maybe Iran's plan was to make a show of force, show they could have done worse but not cause a lot of deadly impact?

Do you believe they have that kind of sensitive capability and have that kind of sensitivity?

RAMIN MOSTAGHIM, "L.A. TIMES": Yes, actually, they have already said that and made the point that just we want to have a tit-for-tat. Then game is over. And that will be the end of the game of violations. And Iran said that we will have a harsh response if you like. And then after harsh response, we want our -- be assured that peace will prevail and everything will be OK.

Actually from early morning, we can see the video of jubilation sometimes run by our agency. So the people are happy for the victory. That means the victory for peace and to end the war or to deescalate.

So from their point of view, the narrative is that we did our tit-for- tat. And the game is over.

CUOMO: That would be great. But let's take one more step down the road of analysis. Because if Soleimani meant as much to the Iranian government and culture as suggested by the displays of memorial and what has been said by the leadership, how is sending bombs, assuming they had capability and intentionality to come close but not hurt anybody, which is hard to believe, how is that an appropriate response to losing your number two?

Not that I wish anything worse. But why would that appease people within the hard line?

MOSTAGHIM: Appease people because people don't like war. And although they are angry and showed their anger in the rally when they pay respect for Soleimani, their beloved commander, it doesn't mean they love war and they want to see the war between Iran and America.

That is also -- the least things they risk and that's the way the war is not sold here. Supreme leader said over and over, there won't be a war. There won't be a negotiation, either.

[00:10:00] MOSTAGHIM: So the top leadership in Iran doesn't want to seek war as he reiterated over and over. And at the same time to appease people, they have already done that and used the blog of their beloved commander who unified the country to unify a divided society.

So actually Soleimani's blood has served the purposes of the ruling theocracy. They want nothing more and now the harsh response, according to their narrative, has happened. Let's go back to our daily routine.

CUOMO: I appreciate that perspective and I hope it's accurate. That would be great if this is the end of the violence and we can move onto something else.

Now a bizarre event that happened tonight that we don't believe had anything to do with hostilities between Iran and the United States but what a bizarre twist. After the bombing this video coming out locally of a Boeing 737, 180 passengers on board, crashing just after taking off from Tehran.

Preliminary reports suggest the plane was en route to Kiev, Ukraine. Obviously a big player in American politics. The word I understand it, please you tell me, from Tehran is this was not anything to do with any kind of retaliation. This was a mechanical problem with the plane.

But what a bizarre thing to happen on this night.

MOSTAGHIM: Yes. It is the worst scenario that could happen, this is a catastrophe in terms of human casualties. And people are shocked and, unfortunately, it was not top news because the top news was harsh response to American al-Asad base in Iraq. And so it was ignored almost because the top news over shadowed anything else.

Actually the head of the Iran navigation organization confirmed that, yes, there's no chance for any survival and all on board died. Now they're collecting anything they can just to find out what's going on, what happened and to looking for the black box to understand the investigation.

But, yes, it was very bad, catastrophe in a very unrightful (sic) time. It was a tragedy, that, of course, is not rare in this part of the country, especially for Ukrainian and Russian planes. But it's a catastrophe. And, unfortunately, nobody survived.

CUOMO: Yes, 180 lives lost on a night where we have been watching for loss of life. Ramin Mostaghim, thank you so much for your perspective on what is going on there. What may happen next and to share this bizarre circumstance that cost so much life tonight unrelated to what we have been following. Thank you, sir, appreciate it.

We'll hear later on, Wednesday morning, from the president. That's what we're told.

Question is what are we going to hear?

More importantly, what will we hear from Congress?

I had one of the top Republican in charge of our security on tonight and he said he doesn't think the president has to consult with Congress about any of this.

Can that be?

Can that be consensus in Congress?

Have they learned nothing from what's happened over the last few days?

We'll bring in a House Armed Services Committee member -- next.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:15:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

CUOMO: The president tweeted that quote, "All is well," after Iran launched more than a dozen missiles at two Iraqi bases that hold U.S. troops. The reason he has any basis to say that is because so far no report of any casualty. Let's get reaction from a member of the House. California Democrat John Garamendi, good to have you back on PRIME TIME.

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CA), MEMBER, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Always good, Chris.

