Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Drone Strike Kills Qasem Soleimani; U.S. Expects Retaliation From Iran; Discussions Between Trump And Senior Advisers About Strike Against Iranian General Had Been Underway For Months; Experts Warn Iran Will Try To Undermine U.S. Economy In Retaliation; DHS Warns Of Cyber Risk In U.S. Following Iranian General's Death; Iranian- Americans React To Death Of Qasem Soleimani; Australian Wildfires Merge, Now Size Of Manhattan. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired January 04, 2020 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN HOST: We have a quick programming note. Before Beyonce, before Lady Gaga, Linda Ronstadt was the first female pop icon. CNN films "Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice," that's going to be airing tonight at 9:00 p.m. on CNN.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
MARQUARDT: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Alex Marquardt, in today for Ana Cabrera.
Now, as the U.S. steps up its military presence in the Middle East, officials are on the edge about the potential for counterattacks, a response from Iran or of some of their many allies and proxies. Breaking this afternoon, a senior White House official is telling CNN that the Trump administration has told Congress that it plans to send formal notification today under the War Powers Act about that drone strike that killed the Iranian military leader, Qasem Soleimani. That was on Thursday.
In the meantime, our military sources are telling us there are high- level discussions at the Pentagon, considering whether Iranian retaliation could happen already within days. National security officials say that they want lawmakers to be clear-eyed, as they say, as mourners fill the streets of many Iranian cities to denounce the death of Qasem Soleimani. Now, there are three big questions at least. How will Iran respond? How strongly will they respond? And where will they respond?
CNN International Security Editor, Nick Paton Walsh is in Beirut. Our CNN White House Correspondent Jeremy Diamond is live for us in West Palm Beach, near the president's Mar-a-Lago resort. Gentlemen, thank you both for joining me.
Jeremy, I want to start with you. What is the significance of the Trump administration now sending this formal notification to Congress almost 48 hours after the strike? JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, Alex, this
is a pro forma process. The administration is required, under the law, to notify Congress formally of any kind of military action and any introduction of U.S. forces into a -- into a military theater that could potentially lead to war. That is according to the War Powers Act.
And so, we are coming right up against that 48-hour deadline. And so, the administration, we're now learning from a senior administration official, that that notification is expected to take place today. It is something that will likely also lay out the administration's legal justification for carrying out this strike.
And, Alex, as you know, this has already set off quite a debate in Congress that is beginning to bubble back up to the surface about the war power of the President Of the United States and whether or not Congress should take any additional action. You can certainly expect that this notification will only further that debate and add to the conversation.
MARQUARDT: Nick, to you. The secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, has said that this is a good thing for the citizens of Iraq. In fact, he tweeted a video of Iraqis dancing in the street. Of that -- of course, that is not totally representative of the reaction from the region.
You are in Lebanon, which is home to one of the biggest proxies of Iran, Hezbollah. What has been the reaction there in Lebanon and from other countries where Iran has real presence and sway?
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: Yes. I mean, look, Hezbollah, here in Lebanon, the predominant military and political power to some degree, their leader, Hassan Nasrallah, relatively calm in his opening statements on this, expressing condolences to Qasem Soleimani's family and saying that there will be further victories of the axis resistance because of Soleimani's shedding off Hezbollah. The axis of resistance is basically what Hezbollah called those groups in this region, often backed by Iran, that oppose the American presence here.
Now, you have to bear in mind, that the U.S. is currently trying to work out exactly if it should expect retaliation now in the days ahead, or something more complex, more strategic from Iran potentially in the weeks or months ahead. We're already seeing some moves by Iran's proxies, particularly by Hezbollah, who were behind, it's thought by the U.S., the strike on the Kirkuk base that killed a U.S. contractor nearly a week ago now.
We're seeing them issue a warning to Iraqi military personnel to get out of bases where there are U.S. personnel as well. Whether they put any, sort of, fruition to that threat, we'll have to see in the days ahead. But that is possibly what some anticipated that Iran's proxies would look to publicly forwardly (ph) almost show their strength, show their support for Iran.
Immediately, we do have days of mourning, now that we're currently in. Qasem Soleimani's body will arrive back in Iran tomorrow and begin a series of moves around that country that will essentially end and it coming to rest in Tehran.
[17:05:02]
We've seen it in the streets of Iraq today, some powerful scenes there. Though, when that period of mourning comes to an end, we may see more retaliation. But you have to bear in mind as well, Iraq is probably looking for something quite symbolic and strategic. It may take a little while, perhaps, to put into effect.
