Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

New Strikes Against Iran-Backed Groups Not Expected; Trump Administration Withholding E-mails On Ukraine Aide; Crisis With Iran; Pompeo Tells Iraqi President U.S. Is Committed To De-Escalation; Australian Wildfires Force Thousands To Flee As Temperatures Soar. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired January 04, 2020 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:24]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone -- top of the hour. I want to welcome our viewers here in the U.S. and around the world.

I'm Fredricka Whitfield. Thank you so much for joining me this Saturday.

Right now 2,800 U.S. troops are on their way to the Middle East, this as Iran promises, quoting now, "harsh revenge" following a U.S. drone strike that killed their top general, Qasem Soleimani.

This morning thousands mourn the commander during a funeral procession in Baghdad. Iraq's prime minister was among those in the crowd.

Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani met with Soleimani's family today in Tehran. The general's daughter asking, I'm quoting now, "who will take revenge", unquote, for her father's death. Rouhani replied, everyone.

Iran's ambassador to the United Nations telling CNN's Erin Burnett that the strike on Soleimani was an act of war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJID TAKHT RAVANCHI, IRANIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: 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)

WHITFIELD: Meanwhile the U.S. is sending about 2,800 troops into the Middle East and President Trump and his administration are defending the decision to kill Soleimani telling a crowd in Miami last night the general was preparing an imminent attack on Americans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He was plotting attacks against Americans, but now we have ensured that his atrocities have been stopped for good. They are stopped for good. I don't know if you know what was happening, but he was planning a very major attack and we got him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: We have a team of reporters around the world covering all the details. Let's begin with CNN's Fred Pleitgen who is live for us in Tehran.

So, Fred -- Iran's president now saying the U.S. made a grave mistake. What's next potentially?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they certainly are. And there's really two things that are going to happen in the immediate future. On the one hand the Iranians are saying, as we've noted, that they are going to take revenge and that they are going to respond to all this. But right now what's going on here in Tehran is that there's public mourning.

You talked a little about it before that in Baghdad in Iraq you had that procession today. I think it's actually still going on there in Ter-a-ballah (ph) where there were thousands of people who turned up.

Tomorrow Qasem Soleimani's body is actually going to go all around Iran where you're going to see a very similar picture as well in several cities where there is going to be public mourning.

Now, it was very interesting today to see Hassan Rouhani, the President of Iran there with Qasem Soleimani's family essentially saying, look, the whole nation, everyone is going to take revenge for the killing of your father to the daughter of Qasem Soleimani and also saying the U.S. really doesn't know how big a mistake it made.

Iran's Supreme Leader, the top authority here in this country, was also with the family of Qasem Soleimani and then told them that the entire Iranian nation is, as he put it indebted to Qasem Soleimani and to their family and also saying that he believes that it was the most villainous people, as he put it, the U.S. government, who killed Qasem Soleimani.

Now, the big question is how is Iran going to respond? There are several things that are quite interesting about that. You heard President Trump there say that essentially Qasem Soleimani has been put out of action and therefore a lot of plans have been disrupted.

The Iranians are saying that's absolutely not going to be the case. They have already nominated a successor for -- named a successor for Qasem Soleimani and they say the Iran Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, the organization that he headed, is going to keep working exactly the way that it has before.

And we've been listening -- Fredricka, to Iranian officials speak, especially military officials speak, the entire day today. And they say, look, there is going to be a response, but that response is going to happen on Iran's terms and in Iran's time. They say they're not in a rush to do anything. They have their proxy forces around the region and they will strike back when they feel that the time is right and the time is opportune, as they put it, to do so -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: All right. Fred Pleitgen -- we'll check back with you in Tehran. Thank you so much.

Meanwhile CNN's Barbara Starr is learning new information about possible next steps. She's standing by right now at the Pentagon. So Barbara -- what are you learning?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Hi -- Fredricka.

Well, to follow on what Fred just said, this is now the intense debate inside U.S. military and intelligence circles. Iran -- how soon could it respond and will it respond.

[11:04:54]

STARR: A U.S. official tells me that they are looking very intensively right now at Iran's ballistic missiles and that their readiness has been stepped up inside of Iran in recent days.

