Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. Strike in Baghdad Kills Top Iranian Commander; Reaction From U.S. Congress. Aired 2-3a ET

Aired January 03, 2020 - 02:00   ET

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

[02:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. We continue to follow the breaking news. The United States killing a senior Iranian military commander on Iraqi soil. Thanks for joining us. I'm Natalie Allen.

GEORGE HOWELL, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm George Howell. Welcome to viewers in the United States and around the world. The implications are significant for what happened in Iraq. Here's what we know. Iran is vowing revenge for a U.S. rocket attack that has killed its most revered military leader, Qasem Soleimani. This began early Friday morning near the Baghdad International Airport.

That strike also killing a senior member of the Iranian-backed popular mobilization forces. Keep in mind, it is the same group who supporters tried to storm the U.S. embassy in Baghdad earlier this week.

ALLEN: The Pentagon says it launched the attack on Soleimani on the direct orders of President Donald Trump. It blames the Iranian general for the deaths of hundreds of American troops and says the strike was a defensive action.

HOWELL: Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, says the harsh revenge awaits the criminals who killed Soleimani. And the foreign minister, Javad Zarif, blasted what he called the brutality and the stupidity of the United States, vowing resistance in the region would only grow stronger.

ALLEN: CNN has extensive coverage of this story. Our Arwa Damon is in Baghdad, Alex Marquardt is in Washington, and Ramin Mostaghim joins us from Tehran.

HOWELL: We start with Arwa Damon and the latest details on this U.S. strike.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This targeted assassination is a monumentous escalation, one that can only most likely be viewed by Iran as an act of war.

Now, we have entered uncharted territory. Qasem Soleimani is not only a revered figure inside Iran, especially when it comes to the Quds Force, but also when it comes to a portion of the Iraqi population, when it comes to Iran's proxies here in Iraq, who he was fairly often reported to have been sighted with on the battlefield, especially in the fights against ISIS. He also has been instrumental in helping to prop up the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad.

But this is also something that is going to potentially push the region into a sort of warfare that is going to be unlike anything that we have seen. These kinds of drastic events such as when the U.S. invaded Iraq, taking dictator Saddam Hussein out of power, do tend to have unforeseen consequences. That back in 2003 very quickly led to the rise of among other things al Qaeda in Iraq which then led to the rise of ISIS.

This, too, very different, but also to a certain degree something that is potentially going to lead to some very drastic consequences, but exactly where and how Iran is going to react and it's difficult to imagine a scenario where Iran doesn't already have a plan in place for this. But where that plan is going to unfold, how that plan is going to unfold, exactly who it is going to impact, it is something that we can only speculate about at this stage.

For those in Iraq, there is a portion of the population that will be celebrating Soleimani's death, but also worried about what the repercussions from it are going to be. And then there's also the reality and that is how strong and powerful Iran is in Iraq, both militarily and politically.

Arwa Damon, CNN, Baghdad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ALLEN: Thank you, Arwa. Let's head to Washington now and CNN's Alex Marquardt. The White House, Alex, has been quiet about this ever since President Trump posted that single tweet with the American flag. Set the scene there in Washington for us.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR U.S. CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Natalie, that seems to be their response and all they're going to be saying tonight. The main response and the description of what happened are coming from the Department of Defense, from Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. And what they are saying is that this strike was carried out against Qasem Soleimani for what he was planning and what he has done in the past.

And I want to read you part of the statement from the Department of Defense. They write, "General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region."

[02:05:02]

MARQUARDT: Now, that statement also references the deaths and the maiming, the injuries of thousands of American soldiers in the region over the past few years. It also says that Soleimani was behind attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq as well as approving the recent protests against the embassy in Baghdad. Now, as you might imagine here in Washington, the reaction among lawmakers is pretty evenly divided along party lines. You have Republicans who are celebrating and congratulating the president because of what Soleimani has done in the past. But you have Democrats who are angry that the president didn't go to Congress for congressional approval. They also warn of what may lie ahead, a potential war.

The one statement from Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, a Democrat who is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sums it up quite well. He wrote, Soleimani was an enemy of the people -- sorry, an enemy of the United States. That's not a question. The question is this, as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?

