Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Two Rockets Hit Baghdad Green Zone; Interview With Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL); Interview With Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY); Trump Blames Obama For Iran Strikes, Claims Missiles Funded By Nuclear Deal; Some Senate Dems Signal They're Ready To Begin Impeachment Trial; Harry And Meghan Announce They Are Stepping Back As Senior Members Of The British Royal Family. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired January 08, 2020 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:08]
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Happening now, breaking news, rocket fire.
A day after Iran's retaliatory strikes against the United States, new explosions are reported in Baghdad, this as homeland security officials now warn that Iran's proxies may be preparing to launch terror and cyberattacks.
Back from the brink. President Trump opts against new military action, for now, after threatening to make Iran suffer for avenging the killing of its top general. We're learning more about the calculations on both sides.
Imminent threat? Democrats aren't buying the president's justification for killing General Qasem Soleimani, after an intel briefing. Now the House is poised to vote on keeping the commander in chief in check.
And no haggling. That's the message Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is sending as he insists on conducting President Trump's trial his way. Tonight, some Democrats are getting anxious about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's refusal to turn over those two articles of impeachment.
We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
BLITZER: We're following breaking news on tensions in the Middle East, after Iran's retaliatory strike against U.S. forces in Iraq.
Two rockets landed in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zones just a little while ago. And it's not clear who fired them. Tonight, the top U.S. general says Iran did -- repeat -- did intend to kill American troops in Iraq, but failed, contradicting administration officials who suggested the Iranians meant to avoid any deaths.
A White House official says President Trump considered hitting back at Iran for the missile strikes, but decided to hold off. We're told Iran made it clear to the United States in multiple messages that it's done seeking revenge for Mr. Trump's order to kill its top military commander.
I will get reaction from two U.S. senators who were just briefed on Iran, including Republican Rand Paul. There you see him. He's railing against what he heard in a briefing. And our correspondents and analysts are also standing by.
First, let's go to our chief international correspondent, Clarissa Ward. She's joining us from Iraq right now.
Clarissa, what are you learning about these rockets that just landed inside the Green Zone in Baghdad, which houses the U.S. Embassy and hundreds of Americans?
CLARISSA WARD, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the good news is, it appears that there were no casualties as a result of those two Katyusha rockets landing inside that heavily fortified Green Zone in just the last couple of hours.
Sirens heard blaring across Baghdad, obviously, everybody on very high alert, given the events that have transpired over the last 24 hours, and a lot of people now asking themselves whether this means that, despite Iran's official reaction being over, the U.S. can now expect more of these kinds of attacks to continue, potentially from Iranian proxies, potentially from Shiite militias that are loyal to Iran.
At this stage, Wolf, we don't know exactly who was responsible for these rocket attacks. We can say it's not an uncommon phenomena to see the Green Zone targeted by rockets from these various militias. But, obviously, this can't be seen outside of the context of ongoing events.
Here in Irbil, where we are, when we arrived in our hotel earlier, we saw more than 100 U.S. military contractors. They have been evacuated from all over Iraq, particularly Baghdad, also the U.S. Air Base Balad, because of fears of these kinds of continuing retaliatory attacks, all of this essentially underscoring, Wolf, the ongoing fear that, while the official reaction may be over and done with, there may continue to be attacks on American lives that could continue for quite some time to come -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Yes, that's the fear. Clarissa Ward, thank you very much. Be careful over there.
Now to the White House, where President Trump spoke out today about Iran's revenge attack and his response.
Let's go to our chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta.
Jim, what are you learning about the calculations right now inside the Trump administration?
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, for starters, President Trump is cranking down the rhetoric, welcoming what he sees as a decision from Iran to pull back from the brink of war.
But a White House official tells CNN some consideration was given to striking back at Iran last night. Ultimately, the decision was made to hold off until all of the facts came in.
Still, the potential for Iranian retaliation remains, as the Trump administration is warning cities to be on high alert for terror attacks and cyber-threats.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA (voice-over): The day after Iran fired missiles at U.S. forces in retaliation for killing one of the regime's top generals, President Trump defended his decision to de-escalate the crisis by holding back.
[18:05:06]
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world. No American or Iraqi lives were lost because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces, and an early warning system that worked very well.
ACOSTA: In the hours after the Iranian barrage that struck military bases where U.S. forces were taking cover, the president and top advisers were huddling in the Situation Room awaiting word of casualties.
