Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Huge Crowds Mourn Iranian Commander Killed by U.S.; Iraq Parliament Votes to Expel U.S. Troops After Iran General Killed; House to Vote on War Powers Resolution This Week. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired January 06, 2020 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:42]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: It is the top of the hour. Good morning, everyone. I'm Poppy Harlow in New York.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

This morning the Middle East on edge. Right now the scene in the streets of Tehran, a massive crowd mourning the death of Iran's top military and intelligence commander, the casket of General Qasem Soleimani starting this morning in the capital city of Tehran, now making its way to Iran's holy city of Qom.

Soleimani is blamed for hundreds of American deaths over the years, soldiers in Iraq. This by the U.S. advanced IEDs that killed and maimed U.S. troops. The president says that Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on Americans just before he was killed.

Soleimani's replacement has vowed revenge as the Iranian government pulls out completely from the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with the U.S., but of course that the president pulled out from a number of months ago.

HARLOW: Exactly. And the president is not backing off threats to go as far as targeting Iranian cultural sites, which would be against the U.N. resolution, a move many say is not only against international law, it could constitute a war crime.

And, Jim, also your sources telling you that there is actually widespread opposition within the administration to that plan and comments from the president. The president is also warning that he will hammer Iraq, a U.S. ally, with major sanctions if U.S. troops are expelled essentially from the country. This is after on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to do just that.

All of this over 3,000 more U.S. troops as they prepare to deploy to the region. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will introduce a war powers resolution this week to limit the president's military action in Iran. This comes as the White House is still refusing to give, to make public, details of what they call this imminent threat -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: That's right. The president has had no hesitation to declassify intelligence before. HARLOW: That's true.

SCIUTTO: We're covering the story from all angles. First, let's go to CNN's Fred Pleitgen. He is live in Tehran.

Tell us, Fred, about the feeling on the ground there because only weeks ago you had massive protests on the streets of Iran against the Iranian government, hundreds of people killed in fact by the government there. Now you have folks rallying to the funeral of this now late senior government and military leader.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, yes, you're absolutely right, Jim. And it really seems as though the death, the targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani is something that really has united many people here in Iran. You're absolutely right that just a couple of weeks ago there were these big anti-government protests that took place here. There was also a crackdown on those protests, but right now you can really feel how folks here are united and mourning this general who was killed in that airstrike there in Baghdad.

You know, I was on the ground there today as those -- that mourning procession, which was also a protest, was taking place, and it was absolutely humongous. There were hundreds of thousands of people who were out on the streets. There are some Iranian estimates that say it was well over a million people. Impossible to verify that from our point of view. But you did feel that there was some serious anger towards the United States, but even more so specifically towards President Trump and the Trump administration.

There were a lot of people who actually had placards that they were holding saying harsh revenge, and they say they want harsh revenge against the United States as fast as possible -- Jim.

HARLOW: Fred, you did an incredibly important interview in the last 24 hours with the military adviser to Iran's supreme leader. And many people have pointed out that whatever Iran is going to do to retaliate to the United States generally would have been masterminded by Qasem Soleimani himself. Now that he is taken out --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: You know, the military adviser to the supreme leader becomes even more important. What was his message to you?

PLEITGEN: Well, he certainly is someone who is extremely close to the power structure here, to the power center here, and obviously very close to the supreme leader as well. And he was saying, look, despite the fact that Qasem Soleimani has been killed and of course he was a giant towering figure within the Iranian military as well, as controversial as he was in the West, they're saying that their foreign operations wing is not going to miss a beat.

[10:05:01]

They say they already have a successor in place. Their operations could continue exactly the way that they had before.

And Poppy, one of the things that this adviser was extremely angry about was the fact that President Trump had come out and tweeted saying that there were several targets, I think 52 targets, that were in the crosshairs already of the U.S. and some of those were targets that were important to Iranian culture. And he said if that happens, the Iranians are going to really take the gloves off. Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJ. GEN. HOSSEIN DEHGHAN, MILITARY ADVISER TO IRAN'S SUPREME LEADER (through translator): For sure no American military staff, no American political center, no American military base, no American vessel in the world will be safe. If he says 52 sites, we say 300, and they are accessible to us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PLEITGEN: So you can see some pretty tough talk there from the senior adviser to the supreme leader here of Iran as we see the tensions here in Iran between the U.S. and Iran, but indeed the entire Middle East continue to ratchet up, guys.