So, the one thing that Republicans and Democrats agree on is that Soleimani was a horrible person who did deserve to die because of what he had done, but Democrats sounding the alarm of what may lie ahead. That goes beyond just Washington out on to the campaign trail. We have heard from a number of the Democratic candidates for the 2020 race including former Vice President Joe Biden, who said that President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox. Natalie? George?

ALLEN: All right. We are hearing that this is -- we are in unchartered territory now. Alex, thank you.

HOWELL: Indeed. Now, let's go live to where people are talking about what happened surely in neighboring Iraq. CNN journalist Ramin Mostaghim is monitoring the reaction. He is live in Iran, in the capital, Tehran, and it's good to have you with us, Ramin.

First, we've heard reaction from Iran's supreme leader vowing revenge. We've heard Iran's foreign minister saying the U.S. bears responsibility for all consequences. What more are you hearing from officials there about what happened in neighboring Iraq?

RAMIN MOSTAGHIM, CNN JOURNALIST: The officials, including supreme leader, are giving some sort of lip service to this incident, commemorating and admiring what they call martyr Qasem Soleimani and his colleagues and companions. I talked to some analysts. They are not so pessimistic and suppose that although we are in unchartered water, we can expect in a few months light at the end of the tunnel.

They argue that this very announcement of three days mourning service nationwide in Iran by the supreme leader means he and his officials are putting top priority not for tit for tat policy in the region or taking revenge immediately. They just put priority of martyrdom commemorations and mourning and lamenting.

It means that it can provide a sort of, I mean, opportunity for self- restraint from Iranian side although the officials are very angry and upset and they say, yes, the avenge is coming. It means -- I mean, perhaps it is wishful thinking, but it means that there might be some opportunity just contrary to our expectations for sort of breakthrough for resuming negotiations because Iran is not willing -- it doesn't show all-out war and it doesn't show any overreactions.

So tries to manage the crisis. And they believe, the analysts I talked to, they believe that Iran is showing to some extent self-restraint and there might be less escalation a few months from now. Not immediately. Of course, immediately, there might be some escalation of tension in the region.

HOWELL: 10:39 in the morning there in Tehran, Iran. Well, surely they are hearing the news. The leaders are speaking about what happened in Iraq. Ramin Mostaghim, we appreciate your time. We'll stay in touch with you as you learn more there. Thank you.

ALLEN: Well, days of tension led up to the strike. Last Friday, an American contractor was killed in a rocket attack on a U.S. base near Kirkuk, Iraq. Then on Sunday, U.S. airstrikes hit five facilities in Syria and Iraq linked to Iranian-backed militias.

HOWELL: And in response to those attacks, pro-Iranian protesters attacked the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday.

[02:10:03]

HOWELL: They smashed windows and set fires to the buildings there leading to early Friday Iraq time, U.S. strikes then at the Baghdad Airport killed the top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani, and a senior member of the Iranian-backed popular mobilization forces.

ALLEN: CNN's international diplomatic editor Nic Robertson joins me now from London. Of course, this is the first time the United States has killed a military general in Iran. We keep hearing though the same thing over and over, Nic. That this act puts the U.S. in unchartered territory. What might that look like?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Iran is going to decide how far it wants to push this, the killing of Qasem Soleimani, they will see as an existential threat. They cannot not do anything about this. So, there will be sort of two parts to this, if you will, and we can break it down like that simply at the moment. But I think as the days progress, it will become far more complicated.

Simply put, Iran's proxies were told last year in the face of mounting tensions with the United States that they would know what to do and how to respond to U.S. aggression. So they were already put on notice and that response will be against the U.S. forces and U.S. interests they find close to them.

That's something that's going to have a visceral type feel to it. That is something that is going to be the proxies trying to show Tehran that they are the strongest, that they saw Soleimani as a war hero, as someone who helped their cause in their countries, be it Lebanon, be it Syria, be it Iraq, be it Yemen and be it even Afghanistan. They will want to show Tehran that they are a force to be reckoned with. They will really want to stand up and be counted on this.

So that will be something that will happen that the leadership in Tehran won't directly control. Not in the early phases. What the regime in Iran will want to do is to send a message, and they've already verbally sent a message to the United States and to Israel as well, that both countries and their interests will pay.