CNN has learned there was some consideration given to striking back at Iran. But Mr. Trump and his team ultimately decided against a counterattack after reports on the ground indicated there were no U.S. service members killed.
That's despite the president's tweet days earlier warning: "If Iran attacks an American base or any American, we will be sending some of that brand-new beautiful equipment their way and without hesitation."
Even though Iran's missiles didn't result in any U.S. casualties, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley told reporters he believes the attack was aimed at causing destruction and killing Americans, despite some administration officials saying Iran may have purposely missed its targets.
GEN. MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: I believe, based on what I saw and what I know, is that they were intended to cause structural damage, destroy vehicles and equipment and aircraft and to kill personnel. That's my own personal assessment.
ACOSTA: During an address to the nation, the president tried to justify his move to take out Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.
TRUMP: Soleimani's hands were drenched in both American and Iranian blood. He should have been terminated long ago.
ACOSTA: But he didn't offer any new information to back up his claim that Soleimani was on the verge of killing more Americans. Mr. Trump also attempted to blame former President Barack Obama for
the crisis, falsely claiming that the Iran nuclear deal somehow paid for the missiles.
TRUMP: The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.
ACOSTA: The president is also claiming he will block Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
TRUMP: As long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
ACOSTA: But Democrats say the Iran deal would have accomplished that, had the president remained in the agreement.
SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): If we had stayed in the deal, we had enforceable action against Iran that they would never get weapons.
ACOSTA: The president also announced he would slap new sanctions on Tehran, but even some in his own party aren't sure that will bring Iran back to the bargaining table.
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): I think sanctions have actually pushed Iran away from the negotiating table and made it less likely to have a diplomatic solution. At this point, there are so many sanctions on Iran, I don't know what else we could do to actually increase them.
ACOSTA: With federal law enforcement officials warning U.S. cities to be on alert for potential terrorist threats and cyberattacks carried out by Iranian proxies, the administration is asking Americans to remain vigilant.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA: The president also-called on NATO today to step up its involvement in the Middle East. The president, who has repeatedly criticized the alliance in the past, spoke with NATO's secretary- general earlier in the day.
The administration was also leaning on other countries like Switzerland to act as a back channel during last night's violence. The Iranians were using those back channels, Wolf, to communicate to the United States that they were essentially finished for the night.
The White House is now watching to see if that holds -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Jim, thank you, Jim Acosta at the White House.
Let's go to Capitol Hill right now.
Our Congressional Correspondent, Phil Mattingly, is joining us.
Phil, there was a strong rebuke of the intelligence behind the Soleimani strike from two key Republican senators, including Senator Rand Paul. I will be speaking with him in just a moment, but tell us how significant this is.
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, behind closed doors, inside the classified briefing that lasted about 75 minutes, top administration officials trying to walk through United States senators as to the process and why they chose to strike Qasem Soleimani in Iraq.
I'm told it was -- quote -- "heated, intense," with Democrats repeatedly raising questions about why they decided to strike now. But it was outside the briefing after it occurred that you heard the sharpest criticism.
Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul, two Republican senators. Take a listen to what Senator Lee had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): Probably the worst briefing I have seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I have served in the United States Senate.
To come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran, it's un- American, it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong, that was insulting. That was demeaning to the process ordained by the Constitution.
And I find it completely unacceptable.
I walked into the briefing undecided. I walked out decided, specifically because of what happened in that briefing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:10:00]
MATTINGLY: Now, Wolf, it was that last point that's the most actionable, tangible result of a briefing that left a number of senators wanting more, thinking they should get more.
Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul both now saying they will back a war powers resolution that would essentially restrict the administration's authority to conduct hostile activities related to Iran.
Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat, is the sponsor of that resolution. Now both Republicans are on board.
Now, Wolf, it's worth pointing out both Senators Lee and Paul have long been critics of the expanding Article 2 authority when it comes to military conflict that we have seen over the course of decades. This is not new for them.
But their frustration in the wake of that briefing, joining with Democrats in believing they simply did not get the answers to questions, answers to questions about legal authority, answers to questions about how imminent the attack possibly was, a series of questions, that stands out in the wake of what the administration has done in terms of pushing an aggressive effort to bring leaders and congressional members along with them in the wake of that strike -- Wolf.
BLITZER: A very important point, indeed. Phil Mattingly, thank you very much.