I asked a U.S. official, look, you know, if your threat from Qasem Soleimani was so imminent that you had to strike, does that mean the things he was planning can still be executed? And the response I got was that, quote, "things will change." Suggesting that, essentially, being that possibly the death of Qasem Soleimani may disrupt the plans that he had underway. So, say the U.S. to imminently threaten U.S. assets and personnel in the region.
The Trump administration with a real problem here, frankly. They have consistently poured doubt and poured scorn often on their intelligence community that they're now relying upon as the basis for their most substantial military and frankly foreign policy move yet of Donald Trump's first term.
It's changing the balance on the -- sort of, the calculations of everybody in the Middle East, frankly, right now. Nobody knows quite what the Iranian response will be. How powerful it will be. If the U.S. will have to retaliate and escalate back. And whether that could drag the U.S. into war. Everybody knows a U.S.-Iranian conventional military conflict will end likely in Iranian defeat.
But the U.S. had made very clear through Donald Trump that it doesn't see a desire to be in the Middle East indefinitely. And that may well be exactly the pressure point that Tehran chooses to push upon -- Alex.
MARQUARDT: Yes, his line that he wanted to stop a war, not start a war. CNN's also being told, that in those 48 hours before the strike, that President Trump got updates on intelligence that showed the threats from Iran. Jeremy, what else are we learning about the timeline and what was being discussed in the hours up to the strike?
DIAMOND: Well, Alex, our sources are telling us that there was a serious debate inside the administration over what action the president should take, vis-a-vis Iran. We know, of course, that the president had, earlier in the week over the weekend, ordered those strikes on those Iranian proxies in Iraq.
And following the protest that we saw at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, carried out, in large part, by militia members of those pro-Iranian proxies, the president felt that he needed to act further. And that is when the president made the decision to ultimately go after Qasem Soleimani, using this target of opportunity, really, to go after somebody who previous administrations have considered targeting but ultimately declined to do because, of course, of the risk of serious escalation.
And there is, Alex, still some major concern inside the administration about the risk for escalation, as the administration watches Iran very, very closely in the days to come as to what exactly their move for retaliation will be. We know that the Iranians have, of course, vowed to retaliate.
Now, the big question now, Alex, and there is quite a lot of skepticism that is being cast over parts of the administration's account, specifically this notion of an imminent threat that Soleimani and the Iranians posed to U.S. personnel and American individuals in the region. You know, we know that this administration has cited imminent threats, imminent attacks in the words of the President Of the United States.
But they have provided very little information about the specificity of the nature of that threat. They've only talked about -- in broad terms, about threats to American personnel --
MARQUARDT: Right.
DIAMOND: -- in the region, for example. But we don't know, yet, exactly how imminent these threats were. But that is the insistence of these American officials.
But we do know, Alex, that members of Congress, Democrats in particular, are already raising questions about that and whether, indeed -- what indeed was the direct trigger for this very, very significant action?
MARQUARDT: They've got lots of gaps that still need to be filled in. Jeremy Diamond in Florida. Nick Paton Walsh in Beirut, Lebanon. Thanks very much.
Now, Iran's foreign minister, in a tweet today, referred to the U.S. secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, as, quote, "an arrogant clown masquerading as a diplomat." That's not the only official statement from Iran, after the targeted killing of their top military leader, Qasem Soleimani.
CNN's Fred Pleitgen is in Tehran.
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Alex. Yes, the President Of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, he, earlier today, visited the family of Qasem Soleimani. There he was asked, by Soleimani's daughter, who's going to take revenge for the killing of my father? And he said, everybody is going to take revenge for his killing. Don't worry. So, essentially saying that there is going to be a retaliation against the United States.
He also said that he believes the U.S. doesn't even realize how big a mistake they've made with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. And to, sort of, reiterate that point or emphasize that point. There were some very significant comments from the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. He came out and he said that there would be what he called strategic retaliation against the U.S. [17:10:01]
And that that strategic retaliation would spell the end of American's presence in this region. Obviously, talking about the Middle East, possibly western Asia and Afghanistan as well. He said that that retaliation would be vast in geography. It would happen over a period of time.
Now, of course, we know that the Iranians have a flurry of proxy forces in the region that are loyal to Iran. And the Iranians have, for a very long time, also been saying that they believe that time is, essentially, on their side. They can do this in the way that they want to at a time of their choosing. So, they don't believe that they're under any, sort of, pressure. That's also something that Iranian military leaders have said as well.
The Iranians also saying that the Revolutionary Guard Quds force, which is the wing of the Revolutionary Guard that was headed by Qasem Soleimani, will not miss a beat. They've already announced a successor to Soleimani. They say they are going to continue to operate exactly the same way that they've operated before.