What we've seen Iran do over the past six months are two things and that is escalate tensions in the Strait of Hormuz by capturing oil tankers and mining and blowing up other oil tankers. There is quite a potential that they will try to throttle off that 1/5 of the world's oil supply that flows through the Strait of Hormuz because that's how Iran makes this issues international and tries to bring international attention to bring down tensions that they will help to try to escalate. That's going to happen over time.

What we've also seen them do is escalate and increase their uranium enrichment beyond the limits that were agreed internationally. And those limits include using faster, more sophisticated enrichment processes, stockpiling higher levels of enriched uranium. So that is going to draw in the question of what to do about that escalation as it's likely to happen.

So there are these unforeseen consequences, the forces taking unforeseen action. And then what the state will do, and the state will very likely try to escalate this directly to U.S. and U.S. direct interests, but potentially beyond that as we saw recently in September, the strikes on Saudi oil facilities. Those again could find themselves in the firing line of sophisticated Iranian attacks.

ALLEN: Right. And President Trump has always had a push me, pull you with this, like, saying he would strike with a drone -- for the drone attack and he didn't. And then just saying a few days ago he wanted peace. So, where we go from here remains to be seen. Thanks so much. Nic Robertson for us in London.

HOWELL: Fair to say this is a very significant, very important moment. We will see how this plays out in the coming hours, in the coming days. Members of the U.S. Congress, they are united in their condemnation of Soleimani, but there is a clear divide over how President Trump went about this military strike. More on that after the break as our breaking news continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[02:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ALLEN: We're following breaking news. The Pentagon says it has carried out a strike at the direction of President Trump that killed Iran's top military commander, Qasem Soleimani.

HOWELL: This happened in the early hours of Friday near Baghdad International Airport. That strike also killing a senior leader of the Iranian-backed popular mobilization forces.

ALLEN: The Pentagon says the strike against Soleimani was defensive, intended to prevent future attacks on U.S. targets.

HOWELL: Let's get some perspective now with Ali Vaez. Ali is the director of the Iran Project International Crisis Group. He is joining us this hour from Muscat, Oman. Good to have you with us.

ALI VAEZ, DIRECTOR, IRAN PROJECT INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: My pleasure.

HOWELL: So, what we know so far, the facts of what happened, this top Iranian military official killed. The United States confirming President Trump ordered the strike. Now the big question is where does it go from here?

VAEZ: Well, there will be, for sure, an Iranian response, an Iranian retaliation. I think the Iranians are deciding as we speak about their options. I'm sure they had contingency plans because General Soleimani was very exposed. He had come in the crosshairs of U.S. forces many times in the past. Previous U.S. administrations decided from a cost benefit perspective, it doesn't really make sense to target him and to kill him precisely because the consequences could get out of control.

HOWELL: Clearly, this administration took a different approach on that. And on Twitter, you write that a war with Iran will make the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq look like a walk in the park. Tell us more about Iran's capabilities and the other key question is not really whether but when this could happen.

VAEZ: Absolutely. Look, first of all, Iran is not like Iraq or Afghanistan at the time of U.S. invasion, almost a failed state. It's a very powerful state. It has a lot of options in terms of retaliation. It has many partners and proxies around the region from Afghanistan to Yemen to Syria to Lebanon to Iraq. Easily with its ballistic missile program targets U.S. forces that are based in the region.

And the problem is at this stage is that any Iranian retaliation might invite a U.S. counterattack. And from that point on, it would be very difficult for both sides to contain the consequences of this. You know, the irony here, George, is that President Trump came to office with the promise of ending U.S. involvement and the wars with the Middle East. But, in fact, with this action, he has just declared war to one of the most powerful countries in the region.

HOWELL: Ali, tensions in that region, to your point, they've been high. It's been a proxy war between the United States and Iran and its affiliates, but now that this has happened, do you worry that this could draw in other nations outside the region to create a broader conflict? Is that a big concern here?

VAEZ: I think there is no such thing as a direct U.S./Iran war that would remain limited to the two countries.