CUOMO: So very interesting the state of play now, Iran launched missiles; whether it was any way intentional or just incompetence. At this point it doesn't seem they spilled any American blood. That would still cross the red line the president set in a tweet.

Do you see that as a real guideline?

Or is there an actual window to let hostility pass?

GARAMENDI: I think there's a word that has been said by the Secretary of Defense and a similar word in a tweet from the foreign minister of Iran. That word is deescalate. It appears as though both sides want to deescalate. That is excellent, wonderful, terrific news.

If there is a tit-for-tat or retaliation now on the part of the United States, that won't take place. It's time for everybody to stop for a moment and take a deep breath. Let this deescalate. And see if we can get back to where we were prior to this rocket attacks and the rocket attacks that killed the American and the killing of Soleimani.

So if it doesn't happen that way, then it is not an issue of the Americans defending themselves from an attack. It is an attack by America into Iran. That is the requirement for Congress to pass a resolution and act of war which we must do before the president takes any other steps. CUOMO: Let me ask you something about that.

[00:20:00]

CUOMO: Before tonight, that is with Congress being boxed out of any discussion about what the president was doing under the guideline of imminent threat, that the secretary of state nor any other member of the administration, including the president, has been able to explain to anybody's satisfaction except the most diehard supporters.

Isn't that your job already?

Isn't that yet another example of Congress abdicating its power to provide statutory or declaratory powers to a president?

GARAMENDI: Depends upon the word imminent. We can dance around that word or try to number the angels dancing on the head of a pin. The reality is the president has the power to protect Americans, military and otherwise, from an imminent threat.

Now where we are today is that there is no apparent imminent threat if, in fact, Iran is sending a signal that is doesn't intend to do more than intends to deescalate. The next move is up to the United States.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: He could just argue now he really doesn't need you. They were just bombed. If he wants to do something, he has a justification.

GARAMENDI: I think not. Because that is then moving into an ongoing war situation. Not an imminent threat of an attack but rather a full blown let's go to war. In which case it is up to Congress to take that up and really the responsibility of the president. To come before Congress and in a joint session say, we need to attack or continue to attack Iran. So they don't do this or that to us.

CUOMO: You think anything further would require Congress but you don't think taking out Soleimani required Congress?

GARAMENDI: I think that, yes, Congress should have been notified ahead of time. However, I don't see much use in debating the word imminent at this point. Going forward there is, as we know it today, no imminent threat of an attack.

Clearly Iran signaled it was going to attack. We knew that those missiles were being readied. If we wanted to deal with an imminent attack, we could have attacked those missiles before they were launched.

If we see a situation in which the missiles are being rolled out and ready to fire then yes we have an imminent attack. We're in a situation now where it's up to the president to make a decision. Deescalate; if he intends to escalate this, then in my view he must come to Congress and ask for a declaration of war and it's up to us to say yes or no depending on the argument and circumstances. From my point of view there is no declaration of war that is justified

nor is there an imminent attack that we know of at this moment.

CUOMO: Congressman, I appreciate your perspective very much. On a very important night.

GARAMENDI: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right. This is the foreign policy test that may define this administration. He threatened a disproportionate military response if Iran attacked again. And now it has.

This isn't about baiting the president. This is about holding his words up to scrutiny. Two State Department veterans are here to help understand where things could go, what that tweet should mean or not mean. Next.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:25:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

CUOMO: Look, we don't want to be overly optimistic in this situation. It does seem at this point that Iran sees the missile launches that it did today and this evening as retaliation, as this is it. That seems to be the message from the Iranian foreign minister.

And so far, as far as we know, now that daylight comes in the Middle East and they can assess in the U.S. bases there are no casualties to report at this point. As I said Iran's foreign minister tweeted that the attacks were concluded in what he called "proportionate measures" and his country is not seeking escalation.

That seems to suggest in a plain reading that they're not going to do anything else. Two questions.

Does that mean that we're in a period of deescalation?

Maybe entering a diplomatic situation. I know that's farfetched.

Or did they already cross a red line for the president and now when he speaks to the country tomorrow morning he will address that?

Foreign relations experts Nayyera Haq and Aaron David Miller join me now.

It's good to have you both.

First, can you give me your take quickly on whether or not -- do either of you believe that Iran has the capabilities to guide missiles well enough to come close, cause physical destruction but not do maximum deadly damage?