And joining us now, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. He is a key member of both the Foreign Relations and Homeland Security committees.
Senator, thank you so much for joining us.
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): No problem.
BLITZER: And we could certainly hear how angry Senator Mike Lee, your friend, your colleague from Utah, was after this briefing.
As you heard, he said it was the worst briefing he had on a military issue in his entire time in the Senate.
I know you can't talk about specifics about classified information, but tell us what it was all about, that briefing, the tone of the officials and what caused your angry reaction.
PAUL: Well, it's an insult to the Constitution.
The Constitution said the power to declare war was to be given to Congress. They specifically did not give that power to the president.
In the briefing and in public, this administration has argued that the vote to topple Saddam Hussein in 2002 now applies to military action in Iraq. That is absurd.
Nobody in their right mind with a straight face with an ounce of honesty can argue that, when Congress voted to go after Saddam Hussein in 2002, that that authorized military force against an Iranian general 18 years later.
If we need to be at war, we debate it in the open, in public, and we have a public vote in the Senate and the House. That's the way you go to war.
Now, we're not quite at war, and I hope that this will be an isolated killing. And, look, I'm a fan of the president. I think the president has shown remarkable restraint in many areas of foreign policy.
But on the idea of who has the power, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat president, I'm consistent. The Constitution gave that power to Congress. And Congress has abdicated that power.
Mike Lee and I are standing up for it.
BLITZER: Well, listen to Senator Lindsey Graham, another Republican.
He just reacted to what he heard you say and what he heard Senator Lee say. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I think they're overreacting, quite frankly. Go debate all you want to. I'm going to debate you, trust me.
I'm going to -- I'm going to let people know that, at this moment in time, to play this game with a war powers act, which I think is unconstitutional, is that, whether you mean to or not, you're empowering the enemy.
I know you don't mean to, but we live in the real world here. So debate all you want. This is a constitutional democracy, but get ready for a lively debate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: You heard what he said. He's accusing you and Senator Lee of empowering the enemy, his words, empowering the enemy by supporting this war powers resolution.
I need your response.
PAUL: I think it's sad when people have this fake sort of drape of patriotism, and anybody that disagrees with them is not a patriot.
Look, I love my country. I have many family members who have served in the military and continue to serve in the military. I love my country as much as the next guy.
But for him to insult and say that somehow we're not as patriotic as he is, he hasn't even read the history of the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that the war-making power is -- resides in Congress.
He believes in this unitary theory of the executive, that presidents can do whatever they want. The only way you can stop them is by defunding a war. That's not what our founding fathers said. It's not what the Constitution says. And he insults the Constitution, our founding fathers and what we do stand for in this republic by making light of it and accusing people of lacking patriotism.
I think that's a low, gutter type of response.
BLITZER: Yes, he's saying that you and Senator Lee are empowering the enemy of the United States.
Senator Lee also said the message in the classified briefing that you and your fellow senators got, he said that you -- the message was, you need -- quote -- "to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public."
Do you feel the administration wants you to fall in line and be good little boys and good little girls?
PAUL: Well, to me, this is much bigger than the Trump administration.
This question we have about who has the war-making power, this goes back to Truman in 1950. We have fought war after war, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, without truly having them authorized by Congress. And so it's been a tug of war.
[18:15:10]
And many people have written that Congress and senators have abdicated their role in declaring war. And that's absolutely true.
So, what Senator Lee and I are doing are standing up and saying, the power resides in Congress, and we're going to fight for it. It's not a personal fight. I don't dislike President Trump. I'm going to support him in his campaign. I think he has many good attributes and has done a lot of good things for the country.
But on this specific issue, I do believe there's a separation of power. It's a tug of war. And Congress should assert themselves and say, the war-making power was given to us. The main reason the war- making power was given to Congress is, our founding fathers did not want perpetual war.
I don't think the president does either. But the best way to make war less likely is to divide that power up and not let it reside in the hands of one person.
BLITZER: After today's intelligence briefing that you and your colleagues received, do you believe the strike on Soleimani was wrong? Or are you just upset about the process?
PAUL: Well, it's a little bit of both.
I think that, constitutionally, presidents need to ask for permission to go to war. And I think killing a major general of another country is an act of war.
Do I mourn for Soleimani? No. I think he was an evil person.