[02:20:01]

VAEZ: Iran has always developed its defensive strategy because of its limited conventional military capabilities as a way of broadening the conflict to deter the U.S. from even starting a war. But, you know, this administration in the past few years, it has done everything that other U.S. administrations assessed to be very dangerous escalation.

It designated the revolutionary guard in Iran as a foreign terrorist organization. It withdrew from the nuclear deal. It imposed maximum pressure in the form of crippling sanctions on the Iranian economy. It sanctioned the Iranian foreign minister. And now with this latest provocation, it really has done everything in its power to start a conflict with Iran.

And, you know, again, this would come at the -- this was one life lost, life of General Soleimani, but the consequences could result in many, many lives lost in the region from Iranians, Iraqis, Americans and many others.

HOWELL: Perspective there of Ali Vaez in Oman this hour. Thank you for your time and perspective. We'll stay in touch.

ALLEN: Reaction to the U.S. strike from members of Congress came quickly. And while all agree Soleimani was an enemy of the U.S., Democrats criticized President Trump's timing and motivation.

HOWELL: Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico released this statement. It reads, quote, "President Trump is bringing our nation to the brink of an illegal war with Iran without any congressional approval as required under the Constitution of the United States."

He goes on to say, "Such a reckless escalation of hostilitys is likely a violation of Congress' war making authority as well as our basing agreement with Iraq, putting U.S. forces and citizens in danger and very possibly sinking us into another disastrous war in the Middle East that the American people are not asking for and do not support"

ALLEN: Republican Senator Jim Risch from Idaho issued this statement. "Congratulations to President Trump on his decisive action and the successful outcome. Qasem Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and his death presents an opportunity for Iraq to determine its own future free from Iranian control."

HOWELL: And this from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who tweeted this, quote, "I appreciate President Donald Trump's bold action against Iranian aggression to the Iranian government. If you want more, you will get more."

ALLEN: And we had this came moments ago. Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling for an immediate briefing to Congress on the U.S. strike that killed Soleimani. Pelosi said in a written statement, "The full Congress must be immediately briefed on this serious situation and on the next steps under consideration by the administration, including the significant escalation of the deployment of additional troops to the region."

Well, joining me now from Los Angeles, Michael Genovese is the president in the Global Policy Institute at Loyola Marymount University. Nancy Pelosi right there is issuing concern that Congress was not informed before the president took this action. It sounds like this could be another chasm between the White House and Democrats.

MICHAEL GENOVESE, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, President Trump has expressed pretty much disdain for Congress. And while he has some authority under the War Powers Act to move in this direction, he has not, as far as we know, set into motion the War Powers Act. So Congress is rightly concerned. You're supposed to be talking with Congress. This is supposed to be a three-part government. The Congress has been left out in the cold.

Now, everyone has been applauding the fact that this monster has been removed from the earth and there is no one defending him in the United States. But it's a question of what does this mean? Does the president have a strategy for what he's doing or is this just a one-off act?

And if he doesn't have a strategy, well, this is not a chess game -- checkers game, it's a game of chess. And so what this does is it unleashes a lot of events that could conspire to really spiral out of control by the two parties.

What will Iran do? What will Iran's proxies do? What might a lone wolf who sees this as martyrdom for one of their great leaders do? A lone wolf could drive a truck into a crowded street of people. He could go into a mall and then start shooting it up. And so there are all kinds of things that could unfold out of this. And you wonder how strategic the president is being in taking this initial act.

ALLEN: Yeah. Let's talk about that because when the president came into office, he -- first thing he did was strip the nuclear accord that had been hammered out with Iran and was criticized for not having a strategy out of the -- from that. He has used a lot of vitriol against Iran.

[02:25:00]

ALLEN: But just two days ago, New Year's Eve, he said he wanted peace with Iran, and now this. So, you're right to question what is the bigger strategy for the president here and we just don't know.

GENOVESE: Well, you know, it's easy to get into a mess. It's harder to get out of a mess. And so you need to be really careful in the initials stages. This is all precipitated by the hostility -- and one of your previous guests talked about this -- that the Trump administration has towards Iran and has been provoking it, pulling out of the nuclear deal, imposing very harsh sanctions which have had some effect.

