Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. Sends Troops to Middle East in Wake of Airstrike that Killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani; Democrats in Congress Criticize President Trump for Not Providing Briefing of Airstrike against Iranian General; Iran Promises Revenge on U.S. for Assassination of General Soleimani; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Continues to Hold Articles of Impeachment Until Rules of Senate Trial Clarified; Democratic Presidential Candidate Marianne Williamson Interviewed on Release of Nationwide Campaign Staff; U.S. Prepares for Possible Cyberattacks from Iran; Australia Continues Fighting Massive Wildfires. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired January 04, 2020 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:14]

CHRISTI PAUL, CNN ANCHOR: Well, we're just learning that right now the nearly 3,000 troops President Trump promised to sending to the Middle East are on their way.

Good morning to you. Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Christi Paul.

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Martin Savidge in for Victor Blackwell.

The president is holding true to his word, sending thousands of troops to the Middle East after a U.S. drone strike took out a top Iranian general. The president said he was plotting imminent and sinister attacks against the U.S.

PAUL: And this morning the president of Iran says the United States committed a, quote, grave mistake, now vowing revenge after he met with the family of that top commander who was killed.

We're covering this story from multiple angles this morning. We do want to begin with CNN's Barbara Starr at the Pentagon. So Barbara, we know we're talking about 2,800 U.S. troops en route now to the Middle East. What do we know about where they're coming from?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, these are troops that are coming from Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The orders had already been issued, it was all expected. But now today the first of those troops getting on planes, making their way to Kuwait, on standby there if Iran retaliates, something the Pentagon obviously very concerned about.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) STARR: President Trump's top military advisor, General Mark Milley, not ruling out a possible retaliatory attack from Iran. When compelling intelligence in recent days showed Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian military commander, planned to attack U.S. targets in the Middle East, the Trump administration made the decision to kill him, according to Milley.

The U.S. decided to act because of the size, scale, and scope of the planning by Soleimani, Milley said. Is there a risk now to U.S. safety in the region? "Damn right there is risk," Milley told reporters. But to deal with that risk, the U.S. has stepped up its defenses and plans to send thousands of additional troops to the Middle East.

New video showing the bloody aftermath of the U.S. drone strike near Baghdad's airport. U.S. intelligence learned that Soleimani was planning specific attacks on U.S. interests in multiple countries, including U.S. personnel, a congressional source briefed by the Trump administration tells CNN.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo flew to Mar-a-Lago on Sunday to brief President Trump on the intelligence. When the U.S. learned Soleimani was in Baghdad, President Trump decided to order the attack, despite concerns by some in the administration about potential Iranian escalation. These images obtained by CNN showing the wreckage of Soleimani's vehicle after a U.S. drone targeted it as it left the airport. Pompeo telling CNN the strike saved American lives.

MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: There was, in fact, an imminent attack taking place. The American people should know that this was an intelligence-based assessment that drove this.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STARR: Today Pentagon officials are still insisting that the intelligence was compelling, that they had no choice but to act given what they saw as Soleimani's plans for a massive attack. Christi, Martin?

SAVIDGE: CNN's Barbara Starr at the Pentagon with news of troops on the move.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is traveling with the president. And Kristen, the president was taking a victory lap last night even though several Democrats are still skeptical that the strike was necessary. What more do you have?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Martin. You have to remember, this is just like everything else in Washington, there is a strong partisan divide. There's one thing both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. It is that Soleimani was not a good man, that he was a terrorist and he cost a lot of American lives. But it comes down to that attack. Was that necessary, and are we ready for what happens next? Republicans are praising President Trump. They say he made the right

decision. But Democrats, they want to know why Congress wasn't briefed. It wasn't just that Congress as an entire needed to be briefed, but no leadership, really. It was certainly more just President Trump's friends and allies like Senator Lindsey Graham. So there was a lot of people in the dark.

And the second question there is was this necessary. We have to remember there were two presidents before President Trump who had this opportunity and decided not to do it because of the potential consequences. Now a lot of concern about those consequences, about what happens next. President Trump saying, though, it needed to be done.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He was plotting attacks against Americans, but now we've ensured that his atrocities have been stopped for good. They are stopped for good.