But, of course, for the time being, if you look at Tehran, you look at other places as well, it really is public mourning that you're seeing from a lot of Iranians, of course, very much from the Iranian leadership as well. Qasem Soleimani's body going to make its way through various places in Iran. We expect to see more people coming out on the streets and mourning the death of this head of the Revolutionary Guard's Quds force -- Alex.
MARQUARDT: All right. Fred Pleitgen in the Iranian capital, Tehran. Thanks very much.
I want to bring in CNN National Security Commentator and former Congressman Mike Rogers. He served as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, meaning that he was a member of the Gang of Eight, which is that group of lawmakers who are typically briefed ahead of operations like this.
Congressman, thanks so much for joining me today. Before I ask you some questions, I want to play some sound, some of the assurances that we've been hearing from both the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and President Trump about this strike.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: The world is a much safer place today. That -- and I can assure you that Americans in the region are much safer today after the demise of Qasem Soleimani.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARQUARDT: Chairman, I want to pick up on what Jeremy Diamond was just saying about the lack of details as to the threats that the U.S. was facing. Are you convinced, with what we know that there was an imminent attack? And, if not, what more do we need to learn?
MIKE ROGERS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY COMMENTATOR: You know, unfortunately, I think, statesmanship is dead in Washington, D.C. It's the early days. We know -- here's what we know. The intelligence community offered a product to the president and laid out some options. This is just what we know publicly. We know that Soleimani has a long and bloody history attacking American interests. We know he came from Damascus, which they were planning activities against American interests there, to Baghdad.
(CROSSTALK)
MARQUARDT: To Baghdad. And he was planning additional activities there. And so, if you're confronted with that information, as we know it today, I was hoping in this town we could at least say, this was not a retaliation. This was an action by the United States. Our lawmakers should have said, this was an action by the United States. Iran needs to understand it has boundaries.
The administration and the lawmakers have been back channeling for months. If you continue to ramp up Iran and continue to ramp up military exchange and targeting U.S. civilians and you kill an American, there will be consequences. If we'd have gotten that piece right, I think it would be an easier discussion going into, OK, now, let's look at the intel. Let's find out what we knew and when we knew it and what it looks like.
But, right now, we're working against our own U.S. interests. This was a pretty tough decision by the president. We're going to need to make sure that we're ready for what comes next. However, it means we ought to stay together on this until we know something different. I really don't like where we're at in the country today where the thing is, I wouldn't have done it. They don't even know. I would've done it this way. We shouldn't have done this. We shouldn't have done X.
If you're sitting in that chair and someone says, we have a plan that's going to kill American soldiers and kill diplomats and one way we can disrupt it is take out target X, who, by the way, is a foreign combatant leader, who has exported terrorism and is in Baghdad to do just that, pretty hard decision. I don't know how many -- how many casualties would have been worth to do nothing.
And that's -- we need to understand that, I think. We're condemning the wrong side of this. Iran has exported terrorism in a pretty significant way. The Houthi rebels in Yemen, all of that, thanks to Soleimani. The bloodbath in Syria, thank you, Soleimani. And so, I think we've got to recalibrate here. It's OK to ask some questions, tough questions, of the president here in the coming days.
MARQUARDT: Right.
ROGERS: But let's publicly be united, in the sense that, listen, Iran, we're not going to take your export of terrorism any longer. MARQUARDT: You were chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
And the -- from the intelligence perspective, what's really interesting is that we -- the U.S. knew that he was flying from Damascus to Baghdad, as you noted.
[17:15:01]
Senator Lindsey Graham said that he was briefed about the operation on Monday. The strike took place on Thursday. How, in practical terms, would U.S. intelligence have known that he was traveling from Syria, where the White House is saying that he was planning these imminent attacks, to Baghdad where he was killed?
ROGERS: I mean, obviously, they -- there's lots of ways they can do this. They can do it through human source reporting, signals intelligence, meaning they're collecting bits of signals intelligence that would indicate those kinds of things. And there are other ways that they can do it as well. So, some other kinds of surveillance that you might imagine.
So, I'm sure that the intelligence community put all of those pieces together and realized that they had some information. He was in Damascus and likely knew that his next stop was Baghdad. They figured that out through survey -- good intelligence work. Sound, good, sometimes detailed nuanced intelligence work. And were able to put him on the ground in Baghdad.
And once that happened, remember he goes to an airport where the United States might have other surveillance capabilities, that's, I'm sure, how they exactly narrowed him down. The most interesting part of that is that, according to General Milley, that there was information that they had that he was trying to escalate already violent activity that they were planning.