But the problem for the United States is that we've been doing this alone. And if we're going to get in a more hostile situation, if we're going to get into a war-like situation with this country, then we need allies. We need friends. Iran has allies and friends and proxies in the region. We don't. So we're at a geopolitical disadvantage.

If we're doing this alone without our European allies whom the president has been trashing since he got into office, then we're in deep trouble. We need our allies. We need to get them on board. They would, I think, be quite reluctant to get involved in this. They don't want to see a messy war. They don't want to see oil supplies interrupted. They don't want to see their economies go into the tank.

ALLEN: Right. And another thing here to look at, Michael, let's consider, this is January 2020, right now, all indications, we may have a war with Iran. At the same time, we may have an impeachment trial of this president in the Senate. This could be quite a month.

GENOVESE: Yes. And, you know, in terms of the American political system, we tend to rally around a president when there's an act of aggression against the United States, when there's a war, when there's hostility. And so the rally around the flag factor can play into this. The problem is that only has a short-term lifespan. If things start to go south, they go south quickly and your popularity and your support can dwindle very quickly.

So the president is taking not just a military risk here, he's taking a political risk here. The risk is will we get positive results fairly quickly or will we be engaged in what he said he wants to avoid, a prolonged quagmire in the Middle East? It's one of the things he ran on. He's not going to get involved. He's not going to put troops in.

Well, we know how to blow things up and we have a lot of resources in the region from ships offshore to bases. But Iran has some really important geopolitical advantages in the region that could make this a very lengthy conflict.

ALLEN: Right. And the president has indicated he wanted to get out of the Middle East and it looks like that has been flipped with this. All right, Michael Genovese, we always appreciate your insight. Thank you.

GENOVESE: Thank you.

HOWELL: Again, the breaking news this hour, the U.S. killing one of Iran's top military commanders. It is certain to have consequences. When we come back, we will discuss what could be the fallout from this. Stay with us.

[02:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ALLEN: We continue to follow the breaking news this hour. A U.S. strike in Baghdad kills a top Iranian commander. Hello everyone, I'm Natalie Allen.

HOWELL: And I'm George Howell. Here's the latest that we know. This happened again near the Baghdad International Airport early on Friday. Qasem Soleimani was the Leader of Iran's elite Quds Force. The Pentagon blames him for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition troops.

ALLEN: The U.S. strike also killed a senior leader of the Iranian backed Popular Mobilization Forces. That's the same group whose supporters tried to storm the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad earlier this week. Well, how does this ratchet up the danger in the region from Iran? Nick Paton Walsh joins me live from London. Nick, it seems this is completely new territory. NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: Certainly. Look, I should point out, you know, you mentioned earlier the possibility of war with Iran. One key thing in all of this is that it's likely Iran's leaders have calculated that a conventional military confrontation with the US is something they're going to lose. Also too, that will be central to the U.S. calculation here.

Now, this is clearly a deliberate U.S. action. Yes, we were told by U.S. officials that it is a target of opportunity, but it is one that stems from a presidential authorization that slightly dates back later than just last night. Clearly, someone in the White House or in U.S. foreign policy circles has decided that taking Qasem Soleimani off the battlefield, sending a strong signal of U.S. military resolve in the region is better than the possibility of the chaos and the retaliation we are going to see likely from Iran or its proxies in the days or weeks ahead.

Bear in mind, the U.S. logic possibly here is that they will already and their allies being attacked by Iran and Iran's proxies over the past months. A U.S. drone shot down Saudi old field, attack the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, being attacked by pro-Iranian crowds. They may have calculated they needed to send a signal to stop that, to discourage Iran from continuing that behavior.

But obviously, they have now opened the kind of Pandora's box of the need for Iran's hardliners to show they're still able to meaningfully respond to the United States in the Middle East. As I say, that won't be conventional, most likely. There are plenty of military us assets they could possibly target. But bear in mind too, those U.S. military assets will now be on a high level of alert just because of the possibility of that kind of retaliation.

So we may see possibly American civilian targets in the region as well. And one other key thing to Israel, currently having high-level security meetings to assess the impact towards it for this to its north, it has Lebanese Hezbollah who are funded and often some say controlled by Iran have long been seen as the potential proxy that Iran could use to exact a price from U.S. allies in the extreme in that region, if they needed to.