[10:05:05]

I don't know if you know what was happening, but he was planning a very major attack, and we got him.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And you hear the president there saying I don't know if you guys know what's going on. It turns out a lot of people still don't know what was going on and what exactly this attack was going to look like, including some of those Democratic senators. Essentially there was a briefing on Friday. A lot of aides went to this briefing, aides for senators who are on these key committees. But a lot of these Democrats still feel like they haven't learned enough. Take a listen to this senator.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM UDALL (D-NM): I don't believe there was an imminent attack based on what I've been briefed on to date. My staff was briefed by a number of people representing a variety of the agencies in the United States government, and they came away with no feeling that there was evidence of an imminent attack. If there is, we should disclose it, and the president should disclose it publicly so that we know what's going on. I'm very suspicious here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And we have learned that there is another briefing for senators directly on Monday. So of course, we'll be keeping an eye on that, trying to talk to those lawmakers after they get out of it. But there is an overarching fear here. There's a lot of alarm and concern growing around the world. It's not just Democrats, it's also experts and analysts. The big question, what happens next, and are we prepared for it.

PAUL: All right, Kristen, thank you so much.

I want to go to CNN's Frederik Pleitgen now. He's reported extensively on Iran. He joins us from Tehran, in fact. And Frederik, this morning we know that while visiting Qasem Soleimani's daughter, the president of Iran says, and this is a quote, everyone will take revenge for Soleimani's death. What have you learned in that regard? And you had said earlier how Iran believes time is on their side. Explain that as well, please.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you're absolutely right. That's one of the things that several Iranian officials have been saying, is that there is going to be revenge. There's going to be retaliation, a response, as they put it, from the Iranian side. But it's going to happen on their own terms and in their own time.

We've heard that from top Iranian generals. We've heard that from the spokesman, from the Iranian military as well. They say right now they're not under any time restraints or any time pressure. Right now, of course, they're still in a state of mourning after Qasem Soleimani was assassinated by the United States, and that's something that's going to continue for at least the next two days where Qasem Soleimani's body is going to be going around the country here in Iran. Tomorrow, the day after that, there's going to be a big procession here in Tehran, so that's the state that they're in.

But they say, look, they're situated in this region. They have proxy forces in this region, that's why they're not under any sort of time pressures, because it's not something that they necessarily need to put a lot of effort into to maintain. And they certainly can call on these forces, they say, at any point in time that they choose to. But you're absolutely right, that video that we saw of Iran's president visiting the family of Qasem Soleimani and then speaking to Qasem Soleimani's daughter was certainly something that did catch the eye of many people here in Iran and internationally as well. When the daughter asked them and said, look, if my father were alive he would take revenge for something like that. Who is going to take revenge for the killing of my father? Then Hassan Rouhani, the president of this nation, who by all respects is a moderate here in Iran's political culture, he said, don't worry, everyone will take revenge for the killing of your father, and then also said that he believed that the U.S. didn't even understand the scale of the mistake that it had made, and called Qasem Soleimani a strategic person here inside Iran whom the Iranian nation was indebted to.

By the way, Iran's supreme leader, of course the highest authority here in this country, also visited the family today and also said that the Iranian nation was in debt to Qasem Soleimani. And that's something that we're also seeing here in a lot of Iranian cities where there is a lot of mourning going on, there's a lot of processions that are going on. If you look at just Tehran here, they have put up around 1,500 banners, placards and posters of Qasem Soleimani just for that period of mourning. At the same time, they are saying, look, you can be assured that some

sort of retaliation, some sort of response is going to come. One of the things that we've been talking about that Iranian commanders have been saying for years, they say, look, beside every American military installation, every American base in this region, there is an Iranian proxy force or some sort of force that's controlled by Iran that certainly could threaten those installations and those American forces. One Iranian commander saying today that he believes that the U.S. forces, as he puts it, or in a glass house in the region, and certainly, therefore, in a very fragile position.

SAVIDGE: Fred Pleitgen reporting from Tehran. Thank you for that.

The Iranian ambassador to the United Nations is vowing harsh revenge. In a letter to the U.N. Iran described the drone strike as state terrorism, and an unlawful act.

[10:10:05]

CNN senior United Nations correspondent Richard Roth is with us now. And Richard, what is Iran planning for or wanting from the United Nations?

