Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) is Interviewed about the Iranian General's Assassination; Senate Returns Amid Impeachment Stalemate; Oil Prices Spike and Stocks Plunge. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired January 03, 2020 - 09:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:34:16]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: The assassination of a top Iranian military leader in sending shock waves through financial markets around the world. The Dow now falling. Investors worried about a volatile situation in the Middle East. Of particular concern there, oil prices. They are surging because the Middle East not only home to major oil producing countries, but also key supply routes, which, remember, Iran has attacked in the past.

Joining me now to discuss, Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin. He's on the Armed Services Committee. But we should also note, he served in the United States Marines in Iraq in 2007-2008.

Congressman, we appreciate you taking the time this morning.

REP. MIKE GALLAGHER (R-WI): Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: You served in Iraq in 2007-2008, at really some of the worst moments of the Iraq War, at a time, in fact, when Soleimani's Quds force that he controls were supplying powerful IEDs, which killed, by the Pentagon's estimate, more than 600 U.S. soldiers and, of course, wounded thousands more.

[09:35:12]

What does this assassination mean to you and other veterans who served on the ground there?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think it means that we've taken Iran's most dangerous warrior off the battlefield. And as you reference, that's one out of every six combat facilities in Iraq. So Soleimani was a mass murderer, not only in Iraq. He not only had American blood on his hands, but he's responsible for the death of thousands around the region. He is the architect of the Hezbollah model throughout the region whereby Iran builds proxies in places like Syria, Lebanon and Yemen to threaten our interests. And indeed Soleimani is the man responsible for taking Iraq -- or taking Iran away from the Iraqis and making it an Iranian satrap and potentially a forward operating base to attack Saudi Arabia and Israel.

SCIUTTO: As you know, and you mentioned them, Iran has enormous capabilities in the region and around the world, including through its proxy forces that you mentioned there. There are thousands of U.S. forces deployed now around the region. In addition to that, U.S. diplomats and civilians, which Iran has not been shy about attacking before.

Are those interests, are those Americans at risk today, at greater risk today than they were before this assassination as Iran contemplates and threatens, in fact, retaliation?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think it's important to remember that Iran has indeed been engaged in systematic escalation for the better part of the last year. They attacked our shipping vessels in the region and those of our allies. They attacked -- they downed an American drone. They attacked the (INAUDIBLE) facility in Saudi Arabia. And we actually were very measured in terms of not responding to those incidents. And now we established a clear red line of, don't kill Americans, and if you do, we will respond. And we have enforced that red line.

And so I just would argue that it's the Iranians that have been escalating. I would argue further that it is inaction that is the most provocative. And that President Trump has absolutely made the right call here. He has sent a very simple and strong signal that if you kill Americans, we will kill you.

SCIUTTO: Should Americans be prepared for war with Iran today?

GALLAGHER: Well, the whole paradox of deterrence is that in order to avoid war you have to be prepared to go to war. And it is my hope that this bold action, this strong action restores our deterrent posture. It is fundamentally a defensive action. It is prudent deterrence. And thereby will allow us to stand strong with our allies in the region in order to avoid war.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GALLAGHER: And I would further note that Iran is in an increasingly weak position regionally. It's in an increasingly weak position politically, domestically. There are anti-Iran protests in Iraq, in Iran itself and in Lebanon. And so I think we have an opportunity to deescalate and Iran should know that we will be prepared to respond if our people are threatened.

SCIUTTO: When you served in Iraq, you served alongside General Petraeus, this under George W. Bush, of course. General George W. Bush listened to Petraeus. He listened and consulted with is advisers before he made decisions. This is a president who often has ignored or surprised even his advisers with decisions. For instance, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, which I should note you opposed here.

In this again, Senator Lindsey Graham, he's chairman of the Judiciary Committee, not one of the Gang of Eight who, you know, of the relevant committees, he was informed in advance. Are you confident in a president that consistently bypasses the national security structure that is designed to help him make difficult decisions like this? GALLAGHER: Well, I don't -- I don't think that's the case here because

I know for a fact that this target package was under discussion for days, if not weeks, if not months. This has been something that the administration has been debating for a while whether or not to take Muhandis and Soleimani off the battlefield. So I would say this is actually an instance where, over the course of at least 11 attacks against our interests by Iran, the president has chosen to either not respond or respond with things below the threshold of the use of force, like cyber weapons, and now he consulted with his generals, he consulted with the secretary of defense and decided to take bold action against Soleimani so that the Iranians don't continue to escalate.