Lebanon going through intense political turmoil right now, which is at times compromising Hezbollah's stance in that society as in fact also Israel, the ongoing election -- re-election battles president -- Prime Minister Netanyahu is in fact facing. So intense turmoil in the region there as well but no shortage of proxies that Iran could potentially use to exact price on the U.S. and its allies.

But as I say, this is clearly a calculation made by the White House. It is deliberate, it's a signal that is strategically wanted to send. The wisdom of that is something you necessarily have to calculate. When you look at the expertise around Donald Trump in the White House, a constant changing of national security advisor, a point man on Iran Brian Hook who isn't necessarily steeped in experience in the Middle East.

So a lot of questions about how this was carried through. Speaker Nancy Pelosi immediately asking for a briefing of Congress and in questioning why congressional authorization wasn't given for this strike. That shows the magnitude of its potential consequences if, for example, Iran killed an American military official of this ranking, but this place in kind of the American pantheon, then the U.S. would, of course, be considering that I would imagine some kind of act of war.

So it's a stark move by the United States, one that possibly its allies and advocates may be saying was long coming because of Iran slow kind of papercuts almost towards the U.S. and its allies in the region over the past month or so, but one that begins this new decade in utterly uncharted territory, Natalie.

[02:35:39]

ALLEN: All right, Nick Paton Walsh for us there. Thank you, Nick.

HOWELL: The U.S. Air Strike in Baghdad had an immediate impact on world oil prices.

ALLEN: Crude is always jittery, but the price shot up three percent as soon as news of the airstrike came out. We see the Brent Crude 3.05 percent up, the WTI Crude up just under three percent. We'll keep following that. More now on our breaking news, how the U.S. strikes and Baghdad quite affect Americans in the region. Will there be a tit for tat reaction from Iran? We talk with a security analyst about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOWELL: Welcome back. We continue following the breaking news this hour, the death of Iran's top military commander from the U.S. strike.

ALLEN: Qasem Soleimani was the leader of Iran's elite Quds Force and blamed for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition troops. A U.S. official tells CNN that he was killed as a target of opportunity.

HOWELL: On set with us, we have our colleague Michael Holmes. Michael Holmes has covered that rejection extensively. Michael, you understand the impact, the power that Soleimani had beyond the borders of Iran. You also understood the power, the influence he had within that country. How significant would you say this is?

[02:40:15]

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: It could be a sea change. I mean, he's influence has been enormous. I was in Iraq during the war, all through the war, and it was him and the Quds Force that brought in the -- what they called EFPs, explosively formed penetrator or projectiles, which were the worst of the IEDs. That was Iranian technology introduced into Iraq, 1and that's what1 killed so many U.S. servicemen. It was a different technology of IED.

He has created havoc throughout that region, influencing Syria, influencing Lebanon, influencing Iraq, and elsewhere too and around the Gulf. The killing of him could -- the problem is we don't know how Iran is going to react. They could react in any number of ways. What they won't do is go head to head with the U.S.

We heard Nick Paton Walsh saying earlier and he's quite right. Iran knows they won't beat the U.S. in a war where there is a traditional front line. Iran doesn't use front lines. They can hit. They have proxies all over the Gulf. They have proxies in Africa. They have proxies in all parts of the Middle East. They can pop up and do damage in any number of places.

ALLEN: Where does this put Iraq? They're kind of in the middle of Iran and the United States. Some we've been told are cheering Soleimani is gone, others not.

HOLMES: Yes. You got -- you got some cheering in Tahrir Square where the organic protest, if you like, against government corruption and governance, that's been taking place. They're cheering because a lot of the protesters who were killed over the last few months have been killed at the hands of some of these militias, these Iranian backed militias. And you had the Iranian consulate in Basrah being burned by these protesters.

So there is a division there because, on the other hand, you have Iranian supported politicians who are actively trying to get the U.S. kicked out through parliamentary decree, kicked out of Iraq altogether. And so you have -- you have a split in Iraq in some ways with some Iraqis hate what the -- what the PMS and others have done in Iraq. But you've got others there who support Iranian involvement, particularly on the political side.

And, you know, there is an active move at the moment to get parliament to order the U.S. to lead. This sort of thing could trigger support for that move politically.