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Iranians would like some form of action, which does not appear imminent. Last night Erin Burnett on "OutFront" talked with the Iranian ambassador who, as you mentioned, vowed revenge, also said the U.S. would bear full responsibility for the consequences of its actions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJID TAKHT RAVANCHI, IRANIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: We cannot just close our eyes to what happened last night. Definitely there will be revenge, there will be harsh revenge. Last night they started a military war by assassinating -- by an act of terror against one of our top generals. So what else can we expect Iran to do? We cannot just remain silent. We have to act, and we will act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: I don't think Iran will be waiting for the Security Council to aid its cause. The Security Council, Marty and Christi, met Friday morning, and it was a preplanned meeting on Syria, an eight-year war that the Council has been unable to stop, and nobody brought up the Iran strike on Soleimani, which says a lot. It also shows you how countries are steering clear of this for the moment unless there is a bigger impact or some type of revenge attack. It's a big power division in the Council. No one wants to step in at the moment. Everyone will watch and wait.

It's interesting to note that Soleimani was on a U.N. Security Council travel ban. He was not really, quote, allowed to be in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere outside of Iran. Those are, again, sanctions not exactly being followed by people who are named or countries who support him. Back to you. PAUL: Richard Roth, Barbara Starr, Kristen Holmes, Fred Pleitgen, we

appreciate each of you, thank you.

SAVIDGE: The impeachment process is at a standstill in the Senate as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accuses the Senate majority leader of taking part in a cover-up. We break down the gridlock on Capitol Hill.

PAUL: Also, with the Iowa caucuses right around the corner, foreign policy is in focus. How would the candidate who wants to create a U.S. Department of Peace handle tensions with Iran? We're going to talk to Marianne Williamson live from Iowa.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: New threats from the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani. He said that the U.S. committed, quote, a grave mistake, unquote, in killing Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, and Americans will face the consequences not only today, but also in the coming years. This comes as nearly 3,000 U.S. troops are on their way to the Middle East now.

[10:15:03]

Here to discuss more on this subject is CNN national security analyst Sam Vinograd. And Sam was a former senior advisor to the national security advisor in the Obama administration, and she also served for a year in Iraq. And Bing West, co-author of former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis' book -- most recent book, I should say -- "Call Sign Chaos, Learning to Lead." Bing is also a former assistant secretary of defense and combat Marine. Thank you both for being with me today.

Bing, let me start with you. You were in Iraq, and it seems that we are back on square one with that region unstable once more. What do you make of this situation, and what would General Jim Mattis think of this?

BING WEST, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, it is a complete mess. And Iran has been our enemy implacable for 40 years. It's finally gotten to this point by a series of missteps. So the question really is, what's going to happen next in this? And I think you can look at two things. First, in Iran, they may not be in any hurry to do any retaliation because this shows that they're totally penetrated by spies. And before they come out with any other concocted plan, they're going to have to kind of see if they can clean house to find out why we know all that we know about them.

And second, it could be that the Iraqi parliament, half of which are bought off by Iran, will ask the United States to leave. Now, if that happens, there won't be too many Americans who say, oh, dear, that's a shame. Actually, it could be, ironically, an ending that would be better than some of the alternatives.

SAVIDGE: OK. Sam, let me bring you into this discussion. National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien said this strike was aimed at disrupting ongoing attacks that were being planned by Soleimani, and deterring future Iranian attacks. So was the killing worth the potential conflict with Iran in your mind? What other options might there have been?

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Just very briefly, to Bing's point, I agree that the regime is going to take an internal look at what led to this attack, but I will note that Soleimani has been in U.S. crosshairs, if you will, several times during successive presidencies. Our intelligence on Soleimani's travel this time around was obviously spot-on, but it is not the first time that we have been able to track Soleimani's movements. Past presidents did a cost- benefit analysis and assessed that targeting Soleimani was not really worth the risk and perhaps would not have the benefits of really disrupting attacks at a macro level.

Now, with respect to the imminent threat claims the administration has made, and Robert O'Brien's commentary, the truth is we will have to wait to see. Having worked closely with intelligence matters, it does take time to declassify what could be compartmentalized intelligence, intelligence that came perhaps from a foreign source. So we have to wait and see what the administration actually shares with Congress or with others. That could take some time.