So that is a concern. Could those missiles be fueled and ready to go? Again, however, that's an Iranian capability. It's not clear at all that the Supreme Leader has yet made the decision to order a retaliatory attack. There's a lot of language out there from the Iranians that they in fact will do it at a time and place of their choosing, but capability-wise they could be ready to go within any period of the coming days, according to U.S. assessment.

So while all of this is going on, the U.S. wrapping up that deployment, sending that additional 2,800 U.S. troops to the region, this had been planned but they are finally beginning to fly out from Fort Bragg, North Carolina today. Their mission will be to be deployed potentially around the area, around the region to U.S. embassies and buildings, U.S. interests in the region to protect them from any Iranian attacks.

This is going to be a situation, it is very clear where the U.S. will be on watch for some days and weeks to come -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: So Barbara -- you're also learning about the U.S. Plans to deploy these additional troops. We're already reporting what -- 2,500 U.S. troops to the Middle Eastern region. What more do we know about that deployment and if there are others, you know, to follow?

STARR: Well, that deployment is, you know, pretty much aimed at protection of sites and buildings, because there are so many targets that Iran could potentially strike. It's probably very important to say that, you know, this is not a force designed to go to war against Iran if there were some kind of massive war, which everyone hopes there will never be.

That is going to be a war the U.S. would conduct from the air and by sea. That would be the most typical plan to prosecute action against Iran.

These are troops aimed at protecting facilities. So they want to put them out there and they want to have a show to the world that these U.S. facilities can be protected.

Right now it is clearly the decision of Iran's Supreme Leader whether he wants to order some kind of action against the U.S. And when he might want to do it, if at all -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon -- thank you so much.

All right. So, you know, the world is watching how this escalation will play out in the coming days or even longer than that.

CNN's Arwa Damon is live for us in Baghdad watching all of this unfold. So Arwa -- what is it like there right now?

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fredricka -- we went down to the funeral procession for Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis earlier today. And there was a very quiet sorrow as protesters, mourners there were leaving that almost seemed as if it was masking the underlying anger.

But once you spoke to them, they too were vowing revenge because even though we've been really talking a lot about Qasem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the other top figure who was also killed in this targeted strike, is a very prominent figure in Iraq, although at the same time quite divisive.

He is the leader of Kata'ib Hezbollah -- that is the group that was targeted by the U.S. on Sunday, but he's also the number two of what's known as the Popular Mobilization Force, this paramilitary Shia force that is ostensibly under the control of the Iraqi security forces but at the same time made up of members of these former Shia militias who gained much of their battlefield experience fighting the Americans during the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.

But in his killing, the U.S. not only, according to the Iraqi government, violated Iraq's sovereignty but also is having them view this as an act of aggression against Iraq itself.

So on the one hand you not only have Iran who is vowing some sort of retaliation, you also have Iran's proxies, this entire force right now that is saying that it too is going to carry out revenge when it comes to these killings. You have the Iraqi parliament tomorrow meant to be holding a session that is going to be focusing on the U.S. troop presence.

And it's not just this particular stratus of the Iraqi society that is vowing revenge or infuriated at the United States, we also went down to the Tahrir Square -- Fredricka, where for months Iraqi protesters have been demonstrating against their own government. There they have actually been demonstrating against outside influence, against Iran.

But even down there -- Fredricka, there is little love for Iran but at the moment there is even less for the United States. Because, as they keep saying over and over again, America is once again using Iraq as an arena for its proxy battles.

[11:09:54]

DAMON: And Iraqis know one thing very, very well. At the end of the day, they are the ones that end up paying the price for all of this.

WHITFIELD: So then, Arwa, for U.S. troops that remain in Baghdad and nearby, what has this potentially done for them, their disposition. Are they now put greatly in a kind of self-defense mode as opposed to Iraqis -- many Iraqis feeling like they were allies?

DAMON: Well, our understanding is that the U.S. here, whether it's the embassy, whether it's the various U.S. military, installations is right now in a higher position of alertness. They have altered their own situation, especially -- I mean given how much things have changed in the last few weeks.