HOWELL: OK, so we're talking about the micro, right, all the important details that are, you know, part of this. But let's talk the macro here. You know, could this, Michael, spiral out of control and the timing of it all, given the tensions that we've seen here over the last several months?

HOLMES: Well, we saw it with the Iraq War, unintended consequences and this has unintended consequences written all over it.

ALLEN: Written all over it. Yes.

HOLMES: Who knows where this will go? What I'd like to see from the administration here is a strategy. What was this designed to do? Was it to punish Iran somehow? It's not going to punish the Quds forces. The -- you know, the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard is a very disciplined outfit. They've got chains of command. They probably got a number two sitting in the wings.

Now, it's not going to stop Iranian influence in Iraq at all. It might make it even worse. The thing that worries me is, you know, what the strategy of this was. Why now? They could have killed this guy at any bit -- any number of times over recent years. Presidents Bush and Obama chose not to because they feared it would spark a war with Iran. And could it now? ALLEN: Right, because we've heard everyone say, and all the analysts say on our air since this broke, this could be messy, this could be ugly. They had no idea where and how Iran may respond.

HOLMES: Absolutely. I mean, there were -- there were no tears with this guy in, you know, in the West, in particular. No tears for this guy. He was a bad guy.

ALLEN: Ruthless.

HOLMES: He killed a lot of people. He's seen as a hero among many in Iran as a sort of, you know, sort of hero of the Iranian Revolution and so on. But the thing -- the thing to remember with this guy, he was a horrible killer. I mean, I literally was -- saw the results of his work in Iraq, you know, in terms of people killed by these EFPs and the like, and talk to U.S. soldiers who'd been struck by them. I mean, no tears here, but why now? Why in this situation in Iraq on Iraqi soil, which again further complicates the dynamic as well. I'm waiting to see what their -- what their strategy was in doing this.

ALLEN: Right, because Tuesday President Trump said we want peace with Iran, and now this.

HOLMES: He didn't want to have wars in the Middle East.

ALLEN: Right. Absolutely.

HOWELL: Michael Holmes, we appreciate it. Thank you.

ALLEN: Thanks, Michael.

HOWELL: We'll be right back after the break.

[02:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOWELL: You're watching CNN breaking news coverage of a U.S. strike that has killed Iran's top military commander, General Qasem Soleimani. He was the leader of the elite special operations unit, Quds Force, which the U.S. blames for the deaths of hundreds of American forces.

ALLEN: The strike happened early Friday at Baghdad International Airport. This is what was left of the car that was hit. It also killed a senior leader of the Iranian backed Popular Mobilization Forces. Iran's Supreme Leader vows revenge.

HOWELL: This again, ordered by the U.S. president, President Trump currently at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. His only response so far on Twitter was a photo of an American flag.

ALLEN: Kaitlan Collins has the latest from West Palm Beach, Florida on the president.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, the only statement we got from President Trump initially in the wake of this strike was a tweet, just a photo of an American flag with no words next to it. And after that, the White House said we should not expect a statement from their side and instead they referred us to the statement from the Pentagon which confirmed among other things, that this strike was carried out at the direction of President Trump.

He didn't have any public appearances on Thursday, but CNN cameras did see him briefly on his golf course while he was there for a short period of time about five hours before returning to his Mar-a-Lago club where sources later said he was seen having dinner, seem to be in high spirits, according to people who saw them.

And we should note that the officials who are around the president typically is a pretty small group when he's on a trip like this here away from Washington. But we were told by two people that the National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien, had recently traveled in and was on property at the time that the United States -- the Pentagon confirmed that this strike had happened.

Now, whether or not the President makes any further remarks on this remains to be seen. He does have an event in Miami so he will be seen in public on Frida. But whether or not he says anything, is still something that is essentially a question. Kaitlan Collins, CNN traveling with the President in West Palm Beach.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[02:50:58]

ALLEN: So here is a timeline of events that got us to this point, days attention led up to the strike. Last Friday, an American contractor was killed in a rocket attack on a U.S. base near Kirkuk, Iraq.

HOWELL: Then on Sunday, U.S. airstrikes hit five facilities in Syria and Iraq linked to Iranian backed militia.'