And that's why, I think, this narrative needs to be important here. Yes, we should ask hard questions. But, boy, I think it's wrong to put the American response to an escalating violent behavior and posture by Iran as the bad guys in this particular case.
MARQUARDT: And Milley saying we would be culpable if the U.S. had not acted on that intelligence.
Let me ask you, again, as former House Intelligent Committee chairman. Would you have -- would you be angry, right now, if you were still in that same position, that you had not been briefed, as a member of the Gang of Eight? Because a lot of Democrats are saying that.
ROGERS: Listen, I think this is part of the credibility problem with the administration and a big part of the credibility problem with Congress. You both have to act like adults in these circumstances. This is serious. Somebody's going to lose their life.
Yes, I would have been engaged. My counterpart, Dutch Ruppersberger, a Democrat from Maryland, and I worked very closely. A great example of that was the Osama Bin Laden raid. We were brought in in January to go over evidence that we had at the CIA along the way, including up to the raid in May, including a preannouncement of the raid. That just doesn't happen anymore. And that's a credibility problem.
And so, I can't say, honestly in good faith, if you're sitting in the situation room of the White House that you'd want to run down and tell the House Intelligence Committee anything that would have to be kept secret, knowing that lives were -- might be at risk. I think both sides of that equation need to rebuild their credibility and get back to the serious business of what is oversight of intelligence.
Really, the Intelligence Committee is going to have a really important job here in the days and weeks ahead. It would have been great had they had their input, their oversight and their, kind of, thumb's up on this as it went along, for this very reason that you have all of this public shooting back and forth, shouldn't have done it. People don't know but they are concluding they should or shouldn't they have done it. Nobody really knows yet.
I think that's really destructive to proper oversight. So, I'm an institutionalist. I do think Congress needs to be involved --
MARQUARDT: Right.
ROGERS: -- at the appropriate level with the appropriate committees. They need to rebuild that. But it's both ways. That's a two-way street.
MARQUARDT: We just heard from Nick that there are a number of days of mourning. We're seeing funerals for Soleimani, not just in Iran but in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere. After that is when there's an expectation that there will be some sort of response, in the days, weeks, months to come. What are you expecting, in terms of response?
ROGERS: You know, I think the asymmetric kind of low level. You saw some attacks actually today. There were some missiles fired. There were some mortar rounds fired into the green zone in Iraq. That was probably militias that were tied to the border (ph) brigade or others that were not necessarily sanctioned to do it. So, I think you're going to see a lot more of that. You're going to see these smaller offshoots, Shia militia groups across Iraq that, really, are trying to get some fight into the revenge. Won't be that sophisticated.
Iran, I think, is going to take its time. It has a lot of options here. It has a more sophisticated terroristic attack capability. We have seen them make these attempts. And, most recently, again, they've ramped up their ability in the last 18 months to cause harm and try to kill civilians, which, by the way, resulted in this strike or at least contributed to it, I should say.
And then, there's cyber warfare attack. They are -- have become much more capable. We've seen them do huge cyber damage in Saudi Arabia through Saudi Aramco a few years back. We saw them doing probes of U.S. financial institutions back in 2012, when they -- we thought and analysts thought that they might be trying to, kind of, cause some problems in our financial sector. So, we know they have good capabilities.
[17:20:00] This is really the challenge for the national security agency. It's really going to have to step up their game. And private security companies around the country --
MARQUARDT: Right.
ROGERS: -- are going to have to step up. Because my argument is you'll see a combination of both. If you really want to have something that the world sees, you have to have some visible event. But they can also cause real harm in this cyber warfare program.
MARQUARDT: What about the possibility of an attack on the homeland? I mean, we do know Iran was planning to try to take out the Saudi Ambassador here in Washington in a restaurant. But, given the importance of Soleimani, do you think that they would take that leap and start targeting U.S. civilians here in the homeland?
ROGERS: Well, remember, and this is really interesting, this -- that was a Soleimani-planned attack --
MARQUARDT: Right.
ROGERS: -- to kill the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, D.C. in a restaurant.
MARQUARDT: And risk killing people in the restaurant.
ROGERS: And what they said was, we don't care if we kill civilians or even senators. I mean, that's what the intelligence brought back. So, it -- this was a serious attempt. And they didn't care if they killed unarmed, innocent American civilians in a restaurant in Washington, D.C. That describes Soleimani. It's really important we put this into context.
So, yes, they're going to want to do something. I don't know if they'd come here first. One thing this has done, and we're going to have to figure out what it means, they've recalculated what red lines are. Right? For -- in the last administration, red lines got a little loose. In the last part of the Bush administration, there were constant decisions to say, hey, we need -- we've got other issues here. We're going to let this thing go.