And this is potentially quite a tenuous situation for them because we have these various different groups here that are backed by Iran, that many of whom were trained, funded, provided with weapons by Iran. They have all said following this strike that their fighters are at the ready.

You have the army of Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shia cleric, who carried out numerous, countless attacks against U.S. forces back in the years of the U.S.-led occupation who has said that he is going to reactivate his own army. And you still have a very real threat that is being posed by ISIS.

So what this strike has done, even though the President keeps saying over and over again that it was meant to secure Americans overseas, that it was meant to protect U.S. interests, is at the very least at the moment, most certainly put them in greater danger.

WHITFIELD: Arwa Damon -- thank you so much in Baghdad. Appreciate it. We'll check back with you throughout the day.

So the conversation on Iran continues tomorrow as well on CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION". Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senator Elizabeth Warren and House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff all joining Jake Tapper. "STATE OF THE UNION" airs Sunday 9:00 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN.

And ahead for us this hour, the "New York Times" reports the White House is withholding Ukraine-related emails, despite a court order. Why those messages may be significant and who sent them. All that coming up.

And, multiple catastrophic wildfires in Australia have now combined, forming a blaze bigger than the size of Manhattan. We'll take you live to New South Wales.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:14:57]

WHITFIELD: All right. Welcome back.

Mourners are pouring into the streets of Baghdad for the funeral procession today of the Iranian military commander killed in Friday's drone strikes outside of the Baghdad airport. Iran's regime has already named a replacement for the top a replacement for the top general, Qasem Soleimani, who was killed in the attack and the country is threatening the U.S. with what it is describe as forceful revenge.

Meantime we're learning the U.S. is now sending 2,800 additional troops to the region as it braces for the possibility of retaliatory attacks.

With me now from Washington is Vali Nasr. He is a Middle East scholar at Johns Hopkins University and a former policy advisor in the Obama administration. Good to see you.

So Iran is vowing revenge, you know, but that had to be a consequence, right, for the Trump administration consideration before the drone strike. So what do you think the Iranian regime is considering when it talks about this possible retaliation?

VALI NASR, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Well, I think the Iranian regime needs to do something symbolic or something that is portrayed to their own population and their base around the region as significant enough so that they show that they didn't take this hit without responding, they can save face and they can show strength.

But I think they're also motivated to do something to deter the United States and President Trump from doing this again. They don't want President Trump to think that this kind of behavior is cost-free and without consequence.

And I think what really worries Iran is the audacity of the President to cross a very important red line that had been at least the basis for some degree of stability in the region. And, therefore, I think they are thinking very hard about how to calibrate this response that they wouldn't provoke further American action but that the President would take it very seriously.

WHITFIELD: And do you envision or do you dare to envision, does revenge mean taking it out on U.S. interests or personnel abroad in that region and with that also comes great risk, you know, with Middle Eastern allies and Iran? Or do you see that revenge will come in some other form or fashion in a different region?

NASR: I think Iran will look at the whole host of things. So there is American bases and personnel both in the region and outside of the region. There is possibility of creating trouble for the United States, a more unstable Iraq, mass demonstrations in varieties of Muslim countries. Putting pressure on American embassies and bases would create headaches for the Pentagon and the United States.

But there are some -- some of the United States allies in the region that are seen as part of America's military and political posture towards Iran. Iran would see them as potential targets as well. But it's important to note that, you know, Iranians -- for Iranians, the time frame of revenge, the time frame of action is now their choosing, in a way the President has yielded now the initiative to Iran. He has to sit back and wait for the Iranian move.

WHITFIELD: And Vali, listen to what a Republican congressman and former CIA operative Will Hurd said just last night about the consequence of killing Soleimani.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. WILL HURD (R), TEXAS: I think today his replacement and the other generals around him are second-guessing some of the decisions that they're going to make because despite what the Iranian government said about these people wanting to be martyrs, they don't want to be martyrs, they want to live a long life.

And now they're thinking again about whether some of these actions that they're trying to take is wise for them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: How much of that do you agree with?

NASR: I don't agree with that. I think, you know, they're soldiers. They follow orders. They follow orders just like American generals, American colonels follow orders. And ultimately the Revolutionary Guard is a complex military organization. It's not a one-man show.