I will note, however, finally that the notion of a, quote-unquote, imminent attack -- imminence is a relatively subjective term, for one. From a legal perspective, it doesn't do a whole lot with respect to a legal justification for why the president really utilized his authority to conduct the use of force absent congressional authorization and absent going to the United Nations in this scenario.

SAVIDGE: And to Sam's point, Bing, this talk of imminent threat, if there was an imminent threat, wouldn't military logic dictate that you take out that threat? In other words, the force that was moving to attack U.S. forces, say, in Iraq, you would strike that unit. You would take out their ability to hit, not strike the general. Yet it seems the process here was strike the general, but it seems like the military hit could still happen since the orders were already in motion.

WEST: Well, Martin, let me get away from the particulars on that one and just look at the fact that --

SAVIDGE: All right.

WEST: -- Iran has been our implacable enemy, and it's a punk government for 40 years. This guy, Soleimani, is responsible for the deaths of over 500 Americans. Iran itself has killed many Americans over the last 40 years. At some point, you don't say I'm afraid to kill the murderer because there will be other murderers after him. You take care of the guy. So sooner or later, this kind of thing was inevitable because of what Iran is doing.

[10:20:00]

We're not the aggressor. Iran is the aggressor, and they have been able to get away with this for so many years that now when we actually take an action, people say, oh, my goodness, oh, my goodness, the sky is falling. No, it's not. If Iran wants to continue this, then Iran is going to be responsible for the end of its own economy, because sooner or later, we might just say, all right, that's it. We're taking out all your oil refineries, and then just ignore them. They'll have nothing.

SAVIDGE: They have the same capability. They could take out the oil refineries and the infrastructure of both Iraq and Saudi Arabia, right, Sam?

VINOGRAD: Well, I will get slightly into the particulars. I appreciate Bing's analysis. I think the question here is whether targeting Soleimani, who, yes, was a horrific terrorist will deter future attacks. By decapitating or targeting the head of the IRGC Quds force, will the shock value of that really cause the Iranian regime to take a step back and reconsider its malign activity around the world, including this feeling that it can operate with a certain degree of impunity in the Middle East. What is the deterrence aspect of this attack? The Department of Defense did note in its original statement that this attack was perpetrated for deterrent purposes.

I have more questions about whether it will actually disrupt any imminent threat to the United States, which was cited by the secretary of state, by the president and others, based upon the fact that Soleimani was a decision-maker rather than an operator. That is likely the discussion, I hope, or the discussion I hope that President Trump had with his analysts when they took this targeting package off the shelf at Mar-a-Lago over the past few days.

SAVIDGE: Bing, I get it, you don't shed any tears for the loss of Soleimani, but do you also see the prospect that there could be an asymmetric response from Iran? In other words, not a direct military attack, but something that hits the infrastructure and the American people directly?

WEST: If Iran wants to go to war completely with the United States of America, it can at any point. And then that's the end of this theocracy in Iran. If you play this game out tit for tat all the way up, in the end, Iran loses the biggest, and overwhelmingly so. So the question really becomes do they have more nerve than we do to keep pushing us around and keep pushing around other countries because everyone is afraid of them. And basically, I think President Trump has said, I'm not afraid of you. And so if I were Iran, I'd have to be calculating very, very carefully, because I'm sure we've sent the message, you come back, and we're going to really come back at you the next time.

SAVIDGE: And I'm sure they are calculating that right now. Bing West and Samantha Vinograd, good to see you both. Thank you for joining us.

WEST: Thank you.

VINOGRAD: Thank you.

PAUL: "The New York Times" says the Trump administration's pushing back on a court order withholding emails as well regarding why military aid to Ukraine was frozen. Coming up, the latest in the fight to get some answers from the White House, and what is the next step in the ongoing stalemate over a Senate impeachment trial. Stay close.

SAVIDGE: Plus, as the 2020 Democratic field thins, Marianne Williamson says she's laying off staff nationally. Where does her campaign go from here? She'll join us live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: "The New York Times" reports the Trump administration is refusing a court order and withholding 20 emails discussing frozen military aid to Ukraine.