So, in the Iranian mind, they had freedom of movement. That's why this guy became a rock star. He traveled around. Planned attacks. And was actively engaged in planning, conducting and orchestrating attacks that killed civilians. And was, apparently, getting ready to do that again.
And so, you can't take it off the table. But my argument is, I -- we're going to have to figure out what -- how this has recalculated. They do understand that the United States is going to operate from strength in this. The U.S. military is going to look at this as, if you ramp this up, this is going to go very badly for you. We told you, don't kill Americans. You killed an American. This is what happened. Let's see if that recalculates. Remember, in the late 1980s, the United States Navy sank half of the Iranian Navy. Half. Not a lot of people talk about it. And we thought, this is it. This is -- now, they're going to -- this is -- we're going to be on full-on war. They recalibrated, kind of hunkered down, and went to an asymmetric warfare model. Because they realized this probably isn't going to work out for us. We're going to have to find out what is going on in the thinking of the supreme leader in the next few weeks.
MARQUARDT: Thanks for breaking that down. Because that word, asymmetric, is something that we're going to be hearing a lot in the next couple of days when we're talking about this Iranian response.
Chairman Mike Rogers, thanks very much.
ROGERS: Thanks.
MARQUARDT: Appreciate it.
ROGERS: Thank you, sir.
MARQUARDT: All right. Well, a quick programming note. On "STATE OF THE UNION" tomorrow with Jake Tapper, he's going to be interviewing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at an incredibly important time, as well as the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Adam Schiff. That's all on "STATE OF THE UNION" tomorrow morning, 9:00 Eastern, Sunday, right here on CNN.
Now, in the wake of Qasem Soleimani's death, questions are being raised about the intelligence that led to the attack to that strike. We're going to be discussing that. Plus, as Iran threatens revenge, U.S. officials are bracing for Iranian cyber attacks. Just how prepared is the United States? And 10s of thousands have been forced from their homes in Australia as massive wildfires continue to ravage the country. They've already burned an area 50 times larger than Los Angeles. All that coming up.
[17:23:46]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARQUARDT: The just -- the Trump administration has justified the operation to kill Iran -- Iranian top general Qasem Soleimani by claiming there was a, quote, "imminent threat." And, at the same time, we're learning that the president has been discussing the deadly attack with his national security officials for months. Even former national security adviser, John Bolton, who left the administration back in September, he says this was, quote, "long in the making."
With U.S. former senior adviser to President Obama's national security adviser, Sam Vinograd, she joins us. As well as the intelligence and national security correspondent for "The Washington Post," Shane Harris. Thank you, both, for joining me.
Sam, to you first. This notion of an imminent threat. You say that it might not necessarily mean what we think it may?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, in the first instance, I want to caution our viewers that we do somewhat need to have a wait-and-see approach. In my experience, intelligence related to a high-value target, like Qasem Soleimani, may be highly classified, highly compartmentalized.
And we don't even know, Alex, if it was purely United States intelligence or if it was shared by one of our intelligence partners. That may be part of the reason why it is taking more time to share it with Congress and to declassify it. That may be one explanation.
The imminent threat characterization, however, is important from two respects. In the first instance, if there was an imminent threat, the key question is whether it has been neutralized or not, in light of this strike. And, second, the immense of a threat could speak to the legal justification that the administration is hoping to use, with respect to this attack.
The administration may be trying to make a self-defense argument as to why they took this approach, perhaps under the president's Article Two authorities under the Constitution. So, when the War Powers Act notification is transmitted to Congress, the self-defense element, I think, will be -- will likely be in there, because the administration will say this was not just about Soleimani's terrorist rap sheet, which could go on endlessly. But trying to defend the United States and national interests from another attack.
MARQUARDT: Shane, we have not heard many details from the administration about the nature of these various imminent threats against U.S. interests across the region. But are sources behind the scenes describing to you that the nature of these imminent threats to justify the killing of a huge figure?
SHANE HARRIS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, the closest they're getting to the nature of it is saying things like, particularly, that hundreds of American lives were at risk. When we have pressed them on it, well, what do you mean by that? Are you talking about some kind of a spectacular or coordinated event that would result in hundreds of lives being lost? Or do you mean, sort of, an ongoing campaign targeting Americans? Which, frankly, we've been seeing going on in Iran with these militia groups. And, frankly, we have seen this from Soleimani for many, many years. We can't get a straight answer to that.