Yes, they're going to change their methods. Maybe they won't travel to Iraq the way Soleimani did. Maybe they won't show their face. Maybe they will do things differently.

There is a game of cloak and dagger with Israel, with the United States. They have been having that for a while. But, you know, Iran is not going to desist from what it does just because one commander was killed. They may think they were careless, they'll be more careful, but I think so long as the orders come that this is their mission and this is what they need to do, they will carry it out.

I think we sort of have focused on Soleimani way too much as sort of this terrorist mastermind. End of the day he was carrying out orders from the political side of the Iranian regime from Supreme Leader and national security council who game him orders to carry out. And that will follow with the next general as well.

[11:19:58]

WHITFIELD: So we're also seeing protests that have been unfolding as a result of the U.S. action, you know, in Baghdad against this Iranian military general and we're seeing protests in Tehran. We're seeing protests in Baghdad.

But then, you know, contrary to that there are Iranians who have expressed while they have love for country, they aren't always necessarily, in step with the government. So how is this, I guess, dynamic being straddled? Do you see a real dichotomy here?

VASR: Well, at this moment probably not. I do think that even though there's enormous amount of anger towards the Islamic Republic, many Iranians don't like the Security Forces, Soleimani personally was popular in Iran. Polls had found him to be perhaps the most popular Iranian leader. As I've said, there's been -- was talk that he might even run for president in Iran.

And then also Iranians will take -- you know, will not like the way in which the United States carried this attack. First of all, they would see it as an infringement on sovereignty, nationalism, crossing a red line.

But also the overwhelming number of Iranians don't want war. And right now they're seeing the U.S. pushing in that direction. I think most Iranians thought that when the nuclear deal was signed, things became more stable. Not everything was solved, but things became better.

They were hopeful about the future. They were hopeful about continued engagement with the United States.

WHITFIELD: And now?

NASR: They believe it's president -- they believe it's this president -- President Trump is responsible for taking a situation which was relatively better, more stable, and creating a crisis that is impacting their lives and ultimately may destroy their livelihood.

So as much as they don't like their own government, they don't think that President Trump is anything but reckless right now.

WHITFIELD: Vali Nasr --- thank you so much for being with us today from Washington.

NASR: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right. Coming up, new signs of stonewalling from the Trump administration. Details on a new batch of Ukraine-related emails the White House is reportedly refusing to turn over.

[11:22:10]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: It's been more than two weeks since President Trump was impeached, yet the stonewalling continues. According to the "New York Times", the Trump administration is now refusing a court order to release 20 emails in which White House officials discussed freezing U.S. Military aid to Ukraine. We're told the 40 pages of messages were sent by an aide to President Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and an official at the Office of Management and Budget. However, the OMB won't turn over any of the emails, not even redacted versions.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is in West Palm Beach near the President's resort where he is still vacationing. So Kristen -- what reason is the White House giving to refuse the release of these emails?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred -- essentially the administration is saying that they are allowed to withhold these emails. They are citing a law that really protects a deliberative and presidential communications. Essentially the argument is that if these emails were to be released they would inhibit government officials from having the open conversations that are needed to have to make these kids of big decisions.

So I want to take a step back though to talk about why these emails are so important and who exactly this correspondence is between.

As you said, one of them is an aide to Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, by the name of Robert Blair. The other is Mike Duffy. Mike Duffy is a Trump-appointed political official in the Office of Management and Budget. And a big part of Mike Duffy's job is overseeing foreign national money.

So you can see kind of where I'm going here. These two characters have really emerged as central figures in the events that surrounded the withholding of Ukrainian aid that eventually led to President Trump's impeachment.

We know from another document release that was court ordered under a Freedom of Information Act that essentially Mike Duffy sent an email to the Pentagon 90 minutes after President Trump got off the phone with President Zelensky telling them to freeze the aid. Not only that -- telling them to kind of keep it under wraps because he knew this could be very politically sensitive.

On the other hand, the "New York Times" reported just -- Blair essentially wrote Mick Mulvaney, they had a back-and-forth conversation, and he said that Congress would become unhinged if they were to do this.