HARLOW: Fred, remarkable reporting, so glad to have you there. Thank you to you and your whole team.

Let's go now to our correspondent Jomana Karadsheh. She joins us now in Baghdad.

And Jomana, the same to you. We appreciate you being there. Talk about the significance of what the Iraqi parliament voted for yesterday regarding U.S. troops, saying essentially get out of Iraq. What significance does that hold? What does it actually mean will happen on the ground?

JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Poppy, this was a resolution that was passed by mostly Shia members of parliament who attended this session. And they're basically telling the government that now it has to work towards ending the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in the country.

Now, there were questions about the legality of this move, procedural questions of how this is going to be implemented because we've got a caretaker government here in Iraq. It does seem that the government is moving ahead right now. We have seen them already beginning -- starting to reach out to various coalition countries about ending the presence of their forces. At least we know that they have spoken to the French about this.

And we've heard from the prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi. It was actually quite stunning seeing him addressing parliament, making the case for why U.S. forces and coalition forces should leave the country, basically saying that Iraq is turning into a battleground between Iran and the United States. And they don't want to see this and they don't want that responsibility of trying to protect U.S. forces here, which is something they cannot guarantee.

And since then, of course, we've heard reaction from President Trump speaking to reporters on Air Force One in reaction to that vote. He said, quote, "If they do ask us to leave, if we don't do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they have never seen before ever. It will make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame. If there is any hostility that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we're going to put sanctions on Iraq. Very big sanctions on Iraq."

Of course, this is a threat to an ally. One of the key allies here. And of course, you know, people will be -- some here are asking the question, does the president not know Iraq's history, that they've already experienced some of the most devastating sanctions in the '90s that impacted the lives of people?

And we've also had reaction to that from Kata'ib Hezbollah, that Iranian-backed paramilitary group, just a short time ago. Their spokesman says that if the United States is threatening Iraq economically, they will respond working with their friends as he calls it to disrupt the flow of oil in the Persian Gulf. And, of course, the concern is the rising anti-American sentiment here -- Poppy, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Jomana Karadsheh, thanks very much.

Joining us now to discuss, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt. He's former assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs under George W. Bush. Robert Malley, he's president of International Crisis Group and ISIS adviser to President Obama.

Thanks to both of you. General Kimmitt, I remember being in the room in Baghdad when you announced, and in fact I remember the words, when the U.S. captured Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And the celebration at the time, understandable. Of course it's 10 years later, we've seen that the troubles of Iraq did not end with his capture.

I wonder as you look at this, the death of Soleimani, does it indeed make Iraq, does it make the region safer? Are Americans safer there, U.S. troops, after his death? Or is it possible they're in greater danger?

BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT DEFENSE SECRETARY FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY UNDER GW BUSH: Well, what concerns me more than anything else, Jim, is that I left Baghdad about three weeks ago. And at that time the major concern inside of Iraq were the protests against the government where secular protesters were protesting not only against a corrupt and bureaucratic bureaucracy.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KIMMITT: But they were also protesting against the Iranian interference inside their country. And in the space of three weeks, Iran has been able to turn this around, albeit with our help, where we have gone from a position of the U.S. being quiet and the Iranians being the focus of the anger to now the U.S. being potentially ejected from Iraq. [10:10:19]

And I think this is what the Iranian situation -- the U.S.-Iranian situation has caused but the greatest effect is in Iraq itself.

HARLOW: Robert, given your experience in this, especially under the Obama administration that crafted the Iran nuclear agreement, that they've now completely, you know, completely walked away from with that announcement yesterday, you say that we are just beginning to see the first political effects of Soleimani's killing and point out that history does not tell us that when you take out the head of an organization like this, that it stops the ideology or the planned attacks. What should Americans actually be prepared for?

ROBERT MALLEY, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: Well, that's right. And I think in response to the previous question, of course Americans are less safe today than they were before Qasem Soleimani was killed. In fact, they're less safe today than before the Trump administration took office, a series of decisions from walking away from the nuclear deal to imposing maximum sanctions and now killing Qasem Soleimani.