Now, as Sam said, that may be something that is highly compartmentalized, at this time, and maybe will be more forth -- more forthcoming. But what I'm hearing from sources is something of a more general nature. Again, very serious. There is an obvious real incredible threat to U.S. personnel, diplomatic and military interests in Iraq from Iran.
But I'm not really hearing anything new that would tell us that there was something specific and, again, that word, imminent, that necessitated taking out Qasem Soleimani. Nor an explanation for why hitting the leader of this organization of the Quds force was going to stop a plot that, presumably, would have already had agents and other assets in place carrying it out.
MARQUARDT: Nothing new, as you say, that would justify the killing of someone like Qasem Soleimani which has begged the question, Sam, of why now? This is someone who is such a well-known figure, who, as many U.S. officials have said, has the blood of hundreds of American service members on his hands. Of course, President Trump, including your former boss, President Obama, was watching Soleimani's movements.
[17:30:02]
So, why wouldn't President Obama have taken him out when he had him in his crosshairs?
VINOGRAD: Alex, the question is why now but also what now? On the why now, this was a targeted opportunity, perhaps. And the administration has given various reasons for why they took this action now. The imminent threat component was just one piece of the pre- strike puzzle. They cited the need for defensive action and, again, deterring ongoing future attacks by Qasem Soleimani.
I, frankly, don't buy that argument based upon the cost benefit analysis here.
As you mentioned, previous presidents weighed whether to engage in a targeted assassination of targets like Soleimani, against Soleimani himself.
And the Intelligence Community has provided assessments laying out the repercussions for that action. Those repercussions include not just a short-term retaliatory cycle, which we're likely about to enter, but the overall impact this would have on the United States' influence in the region.
I know why we didn't do it before. The question is what now?
The biggest issue for me, Alex, is we don't seem to have a strategy. It is clear we need to move more assets to the region to defend our interests there, our people. We may have to evacuate American citizens, particularly U.S. diplomats.
But we have no indication that as part of the pre-strike deliberations there was any discussion about a diplomatic off-ramp or what this would do for the prospect of diplomacy. And for me, that's the most worrisome component of this picture.
MARQUARDT: Shane, you and your colleagues at the "Washington Post" have put out a timeline of the hours and days leading up to the decision to kill Qasem Soleimani. What stuck out to you in the decision-making process?
HARRIS: I think there's a spontaneity or impulsivity on the part of the president that was at play here that we saw, which is not how unusual in how Donald Trump makes military decisions, including military strikes. With regards to Iran, we've seen that in the past.
We've known senior officials went down there last Sunday to talk to him about possible responses, particularly to the rocket attack that occurred at the facility.
The death of an American contractor seems to have actually been quite a triggering event for the president. He told aides before that that would be his one line in the sand for him and he felt he had to do something more significant.
Another thing that was interesting to hear from sources is Trump was very aware of having been perceived by some of his critics as weak in previous engagements with Iran.
We go back to the summer, remember when Iran took down that U.S. surveillance drone. There was an airstrike ready to go. President Trump called it off in the last minute.
What we're told is he didn't like that the decision making leaked to the press and he was being seen as indecisive or unwilling to conduct force and didn't want a repeat of that.
So he's very cognizant of the threat and the unique instance here of an American life being lost but also not wanting to be perceived as weak. So that factors into his calculation as well.
He makes the decision to go after Qasem Soleimani in fairly short order and that sends his national security apparatus out trying to prepare not just for that strike but for the repercussions that, I think, will be pretty pronounced.
MARQUARDT: And in these situations, the military often will also give the president a menu of options. Your reporting is that his senior officials were surprised he went with this very, very dramatic option.
Shane Harris, Sam Vinograd, thank you very much for joining me.
VINOGRAD: Thank you.
MARQUARDT: With Iran threatening revenge, we will look at the ways Iran could threaten the United States in the wake of the deadly airstrike. That's next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(SHOUTING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:37:08]
MARQUARDT: Iran has vowed, quote, "harsh revenge" for the assassination of top Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani. That retribution could come in the form of attempted terror attacks or conventional military strikes or cyberattacks.
But Iran could choose to go a different route, taking aim, as I mentioned, at the American cyber infrastructure, even the U.S. economy.
For more on that we turn to CNNMoney Correspondent, Cristina Alesci.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CRISTINA ALESCI, CNNMONEY CORRESPONDENT: Alex, Iran has vowed revenge for the American killing of General Soleimani. Based on my reporting, experts expect Iran to try to undermine the U.S. economy.
Now for one, Iran may try to disrupt the global oil market. And that's exactly why oil prices jumped on Friday. U.S. crude rose more than 3 percent to its highest level since September.