And that's what they did with these bombings.

Do either of you believe they have the capability and that was their intention?

NAYYERA HAQ, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT SENIOR ADVISER: I think they had an opportunity to be more targeted if they wanted or they could have hit civilian sites. They knew they were targeting bases and military personnel had enough opportunity to seek safe haven. So I think they could have been much worse.

If what they were looking for was shock and awe it wouldn't be an essentially empty military base.

CUOMO: ADM?

AARON DAVID MILLER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I think that's right. They had intel on the al-Asad base. They clearly knew that we would detect well before launch.

So there was ample time to clear out personnel.

[00:30:12]

When when you launched 12 short-range ballistic missiles 800 miles, I mean, I'm not sure -- we're not talking about precision-guided munitions, so there was some risk there. But I think they tried to thread the needle, Chris, and I think they've given the United States an opportunity now to respond in kind.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. I mean, look, I think you have to be skeptical, and we're not used to Iran having benign intentions like that, but the good news is they missed, one way or another.

So ADM, let me stay with you on this point. This window for de- escalation. The president tweeted, you do anything, you cross the line, and I'm coming big-time. Do you think that might just be dismissed as more, you know, Trump talk, and there could be a better plan?

MILLER: You know, usually, presidential credibility is measured by you mean what you say and what you mean. And the gap between rhetoric and the failing to act is a measure of the absence of credibility.

Here, you have a president whose rhetoric is way out in front, usually, with respect to his capacity to act. I think we need a prudent and wise commander in chief who's ready to acknowledge that there is space here, at least for this round, to deconflict. And I suspect he'll play the statesman, I'm hoping, within the next 48 hours.

CUOMO: Well, Nayyera, on that score, what we have going for us with this president is, not a fan of these kinds of moves. I mean, it was a little shocking that he did something this provocative when he's criticized any move that's anything like it in presidents past of both parties. NAYYERA HAQ, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENIOR DIRECTOR: Well, listen,

he did run on bringing an end to foreign wars, and drawing back troops from the Middle East, so essentially, starting a war, a ground war, conventional warfare with Iran would go after his campaign promises. And frankly, what the majority of Americans are looking for right now.

With that said, you know, he's got itchy Twitter fingers. He's got thin skin. So Iran coming at him, hard and strong with their rhetoric clearly got under his skin. And I think, listen, he was trying to be responsive to the fact that a U.S. contractor was killed, that Iran does have a broad network of terrorist activities.

Clearly, this was an escalation and the United States making itself heard.

But what the Iranians have responded with is, All right, we heard your message. We are now giving our public a reason to stand strong and save face with our public.

But I thought it was very important that the foreign minister said that he's concluded proportionate strikes. So that, the conclusion and the proportion means that is our response; we're not looking to escalate further. There is an opportunity now and a window for diplomacy, if the president of the United States chooses that path forward.

CUOMO: Pompeo says, Nayyera, you can't believe this foreign minister. That he's -- you know, he's B.S., and he lies all the time. Can he be taken as a word of authority in that administration? Or do you have to wait for the supreme leader?

HAQ: He is -- yes, he is a very seasoned diplomat, and he certainly knows how to work with European allies and decades of American diplomats prior to this administration.

I would say that, of the two, Secretary Pompeo has been the one to be more bellicose in his rhetoric, to be more antagonistic over this past weekend. So I'd be curious to see how our nation's lead diplomat changes tone.

I mean, frankly, the Department of Defense, Secretary Esper was far more reserved in his comments today when he said that we are looking to de-escalate. We're not looking to start a war. We're looking to end it. I think that's the type of rhetoric we need to hear going forward, and hopefully, we hear that from the president of the United States.

CUOMO: ADM, I've always made no secret of the fact that I lean on you heavily for perspective on and off camera and how to make sense of these situations for the audience.

In terms of electability and what this can mean, what is the calculus from your experience, working with both types of administrations, that this president should keep in mind about what Iran could represent?

MILLER: I think it's like dancing with a bear, Chris, and the only problem is you can't let go. And the reality is, we're going to go back to a competitive slide with the Iranians.

Their ballistic missile programs will continue. They'll continue to ramp up, within certain parameters, their nuclear capacity. And their aspirations for regional influence are going to continue.