But the question isn't whether someone is evil. It's whether or not eradicating that evil person will lead to a better outcome for America, for our country.
So, Saddam Hussein was an evil guy. But when we got rid of him, Iraq descended into chaos. And now Iraq is allied with Iran. The whole irony of this is now, we're still plowing billions of dollars into Iraq. But Iraq likes Iran better than us. Iran is more of a menace because of the Iraq War.
This is what the Cheneys never understood. They gave us this war. They're still unrepentant. And much of the Republican Caucus is still guided and still loves the Cheney philosophy that the Iraq War was great.
But the Iraq War led to this mess. President Trump actually gets that. And that's one of the things I like about him. But, still, we have a tug of war over whose power it is.
BLITZER: Did you get any evidence, any intelligence -- and I know you can't release classified information. But did you get some specific information that there was an imminent threat to American military personnel, American diplomats within a matter of days, and that was the reason they decided to kill Soleimani?
PAUL: There was no specific information given to us of a specific attack. Generalities, stuff you read in the newspaper was given to us.
I didn't learn anything in the hearing that I hadn't seen in a newspaper already. And none of it was overwhelming that X was going to happen.
I'm not saying that -- really, the world being rid of Soleimani is probably a good thing. But, in the end, how we go about it and what are the ramifications of it are very important.
I think it's much -- it's made it much more difficult to have engagement or any kind of diplomacy with Iran. I doubt they will be coming to the negotiating table any time soon.
And so really this is a question I ask every day. Are sanctions working? Does maximum pressure work? Is it making it more or less likely that Iran will come to the table?
I think getting out of the nuclear agreement, placing an embargo on them, and killing their major general all add up to obstacles to diplomacy, and are making it much less likely that we have diplomacy, and actually much more likely that we will have attacks on Americans. And that's what we're seeing.
BLITZER: I just want to be precise, Senator.
It was a 75-minute closed-door highly classified briefing from top administration officials. And you say they did not give you any specific information to justify the killing of Qasem Soleimani?
PAUL: There were -- there was general information given, but no specifics
BLITZER: Did you press? Did you say, can you give us some specifics? And what did they say?
PAUL: We were -- pressed continued questions. Only about a dozen senators were allowed to ask questions. And when pressed on whether or not they would return, there was sort of a negative response, that there wasn't guarantee they'd have time to come back.
And so, really, this is the whole point. The administration -- and not just this administration, but Democrats as well -- have said, oh, we will consult with you.
That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution says, you have to ask our permission. So, instead, we get a little bit of consultation after the fact. But that's not what the Constitution says. And if that's the standard we're going to have, we will have a lot of war.
So, the people who don't want perpetual war -- and the president says he doesn't want perpetual war. We need to limit the power of the executive. But that's hard to get executives to agree to, Republican or Democrat.
BLITZER: Yes, you told me the other day you think the president is simply getting bad advice from some of his friends and advisers.
You still believe that, right?
PAUL: Yes, I think that, if you want to have an off-ramp -- let's say that you want sanctions to work.
And this is a point I made again to the secretary of state today. If you're going to put maximum pressure on Iran, you also have to have conversation with them. So, if you have to stick over here, you got to have a carrot over here.
[18:20:00]
And the carrot at least has to be conversation. We have no communication with the Iranians. We -- our State Department doesn't talk to their state department.
So, how could we possibly give them an off-ramp if there are no conversations? So, I have been one advocating, both in public and in private, there needs to be some conversations.
I'm happy to be part of it. But there needs to be some conversations. And there aren't any conversations, so how can there be an off-ramp if there are no conversations?
BLITZER: Senator Rand Paul, thank you so much for joining us.
PAUL: Thank you.
BLITZER: Just ahead, we will have more on the alleged imminence of an Iranian attack that prompted the U.S. to kill that country's top general. Has the Trump administration been telling the truth about the intelligence?
And as rockets fall in Baghdad's Green Zone, where there are hundreds of Americans at the U.S. Embassy, is Iran still a major threat to the United States?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:25:10]
BLITZER: Tonight, in the wake of Iran's missile strikes, U.S. officials fear possible further aggression, including terror attacks, cyber-offenses, even assassinations.
Our Senior International Correspondent, Fred Pleitgen, is in the Iranian capital of Tehran for us.
Fred, we know U.S. officials are still deeply concerned about threats from Iranian proxies. How is all this playing out where you are?