Remember, the Strait of Hormuz is a choke point for global oil flow and it's the only pathway from oil moving from the Persian Gulf to ocean shipping routes around the world. And about a quarter of the global energy output flows through there on any given day.
Tehran can harass oil tankers or block trade routes with military exercises. It could even directly strike oil fields and oil facilities on the ground.
In September, oil prices spiked 14 percent when Iran bombed Saudi Arabian oil facilities, disrupting 5 percent of the daily global oil supply.
That said, America has made great strides with energy independence in recent years. As a result, Iran has been investing in cyberattack capabilities to attack U.S. companies and systems.
And there's already a growing list of examples that demonstrate Iran's ability to execute those cyberattacks. For example, in 2018, two Iranian men allegedly hacked into computer systems at hospitals and municipal offices. Last year, the "New York Times" reported hackers, linked to the Iranian government, tried to infiltrate Trump's 2020 campaign.
One security expert I spoke to said they're worried about Iran targeting airline reservations and traffic control systems as well as health care systems, which would effectively bring hospitals to a halt.
Now all of these risks have investors on edge. And it could add a new dimension to the stock market rally that we've been seeing. Investors around the world shed stocks on Friday and bought the safety of bonds instead -- Alex?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUARDT: Thanks to our Cristina Alesci for laying all of that out.
The Trump administration is warning that Congress -- or warning Congress, rather, Iran could retaliate against the U.S. within weeks.
Meanwhile, as major cities ramp up resources to sensitive locations, the Department of Homeland Security has briefed local authorities and representatives of critical infrastructure companies of potential threats.
Law enforcement agencies have been monitoring the events in Iran. And police departments in New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, D.C., and Los Angeles have all deployed additional resources, while officials in New York City have urged tightened vigilance.
[17:40:07]
I want to bring in CNN's national security analyst and a former assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem.
Juliette, so good to have you with me today.
I want to ask you about something we just learned. The Department of Homeland Security just updated its terror threat advisory, warning of an Iranian cyber risk. This is something you have were talking about immediately after the killing of Qasem Soleimani. What does this notice by DHS mean?
JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: The color-code system has ended. Everyone should get that out of their head.
In its place we put in the National Terrorism Alert System. It's called NTAS. It's more like an intelligence advisory. It doesn't increase the alert level or make anyone do anything. It just sort of is a briefing to the public as well as first responders.
This is the first change in a long while. I think the last one was last July. And it's smart. I'm going to applaud the Department of Homeland Security, which I have been critical of in the past on other issues, because it's focused on what I believe to be the sort of greatest concern coming from Iran and from the potential retaliation.
Less about a conventional attack here in the United States, you know, a bombing or whatever they may want to do, and more sort of asymmetric threat, which would be going after our critical infrastructure, our systems that make us run essentially, whether it's health care systems, as we just heard, or aviation systems.
So, and the challenge here, Alex, I should add is most of those systems in the United States, unlike other countries, are owned by the private sector. It's not like we can, as a government, say we're going to protect these assets, like the military can. We're actually dependent on the private sector.
MARQUARDT: What part of our cyber infrastructure nationally and at the state level is most vulnerable?
KAYYEM: So it really is going to depend on what an enemy may want to do.
The greatest vulnerability is going to be access to a system that can be brought down. And so we call -- we basically, say you don't want a single point of failure. You don't want someone to be able to hack into a system and bring it down in its totality. So we spend a lot of time doing what's called layer defenses. In
other words, even if something went bad, you would make sure that the whole system, say, the electrical grid, didn't go down.
So you will have a concern of just sort of access. Someone gives a password away, someone opens up a link, that sort of cyber hygiene we call it in terms of employees.
The other is a traditional hack, for want of a better word. Just having a sophisticated intelligence agency, like we might have with Iran, come in and be able to get into a system.
In particular, the systems I'm most worried about, with the Russians, I'm worried about election systems. Here, I'm worried about aviation systems, just to bring the system down as well as electrical systems. I think we've seen Iran's interest in that in the past.
It would just wreak havoc and might be hard to attribute to them. We may know they did it but it would be hard to attribute to them.
MARQUARDT: This is something you and I talked about in terms of sowing chaos around elections. This, of course, could be a play book for how Iran could respond in the wake of the killing of Qasem Soleimani.
Juliette Kayyem, thank you so much for your expertise.
KAYYEM: Thanks, Alex.
MARQUARDT: And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:45:55]
MARQUARDT: Southern California is home to hundreds of thousands of Iranian-Americans. It's the second largest Iranian population in the world.
Now CNN's Nick Watt is in Los Angeles with their reaction to the death of Qasem Soleimani.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, citizenship, fill out this form.