So I just don't agree that that criticism is apposite in this case.

SCIUTTO: Let's ask them what the goal is with this policy here. We had John Bolton, until recently, was the national security adviser to the president, praising this. He, like you, says that this decision, in his tweet, was long in the making, but he goes on to say, hope this is a first step to regime change in Iran. Something Bolton has championed before.

Is that what Americans should prepare for here, that the intention is to change the regime in Iran?

GALLAGHER: I don't think that's the goal that Secretary Pompeo has laid out. Indeed, Secretary Pompeo has talked exclusively about behavior change in Iran. We have no problem with the Iranians deciding the future of Iran themselves.

[09:40:02]

Indeed, we look forward to a day when the Iranian people are able to have more of a say in their own future and aren't dominated by the clerical evil theocratic regime that keeps them oppressed. However, we will not stand idly by while that regime exports terrorism, while it continues to threaten our interests, kill Americans and threaten our allies in the region.

So it is all about behavior change and then hopefully the Iranians will be able to change their regime democratically one day in the future.

SCIUTTO: I want to ask you quickly before we go about impeachment. A Senate trial looming here.

During the House process here, House Republicans argued there was no direct link between the president's decision -- between the decision to withhold aid from Ukraine and the president himself.

We now have e-mails which were blocked by the White House but now have been released through good reporting by Just Security (ph) showing the opposite. One e-mail from the OMB to the Department of Defense, obtained by Just Security (ph), said the following, clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.

Can you and other Republicans still argue that this was not the president's decision to withhold the aid?

GALLAGHER: Well, the president has the authority to withhold aid for a variety of reasons. The president has had a long skepticism of foreign aid in general.

SCIUTTO: But the Pentagon said it was an illegal decision. Pentagon officials protested and said that this broke the law because Congress had appropriated the funds.

GALLAGHER: Well, you talked earlier about the president ignoring the interagency process. This is how the interagency process works. You have various stakeholders that have different opinions. Oftentimes it's the State Department arguing against the Pentagon. In this case, the president withheld aid for potentially a variety of reasons.

As it pertains to the impeachment trial, as I understand it, Mitch McConnell isn't foreclosing the possibility of witnesses. He's merely insisting on the same Clinton standard that was unanimously agreed to by people, including Chuck Schumer, at the end -- in 1999. And usually you have opening arguments, then you have written questions, and then you decide on witnesses from there.

So if there's more to be investigated, I'm sure they'll get to it. I haven't followed the machinations of the Senate that closely.

SCIUTTO: OK.

GALLAGHER: I will, however, note that the whole argument for rushing this in the House was -- and that ignoring the courts is now bunked because Nancy Pelosi has not sent the articles to the Senate.

SCIUTTO: True. Well, true. Although it could have been made easier by the White House if they allowed those officials to testify or supplied the documents. But we'll save that for the discussion for another day.

Congressman, we do appreciate you taking the time this morning.

GALLAGHER: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: We're going to head to Capitol Hill next. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is set to speak during the impeachment standoff. We'll see what he says his next steps are.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:46:38]

SCIUTTO: Don't forget, there's still a Senate trial of the president looming. And Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set to speak on the Senate floor for the first time this year. A likely topic, of course, that impeachment standoff.

This comes as new documents highlight the president's direct hold in ordering the aid, military hold regarding Ukraine, and e-mail from an Office of Management and Budget official makes it clear that the order came directly from President Trump. CNN's senior Washington correspondent Joe Johns has more details.

Joe, of course, Republican defense throughout the impeachment inquiry in the House was no proof the president ordered this, no direct tie. In fact, there were a host of e-mails that attest to that, that were blocked, redacted by the White House.

