Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. Troops Deploying To Middle East As Iran Mourns Top General; NYT: White House Withholding E-mails On Ukraine Aid; Sanders Attacks Biden's Foreign Policy Record; Biden Critical Of Trump's Iran Strategy; U.S. Braces For Iran Response Including A Possible Cyberattack; Searing Heat & Strong Winds Fueling Australia's Wildfires; Rising Crisis In Middle East Forces Democratic Candidates To Focus On Foreign Policy; Is Trump's Iran Attack A "Wag The Dog" To Distract From Impeachment. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 04, 2020 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:32]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ALEXANDER MARQUARDT, CNN HOST: I'd like to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I am Alex Marquardt, in today for Ana Cabrera.

There are more than 3,000 U.S. troops who have been sent to the Middle East this past week to bolster the U.S. presence that's already there. Now, that's at the same time the Trump administration is preparing to -- with Congress a possible timeline for military retaliation somewhere, that retaliation coming, of course, from Iran in the aftermath of this man's death. Qasem Soleimani, who was a top Iranian military general, head of the shadowy Quds Force, one of the country's most powerful men.

President Trump said he ordered the mission to kill Soleimani because Soleimani was planning on attacking Americans that he described as sinister and imminent.

The president of Iran saying the United States made a, quote, grave mistake and will face consequences.

Today, CNN has learned that the White House has warned members of Congress to prepare for some kind of Iranian retaliation within weeks, possibly sooner. Pentagon insiders also telling CNN that there are conflicting views over the chances that Iran could launch a revenge attack soon, possibly within days.

Now, meanwhile, the force protection level for the troops in the Middle East has been raised, meaning the possibility they believe an attack is likely.

CNN's International Security Editor, Nick Paton Walsh, is in Beirut, the capital of the country whose leaders are also calling for revenge after Qasem Soleimani's killing and CNN's Dianne Gallagher is with me here in Washington. Dianne, a senior Trump administration official today filling in some

gaps on that decision to kill Soleimani. What are they saying about why they did it and when?

DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And so, what we're learning here especially how this was different from say the mission to take out bin Laden or Baghdadi, and the fact is that it appears that U.S. intelligence had had their eyes on Soleimani quite frequently.

They knew his moves, they knew who he was speaking with, they knew what he was doing. So, he was not ala bin Laden or Baghdadi in an undisclosed location. They had been able to track him, which means they had multiple options, according to this senior administration official, to sort of make their move there.

Now, in an on-the-record call with national security adviser, Ambassador Robert O'Brien, he said that Soleimani had arrived in Baghdad from already being in Damascus, that he had been traveling around. And that they took into account the bombing of the base, the strike on the base that killed a U.S. contractor and injured U.S. service members, as well as the situation at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and then alluded to this evidence they talked about but not elaborated on, that there was some sort of imminent threat to American interests -- service members and diplomats, according to O'Brien.

Now, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, has said that it was compelling evidence, but when asked about what imminent meant, he said it anywhere between days, weeks or months in planning. Democrats, we're told by congressional sources, who have now been presented that information, say that some of them are not quite convinced that this was something that needed to be done right now, Alex, especially with the risk factor in taking out someone like Soleimani right now and what the retaliation could be.

But according to this senior official, they took this chance not because it was a golden opportunity, but because at that point, they felt that the evidence they were presented as far as intelligence went meant that they needed to do it now.

MARQUARDT: And the I risk of response and expected retaliation that many fear could come from Iranian -- Iran's very powerful proxies.

I want to look at some new images we've gotten in from Iraq. A funeral procession there of people who are mourning the death of Qasem Soleimani. We've also seen funerals -- a funeral procession in Iran.

Nick Paton Walsh, I want to get to you in Beirut. As I was saying to Dianne, the fear of response is going to be coming from those proxy groups. Lebanon, of course, home to Hezbollah, one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful proxy group that Iran has, and I should say that that talk of revenge is coming from Hezbollah's leadership.

[16:05:03] So, what is Hezbollah saying, and how does the power of Hezbollah represent that fear of what the proxy groups of Iran could do against U.S. targets in Lebanon and the region?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: Yes, I mean, it's unclear at this stage exactly what role around proxies will play in executing what they refer to as harsh revenge. We heard from Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, calmer statements possibly saying there will be victories for the axis of resistance, how he refers to kind of the anti-Western groups often backed by Iran across the region that resisted the U.S. presence here because of, quote, the blood of Qasem Soleimani.