NICK WATT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At a citizenship seminar for Iranian immigrants here in L.A., no one would talk to us on camera, no one wanted their face shown.
PEYMAN MALAZ, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARS EQUALITY CENTER: Lots of Iranians still have families over there. Their relatives live over there. The chances of their security to be in danger is high.
(GUNFIRE) WATT: Many emigres we spoke to said they watched on TV the brutal repression of anti-government protests that swept Iran back in November. Human rights organizations say at least 400 protesters were killed.
Here in L.A., Qasem Soleimani is not mourned.
(on camera): What's your first reaction?
TODD KHODADAI, IRANIAN-AMERICAN: Happy.
WATT (voice-over): We're in Westwood, aka "Tehrangeles."
There is some jubilation among the older generations who fled here after Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979. Again, they declined to speak on camera. Even in death, even thousands of miles away, Soleimani's shadow still haunts.
Eeeman, born and raised here, preferred we not use his last name.
EEMAN, IRANIAN-AMERICAN: It was definitely a huge shock just because of the magnitude of who Qasem Soleimani is.
WATT: For those who long for regime-change back home, there is now more hope.
KHODADAI: I'm sure this is the first step for freedom, probably. They're just looking for hope.
WATT: But despite the U.S. president's words --
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We did not take action to start a war.
WATT: -- now a real fear of war.
MALAZ: So many Iranians have memory from war, and the memory from the war is still alive.
WATT: In the 1980s, Iran and Iraq fought a brutal, protracted conflict that killed more than half a million.
EEMAN: I think a lot of us know what Iran is capable of, and we don't want Iran to have a chance to show the world what that is.
WATT: Nick Watt, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUARDT: Our thanks to Nick Watt.
Now, in Australia devastating wildfires are scorching the country. And now three massive fires have merged into one and are burning an area larger than Manhattan. That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:51:18]
MARQUARDT: Firefighters in Australia are coming off of what is perhaps their most-worst day yet as they battle nothing short of apocalyptic conditions with flames fueled by record-high temperatures as well as strong wings.
In Victoria, three separate fires have combined into one giant ablaze, now the size of Manhattan. The death toll across the country is now at least 23 people.
On Friday, the Navy evacuated about 1,000 people from the coastal town of Mallacoota. Troops also working to rescue residents from other fire-threatened areas.
Lynda Kinkade has more on that are efforts.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LYNDA KINKADE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Fleeing on foot armed with a few bare essentials, clothes, blank either, pets.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Go down to the shore, and it's something I want to forget.
KINKADE: An escape by sea for this group of people forced to leave their homes after bushfires cut off the town of Mallacoota.
The Australian Navy has been deployed to rescue thousands of people.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The response that is required is to get the boots on the ground, get the planes in the air, get the ships out to sea.
KINKADE: For the first time ever, a compulsory call-up of Army Reservists --
(SHOUTING)
KINKADE: -- to help carry out the largest peacetime evacuation in the country's history.
Further north, in New South Wales, people, pets and livestock forced to seek refuge on a beach amid ominous red skies for the New Year's holiday.
This nationwide crisis started back in September. The prime minister continues to face backlash over the response.
Firefighters around the country battling hundreds of fires are exhausted and angry.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: You from the media? Tell the prime minister to go and get (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: Stand down now. KINKADE: And while bushfires in summer are common, this season
started very early. It's dragged on for months. And is widespread across Australia.
With at least another two months of hot summer weather to come, firefighters fear there's no relief in sight.
Lynda Kinkade, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUARDT: Understandably, lots of anger and fear.
Thanks to Lynda Kinkade.
For ways you can help those affected by Australia's wildfires, head to CNN.com/impact.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:57:20]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: The House definitely holds to the position that we should call witnesses.
UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: What would the witnesses add?
UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: The need for witnesses is so basic and fundamental to our truth-seeking system of justice in this country.
UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: We didn't know whether there were going to be live witnesses, whether there would be any witnesses.
UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: We're not afraid of witnesses, but we do want fairness.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The big uncertainty was, is Monica Lewinsky going to be a live witness. Is she going to be sitting there in the well of the Senate on national television, on global television saying those things?
MONICA LEWINSKY, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN: I never expected to feel this way about him. And I'm not kidding you.
KING: And if that what happened, would the Democrats stay with the president?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good morning, sir.
KING: We were worried and we had reason to worry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARQUARDT: Don't miss Wolf Blitzer's special report tomorrow night at 9:00, "THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON."
That does for me. I'm Alex Marquardt, in Washington.
"S.E. CUPP UNFILTERED" is up next, live, after this quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