And that entire series of emails between Mick Mulvaney and Robert Blair really painted Mulvaney as closer to this exchange, to the withholding of funds than we had really seen before. And it's clear from that email exchange, Mulvaney asking his aide if this was even allowed that Mulvaney was then going through Blair.

So this is raising a lot of antennas here as to whether or not this really was presidential communication or if there's something that is in those emails that could be critical to this trial.

WHITFIELD: Kristen Holmes -- thank you so much. We'll check back with you.

All right. Let's talk further about all with now with Margaret Talev, politics and White House editor for Axios and David Swerdlick, assistant editor for the "Washington Post". Good to see you both. Happy New Year, by the way.

DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Happy New Year.

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Happy New Year. WHITFIELD: All right. So Margaret -- you first. You know, doesn't

the White House withholding these emails now add ammunition to the House Democrats' articles of obstruction, abuse of power allegations?

TALEV: Well, it gives Democrats a new predicate if they want to continue to press Mitch McConnell to bend to the rules if they can convince that handful of Republican senators between four and six, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski -- you know the group. If they're able to convince those Republican senators that this is cause for concern or that those Republican senators should pressure the White House to make more of this information available.

But other than that, really their only recourse if they want results is the courts. And Democrats have already said that they don't want to go through the courts and get this tied up. Their only other recourse is public opinion, which seems pretty immutable at this point.

And so it's important information. It shows us how much we don't know. It shows us why the White House doesn't want to release a lot of detail. But it's not yet clear that it fundamentally changes kind of the power dynamic and the leverage that are in play when the House comes back next week.

WHITFIELD: Right. Democrats arguing going to the courts takes too long. Of course, the White House saying that's to their advantage. They would rather kind of have this dragged out a little bit longer.

[11:29:57]

WHITFIELD: So, David -- you know, in the midst of impeachment then, you know, how can this White House afford to maintain this position of withholding emails, even, you know, for the sake of public opinion?

SWERDLICK: Good morning, Fred.

Well, I think the White House can afford to maintain this position because, as Margaret said, there's a limited amount of leverage that Democrats in Congress now have. They have some leverage because they haven't sent articles of impeachment over to the Senate -- that is the House, but the House has already impeached President Trump.

So if they have already said, look, we had to impeach because going to court would take too long and the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans, ultimately controls what they're going to do, the White House can sort of sit back and knowing that the court -- the process will drag very slowly through the courts, not produce these emails.

The problem for the White House is public perception, right? What are they hiding by not releasing these emails. But I don't think it's going to change public opinion much or the votes of many members of Congress.

WHITFIELD: So, Margaret -- we already know from other released documents that there was clear direction from President Trump even from testimony, clear direction from President Trump to withhold aid and that he gave the order roughly 90 minutes after that July 25th phone call with Ukraine's president.

So what else do you think the White House is trying to hide? Or does it only appear that the White House is trying to hide something by not allowing these emails to be looked at?

TALEV: It's the $64,000 question because we don't know what the emails say. In fact we don't even know what outline and shape and form of paragraphs exist because they have declined to release the blacked-out versions in some of these cases.

But look, I think it's important to look a little bit more, to understand a little bit more of the context of who Rob Blair is and who Mick Mulvaney is.

Rob Blair is an extremely trusted foreign policy advisor to Mulvaney who came over from the Budget Office with Mulvaney. Rob Blair, just a couple of days before Christmas was also tapped, elevated to be the special representative for international telecom policy. This involves China, Huawei, 5G.

And Mulvaney himself led the budget operations before coming over as the chief of staff. So these are two individuals who are deeply knowledgeable about how to use the U.S. budgetary and payment processes, the purse strings, to -- as leverage for policy and for power.

And so it is only natural, it only makes sense that there would be a lot of communication between the Budget Office and the chief of staff's office because this is the lever that Mulvaney and his top aides know best how to use.

SWERDLICK: Yes.

WHITFIELD: so David -- House leadership, you know, says it will transmit articles of impeachment after hearing how the Senate would conduct its trial. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said just yesterday, Friday, this about his plan followed by a response coming from the Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Just like 20 years ago, we should address mid-trial questions, such as witnesses, after briefs, opening arguments, senator questions, and other relevant motions. Fair is fair.