We will see a substantial mourning procession in southern Beirut, the Hezbollah strong area tomorrow. Well, we may hear more from Hassan Nasrallah about he views Hezbollah's role going forward. Obviously, Israel to the south of Lebanon on the highest state of alert, fearing possibly that their long standing enmity with Iran-backed Hezbollah here in Lebanon, Hezbollah, the most powerful political and military force here, may possibly again ignite some kind of catastrophic confrontation between the two of them.

But as you heard there from Dianne, the U.S. is split that some kind of retaliation is imminent or may be planned in the months ahead on a more strategic, calmer level by Iran.

We heard from Kataib Hezbollah, which are kind of a different Iraqi faction backed by Iran that they have told Iran -- sorry, Iraq's military to get away from bases where the U.S. military by tomorrow, get a kilometer, about two-thirds of a mile away from the bases, presumably suggesting they may consider military action against them. Of course, the U.S. will be able to defend themselves against these circumstances.

We're beginning to see the initial, possible, more florid retaliation by Iran in this region. Quite what they choose to do in the longer, strategic term, unclear.

I should give you one piece of information I heard from U.S. official in the last hours, there's been some debate about some of the things that Qasem Soleimani said to be planning imminently may still be executed now he's dead. I hear from this U.S. official now, quote, things will change now that Soleimani is no longer around, suggesting perhaps the plots under his command may have to rethink exactly what they're doing.

You are seeing lightning behind me there, Alex. No cause for alarm. But also too that the plots were, quote, pretty imminent. So, as you can hear behind me, the storm clouds are gathering over Lebanon.

But a real possibility the Middle East will see immediate retaliation, perhaps not on the most severe level that Iran's capable of inflicting but definitely their way of showing a public immediate response. I have to say though, looking really at how Iran will use it strategically will have in the months ahead I'm sure something closer at home to the United States, further away from world protected locked down assets here in the Middle East.

And remember, Alex, so much of the tension around Iran's nuclear program, it must be part of Iran's leadership wondering whether or not now is the time to go for broke and try to get their hands properly on a nuclear weapon -- Alex.

MARQUARDT: All right. Well, that lightning right on cue really illustrating the mood in the Middle East.

Nick Paton Walsh in Beirut, Dianne Gallagher here in Washington -- thanks very much.

Now, the killing of Qassem Soleimani really did strike at the heart of Iran's military operations in a number of countries. Many experts and citizens of Iran did consider him the second most powerful figure in the country, perhaps even more so than the president. He answered only to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Now as head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard's elite Quds Force, Soleimani's importance to Iran was immeasurable, cannot be understated. And now, world leaders are bracing for his -- for possible retaliation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT (voice-over): The car carrying Iran's most powerful military commander destroyed beyond recognition by the missile strike from the American military drone flying overhead. Confirmation coming quickly the ruthless and cunning Quds Force commander, Qassem Soleimani, was targeted and killed.

Top U.S. officials tell CNN that attacks against U.S. targets planned by Soleimani were imminent, though the Trump administration has yet to provide any evidence.

There was compelling intelligence that Soleimani was planning a significant campaign of violence in the coming days, weeks and months. General Mark Milley adding: Damn right there's risk to the U.S. safety in the region and we would be culpably negligent if we didn't take action.

MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: He was actively plotting in the region to take action. It's a big action as he described it, that would have put dozens, if not hundreds, of American lives at risk. We know it was imminent. This was an intelligence-based assessment that drove our decision-making process.

[16:10:03]

MARQUARDT: Ahead of a possible Iranian response, the Pentagon sending around 3,000 more troops to the region, adding to the beefed-up presence that followed violent protests at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Hundreds of U.S. service members have been killed by Soleimani's actions according to U.S. officials, thousands more maimed, mainly by improvised explosive devices that Iran sent to insurgents in Iraq. U.S. officials tell CNN that Soleimani was planning more attacks

against U.S. targets in multiple countries across the region, intelligence reports, they say, highlighted threats that were more significant than usual.

POMPEO: We watched the intelligence flow in that talked about Soleimani's travel in the region and the work he was doing to put Americans further at risk.