PAUL: "The New York Times" says the messages were sent by an aide to President Trump's acting chief of staff and an official at the Office of Management and Budget. Now Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is calling for those officials to appear at a Senate trial even as lawmakers fight over whether there will be any witnesses called.

CNN Capitol Hill reporter Haley Byrd with us now. Haley, good to see you. Walk us through where we are with this.

HALEY BYRD, CNN REPORTER: Right. So lawmakers at this point are trying to figure out the parameters for the Senate trial. And lawsuits like this one from "The New York Times" just emphasize how unique this trial could be in the sense that there seems to be this whole set of facts that we don't have yet. And Democrats, this brings up the point that Democrats are making that this is why there needs to be witnesses in the Senate trial, whereas Republicans in the Senate are arguing the House should have taken these facts and brought them altogether before they sent the articles to the Senate.

So even as senators are going to be considering these articles of impeachment, it's going to be -- it's possible that there's going to be more and more information coming out from numerous lawsuits that are going to be making their way through the courts.

SAVIDGE: And Haley, what's interesting is that this is all playing out, of course, where leaders of the House and Senate are continuing to exchange harsh words. The feelings between the two just only seem to be coming more and more politically divided.

BYRD: Yes. And recently Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was on the Senate to discuss what his next steps are. And a lot of this boils down to Speaker Pelosi's strategy of trying to put pressure on McConnell to agree to things like bringing in witnesses for the Senate trial. So her strategy has been to withhold the articles of impeachment, not send them over to the chamber. McConnell says he's happy to continue business as usual. He's not in any rush to get to the Senate trial. So this next week on the Hill we're going to be following how Democrats in the House feel about Pelosi's strategy. Is there any concern among moderate members, that core vulnerable group of freshmen who recently joined the House, how they feel about this situation.

SAVIDGE: All right, Haley Byrd, thank you very much. We'll wait to see how they work this all out. It does matter.

PAUL: Thank you, Haley.

BYRD: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: We are just 30 days away from the first presidential contest of 2020, the Iowa caucuses. Coming up, Marianne Williamson joins us live from Iowa to talk about the state of her campaign.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:31:52]

PAUL: So the Iowa caucuses just 30 days away now. Even before this first test of 2020, the number of Democrats running for president, it's starting to thin out. This week, Julian Castro became the latest to exit the race, leaving the once historically diverse field with one less minority candidate. And now Marianne Williamson's campaign is fighting to survive. They have laid off all staff nationwide. She is committed, though. She says she's staying in this race. And a lot of people are wondering how do you move forward? Marianne Williamson is with us now. Ms. Williamson, thank you so much for being with us.

MARIANNE WILLIAMSON, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you so much for having me.

PAUL: You have fought so hard, and I know this had to be a really tough move for you to have to lay off these people. At what point did you realize that it had to happen?

WILLIAMSON: Well, I think that campaigns regroup, it happens. I think that what matters here is not the business of politics. What matters is our democracy. What matters is the message. What matters is the relationship between the candidate and the voters. And I think that that relationship gets lost sometimes these days. Most of the time it gets lost in the big horse race conversation, and the staff and the money and the polls, and the business of it all. And that's the corruption of our democracy.

So I'm here because of the conversation I'm having with the American people and the option that I'm presenting to the American people, not only for how we can defeat Donald Trump this year, but also how to move this country in a very different direction. And that's what matters to me. What matters to me is that we need a season of moral repair. We need a coalition of heart and conscience in order to align our public policies with the angels of our better nature.

We have millions of Americans underserved, at-risk, traumatized children we need to rescue. We need to have an agenda for waging peace, not just endlessly preparing for war. We need to create a healthier society, not just treat sickness, but actually incentivize health. We have to have deeper measures and deeper reparative measures about racial reconciliation in this country. We need to have a World War II level mass mobilization in order to reverse climate change. We need to move from a dirty economy to a clean economy, from a war economy to a peace economy. These are the things that matter. Economic justice, removing the

scourge of wealth inequality where only one percent of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The erosion of our democracy, we're not even behaving like a vital democracy anymore. We are a vital corporate aristocracy. We repudiated that in 1776, and we need to repudiate it again. This is what matters in a campaign.

PAUL: There are a lot of people, your message really resonates with them. And there was something you said last time you were on the air about how we're not governing with a conscience, and I think that struck a lot of people as well. How do you continue, do you think, to keep your message out there if at some point you have to bow out of this part of the candidacy?