ALLEN: On Tuesday, pro-Iranian protesters attack the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. And early Friday in Iraq, the U.S. strikes the Baghdad airport, killing top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani and a senior member of the Iranian backed Popular Mobilization Forces.

HOWELL: Let's talk more about this now with Samantha Vinograd. Samantha, a CNN National Security Analyst joining this hour from Washington D.C. It's good to have you with us.

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Good evening.

HOWELL: First off, given that we now have U.S. confirmation, what are the implications moving forward? How do you see this playing out?

VINOGRAD: Well, let's start with the near-term implication because this is what should have been thought about before this operation began. There is a near-term serious security risk to American citizens in Iraq, throughout the region, and frankly around the world.

The IRGC and the Quds Force retains both the will and capability to really operationalize its proxies around the world. And at this juncture, our embassies are under increased risk, as well as American citizens more generally.

My understanding is that the State Department is working on embassy security as we speak. I do not know whether any of that planning took place ahead of this operation, but there's a heightened security risk, that is the first order of business.

More broadly, Iran will consider this an act of war, that has implications in Iraq, Iranian backed proxies to have a heavy presence in the Iraq government and the Iraqi security forces, and this could really lead to a real turn in public opinion against the American presence in Iraq.

In Iran, this will be a rallying cry for the regime. Soleimani was deeply popular in Iraq and very close with how Khamenei. So within Iran, this will have an impact. And we will, of course, have to wait and see how Russia and China respond. Russia and China are Iran's patrons, its allies, and will likely side with Iran.

So this is really a terrifying moment for anybody with any security background while we wait to see what Iran's next move is. Even if Iran solely retaliates in a tit for tat -- tit for tat fashion, we could be looking at an Iranian attempt to assassinate a senior U.S. military commander.

HOWELL: You talk about how the responses could play out, Samantha, and look, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, the Persian Gulf, certainly theaters that Iran has influenced. But here's the situation. You know, this has been a proxy war between the United States and Iran and in these various places. But now with Iraq seeming to be center stage, what happens now?

VINOGRAD: Well, I think this just transition from a proxy war into a direct conflict. The United States just confirmed that they took -- that we took direct military action against a senior member of the Iranian military. We are now past the point of no return with respect to a proxy war versus a more direct confrontation.

And that really means that the Iranians will continue to consider frankly, American military service members fair game. And in addition, earlier this week, Iranian back proxies attacked U.S. diplomat. So again, all Americans are at increased risk right now.

And my real question is, you know, this is a president who doesn't really rely on intelligence for much, and who really shoots from the head. And so it is unclear that he thoroughly considered or even understands the repercussions and really did a thorough cost-benefit analysis before making this decision.

HOWELL: You know, we again, have the U.S. confirmation now but what are you hearing from your sources and what are you reading between the tea leaves here about whether this, you know, was really thought out or there was preparation made in advance for this?

[02:55:14]

VINOGRAD: Well, again, I understand that the State Department is working as we speak to shore up embassy security. I would imagine that the Intelligence Community is working in lockstep with the State Department and the Department of Defense to identify threats to American throughout the region, and again, even Americans globally.

But we have not seen an indication that there was contingency planning ahead of this operation. Someone who's very close to the President, media personality Sean Hannity called into his own show earlier this evening in the United States and said that the President acted quickly in the sense of authorizing this attack. Acting quickly in these situations, absent months of thorough planning, to deal with the aftershocks of such a significant operation is not a good thing.

Speed is not your friend in these situations unless again, you've done very thorough planning and have resources ready to deploy to protect Americans, to protect our allies, and the intelligence community has been monitoring threats in a consistent fashion both before during and after this kind of operation.

HOWELL: Samantha Vinograd giving us perspective here from Washington, D.C. We appreciate it. Thank you.

VINOGRAD: Thank you.

HOWELL: Again, the breaking news, this is significant news, the death of an Iranian military leader in a strike ordered by the U.S. president. Thanks for being with us this hour, I'm George Howell.

ALLEN: I'm Natalie Allen. Another hour of coverage right after this. We'll see in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

HOWELL: We are following the breaking news this hour. The United States killing --

[03:00:00]