MARQUARDT: Sixty-two-year-old Soleimani joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. For over 20 years, he had been the head of its shadowy Quds Force, orchestrating military action and terrorist attacks in the Middle East and around the world.

He supported and directed effort to proxy forces like Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel and militias in Iraq against ISIS, which also committed war crimes against Sunni Muslim civilians.

The Trump administration says that Soleimani approved those attacks this week on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. But the killing of Soleimani has left the U.S. presence in Iraq in doubt, with powerful forces demanding the eviction of the Americans. The Iraqi prime minister calling the attack a flagrant violation of the U.S./Iraq security agreement.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT: So let's discuss all of this. I'm joined by Air Force Lieutenant Dave Deptula and "Washington Post" columnist Josh Rogin.

Thank you both for joining me, gentlemen.

The big question now -- we've heard this explanation from the administration, that these attacks against U.S. interests in the region were imminent.

Josh, are you satisfied with the amount of information that we've gotten from the administration to justify this killing of truly a monumental figure?

JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think anyone is satisfied because I don't think we have gotten information. While there's conflicting reports in the press it seemed Qasem Soleimani was on a regional trip for a number of different reasons.

We can guess that he wasn't in Iraq meeting with a bunch of terrorist leaders to be on vacation, but to make the claim that the legal justification that there was an imminent attack that would, quote, kill hundreds of U.S. soldiers, which is a pretty serious large-scale attack, I think because the administration has a well-earned credibility problem, that is something that will have to be backed up by evidence sooner or later.

MARQUARDT: General, the national security adviser Robert O'Brien was asked specifically yesterday what the threats were. What more do you need to learn from the administration to understand why this administration compared to others decided to act on this intelligence about where Soleimani was and kill him?

LT. GENERAL DAVE DEPTULA, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): Well, I think, Alex -- first, you're not going to get all of the intelligence information that led to this decision released immediately for a variety of reasons that are very, very obvious. But when you have the president of the United States, OK, understand some folks concerns, but then the secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff adamantly talking about the veracity of the intelligence information that Soleimani was planning and in charge of and getting ready to orchestrate operations that would results in the death of hundreds of Americans, I believe him.

MARQUARDT: When -- Republicans have largely celebrated this move, congratulated the president, Republicans and Democrats, saying of course, he was a horrible person who deserved to be taken out. But, Josh, there are obviously going to be massive ramifications, potentially deadly retaliation. That is what is expected.

Do you get the sense that there is a strategy by this administration to contain that?

ROGIN: Right, I think there's overwhelming bipartisan agreement that Soleimani was a bad guy and his death will have a net security benefit when you ignore the rest of the regional implications. But as I talked to the senior administration officials over the last two days, it seems like they don't know what's going to happen next.

Now, they have taken protection measures, which is good, they're moving a lot of forces to the region, which is good. You could say maybe they should have moved them to the region before they took this action. But, anyway, we have a lot of forces in the region.

But they -- and you can be sure the military has planned out military scenarios. But on the diplomatic and political front, there's a gap. There's a dearth of information about how they will deal with the political fallout with the Iraqi government, how to deal with the tenuous situation of U.S. troops in Syria, and what is the diplomatic strategy to have a de-escalation.

[16:15:03]

Secretary Pompeo says all the time, he's committed to deescalate. I asked senior administration officials, how are you doing that? What's the plan for de-escalation, and they had nothing, blank stares. And that's the problem.

MARQUARDT: General, to that point does the sending of over 3,000 members of the 82nd Airborne, the raising of the force protection level to Charlie, which you know means they believe an attack is likely, does that sound like de-escalation?

DEPTULA: What it sounds like is a prudent set of measures to take to defend American interests and personnel in the region. Now, I would suggest to you that we need to move away from this notion

of associating strategy with numbers of pairs of boots on the ground. Because quite frankly, large numbers of U.S. personnel in the region is a lucrative target for the Iranians. But at the same time, one needs to realize that those troops have been sent over there for a specific purpose, and the action that the president took has re- instilled the notion of deterrence in the Iranian leadership. They now understand that there are consequences to their actions.

He acted with incredible restraint and prudence over the last 18 months in the face of aggressive Iranian actions in violation of international law. You and your audience very familiar with the attacks on the Iranian tankers, the seizing of tankers, the shoot-down of the American drone in international air space, the attacks on Saudi Arabia.