WILLIAMSON: If that happens, I'll know. And on any given morning, I think we all wake up and ask ourselves, how do I best use the resources that I have in my life, my skill set, in order to contribute to the world in which we live?

[10:35:08]

And if on any given morning, I wake up and I think, you know, that's not the way to do it today, then I won't do it. But in the meantime, I think what you've said is so important. I do believe the average American follows the dictates of conscience to the best of our ability. That's not where the problem lies. The problem is our public policy is not driven by the dictates of conscience so much as it is driven by the dictates of the short-term financial gains or the stockholders within huge multinational corporate interests. That's a divergence of critical import, not only in terms of who we are as people, but what we are as a democracy and whether or not we are thriving as a society that is committed to the democratic and humanitarian values on which we were founded.

PAUL: So you said something really interesting this week regarding that, about the human society as we know it. The statement that you gave after the news came out about the situation with Iran over the last 24 hours, in that statement you included this line. "Not enough Americans hate war today. A rampant casualness about it is one of America's biggest problems. It's not a policy but rather an attitude that now threatens. War has become, for too many, just a big Ho hum." Certainly, there are military families, I'm sure, that would not fall into that category by any means, they understand what's at stake.

WILLIAMSON: Absolutely.

PAUL: But are you saying there, that people don't care, that they're ignorant, that they're reflecting, maybe, the images of movies as opposed to the images of reality? What point are you trying to make there?

WILLIAMSON: What we have here are generations, generations of Americans now who have never known a state, have never known a time when America was not at war. I come from a generation where there was a distinction between America at war versus America not at war. We have entire generations who have never known America not at war. And too easily people become desensitized these days to the horrors of war.

When you mention military families, they are sure not desensitized to the horrors of war, but too many Americans are. They have known, and as you said yourself, the glamorization of war, the almost sexualization of brute force that has become too common in our media and in our society. And so the search for peace is not enough of a conversation in the United States.

We don't just treat sickness. We also cultivate health. And we can't just endlessly prepare for war. We need to cultivate peace, and that's the conversation. This is why I want a Department of Peace. We should have a peace-building academy as well as a military academy. We should have peace games as well as war games.

President John F. Kennedy said that if mankind does not end war, war will end mankind. And as president, I would want to declare that the United States will lead the effort whereby we can see that at the end of this century, we won't be alive to see it, but you don't live a meaningful life just for yourself or just for your generation. We should lead the way to a time at the end of this century where if humanity has not ended war, at least they can see the end of war down the road. And are greatest --

PAUL: Let me ask you -- I'm sorry, I just wanted to get this in as we're running out of time, but there are many, many analysts who have been on our air who have said that it was necessary to take out this general in Iran, so to speak, that he was a man who had killed -- was responsible for thousands of American lives. And your peace and your nonviolence portraits are pivotal to the campaign I know that you've been putting out there. But if you were president, if you had the option of a drone strike like this against somebody like that, could you press that button? Let's ask you that. Could you press that button? How would you handle that decision?

WILLIAMSON: I could press that button if I thought it was a good idea. I don't believe that taking out this particular man was a good idea. It's not that he was a good man or a nice man, but there were -- the Bush administration and the Obama administration were very aware of Soleimani, and both of those administrations made the calculated decision that he was more dangerous dead than alive. He was already a hero, and now he'll be a martyr as well as a hero.

By taking out this particular man, we did not -- they talk about how there were imminent attacks. This did not end the imminent attacks. This did not make American military or civilian personnel in that part of the world safer. It made them more endangered. This creates more risk because now you have the Iranian government declaring that they will take vengeance for this. And I think that it is reasonable to assume that in every way possible that is what they will try to do. I do not believe that killing Soleimani made this a safer country or a safer world.

[10:40:07]

Could I do such -- make such a move if I thought that that action did? Absolutely I could and would. That's an oath you take as commander in chief. But I just believe that this move was reckless, irresponsible, and dangerous.

PAUL: Marianne Williamson, thank you for taking time to be with us today. Good luck in Iowa.

WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: And still ahead, preparing for revenge. Some officials are bracing for Iran to retaliate with a cyberattack. What capabilities to they have? And is the U.S. prepared to stop them?