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Right. Blocked and redacted. And now we know at least the gist of it. And the fact of the matter is, Democrats are using that as more evidence that there need to be witnesses in the impeachment trial of the president of the United States.

But the upshot here on Capitol Hill is the impasse continues on the issue of the trial. And there hasn't been very much movement at all, at least as far as we know.

What we also know, however, is today is going to be a good opportunity to try to get a read at where the major players in all of this are right now at this point, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Republican, expected to address the Senate sometime around noon eastern time, thereabouts, followed right after, apparently, by the Democratic majority leader -- Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. And the question, of course, is whether we'll hear from Speaker Pelosi. We're told most likely we'll hear from her in the form of a written statement, if anything.

So the impasse continues. Probably the important points are that the Senate majority leader wants a procedure that essentially allows the members of the United States Senate to listen to counsel and others, the impeachment managers, and then decide whether to have witnesses. Schumer says he wants witnesses first. Pelosi, of course, aligned with Schumer.

Back to you.

SCIUTTO: Of course an open question, does the Senate majority leader say danger of war in the region, can't do the trial now.

JOHNS: Right.

SCIUTTO: Don't mean to put words in his mouth.

JOHNS: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Something to listen for.

Joe johns, thanks very much.

JOHNS: You bet.

SCIUTTO: Another look at the stock market. The Dow slipping on Iran tensions. You can see, down just about 200 points there. We're going to have an update on the markets coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [09"53:34]

SCIUTTO: The Dow is slipping as tensions with Iran ratchet up. What's going up? Crude oil prices.

CNN's Christine Romans joins me now with more on those concerns.

So, Christine, first let's talk about oil --

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Sure.

SCIUTTO: Because Iran has already twice attacked oil facilities in the region.

ROMANS: Right.

SCIUTTO: There were attacks against tankers and the Saudi oil facility.

ROMANS: Yes.

SCIUTTO: That is a potential, you know, venerable point, is it not, to retaliate for this?

ROMANS: Yes. And a lot of people think that you're going to see more harassment of oil tankers. I mean the Strait of Hormuz is 21 miles wide at its narrowest and these super tankers that go through have to go through Iranian waters. And the Iranians can do things like have impromptu military exercises. They can actually board and detain and seize vessels. So those are some of the things they can do to disrupt oil flow.

Look, oil flow -- a quarter of the world's oil -- daily oil supply goes through that very narrow route. So that is really kind of the leverage that Iran has here to drive up global oil prices, which drives up gas prices, which, in an election year, is something that could be the kind of economic warfare that they could try -- they could try to do.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

ROMANS: When you mention the Saudi Arabian oil fields, the United States says that back in September, they bombed those oil fields in Saudi Arabia, you had 11 days of 5 percent of global energy output offline.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

ROMANS: That was a big deal and energy prices spiked 14 percent then.

SCIUTTO: I often remind people the RGC, which Soleimani led, has, in effect, it's own kind of unofficial navy of small attack boats in the gulf. They can attack tankers or U.S. Navy -- Navy vessels.

Interestingly, the oil price goes up. And, granted, it's oil sales very much under restrictions now by the U.S., but that benefits Iran, does it not, if it sells?

[09:55:03]

ROMANS: Right, when oil prices go up, it benefits Iran.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

ROMANS: It benefits Russia. It benefits producers and it hurts consumers.

Ironically, the United States is a big producer of energy. And one of the reasons, over the past two or three administrations, they've been trying to produce more oil in the U.S. and so that we -- we're not as -- we're not as -- not as, you know --

SCIUTTO: Dependent.

ROMANS: Dependent on that part of the world. But we still really are. That part of the world is still very important for the price that people will pay here at their gas tank.

SCIUTTO: Gas prices.

ROMANS: Yes. Absolutely.

SCIUTTO: People see it immediately. It's very -- it's a very immediate response there.

Christine Romans, thanks very much.

ROMANS: Yes.

SCIUTTO: We'll continue to watch the markets, including the oil prices.

Still ahead, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says that the drone strike ordered to kill Iran's top commander disrupted what he called, quote, an imminent attack and saved American lives. How and where? We'll tell you more.

Stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]