And there was a measured response. There was no lethal force response. In this case, the president set a red line, Iranian is crossed it, and he acted.

So that's going to garner their attention in the context of what their next move might be.

MARQUARDT: But we know that there's a move coming, and Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said yesterday when asked if there's risk, he said damn right, there is risk, but the price of inaction was higher than the price of taking out Soleimani.

Josh, in speaking with your sources, and we've only heard vague notions that they could respond in days, weeks and months and that this would be an asymmetric attack that could be across the Middle East and maybe even the homeland, what are your sources telling you in terms of what we might be expecting as a response from Iran?

ROGIN: Well, right now the current understanding inside the administration is that it might not be immediate. There could be a series of responses. They're likely to hit the softest targets, American citizens in these countries could be specifically targeted. That's what some of the intelligence is saying.

So you can't defend everyone everywhere. And, you know, to the General Deptula's point about deterrence, deterrence is important and that's part of the calculation of each of these tactical moves but there's a risk as you step up this escalation ladder, that on each stage you make a smart tactical decision, but over time, it leads you to a path that spirals of control.

And I think what we are facing is if we see retaliation and then we have re-retaliation, to the reestablish the deterrence while the deterrence keeps going until we're into a situation we can't get out of.

MARQUARDT: A vicious, dangerous cycle.

Josh Rogin, General Deptula -- DEPTULA: Let me quickly add that you can't allow fear to deter the

protection of U.S. personnel and interests. And the best way to deter the Iranians now is have them understand that we have overwhelming force and can crush them like a bug. That's how you induce deterrence in the Iranian actions for the future.

ROGIN: Yes, but that should also be paired with diplomacy so we don't have to crush them like a bug and we can get out of this in a peaceful manner.

MARQUARDT: And the fact we're going back and forth about this and asking these questions does illustrate there's still a lot of questions the administration needs to answer after the news of the strike on Thursday. Folks, we have to leave it there. Thank you very much.

DEPTULA: Have a great day.

MARQUARDT: You too.

MARQUARDT: All right. A quick programming note on "STATE OF THE UNION" tomorrow morning, Jake Tapper is going to be joined by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a major interview as well as former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senator Elizabeth Warren and the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. You can be sure they will have a lot to say about what's going on with Iran.

"STATE OF THE UNION" airs tomorrow, Sunday morning, 9:00 Eastern Time, right here on CNN.

Now, a new report -- new report alleges that the White House is defying a court order to turn over emails relating to Ukraine. We'll have details on why those messages could be significant.

Plus, 30 days before the first votes are cast in the 2020 primary season, and foreign policy is becoming a central issue. What the top candidates are saying.

We'll also be taking you to Australia live where two massive wildfires have combined forming a blaze that is bigger than the island of Manhattan.

[16:20:06]

All that coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUARDT: The White House is refusing to turn over 40 pages of emails concerning that hold on the aid, military aid for Ukraine, some $400 million of it, despite the fact they were ordered by a court to do so.

Now, the emails that are in question are between an aide for the acting White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, and this man, Michael Duffey, a White House official who's with the Office of the Management and Budget. The emails were requested by "The New York Times" as part of a Freedom of Information request. And the paper says that they're going to fight with the White House in court to turn them over.

CNN White House Correspondent, Jeremy Diamond is live for us in the West Palm Beach, near the president's Mar-a-Lago resort, and "Politico" congressional reporter, Melanie Zanona is here with me in Washington.

Jeremy, first to you. Why are these emails so crucial? Why would "The New York Times" be going to court to try to get them?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alex, Robert Blair and Michael Duffey are two of the central figures in this Ukraine scandal. At least as far as how the White House and Office of Management and Budget was handling this situation, both the initial decision to actually freeze the aid and then the months of internal debate that took place over how to convince the president to release this hold on this nearly $400 million in security aid, and the legal justifications around what exactly to do.

We have already seen some of these redacted emails that have been released by the Office of Management and Budget, by some of these agencies in response to the Freedom of Information Act request, but as we're now seeing, the White House is refusing to provide additional emails, 20 emails between Duffey and Blair concerning this Ukraine situation.

Now, we already know from the legal policy website Just Security, they have actually obtained some of the unredacted emails that have been released in redacted fashion. One of those emails shows kind of just exactly why this administration may not want additional emails to come out, and that is because it's an email from Michael Duffey, the senior OMB official, to a Department of Defense official saying clear direction from POTUS to continue hold.