PAUL: Also, three fires in Australia. Look at these pictures. Three fires have combined to form a blaze that is bigger than the island of Manhattan now. Why that's only part of the problem.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: Happening right now, crowds are flooding the streets of Karbala in Iraq. This is a funeral procession for the Iranian military leaders as well as the Iraqi military leader that were killed in the U.S. drone strike. The coffins are being carried into the city's holy shrine, as you are looking at these remarkable images live from Iraq.

American officials are bracing for both conventional and unconventional attacks following the death of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.

PAUL: I want to show you the video here. This is the aftermath from the airstrike that killed Soleimani and an Iraqi paramilitary chief. As we said, Iran is promising revenge. Experts say retaliation could come not militarily, necessarily, but in the form of cyberattacks. CNN Business reporter Donie O'Sullivan is with us now. I think, Donie, a lot of people are sitting at home and wondering what exactly does a cyberattack look like for me.

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN POLITICS AND TECHNOLOGY REPORTER: That's right, Christi. Over the past few years we've seen Iran experts tells us really expand their capabilities in this space. And I think that big concern is do they have the capability of turning out the lights in a major American city.

[10:45:01]

Over the past decade we've seen, according to the U.S. government, in 2012 Iran was able to break into dozens of U.S. banks, causing millions of dollars' worth of damage, and in 2014 actually breaking into the Sands Casino and taking their customers' Social Security details, credit card details. So we can see them expanding capability in that space. And I was told by a director of one of the country's top cybersecurity companies this morning that within an hour of the news breaking on Thursday of this airstrike, there were officials and executives from financial oil and gas companies across the U.S. coming to these cybersecurity companies and saying, hey, what do we have to do to be prepared?

SAVIDGE: There's other ways that they can disrupt, interrupt life, one of them being its ability to execute sort of disinformation campaigns. What exactly are they -- how would that work for Iran? What would that do to impact us?

O'SULLIVAN: That's right, Martin. This is all sort of in the arsenal of asymmetric responses that Iran have at their disposal. I think we're all very familiar at this point with the disinformation campaigns that Russia ran in 2016 targeting the U.S. But what's less talked about is Iran also has those capabilities. And over the past two years we've seen Twitter and Facebook and other social media platforms taking down thousands of accounts that are linked to -- that they say have been linked to the Iranian government, sort of doing the thing that we saw Russia doing in 2016, which is posing as U.S. activists and trying to cause and sow divisions here in the U.S., and also pushing Tehran's line, whether it's criticizing Iran's rivals and praising the regime.

PAUL: So, Donie, Frederik Pleitgen, who's in Tehran, says that according to the reports that he's hearing, the Iranians believe time is on their side. They don't have to act immediately. Does that tell you that perhaps they aren't fully prepared to respond right now, or is there something that would have to happen in terms of their timeline that would be more beneficial for them to strike, particularly in the cyber world?

O'SULLIVAN: Sure. I think the capabilities, certainly from what we've seen and what experts are telling us, is there, and we do know the concerns from the Department of Homeland Security and others in the intelligence community who are saying that we need to be mindful of what Iran can do.

But there is, I guess, a sort of advantage in having this space where companies and the U.S. government are on sort of high alert and worried and concerned. That in itself has a psychological impact, so sort of playing that long game might be in Iran's benefit, and they might be able to say you never know when we're going to strike. And also, I guess, one of the big things is that hackers often try to cover their tracks. If Iran does hit, in this case they might want America to know that they are behind it.

SAVIDGE: Very interesting. Donie O'Sullivan, good to have you on. Thank you very much for your insight.

PAUL: Thank you, Doinie.

Thousands of people are fleeing, conditions are deteriorating rapidly, the pictures are stunning. Look at this. What is expected to be Australia's worst day yet in the fire season may still be ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:52:07]

SAVIDGE: A haunting sky over eastern Australia right now, look at that, in what has been yet another incredibly hot and windy day. All of this as those bush fires continue to burn. PAUL: Fire officials in Victoria say three fires combined overnight.

Look at this. And those three formed a blaze that is the size of Manhattan. The prime minister announced the deployment of the country's largest Navy ship to help evacuees along the coast.