And we're going to have a choice to make. We cannot bring this regime down. I think that it's foolish. Economic sanctions will not make the Iranians bend to the president's will. You've seen what happened when we launch into some kinetic activity with them.

I mean, can you -- have we preempted those missile strikes, or if the president decided to retaliate against Iran, they could conceivably launch against Haif (ph) and Dubai.

I mean, the magnitude of this is -- is quite remarkable. We may get a deconfliction channel out of this. I doubt it. But the notion that the supreme leader, Rouhani, the president are going to come together in some sort of effort to find common ground, I think is going to have to wait. And the Iranians may well wait, Chris, until they see the results of the November elections.

[00:35:05]

CUOMO: The real risk is if they decide to do something else close to the election, to have more maximum effect.

But as we all know, I'm out of time. But we'll hear from the president tomorrow morning. We have to listen for his own perception of how this played. Was this a win for him? Did he come out on top of this? If that seems to be his understanding and the understanding of those around him, that's the best sign that it's over, at least for now.

Nayyera, thank you so much.

ADM, as always, appreciate it, especially at night. Thank you, fellows. Appreciate it, lady and gentlemen.

Iran now threatening to strike back inside our borders, but there's a huge "if" on that. They were saying that as, if you come at Iran, we will target these other places, and we are thinking about inside the United States, as well. Does that still stand now? What does that mean here? How would they even do that here? We're going to ask Andrew McCabe about the risk, and the readiness, our part here at home, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:40:02]

CUOMO: So shortly after Iran launched its attacks, its elite military wing, known as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or IRGC, also threatened to attack inside America. However, there was an "if." If, it said, the U.S. responds.

Now just how big a threat does Iran mean to our homeland? And how ready are we for it? Andrew McCabe is here.

Thank you very much, especially burning the midnight oil, literally.

Now, obviously, we're very sensitive to our U.S. fighting men and women and our allies abroad, especially with more being sent into the region, so many there. That seems to have been an escape for us so far tonight. There's going to be sensitivity to anything happening here. The idea of an actual attack, how realistic?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think it's very realistic. I think it's something that all intelligence and law enforcement agencies are focused and have to be thinking about the potential threat from IRGC and Hezbollah operatives and also Hezbollah operatives.

As you know, Chris, Hezbollah is the terrorist organization from Lebanon that was essentially created by the IRGC in the early 1980s for the purpose of perpetuating Iranian-driven terrorist activity around the globe, primarily directed at Americans and Israelis.

CUOMO: So the idea of the foreign minister saying, This was proportionate. We're good. We don't want any more escalation. Is he to be trusted, and does that mean what it sounds like, which is that that isn't as big a threat?

MCCABE: You know, we can certainly hope that -- that he means what he says, and that would be a logical calculation if Iran is trying to avoid an overwhelming U.S. response. Maybe they -- take the step they took this evening and maybe just call it -- call it even at that.

However, because we know that the IRGC has looked at staging terrorist operations in the United States in the past, we also know that they, through their Hezbollah proxies, have prepared for eventualities like this for many, many years, stockpiling explosives around the globe, sending covert operatives to foreign countries, including the United States, to put together intelligence packages, targeting packages, things like that, stockpiling explosives.

We have to be very concerned about whether or not Iran and Hezbollah maintain that capacity in the United States today.

CUOMO: Now obviously, when we think attack, our mind immediately goes to bloodshed, and rightly so, given what we've experienced. But it seems that the biggest threat these days is cyber. And Iran is not often spoken about, you know, in the regular dialogue in the media. But they are known to have extraordinary capabilities in that regard. Is that true?

MCCABE: Very true. You know, that is probably the bigger threat if you consider bigger being most common. Iran targets and attacks us through the cyber realm every single day. They've been doing it since as early as 2011, when they staged the massive denial of service attacks on our financial institutions.

They've -- they've developed into using malware, like viruses, like the Shimoon virus that they used against Saudi ARAMCO in 2012 that basically destroyed Saudi ARAMCO's computing capability and all the data that went along with it.

So they're very adept. They have diversified over the years. And I think we -- They are certainly one of the cyber threats that we need to think about most frequently.

CUOMO: What does that look like?