That was an email on August 30th that made clear that the president of the United States was the one directly responsible for this hold on the security aid, and not just the initial hold but really the ongoing hold. And this email would have been sent after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Defense Secretary Mark Esper and other top officials, including the former national security adviser John Bolton in late August met with the president, tried to convince him to release the hold and the response here is quite clear -- clear direction from POTUS, that is president of the United States, to continue the hold.

[16:25:11]

MARQUARDT: And that, of course, that email tying the president directly into all of this. Melanie, is there a reason -- this, of course, smacks of the White House trying to hide something. Is there a reason other than the White House wanting to hide whatever's in these emails that they could use to justify this?

MELANIE ZANONA, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, the law that they're citing is a presidential communications law. Essentially, the White House is arguing if we disclose these emails, it will inhibit future government employees from able to freely and candidly discuss government matters in an open way. But, of course, as you mentioned, there is the public perception risk. It looks like perhaps they have something to hide. If you don't, why not release the emails?

But, you know, this has been the White House strategy from day one and it's worked very well for them. Democrats have admitted openly that they're not interested in waiting around for the court battles to play out. So, even if the White House might ultimately lose in court, they know in the short term they don't have a whole lot to lose here by not disclosing these emails before a Senate trial.

MARQUARDT: As you guys know, at the end of the year, the big news story was the fact the president had just been impeached by the House, president going on vacation to Mar-a-Lago, where Jeremy is, just days after that. But these articles of impeachment have not been sent to the Senate. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has withhold them so far, and that has been several weeks.

Now, Jeremy, we have these new tensions with Iran, this incredible strike in killing Qasem Soleimani. Jeremy, do you think the White House feels that from the air around the impeachment has been let out and is replaced with everything that's going on with Iran?

DIAMOND: Well, the focus certainly has shifted, Alex. I mean, as you said, this was a momentous decision by the president of the United States to carry out the strike to take out one of Iran's top generals and all of the attention, all of the oxygen frankly in Washington has shifted to this issue.

And it has also set up really a contrast that the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill are relishing right now, and that is you have a president of the United States focused on matters of national security, focused on the threat that Iran poses, that this administration sees from Iran, and on the other hand you have Democrats who are continuing to focus on impeachment, calling -- withholding those articles of impeachment, not sending them over to the Senate yet.

And so far, what we're seeing from Democrats at least is the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer both still very much focused on this impeachment matter. Both making pronouncements on Friday, making clear both to the public as well as to their colleagues, that they will continue to call for this fair and thorough trial in the Senate. They are still very much focused on that, even as they do engage in some of the discussion around this strike on Qasem Soleimani.

But, again, that is the contrast that the White House, Republicans are certainly relishing. We've already seen several top Republicans come out and point out that contrast between those two things.

MARQUARDT: Yes, that really was kind of a surprise that Pelosi did withhold those articles of impeachment, not send them over to the Senate right away. There were some Democrats, Melanie, who were supportive of that initially. Now that that's happened, now we've had a few weeks to ruminate and think about that, how is that shaking out politically?

ZANONA: Well, you know, there is some concern that whenever Pelosi does release the articles to the Senate, that she will look like she's caved, right?

MARQUARDT: Right.

ZANONA: It's especially if she doesn't get a whole lot in return. But I would also argue that Pelosi has gotten some things already. Number one, she's allowed time for new information to come out, including "The New York Times" report that came out, some of these new emails that were released. And number two, she's essentially focused the narrative on a fair trial and what does it look like.

The big question is, does it put any pressure on moderate Republicans that could be potential swing votes either in the trial itself or on the rules package? But we will look out for that next week when they return to Washington.

MARQUARDT: A lot of movement coming up next week on Capitol Hill.

ZANONA: That's right.

MARQUARDT: We know you will be all over it.

And Jeremy Diamond will be back in Washington.

Melanie Zanona and Jeremy Diamond, thanks very much.

ZANONA: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: Now, with just 30 days now until the caucuses in Iowa, candidates are sharpening their attacks as those tensions we have been talking about with Iran are dominating the conversation. We are live on the campaign trail. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:32:54]

MARQUARDT: Hard to believe, but just one month from today, we're going to be poring over those results from the Iowa caucuses, the official starting gun of the 2020 presidential campaign.