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Iranians, to a certain extent, Wolf, certainly heard from President Trump today exactly what they wanted to hear from President Trump, namely, that he wasn't going to strike back after Iran's retaliation with those ballistic missile strikes against those bases with U.S. troops on them.
The Iranians have been saying for the past couple of days that they are going to hit military targets. That's exactly what they did. And they -- and then they also said they would like it to end there. They didn't want it to go into a wider conflict.
And, certainly, at this point in time at least, it doesn't look like that's going to be the case.
The other thing, Wolf, though, seems to us they were also trying to do is showcase their ballistic missile technology. The Iranians for years have been saying that they have been upgrading that ballistic missile technology. And with these strikes last night, they showed that the ballistic missiles that they have actually work, that they can travel long distances, and that they are very accurate, and also that they can hit American targets within the Middle East from within Iran's borders.
And that seemed like something that was quite important for them to showcase. It was those satellite images that came out seeming to show the aftermath of some of those strikes that the Iranians conducted, seeming to show substantial damage on the ground there.
Nevertheless, Iran's supreme leader coming out earlier today in quite a rare speech that he gave, saying that the action that Iran took was nothing more, as he put it, than a slap in the face of the United States.
Iran's foreign minister taking a bit of a different tone. He was saying that the Iranian strikes show that Iran fundamentally does not want war. However, that same foreign minister, Wolf, also told me that he believes the fundamental issue between the Trump administration and the Iranians is not solved.
The Iranians, of course, quite angry at the United States for leaving the nuclear agreement, and specifically that campaign of maximum pressure, of maximum sanctions. Of course, we heard today from President Trump that he was announcing yet new sanctions against the Iranians.
And the Iranians at this point in time are saying there's absolutely not going to be any sort of negotiations with the Trump administration -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Fred, thank you, Fred Pleitgen in Tehran for us.
Joining us now, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin. He's the minority whip, key member of the Judiciary Committee as well.
Senator, thanks so much for joining us.
Republican Senator Rand Paul just told me here in THE SITUATION ROOM that, in the classified briefing today, you guys, senators, were given, in his words, no specific information of a specific attack that would justify the killing of General Soleimani.
Do you agree with that?
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): That's true.
I was in the same briefing and reached the same conclusion. They gave us the most general conclusions about threats to the United States. But when it came to any specificity, it just wasn't there.
BLITZER: Do you believe the administration has been telling the truth about the intelligence that was used to justify the strike?
DURBIN: Well, I can't tell, because there's so much that was left off the table.
There was a briefing for the top eight members of Congress yesterday that I understand went into more detail. But when the rest of the United States Senate for today -- for example, today came together, they just wouldn't give us the details.
They said that the conclusions were based on what they characterized as exquisite intelligence. I had not heard that term before a few days ago. But I assume that is the best of their intelligence, but they went no further.
BLITZER: Even if there's a dispute over the imminence of an attack. Senator, could the strike actually have had a deterrent effect?
DURBIN: Well, I don't know. It's a good question.
Let me start at the beginning. And the beginning is this. We know that General Soleimani was an architect of terror and had American blood on his hands, hundreds of American lives lost because of his terrorist activities. No one quarrels with that.
And the fact that he's no longer involved in his malevolent trade of terrorism in the Middle East is really a blessing for those who were the victims and those who would be in the future.
Having said that, the obvious question is, why now? This is not the first president to discover this man's bloody resume. President Bush saw it, President Obama saw it, decided that removing him from the scene was more dangerous than positive.
This president reached a different conclusion. When we tried to plumb today and figure out exactly what his thinking was, aside from the imminent threat, what this meant in the longer run, there weren't very clear answers. BLITZER: After Iran's missile strike last night, American officials
say they actually got multiple messages from Iran that the retaliation was over, and President Trump considered responding, but eventually decided against any U.S. military response.
[18:30:01]
We don't know obviously what's to come, but do you give the president any credit here for deciding not to escalate all this further.
DURBIN: Well, of course, I do. I think I speak for most Americans. There is no love lost for General Soleimani and his record of terrorism at the expense of the American people. The fact is escalating this conflict to a point of a wider war and more people dying is not the best interest of either Iran or the United States or the Middle East and our allies.
I hope that this will lead to some conversation, some diplomacy. Although I have to tell you, this president came into office determined to end the nuclear bomb agreement, which President Obama put together, and he's been confrontational with the Iranians from the minute he was sworn in.