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMNER (D), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: There was an exceedingly strong case to call witnesses and request documents before the Senate went out of session for the Christmas break.

In the short time since, that case has gotten stronger and remarkably so. We are not asking for critics of the President to serve as witnesses in the trial. We are asking only that the President's men, his top advisers, tell their side of the story.

And Leader McConnell, once again, has been unable to make one argument, one single argument as to why these witnesses and these documents should not be part of a trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, David, do you think this report of the emails or perhaps even the reports over the holiday break that Schumer was referring to could in any way potentially change the minds of those in the Senate about witnesses or the process that will unfold in the trial, in the Senate?

WATSON: Yes, Fred, on the substance, Senator Schumer has a good point. Democrats were already saying, look, let's hear from White House officials, people close to this entire Ukraine investigation. And now he's saying between emails earlier in the week that just security published and between this "New York Times" reporting about emails that have been withheld, there's clearly information about this toe dance of emails between Blair, Duffy at OMB and Elaine McCusker, the acting comptroller at the Pentagon suggesting that the House Republican story that there was nothing to see here, the White House story that this was all just routine and the President was just making sure that there was no corruption tainting this money going to Ukraine, that story is weakening based on some of this reporting, even though we don't know what's in all of those emails.

[11:35:06]

SWERDLICK: And I think Schumer is saying essentially, look, if there's nothing to see and everything the White House did was fine, why not release the emails?

The problem, as we've been saying, though, is that Republicans and Democrats are fixed in their positions. No matter how the process plays out in the Senate, there are very few Republican votes to change and very few Democratic votes, frankly, to change, no matter what information comes out.

You know, positions have hardened and it's a matter of when more than what is actually going to happen.

WHITFIELD: Yes. And Margaret, at ten seconds or less if you want to punctuate that.

TALEV: I think the biggest wild card now is Iran and how what is happening right now with the killing of Soleimani is going to affect public perception about the business of impeachment, Republican senators --

SWERDLICK: Yes.

TALEV: -- and the entire state of play when Nancy Pelosi and the House come back next week.

WHITFIELD: All right. Margaret Talev, David Swerdlick -- good to see you. Thank you so much.

SWERDLICK: Thanks -- Fred.

TALEV: You, too. Thanks.

WHITFIELD: All right. Straight ahead, powerful proxies as tensions in the region continue to rise. We'll take a look at the countries aligned with Iran and how they could be used to exact revenge on America.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: As Iranian officials promise harsh revenge for the killing of Qasem Soleimani, questions mount about what actions they might take. Before his death, Soleimani was responsible for positioning Iranian agents and proxies across the Middle East and now those groups may be used to avenge his death.

Here now is CNN's Tom Foreman with a look at where the U.S. could see potential retaliation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Iran has a robust military, so security analysts say they very well could use cruise missiles and mines and other means to attack the Strait of Hormuz here. A great flow point for the world's oil, going after tankers there, maybe going after Saudi Arabian oil fields.

In either case these are things which the United States government says Iran has done in the past year already, and even on a limited scale they have disrupted world trade in that commodity.

But what about more asymmetrical, guerrilla tactics? Those could emerge too.

For example, Iran could call on Shia militias that it backs in Iraq and tell them to press their attacks against the 5,000 or so U.S. troops remaining there. They could count on Iran for logistics and for intelligence, weapons, maybe more.

Same thing over in Syria. There, there would be Shia militia and Hezbollah also backed by Iran urged to go harder at the remaining, say, thousand U.S. troops there, maybe fewer.

[11:40:01]

FOREMAN: And then over here in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip -- yes, Iran has allies that at a moment's notice could start firing rockets over into another U.S. ally, Israel.

And then what about down here, the Houthi rebels in Yemen have already been at war with Saudi Arabia, another U.S. ally. They could be urged to step that up even more and at the same time go after more U.S. targets, wherever they could find them.