MCCABE: You know, it could look like the attack that they -- the infiltration attack that they staged on the dam in Rye Brook, New York, a few years ago, where they actually got into the industrial control system, so the electronic system that controls the workings of the dam. So that tells us they're thinking about infrastructure. They're thinking about the capability of incapacitating infrastructure here in the United States, that is a big concern.

The standard attacks that we see in terms of attacking institutions, destroying computing capabilities, stealing and destroying data. They could shut down entire sectors of industries by -- and inflicting economic damage on our private sector by doing that.

CUOMO: And of course, we've given the world a great -- world a great example of how effective messing with our election can be and how it can divide us along party lines and a lot of other lines.

MCCABE: Yes.

CUOMO: Andrew McCabe, thank you very much for the perspective --

MCCABE: Sure thing.

CUOMO: -- on the continuing threat going forward, what it could mean here at home. I appreciate it.

MCCABE: You got it.

CUOMO: All right. So at the moment, we are fortunate not to have any reports of American casualties. Now, I'm always slow on these types of assessments. There is now daylight in the Middle East, in Iraq where these two bombings took place. So it's easier for them to assess it.

But there have been different waves of it, and so far, there have been no reports of casualties. That is really important in terms of controlling what happens next. You have to believe it would be much more difficult for this president, in particular, to resist the voices around him saying what looks strong and what looks weak if there were American blood shed.

[00:40:16]

So how do our military and the commander in chief respond now if -- if -- it stays this way, with no casualties? Two of our specialists on all things armed forces, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CUOMO: All right. The sun is up on a new day in Iraq in more than one way. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, U.S. forces have been fighting terror cells and proxy forces all along. An attack by a sovereign nation, that changes the calculation.

So let's bring in our retired Rear Admiral John Kirby and Paul Rieckhoff for where things stand right now. Thank you both.

[00:50:06]

P.J., so whether it was intentional or whatever, or we got lucky, no reports of U.S. casualties. God willing it stays that way. What does this mean to you in terms of a way forward?

PAUL RIECKHOFF, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA: It's good news for now. You always hope for the best, but you plan for the worst. It looks like we have a pause right now, but tomorrow is a new day and anything can happen.

I think it's important to note these air bases get rocket attacks all the time. They don't get ballistic missile attacks. This is a whole new level. But they're in a dangerous place.

I think everybody in the military is wondering what happens next. If this does escalate, the president can't bring tensions down, we could see more troops to the Middle East, more call-ups like the 82nd Airborne and the 173rd. And we could see mobilization of National Guard, reserve troops, you know, in support but also here at home, guarding our trains and subways.

So I think across the military, everyone is still cautious. They're waiting to see what's next, and they're prepared for anything.

CUOMO: John, so the idea of what the foreign minister for Iran said, put out a tweet saying, basically, OK, we're good. You know, this was proportionate. No more.

Is he to be trusted? Secretary of State Pompeo says no.

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY (RET.), CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: I -- I have to agree with the secretary. I mean, I think it's -- I think it's an encouraging sign, that tweet from Zarif. I think they are trying to signal, at least it appears they're trying to signal that they're not interested in taking this any further.

But, look, Iran has internal divisions itself. The government is divided. The elected government is often at odds with the supreme leader, who is in charge of the Quds Force and the Revolutionary Guard, so it's not -- it's not also monolithic there. And it is -- it is entirely possible that militias, or even the Revolutionary Guards could take action that are uncoordinated.

Not to mention, even if it was monolithic, I think we need to be cautious here, to see what the next step is by Iran, to see if this really is the end. And I suspect that military leaders in the Pentagon are counseling

that to the president right now. Let's just take a little pause here and see what happens next before we have to make any major decisions.

CUOMO: Well, Pompeo and Co. were the same guys that was pushing this president to go after Soleimani for some time, reportedly.

And then we got word out of the White House, directly from the president tonight by tweet, of course, where he seemed to be where you are, John, saying, like, all right, it's time. And a senior administration source said it's a time for patience.

So P.J., that's tonight. He also said, if you do -- our president said, if you do anything, Iran, that's a red line. I don't know why he said red line. I don't know why he said that. But they certainly crossed it, by any definition, even though they missed, right? So what do you do if you're him? Does he have to honor his word, or is this a great opportunity for him to say, I said that, but now I'm saying this?