For most of the Democratic candidates, that means as much time as possible in the Hawkeye State. And for Iowans living there, pretty much a 24/7 chance to catch up with those 2020 contenders.

In this hour, Bernie Sanders fans will be gathering in Burundi Center in Iowa for a town hall as the Andrew Yang Gang meets and greets in Mt. Pleasant. Other candidates in Iowa include Tom Steyer, Marianne Williamson, John Delaney and Joe Biden.

Our CNN Political Reporter, Arlette Saenz, is following the Biden campaign from Vincent, Iowa. Arlette, to some extent, the political ground has shifted in the wake

of the death of the Iranian military commander, Qassem Soleimani. Foreign policy now coming to the fore just 30 days before the caucuses.

Bernie Sanders has already been in some sort of attack mode against Joe Biden, who voted for the war in Iraq in 2003. What is Sanders saying and how is Biden responding?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, Alex, Bernie Sanders has certainly tried to bring that 2002 vote from Joe Biden where he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Bernie Sanders has been trying to bring that front and center, criticizing Biden, saying he's on the wrong side of history with that.

Biden is not really engaging. In fact, last night, he told reporters he would not respond to Bernie Sanders' ridiculous comments. In the past, Biden has acknowledged he would have voted differently.

But really, on this trip, Biden has been very critical of President Trump's strategy when it comes to Iran.

Take a listen to what he had to tell voters here in Benton, Iowa, just a short while ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES & DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We better be prepared. I hope we're prepared to have -- make sure we can protect American interests in that part of the world, around the world, have thought it through rather than put us in world jeopardy.

[16:35:00]

Because the last thing we need now is another war in Middle East but this time not six million or eight million people but 40 million people, a sophisticated country. It better be worth what, in fact, he did. Not at all sure that's the case right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: When it comes to Bernie Sanders' criticism of Biden over Iraq, it's unclear how much potency that's going to have in this 2020 race.

I have to tell you, I spoke with several voters here at the Biden event and they said that does not necessarily affect their views of Biden's policy judgment. They said this was back in 2002, this is now 2020. Certainly, other voters in the state may feel differently.

But Biden, throughout this campaign, has really tried to make foreign policy one of his key attributes, key selling points, saying he has the experience on day one to be president.

We will see in the coming days how much of a focus foreign policy is for those voters as they're heading to the caucuses in 30 days -- Alex?

MARQUARDT: Yes, we will. Not traditionally one of the most important topics for voters.

Arlette Saenz, in her second home in Iowa, thank you very much.

Now as Iran vows revenge in the wake of the U.S. drone strike against Qassem Soleimani, officials are bracing from another kind of response from Iran, a possible cyberattack. Is the U.S. prepared? We will be asking that question next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUARDT: I've got some breaking news. A senior White House official is telling CNN that the Trump administration official is planning to send a formal notification to Congress today of the drone strike that was ordered by President Trump this week against Qassem Soleimani. That is under the War Powers Act.

This, of course, comes 48 hours almost after the death, the killing of Qassem Soleimani.

Now U.S. authorities are bracing for retaliation from Iran. They have vowed a harsh revenge. That retaliation could be in a conventional way, a military strike in the Middle East or elsewhere. It could also be, some experts say, an act of terrorism here in the United States.

One thing that we're also considering is a cyberattack from Iran.

CNN Tech Reporter, Brian Fung, joins me now.

Brian, what are officials saying about the likelihood that Iran, at least in part, would respond with a cyberattack?

BRIAN FUNG, CNN TECHNOLOGY REPORTER: U.S. officials are warning U.S. businesses and everyone in the private sector essentially to keep an eye out for increased levels of cyber activity from Iran. Experts say the risk of a cyberattack from Iran is real.

Iran has gotten a lot better at cyberattacks over the last few years. It's increasingly ramped up its capabilities. It's become essentially from a third-rate power to second-tier threat, not quite as powerful or capable as a China or Russia but still dangerous enough to cause serious damage.

[16:40:10]

MARQUARDT: Also lumped in often with North Korea.

When you look at the landscape of infrastructure in the United States, not just government but private, not just national but local municipal and state level, how vulnerable are we to a potential cyberattack from Iran?