All of those have made the lives of Americans certainly in the region more at risk than they were before. Who knows how Iran will respond? They have a number of possible targets, they could respond now or they could wait. They could respond directly or they could have one of their proxies take action, or -- and they can respond militarily or through cyberattack or on the nuclear front.

And I would just say so far Iran has not fully withdrawn from the deal. I think that's an exaggeration. They've said that they don't feel bound by some of its constraints, but they have not yet said that they're going to take the kind of actions that would really raise alarm bells. So they still have some room to maneuver, but all of these are potentialities that the U.S. has to be worried about.

SCIUTTO: Well, Mark Kimmitt, General Kimmitt, the president of course has vowed to reduce U.S. troop presence in the region. In fact, it's going the other direction. You've got 3,000 more troops.

HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: This follows deployments in the last several months, few hundred there, couple thousand there, but the anti-ISIS mission in Iraq is on hold as you go through these latest tensions. I just wonder what those troops are doing there. If they're in force protection mode, you're sending more troops to protect the troops that are already there, what ultimate function does that -- does that serve if you're not doing what they were sent there originally to do, which is to fight the terror threat?

KIMMITT: Well, first of all, I think it's important to recognize that we were actually reducing the number of troops of boots on the ground inside of Iraq because of the near successful termination of the fight against ISIS. But you can be assured that we're still providing intelligence, air support, other assets to help the Iraqis because the last thing we want to see happen in all of this is Americans ejected and us doing operations there.

Let's be clear, there are only two people, two groups that are celebrating what's happening right now, Iran and ISIS. And what we can't have is a resurgence of ISIS inside of Iraq because the Iraqi government has made what in my mind is a rash decision.

HARLOW: Robert, just back to the issue of Iran as a potential nuclear power. The president tweeted just a few moments ago in all caps, quote, "Iran will never have a nuclear weapon." That's the president's view, but yesterday as I mentioned, earlier, the Iranian government said it was abandoning its, quote, "final limitations" in the nuclear deal, right? And that they would only comply with IAEA should the sanctions be lifted, et cetera.

So where does this leave the world in terms of the potential, the possibility of a near term nuclear Iran?

MALLEY: So, first of all, I think again it underscores the fact that the Trump administration's policy has been wholly counterproductive since we're now faced a more dangerous situation on the nuclear front than we did prior to him coming into office. But again I don't think -- I think we have to sort of take a deep breath. What Iran is saying is that it does not feel bound because the U.S. has violated the deal.

HARLOW: Right.

MALLEY: It is not saying what actions it is going to take. And frankly would not be in its interests right now and it would take a long time for it to try to acquire a bomb and it would be exposing itself to retaliation. So I think what it is sending is a warning, that if steps are not taken, particularly by the Europeans, to make up for the sanctions imposed by the U.S., then it will continue step by step to erode its compliance with the nuclear deal and put itself in the kind of situation that we faced prior to the nuclear agreement. So that's just one more danger than has been added by the steps the administration has taken.

HARLOW: Robert, we appreciate your expertise and to you as well, General Kimmitt, thank you both very much.

We have a lot ahead. Still to come, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that the House will hold a vote on war powers and that resolution on the president's acts in Iran.

SCIUTTO: Plus, it's back to work for the Senate, but the stalemate over an impeachment trial. Next steps still there.

[10:15:00]

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is pitching an idea on how to break the impasse. Is it serious? More ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is taking steps this week to limit the president's military powers or at least debate them. Pelosi says the House will introduce a vote on a war powers resolution. This amid rising tensions in the Middle East.

HARLOW: Well, on Sunday, Democrats called out the president after he declared via tweet that that tweet would be enough to serve as notification to the U.S. Congress if he were to act militarily again against Iran.

Let's bring in our chief political respondent Dana Bash.

To say that that didn't sit well is an understatement.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, a huge understatement and as you mentioned, the House speaker sent a letter last night, which they obviously released publicly, announcing to her colleagues and to the members of the Democratic caucus and all members really that the House will be working on a war powers resolution, one that mirrors what Senator Tim Kaine is working on -- a Democrat is working on, in the Senate.

[10:20:23]

And the reason that is interesting and noteworthy, Poppy, is because we have seen after presidents of both parties have, you know, gone ahead with military action without congressional approval, Democrats and Republicans saying we need to authorize force. This is different because in the House, you know, because the Democrats have the majority, we see that it's very likely that they'll pass this.