BLITZER: You actually voted, we checked, against the 2002 AUMF, the authorization for the use of military force against Iraq, that the administration is now using to justify this strike. Do you accept that justification?
DURBIN: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. 23 of us, 22 Democrats and 1 Republican, voted against the invasion of Iraq. It's one vote in my resume that I'm particularly proud of. It was the right thing to do. And it turned out the weapons of mass destruction did not exist, and here we are 17 years later still in Iraq.
The idea that someone can rationalize the killing of an Iranian leader in Iraq based on a vote 17 years ago is preposterous. It's an indication of how far the administration is willing to go to distort the clear language of that authorization for use of military force.
BLITZER: Senator Durbin, thanks so much for joining us.
DURBIN: Good to be with you, Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. Let's continue the conversation with our experts right now. And, Mike Rogers, you're a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. You just heard Senator Durbin, a Democrat, Senator Rand Paul, a Republican, Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, say they emerged from those briefings with U.S. military and intelligence officials totally frustrated.
They didn't get any specific intelligence, any specific information about the imminent attack against U.S. diplomats, U.S. military personnel that Soleimani was presumably. What do you make of this angry reaction?
MIKE ROGERS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY COMMENTATOR: Well, I have to tell you that in past briefings from the Obama administration and the Bush administration, sometimes you would get in the classified setting of an intelligence committee, what you'd get with a broader set of members, you'd almost scratch your head because it was not a great briefing. So this is not an uncommon refrain you would hear from members coming out of those briefings.
I will say that when General Milley comes out and talks about the fact that he believed that intelligence was good, that's a pretty high mark for me to say there must be something more there that maybe they didn't share.
I do think the administration is obligated to start working with Congress. Now, that said, Congress has the obligation to start acting like adults on issues of national security and other things as well. So the credibility between Congress and the White House is not good, White House to Congress, it's not good, Congress to Congress, it's not good. They need to start working through these -- these are serious issues.
Remember, Soleimani was involved and engaged in an operation that killed an American and wounded four soldiers several weeks before he was struck.
BLITZER: He was engaged in operations for 20 years that eventually killed of Americans.
ROGERS: No doubt, this is really important, because this is talking point that I think people use that as chairman during that entire time, I scratched my head again. The reason that Soleimani was not targeted in Obama and not targeted in Bush, and I've engaged in those conversations in both of those administrations, he was never -- he didn't travel the way he traveled now.
He wasn't showing up in places in Iraq to coordinate activities for terrorist activities. He wasn't showing up in places like Yemen actually coordinating activities. He didn't show up in places, while Syria was a little different, it wasn't active at that time as it was today. But we have to understand the circumstances only did change.
Now, again, everybody says, yes, we shouldn't shed a tear but we have to remember, he was physically and actively engaged in the region in those activities to kill Americans. And you're going to see a little bit of this with these Iranian proxies. They're going to continue that same plan moving forward.
And I think that's the difference. It's really important that we are accurate about where -- the conversation we have about taking Soleimani off the battlefield and then what comes next.
BLITZER: Because what comes next, Jim Baker, could be really, really dangerous for a lot of Americans not only in the green zone where the U.S. embassy is in Baghdad but right here at home.
JIM BAKER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. We really don't know exactly what the Iranians intend. So we have to make assessments based on the risks and the vulnerabilities that we face. But the Iranians potentially have an opportunity to conduct asymmetric attacks that are plausibly -- that they can plausibly deny. So they can do that through proxies, either in theater, potentially in the United States.
[18:35:00]
United States is a much harder target for them. But what's more available to them is the cyber means, that the risk of some type of significant cyber event is heightened in this environment. It's not to say for sure that they'll try to do it. They may be looking for an off-ramp and may not want to try to do that. But I'm particularly worried about the cyber angle.
BLITZER: You used to work, Susan, over at the National Security Agency. How concerned should Americans be right now?
SUSAN HENNESSEY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND LEGAL ANALYST: Well, certainly, we should be concerned although only reasonably so. We see DHS and other federal agencies issuing warnings, telling Americans to take precautions.
That said, people need to be pretty realistic about the Iranian capabilities and also U.S. vulnerabilities here. That said, I do think that anybody who tells you that this is over, that the retaliation has now ceased and we could all sort of make assessments based on where we are right now, that's very, very unlikely. The story is far from over. And we are likely to see additional forms of sort of retaliation or response from Iran either directly or proxies. I think the risk of that will persist for many more months.