RIECKHOFF: I'm not going to get in the dangerous business of predicting what Donald Trump's going to do. We don't know. He's unpredictable, and that's part of the challenge here, is we don't know what tomorrow is going to look like. His attitude could completely change.

But tonight, he did de-escalate. He wasn't firing away on Twitter. He didn't do an inflammatory press conferences. It seem to be both sides are bringing the tensions down, and that's, ultimately, what the world needs.

CUOMO: Why send more in? This guy wants to get out of the region. He says, I'm bringing people home. He's taking them out of Syria. Everybody yells at him and says things are going to get worse there, and they do. And now he sends them in here? Into the region, where you're only going to --

RIECKHOFF: I'm not going to try to explain it. I mean, I've called him President Mayhem in the past, because it's like following mayhem all the time. And frequently, we've seen the military try to catch up to his tweets, if it's been this action, or it was the trans ban, or it was the abandonment of the Kurds.

Often his tweets and his words are way ahead of where our military, our government and our people can be. So in a time like, this, we do need that restraint. And we need to prepare for the worst course of action.

That also includes things like the V.A. Nobody's asking the secretary of the Veterans Affairs Department if he's ready for an increase in Iran. What do we do if we have to activate National Guardsmen in places like the TSA? Right? The TSA talks proudly about how many veterans and military folks, National Guard and Reserves, work at the TSA. What if they get deployed? How are we going to backfill all those people at airports? These are the kind of scenario planning that goes on at the Pentagon,

we hope goes on in the political judgment, as well, because the cascading effects are enormous. That's what we're so concerned about, not just in Iran, but throughout the Middle East and in places like Kenya, where we lost an American soldier just this weekend. And most of America's forgotten about that.

CUOMO: John, the president had signaled earlier on that he didn't even need an exit strategy when it comes to Iran. We all know that this is not his area of expertise. He doesn't have experience in the military. Yes, he's said he's better than all the generals, but again, you've got to take that with a grain of salt.

He is going to be very susceptible to the voices around him. Which way do they take them?

KIRBY: Yes. I don't know. I was worried about that earlier, Chris, and I was thinking this through. He has shown restraint tonight, and that's welcome news. It looks like he is going to take his -- take his time here to make a decision. We don't know what he's going to say tomorrow.

But I was worried earlier, you know, if the hawks, particularly some hawks from FOX News who do have influence on him, if they hit at this decision, if they criticize him for this restraint, will he change? You know, and to Paul's excellent point, he is -- he is chaotic on Twitter. He is unpredictable. And I don't -- I wouldn't put it past him to change his mind and show less restraint if he gets pressure from the hard right, hardliners on the right that might think he's -- he's showing weakness.

CUOMO: You know, and over there, they're always saying how much they love the troops, you know. And everybody says it. When you have too much experience with people who don't stand behind their words.

You know, the idea of saying, Boy, look at the media, playing P.R. for Tehran by saying, this is enough, and it's good, and they should be -- you know, let's try to make things better.

What is the upside of pushing for a more aggressive stance with Iran? I mean, where is the win in that for the United States?

RIECKHOFF: There's no win for anyone if this escalates. And it could pour into Israel. It could pour into the entire Middle East.

I think it's important to know, Chris, too, you know, we've been talking a lot about Soleimani. It's important to know, he is symbolically very important, which means he can't necessarily control the reaction, now that he's gone. Iran can't control the reaction.

There are plenty of people who are watching on TV in cells around the world, where just young people who are pissed off at America and want to take a shot now because Soleimani has been killed. You can't always necessarily control all these external forces that are across the world.

That's why it's important that the president set the narrative and keep the moral high ground. We have a little bit of it right now. We need to really treasure that and use it, and try to make us the good guys.

CUOMO: True.

RIECKHOFF: If we can be the good guy and Iran is the good guy, then everyone can win. I'm not going to say they are, but that's the place we want to be in, where everybody can move forward and get a win.

CUOMO: It's a good hope to have at this point.

RIECKHOFF: Yes, sir.

CUOMO: P.J., thank you very much.

John Kirby, thank you so much, as always.

And thank all of you for watching. Please stay with CNN through the night. We will have the latest on this breaking story.

(COMMERCIAL)

END