In the Senate, however, even though it is Republican-led, it is our understanding, I've been doing some reporting on this with Ted Barrett, that a war powers resolution is privileged. So what that means in English is that the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, has no choice but to bring it up. Now, they're checking on this, but this according to a Republican source I was communicating with this morning in the leadership says that that is true.

So unlike in the past where we've seen Congress get upset, but they haven't been able to do anything, in this case it looks like there will at least be a debate, not just in the House, but in the Senate.

SCIUTTO: Dana, when would that debate take place then? I mean, they're just back in session now.

HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: And of course you have an impeachment trial coming quite soon.

BASH: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Perhaps as soon as next week.

BASH: Great question.

SCIUTTO: When do they debate it?

BASH: That I don't know and I'm not sure that anybody in the Senate really knows the answer to that because a lot of things have to take place. First, if the House votes, they could just send it over to the Senate, or if it is formally introduced in the Senate, there are rules and there is a process that has to be followed once it is formally introduced. It just sort of depends on what happens first.

Those are things that I believe as we speak that the Senate Republican leadership is looking into to get answers to those questions.

HARLOW: Wow. I mean, can you talk about -- you can't overstate again, Dana, just how much is going on here.

BASH: Yes, and --

HARLOW: Go ahead, I'm just wondering where you see --

BASH: No, I just -- I just want to add one thing.

HARLOW: Yes.

BASH: I just want to add one thing that I think is really important. What I said is that it's likely that there is going to be a debate. That doesn't mean that it is entirely likely that there will be a war powers resolution heading to the president's desk.

Now, our understanding is that it's just a simple majority to pass a war powers resolution. But that would still require, if that's the case, Republicans to break ranks with the president. We have seen Republicans break ranks on other issues of national security that they were not happy with him on. On Syria, for example, and on sanctions against Russia. This could be different, but it will be interesting to look at how a war powers resolution will be debated and how members of the House and the Senate, especially Republicans, view it.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BASH: And the reason is because the way it is written, it is written so that it takes away the power of the president unless there is an imminent threat and a couple of other caveats. That could be harder for Republicans to say yes to.

HARLOW: By the way, Dana, before you go, could you just quickly explain to people, because I think a lot of people wake up this morning, they're getting back in their routine, and they're thinking about, you know, the actual -- an AUMF, an actual Authorization for the Use of Military Force, and why so many members of Congress are sort of loathe to go there and loathe to take those votes.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: They put them on the record on these things.

BASH: Because it gives them the --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BASH: You know, it gets their hands dirty, frankly. SCIUTTO: Yes.

BASH: Now, not all members of Congress think that's a bad idea.

HARLOW: Right.

BASH: Because they see the way the Constitution is written as required and most cases for Congress to authorize force. We haven't seen Congress authorize force since 2002.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BASH: There was 2001. I'm sure you guys have been talking about this this morning, 2001, broadly after 9/11 to go after the Taliban and then 2002, Saddam Hussein.

HARLOW: Yes.

BASH: And they haven't done it since.

HARLOW: Right.

BASH: Now again this is different, but the reason they haven't done it, even though they talked about it during the Obama administration with Syria and during this administration as well is lots of reasons, but one of the big reasons as you alluded to, Poppy, is because once you take that vote as a member of Congress, it's on you.

HARLOW: Yes.

BASH: And we've seen that back fire with a lot of these members of Congress politically when you look through at a different lens.

SCIUTTO: Listen, Joe Biden is still paying for that in this election cycle.

HARLOW: Totally.

BASH: Exactly.

SCIUTTO: Hillary Clinton paid a big price and Barack Obama made that a big campaign issue in 2008. So, yes, it is one of those things where Democrats and Republicans on both sides will have to say, oh, we want to do it, but then they're like, actually they really don't want to do it.

BASH: Precisely.

[10:25:03]

SCIUTTO: So we'll see if they follow through. Dana Bash, thanks very much.

BASH: Thank you.

HARLOW: Thanks, Dana. SCIUTTO: The Senate is back from the break and back to the

impeachment standoff. Will a trial start soon? One Republican says he's trying to change the rules.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]