FUNG: So there are two components to this essentially. One is how soft are the American targets, and what are the capabilities that Iran has?

In the past, Iran has gone after U.S. banks, taking down their Web sites. It's also gone after casinos, stealing credit card information and Social Security numbers. All of those are potentially on the table here.

But also Iran's gotten much more sophisticated since that time, according to experts.

MARQUARDT: Is there anything that regular Americans should be on the lookout for or anything they could be doing to prevent this kind of thing?

FUNG: Keep in mind, the most important targets that Iran will likely be going after are businesses and organizations, institutions, potentially even the critical infrastructure of the United States, power grids, water supplies, communications networks and financial networks.

So all of these are probably going to be the first tier of vulnerabilities that the United States will face.

MARQUARDT: This wouldn't come out of the clear blue sky. There already has been a lot of fighting, if you will, online between the United States and Iran. So this is something that is seriously being considered as one of the ways they will retaliate.

Brian Fung, thank you very much.

FUNG: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: Now in Australia, there are devastating wildfires that are scorching the country. Three massive wildfires, combined into one, burning in an area larger than Manhattan. We'll take you there next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARQUARDT: Australians are waking up to another day of wildfires that are nothing short of apocalyptic. They have been burning mostly across the country's southern coast.

Firefighters are coming off of what is perhaps the most difficult day yet, battling flames that are fueled by record high temperatures as well as strong winds.

[16:45:08]

In Victoria, three separate fires have combined into one giant blaze that is the same size as Manhattan. Think about that.

The death toll has already risen to at least 23 people across the country.

The fire is disrupting summer plans. Beaches looking more like war zones.

CNN's Andrew Stevens is in New South Wales, where a state of emergency has been declared.

Andrew, southern winds have started up, I understand. What does that mean for those fires?

ANDREW STEVENS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it means that there's now a respite to these fires. The past 24 hours have been just terrifying in their intensity, Alex.

Tens of thousands of people managed to evacuate before the fires came through. Thousands more left it too late. Were told by the fire services stay in your homes, do not try to get out from your towns now because it's just too late.

Miraculously, there has been very little loss of life. One person has been declared dead from a heart attack trying to defend one of his friend's homes. But apart from that, the damage has been mainly property.

And today, as Australia wakes up, conditions are much, much milder. It's actually there are drops of rain in some of the worst affected areas.

The number of bushfires is at an emergency level, the highest level they can be. It dropped from something like 24 yesterday, Alex, to just six today.

Certainly, despite these conditions, they're expected to last the rest of the week.

But there are still fires going, more than 150 fires going just in New South Wales, which gives you an idea of the scale of the problem which faces firefighters.

MARQUARDT: So 150 fires. All right, our thoughts with the people and the firefighters who are battling them.

Andrew Stevens, thank you very much.

Obviously, many of you are asking how you can help the victims of Australia's devastating Bushfires. Head on over to CNN.com/impact for some answers.

As tensions with Iran are on the rise and there are threats of retaliation, we're going to be discussing how the Iran crisis is impacting the 2020 race and the Democrats' impeachment fight. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:51:04]

MARQUARDT: It's a new year and there's a new twist in the 2020 election, as this tense scenario is playing out with Iran. Now foreign policy is taking center stage. So how could that situation with Iran help reshape the whole election? CNN's Political Commentator. S.E. Cupp, the host of "S.E. CUPP

UNFILTERED," joins me, along with CNN political commentator, Keith Boykin, a former White House aide for Bill Clinton.

S.E., let's start with you.

Like it or not, foreign policy, which hasn't really been featured all that much in this race so far, is now front and center. Who does it help and who does it hurt?

S.E. CUPP, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, that remains to be seen. I think the 2020 Democratic candidates will be asked some tough questions.

And it's one thing to Monday morning quarterback about what this administration just did. It will be another to respond to questions about what they will do next if they become president.

I think certainly that disadvantages people with no foreign policy experience, maybe people like Andrew Yang. Although maybe he has an interesting answer about what he would do.

But for someone like Joe Biden, obviously, whose resume, whose background in foreign policy is certainly longer than anyone else's, he will, I think, get the bulk of the attention and scrutiny when it comes to Iran and what to do next.

And that's a double-edged sword, Alex. While he's got the most experience, it isn't all highlights, as some of the other Democrats like to point out.

So it remains to be seen how that's going to shake out politically for him.