On top of which for all of this, they could be exporting terrorism from any of these places to anywhere around the world. That's why Iran may never have to actually engage with all the U.S. forces highlighted in red here. But they could simply say, look, let's have a lot of repeated attacks at many different targets that even give us a degree of deniability and that is how Iran could get what they want by simply stirring up this hornet's nest and seeing what happens.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Tom Foreman -- thank you so much.

All right. So what could a retaliation potentially look like? We'll look at the threats facing the U.S. At home and abroad. But first, this week's "Wonder Must".

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can beaches like this gem on the Oregon Coast? I mean where else do the mountains and the beach come together in one place?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today we're going to be doing Vinyasa yoga on the beach. Followed by earth (ph) lessons.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have so much nature around us, you can surf all year round. We have eagles, we've got seagulls, you have slips.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) This is part of the Oregon island's national wildlife refuge system. It was formed approximately 16 million years ago. It's currently 235 feet high. See if you will kind a sea star.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll take private small groups out foraging. I find wild mushrooms, wild berries, greens. This golden chanterelle is super popular with chefs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who likes chanterelle tonight? Who likes chanterelle?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, for the last several years we have been focused on what our guests call eat-ertainment.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: By demonstrating how we could put together these free entrees each night and they go home and try them out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're going to inspire you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We want to inspire.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We inspire. Here's to returning friends, new friends, good food and great conversation. Cheers. Dig in.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[11:42:21]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Iran promises to seek, quote, "harsh revenge" following the death of its top military general. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani threatening that Americans will face the consequences of killing Qasem Soleimani for years to come. That extreme warning leaving the U.S. to wonder exactly when and how Iran will strike back.

Joining me right now to discuss, David Sanger, a national security correspondent for the "New York Times" and a CNN political and national security analyst. David -- good to see you.

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Good to be with you.

WHITFIELD: So how does the U.S. prepare for, I'm quoting now, "harsh revenge"?

SANGER: Well, you know, you saw a little bit of the preparation in two warnings that came out in the past 24 hours. The first was telling all Americans to leave Iraq and not to approach the U.S. embassy. That tells you that there wasn't a plan in place or really couldn't be because it would have tipped General Soleimani off to evacuate Americans prior. So right now they're in a sort of a bad position in Iraq.

The second warning came from the Department of Homeland Security which is aware of Iran's cyber capabilities. And cyber is really the only way that Iran can reach the homeland United States.

Yes, they could try to conduct acts of terrorism in the U.S. There was an Iranian effort to assassinate a Saudi ambassador in Washington in 2011. But by and large, Iran's reach for both its missile fleet and its terrorists does not make it to the U.S. So there is really cyber that is the number one concern.

WHITFIELD: Yes. So you really described more of a reaction as opposed to preparations, those things that you just underscored.

SANGER: Yes.

WHITFIELD: So then now that we're learning -- you know, CNN is learning that 2,800 U.S. soldiers from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division are heading to the Middle East right now, in your latest piece for the "New York Times" you write, I'm quoting now, "For a president who repeated his determination to withdraw from the cauldron of Middle East, the strike that killed Major General Qasem Soleimani means there will be no escape from the region for the rest of his presidency, whether that is one year or five."

So the President sending more troops to the Middle East, in your view, he is about to start an endless campaign.

SANGER: Well, those troops presumably are there, with that number of troops, for largely defensive purposes. But what you heard from Donald Trump as a candidate and what you heard from him as president since was it's time to get the U.S. troops out of the Middle East.

WHITFIELD: We just lost our David -- oh, there we go. Our signals got crossed there, but continue.

SANGER: I said you can't both pull the troops out and try to have an effective system of pursuing terrorists in the Middle East. And so --

(CROSSTALKING)

WHITFIELD: Like more recently pulling the U.S. troops out of Syria, thereby end up relocating some and then now sending a whole new contingent in response to a drone attack taking down an Iranian general.

SANGER: Yes. And you wonder was there a whole lot of consideration about whether the decision to go after Soleimani, for all the benefits it may bring the U.S., was worth reversing what the President's commitment was to go withdraw the U.S. from the Middle East.

Now, there's an argument to be made that there's no reasonable way to actually withdraw the U.S. from the Middle East and that he couldn't do what he said. But certainly it does seem to run counter to the broad objectives he ran on.