SAVIDGE: The U.S. is sending help. Three dozen firefighters are there on the ground to assist, and federal officials say more deployments are likely to continue.

Here is CNN's Anna Coren now reporting on the latest conditions from the south coast area.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNA COREN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A long night ahead for the fire crews here on the south coast of New South Wales. The catastrophic conditions that were forecast for this part of the state haven't actually eventuated. We didn't get the high temperatures and ferocious winds that were predicted. However, a southerly has started to come in, whipping up other fires that are burning. In the town of Eden, which is right now the south coast on the border of New South Wales and Victoria, fires are raging there, and there are grave concerns for the communities in that township.

Many residents heeded the warnings to get out, to evacuate from what were expected to be the worst fires of the season. These fires are affecting the entire southeast coast of Australia. But, as I say, there are cooler conditions that have come in in the last few hours, and certainly the firefighters we've spoken to say that they have been spared the absolute carnage that was predicted today.

We heard from the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison earlier, and he said that 3,000 members from the Australian Defense Force and the military will be deployed as well as the largest Navy ship, the HMAS Adelaide. That will be sent to evacuate any of the residents who have been cut off, isolated. They'll be evacuated and taken to safety.

He also said that four planes have been hired for water bombing. And here in this area around Moruya on the south coast we have seen endless operations of aerial bombardment happening on the fires affecting the communities, the properties, and the homes. As I say, most people heeded those warnings to evacuate, to get out. However, there were people who decided to stay and protect their properties. They are in for a long night.

Anna Coren, CNN, on the south coast of New South Wales, Australia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[10:55:10]

PAUL: And the thing is hundreds of people have evacuated their homes as these wildfires are tearing through Australia, but authorities are telling people who did not evacuate in about a half dozen communities near Sydney, that it's too late to do so now. SAVIDGE: The fire burning in New South Wales, for example, has ripped

through 650,000 acres. Reinforcements have come in from as far away as Los Angeles, but that fire continues to burn out of control. Meanwhile, firefighters were up against incredible odds as they battle the catastrophic bush fires raging across the state of Victoria. Three fires there have formed to create one massive blaze. And as Christi has already said, the size of Manhattan, that's almost impossible to imagine.

PAUL: CNN's Allison Chinchar is with us now. So we heard Anna there talking about the fact that they think they were spared a little bit. What do we know about weather and what it has in store for them?

ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes, in her region they were. But elsewhere that really wasn't the case, especially in and around the Sydney region. Here's the thing, you both mentioned, Martin and Christi, about the comparison of one of those fires to the city of Manhattan, or the area around Manhattan being the equivalent. But here's the thing, that's just one particular fire. When you take into account all of them, there's over 200 just in New South Wales and Victoria, but they're also elsewhere. Those aren't the only two places where you have these fires. So when you add them all up, the area burned is around 23,000 square miles, or 14.6 million acres. That is the equivalent to the states of New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware combined.

Really think about that. Imagine here in the states having all three of those states completely burned to the ground. That's what they're dealing with in Australia. We look at some of the high temperatures that they had across portions of Penrith, that's a suburb of Sydney, hitting 120 degrees Fahrenheit. That's nearly 49 degrees Celsius.

Here's a look, that cold front that's expected to move through, it was expected to kick the winds up, which is not what they needed. There is some hope that we could get some rain out of this. It's not going to be all that much, though. You're still going to be looking at maybe one inch, two inches at absolute best. The problem is half-an- inch of rain is needed to stop the spread of fires, two inches of rain is needed to completely put out the fires.

One thing, however, is pyro-cumulus clouds. What are those exactly? Here's the thing, when we talk about these, this is where fires can create their own weather. You have the fires that are already started on the ground. Those as the heat rises and the smoke rises, guys, it condenses and forms clouds. Unfortunately, Martin and Christi, those can then trigger lightning from new thunderstorms that triggers additional fires.

PAUL: All right, Allison, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

SAVIDGE: And a quick note before we go. Tomorrow you do not want to miss "State of the Union." Jake Tapper is joined by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. "State of the Union" airs Sunday, 9:00 eastern right here on CNN. PAUL: We are always grateful to have you with us. We hope you make

some good memories today. CNN's Newsroom with Fredricka Whitfield up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)