MARQUARDT: I think for a lot of Democrats, the first thing that came to mind after the strike of Qassem Soleimani, at least politically, was wag the dog.

Keith, let's remind our viewers that is a reference to Bill Clinton, who was accused of launching a military strike in order to distract from his impeachment. Does it look like that to you?

KEITH BOYKIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look at history and you see that Donald Trump himself tweeted about this back in, I think, 2011, where he accused Barack Obama of wanting to start a war with Iran in order to win re-election.

Here we are in 2020, in an election year, when Donald Trump has basically -- this action is likely to precipitate into a war that could possibly have an impact on his election.

I think people will have a certain amount of cynicism when you look at Donald Trump's actions and compare it to what he said in the past, it makes you think maybe he was predicting what he might do under those circumstances.

But I think there's a great deal of hypocrisy that this administration is facing because he was the president who said he wasn't about war, he wanted peace and negotiate deals, and he could that that and Obama couldn't.

Now he's the president himself, impeached president, and he can't figure out a way to solve the crisis in Iran after he ripped up the JCPOA, the Iran deal. And he's saying we may now be on the verge of war.

What happened to his great diplomatic skills that were supposed to solve these crises in the way Obama couldn't? It makes him look like a feckless, ineffective, dishonest leader in terms of foreign policy.

It benefits the Democrats and Joe Biden in particular because of foreign policy experience. Maybe other candidates, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who were opposed to the Iraq war in the first place.

MARQUARDT: OK.

BOYKIN: There's a long list that benefit. And none of those I think are Donald Trump.

MARQUARDT: It's often been said of this president there's a tweet for everything and, in this case, it's a clip from November 2011. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. I believe he will attack Iran some time prior to the election because he thinks that's the only way he can get elected. Isn't it pathetic?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[16:55:13]

MARQUARDT: Remember, that is from November 2011.

S.E., your reaction to that.

CUPP: I think it was as reckless of then Donald Trump, citizen Trump, to make that allegation about President Obama as it is now to make it about President Trump.

I have not seen the intelligence yet. Neither of you have seen the intelligence yet. No one has. And we should. We should absolutely know why this administration felt like an imminent attack justified what Trump did.

But to claim that this is a political distraction without knowing all of the facts yet, I think is just really irresponsible. I'm the first to criticize this administration, especially when it comes to its recklessness in foreign policy. But going back, I have talked to people who were involved in

discussions about Soleimani in both the Bush and Obama administrations. They both said they considered taking this person out, meaning they thought there was cause to. He was that bad. They didn't because they feared Iranian retaliation. That's not a calculation Trump made.

To suggest he made this decision because of politics, again, I think it's pretty irresponsible. This could have been a decision based on opportunity.

You know, this was a pretty clean takedown of a political figure. Both the Bush administration and Obama administration went after similar figures and sometimes ended up killing innocent civilians.

So, again, I would caution with the political -- the political hot take before we actually know some of the underpinning information involving this attack.

BOYKIN: I just want to be clear, too. I don't know if you're referring to me but I'm not saying this was a wag the dog effort. I'm saying --

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: No, no. The general -- I'm not. I'm not. I'm saying the general idea this might be just politically motivated is, I think, an irresponsible hot take but we don't know enough to know that yet.

(CROSSTALK)

BOYKIN: But part of the problem is there was a hypocrisy because Donald Trump's statements because of Donald Trump's past statements. And there was a lack of credibility because of his --

CUPP: Sure.

BOYKIN: -- questioning of the Intelligence Community over the past two years. Suddenly, he's ready to trust the intelligence at this point.

And here's a guy that doesn't plan anything. There's no information released that tell us he's thought about the consequences of what this conflict might lead to.

CUPP: Right.

BOYKIN: Nor are there any thoughts about how he would advise Congress or other officials who should have known about this in advance.

CUPP: Sure.

MARQUARDT: All right, folks, we've got to leave is it there. We could go on for quite some time.

S.E. Cupp, Keith Boykin thank you very much for your expertise. CUPP: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: And, S.E., we will see you at 6:00 Eastern time for the next edition of "S.E. CUPP UNFILTERED."

Amid growing tension between the U.S. and Iran, we're now learning the Trump administration is privately warning members of Congress that Iran could retaliate against the U.S. within weeks. We'll have details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)