WHITFIELD: So Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is among those who is, you know, defending this action and also trying to, you know, smooth over things diplomatically -- if at all possible.

Iraqi officials, however, are saying this attack was a violation of their sovereignty. How do you see the potential response or reaction from Iraq, since this did happen on Iraqi soil, but involving an Iranian military general?

SANGER: It's a fascinating question, because there is not a single view on this in Iraq.

[11:49:56]

SANGER: There are some political parties, and many people in Iraq, who are tired of the American presence. And if they can use this as an opportunity to get all the Americans out, they would seize the moment.

There are others who are clearly tired of the Iranian influence. And remember, it was just three weeks ago that we were covering anti-Iran protests that were happening in the streets of Iraq. In Baghdad, but also out in some of the provinces.

And so I think the big question here is which of those two forces wins out because while there are many who are angry that the United States did this in violation of Iraqi sovereignty, there are probably many others who are celebrating that the Iranians got a pretty bad punch here for their involvement inside Iraq.

WHITFIELD: David Sanger -- we'll leave it there for now. Thank you so much.

SANGER: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Thick smoke, red skies and deadly flames forcing tens of thousands from their homes. Australia's wildfires are showing no signs of stopping, and for evacuees the dire situation is only getting worse.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi guys. Just a little update from Mallacoota shelter. It's 2:00 in the afternoon and we're still (INAUDIBLE). We're going to be hanging out inside and waiting for the next air evac. Thanks for all your support. We love you so much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:55:05]

WHITFIELD: Welcome back. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

Firefighters in Australia preparing for another day battling catastrophic fires across the southern part of the country. One official comparing the destruction to an atomic bomb.

Saturday brought more record-breaking heat and high winds. The sky transitioning from that hazy yellow there to a dark red as thousands of people flee their homes.

In some areas, officials say it is too late to leave. And they're telling people to take shelter as the flames approach.

Overnight in Victoria, three huge fires merging, now forming a single blaze the size of Manhattan. And the prime minister announced the deployment of 3,000 military troops to assist firefighters.

CNN's Andrew Stevens is in New South Wales. So Andrew -- you know, how much longer are these conditions expected to continue like this?

ANDREW STEVENS, CNN ASIA PACIFIC EDITOR: Well, the conditions are changing as we speak. We've seen a new weather front coming in from the south towards the fires which is pushing the fires away from the coastal areas -- Fredricka.

But it's still so many dozens, more than 100 fires burning, raging out of control. As you say, some of those fires are now merging into mega fires if you like. There have been evacuations, tens of thousands of evacuations around both New South Wales and Victoria and now for many of these communities -- and these are mostly rural communities at this stage.

As you say, it's too late to leave. And we've been listening all day to warnings from the fire service in Australia saying if you are in these areas, it is too late to get out, so do the best you can to prepare for the ongoing fire.

These fires have been fanned by extraordinarily hot temperatures over the past 24 hours. On the outer suburbs of Sydney, for example, temperatures reaching nearly 120 degrees. It's 4:00 in the morning where we are and we're a couple of hours out of Sydney and it's still more than 80 degrees. Now, you add that to very strong, hot, dry winds and you get these conditions for these infernos.

And what happens? When fires reach a certain size, they start creating their own weather system effectively which causes thunderstorms, which causes lightning strikes, which causes new forest fires. So that's what we're seeing at the moment.

The services have been stretched to the limit just to fight these. As I say, a cooler front is moving in. It's going to be cooler in Australia in the next 24 hours, but still just as dry and certainly at last count there's something like 150 fires which are uncontained, i.e., they are out of control.

They're being bombed from the air. They're being attacked by firefighters on the ground, but at this stage it's still absolutely dire, the situation in both New South Wales and Victoria.

WHITFIELD: It's unbelievable. And it's hard to believe but obviously we're seeing the pictures. You're there and the people who are living through this. I mean, this is their very harsh, frightening reality.

Thank you so much, Andrew Stevens. Appreciate it.

For more information on how you can help the victims of these deadly fires, go to CNN.com/impact.

[11:58:20]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)