BLITZER: The serious risk of cyber warfare by the Iranians against the United States exists.
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And they have track record of engaging that sort of invisible warfare, talking about malware, a ransomware, DDOS, being able to have wipers that are essentially viruses that wipe out very important data. They have an implement attack even against Saudi Arabia against its state-controlled oil company where it took them months to get back online and lost one of the most profitable companies of the world hundreds of millions of dollars. So they have that capacity.
And we have right now and the question in America is are we prepared if they're able to do just. Well, the National Security Council, there was a limited position about cyber security since 2018. In the State Department, a coordinate position is actually vacant right now. So qhe question for us is, in the soft targets and local governments, et cetera, is there preparedness that's coming from the top or are we all sitting ducks and they're invisible.
BLITZER: Very quickly, the president opened up, Mike Rogers, his statement earlier today, his address to the nation and the world, by saying -- before he said, hello, welcome, he said, as long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. He was clearly sending a direct message to the Iranian leadership. ROGERS: He was. They talked about expanding their program since all this happened. And I think that was the most pointed part of his speech is that, yes, I'm not going to act now. Exchanging missiles is probably not valuable to the long-term security of the United States, but taking out a nuclear facility if you continue pursue, that's the way I read to the way he was talking about it. That's just the dynamics.
BLITZER: The way I read it too, telling the Iranians, you know what, the U.S. has major concussion bombs that can go deep and destroy a lot of nuclear capabilities. Be careful what you're doing.
All right, guys, stand by. There's a lot more we're following.
President Trump is trying to blame the Obama administration for Iran's missile retaliation. I'll get reaction from a former member of the Obama-Biden national security team.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
BLITZER: We're following all the new developments in the U.S. tensions with Iran, including President Trump's latest attempts to blame his troubles on former President Obama.
Joining us now, a former member of the Obama administration, Jake Sullivan, he served as National Security Adviser to Vice President Biden. Jake, thanks very much for coming in.
JAKE SULLIVAN, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL IN OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Thanks for having me.
BLITZER: Here is what the president said earlier today. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Iran's hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013. And they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash.
Then Iran went on a terror spree funded by the money from the deal and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: You played a pivotal role in that Iran nuclear deal. What do you say when you hear the president blame the Obama administration for what's going on?
SULLIVAN: Well, first of all, he didn't get the memo that the buck stops here, blaming the past administration for the chaos he's created is a silly thing. But then the best way to look at this is what was life like under the nuclear deal and what's it like now.
Under the deal, Iran's nuclear program was in a box. Now, it's advancing and they are closer to a nuclear weapon. Under the deal, Iran wasn't launching rocket attacks that killed an American contractor and wounded American service members. Now, they did that. That's what precipitated the killing of General Soleimani. Under the deal, Iran wasn't attacking shipping in the Gulf and oil facilities in Saudi Arabia. Now they are.
So on most of the metrics that should actually matter to Americans, we are less safe today than we were when the nuclear deal was --
BLITZER: But they did have a lot more cash to foment all sorts of problems in the region.
SULLIVAN: Iran has been fomenting problems in the region since 1979. Hezbollah, the work that they've done in Syria, that work that they've done Yemen, the work that they've done in other places as well, they were doing that before the nuclear deal, during the nuclear deal and after the nuclear deal.
And, frankly, on the point about the missiles, Iran had developed ballistic missiles long before there was any nuclear diplomacy. So the notion that somehow it was the nuclear deal that created or advanced their nuclear program is silly. And it means the Trump administration is left with one talking point, and I think it's an empty political one.
BLITZER: Well, how close is Iran now now that the nuclear deal was been ripped up by the Trump administration to building a nuclear bomb?
[18:45:01]
SULLIVAN: Well, they're not so close that we need to be deeply alarmed about it. And that's because of the success of nuclear diplomacy.
But they are closer to a nuclear weapon today than they were the day that Trump tore up the agreement. And the reason for that is because they've increased their capacity, they've increased their stockpile and they've decreased their compliance with the restriction.
BLITZER: If they go full speed ahead, is it six months, a year, five years? How long?
SULLIVAN: I would say that they're probably somewhere between one and two years if they went full speed ahead. But that time line can be reduced rapidly if they don't abide by the restrictions of the deal, which after the killing of General Soleimani they said they won't.
So, the idea that somehow we are safer today having left that agreement than we were before on the single most important issue, denying Iran a nuclear weapon, the fact is we're in a worse position.
BLITZER: Jake Sullivan, very disturbing information. Thank you very much for coming in.
Just ahead, when will President Trump's impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate begin? Some Senate Democrats are signaling they're ready.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:50:46]
BLITZER: The Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he won't change course on the Senate's impeachment trial as the impasse with the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the impeachment articles drags on.
Let's get some more from the former U.S. attorney, CNN Senior Legal Analyst, Preet Bharara.
Preet, McConnell says, and I'm quoting him now, there will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure. He seems to think the house speaker doesn't have any leverage at all. Is he right?
PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, before I get to the question of whether or not there's leverage and the tactical question, I'd like to say that on the merits, Nancy Pelosi is absolutely correct, that you need to have for a fair trial, whether it's a criminal trial like I used to oversee, or an impeachment trial in the Senate need to have witnesses. Every trial I've ever heard of has witnesses and especially need witnesses beyond those heard in the House when the president himself and the White House blocked the testimony of those witnesses, including, for example, that of John Bolton.
So, Nancy Pelosi has common sense and the merits on her side. What McConnell has on his side, goes to your question, is power in the same way that Nancy Pelosi sort of can have control over the House as the speaker, Mitch McConnell has control over the Senate. So, on the question of leverage, really what Nancy Pelosi has at this moment is public opinion and public sentiment.
And I think that so far by waiting over the holiday period and the few days into when everyone has come back to work like you and me, I don't think she has a lot more time because the dye has been cast because Mitch McConnell can count votes and he seems to have counted the votes up to 51 and he can do it the way he wants to do it.
BLITZER: Even some Democrats are ready to begin the Senate impeachment trial. Does Pelosi really stand to gain anything from continuing to hold on to those two articles of impeachment?
BHARARA: So, I saw some of those comments. Senator Tester had strong words, Senator Feinstein, who's a very important member of the Senate, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, you know, talks about how the Senate is ready. I think they understand going to your first question that there's not a lot of leverage left.
I think Nancy Pelosi may have some additional time to wait and see whether or not public sentiment is more in her favor. The fact that she waited as long as he did I think helped her cause because on Monday, in a way that I don't think fully unforeseeable, a very important witness like John Bolton said if subpoenaed by the Senate, not the House, but by the Senate, he would be prepared to testify. So, that strengthens her case. And as much as he can strengthen her
case going into a Senate trial, even if it's under Mitch McConnell's terms as I think to the benefit of the process.
BLITZER: Preet Bharara, as usual, thanks so much for joining us.
BHARARA: Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. Just ahead, we go live to London from the latest on the stunning announcement today that Britain's Harry and Meghan are stepping back from the royal family.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, the duchess of Sussex, are stepping back from the senior roles in the British monarchy.
Our royal correspondent Max Foster is in London with the latest on this truly surprising announcement.
Max, are they essentially breaking away from the royal family?
MAX FOSTER, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They're saying not. They say they want to redefine their roles.
What they are saying is they want to step back from their senior roles within the family and the official duties that come with that and define what they do themselves and start earning their own money. So, that's what they're talking about here. They say they want to stay within the institution. They want to balance their time between the United States and Canada, North America they call it, and the United Kingdom.
And that they want to collaborate with the queen and Prince Charles and Prince William rather than having a system where they have to be told what to do all the time.
On the face of it, it sounds pretty logical. The problem here is they didn't discuss any of this with the rest of the royal family before they announced it. There's no consultation whatsoever, and behind palace walls, they're very deeply disappointed I'm told. Senior members of the family are hurt.
Shortly after they made their announcement, Buckingham Palace said these are complicated issues that will take time to work through. So, don't think that this is just going to happen without discussing it with the rest of the firm as it were. You have to consider they get most of their money from Prince Charles, and also they get the house they live in from the queen. And I don't think either of those members of the family are pretty -- are very happy with what's happened here.
So, we're going to see how this plays out. But it's pretty seismic in terms of modern royal history, Wolf.
BLITZER: It certainly is. Max Foster reporting for us from London, thank you, Max, very much.
And to our viewers, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM.
"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.
