tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN January 6, 2020 5:00am-6:00am PST
berman. >> good morning and welcome to your "new day." january 6th, 8:00 in the east. we do begin with breaking news. at this hour, hundreds of thousands of iranians are lining the streets of tehran to mourn the death of general qasem soleimani who was killed in that usair strike. these are some of the pictures we've been seeing all morning long. that right there is iran's supreme leader praying and weeping over soleimani's slain body. soleimani's daughter is threatening an attack on u.s. military. iran announced it is abandoning what is left of the 2015 agreement to contain its nuclear program. another consequence, iraqi lawmakers have voted to expel u.s. troops from their country. a vote u.s. officials tried to keep from happening. president trump meanwhile is repeating his threat to hit iran's cultural sites if iran retaliates. doing that is considered a war crime under international law. two senior u.s. officials described widespread opposition
to that idea within the trump administration. president trump is also threatening to impose, quote, very big sanctions on iraq if they force out american troops. all of this as house speaker nancy pelosi is moving to try to limit president trump's military actions against iran. >> we've got one eye on tehran all morning long. in the meantime joining us cnn political analyst david gregory, former democratic congresswoman jane harman, director, president and ceo of the wilson center and cnn senior political analyst john avlon. i want to start with you, david, and where we are this morning. general soleimani was a bad aktder, no one mourning the death. when you look what has happened since he was killed. iraq has voted to push u.s. troops out of that country. iran has withdrawn from the remainder of the nuclear deal. the united states has had to say it is pausing operations against
isis in the region. there are these very real consequences already of this decision. >> i think we have to look at two potential roads here that are in front of us. one is this was such a brazen and unpredictable act on the part of the president who is impulsive, who is not known for strategic thinking with regard to foreign policy. in fact, we know he did not want to be an active participant fighting wars in the middle east and president bush should have been impeached. donald trump did as a candidate for the conduct of the war in iraq. all of that said, this may be a brilliant stroke. it not only took somebody who was dangerous to the united states off the battlefield, perhaps it will restore a sense of deterrence with iran. we don't know. we're fearful because this is such a dangerous situation. my big question, the u.s. has to manage now trying to keep iran from restoring a nuclear program. it now has to insert itself as the leader of this conflict in
the middle east without shared sentiment among allies seemingly more alone when you have an actor out there that clearly wants to respond. >> congresswoman harmon, your thoughts how this unfolded. >> happy new year, everybody. i think, david, the chances of this being a brilliant stroke are zero to none. i think this is an example of a process-free foreign policy. there's no national intelligence estimate. there's no forward plan. there's no consideration of the day after. it's also an example of the disappearing congress, which has had years to thorough for bid the use of military force in the middle east and elsewhere. now to see that the trump administration may be trying to roll out one more time that 2001 authorization to use military force against iraq to justify this action -- excuse me, against afghanistan to justify this action is really sad to me. iran was a country that stood up
to help us after 9/11. we ignored that, and we're in, i think, a colossal mess. just one more comment. to see those thousands of iranians lining the street in solidarity with their government when three or four weeks ago they were protesting their government is by my light an f in terms of achieving a foreign policy goal. >> that's one more consequence to the list i added before. the media consequence of the action is unified iranian people who had been protesting their government over the last few years. john. >> that's such an important point jane makes. iranian people have been divided. there is a generational divide. we should be trying to exacerbate that to bring about change. especially when the president threatens cultural landmarks not only in violation of treatise, would unite.
it's about an impulse, in part being tougher than president obama. it's impossible for the trump administration to be able to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to the nuclear program, for example. the downstream effects seem chaotic. let's be realistic about the fact that escalation seems to be the only certainty we see right now. >> i mean, what do you think, david, about the what jane said about process-free foreign policy. if there is a process, if there is a grand strategy, they are not sharing it with congress or with the public because who knows what the next move is. it feels as though the u.s. is waiting to see what iran's next move is and waiting to decide to see how they will respond. >> i think she's exactly right. again, i think this is so brazen there could be a potential outcome. i think we need to have that possibility open. but at the same time, look, there was a presumption about what the road ahead would be after the invasion of iraq. it turned out to be untrue.
there were a lot of strategic thinkers who worked in the bush administration at that time. in this case there is a hard line approach, escalation happened very quickly giving you not a lot of room to maneuver. now the united states has to get back into the business of heading off a nuclear iran, because they are not going to let that happen and stand by. then you have a cycle of retaliation that can get out of hand because leaders make mistakes and then people die. that's what worries me so much because i worry not just about the president's temperament, impulsiveness, lack of strategy but also who is around him. to jane's point, she's exactly right. congress has been out to lunch since 2001 after giving the president all that power. president obama was certainly happy to use that executive authority in his drone campaign in pakistan and elsewhere. so this is a bipartisan failure
in congress. >> certainly both parties have misused but let's focus on this instance here. the president's long-standing desire to stay out of middle east quag meyers. but the actions he's taken pulling support from u.s. allies, now u.s. troops are diverted even further from isis. this is a quagmire of his own creation. let's not forget when secretary of state went on with jake tapper, he offered an absolute refusal to answer any specific questions directly. >> let me add something here, which is we are now sending more young men and women, brave women and men in our military into harm's way. those people come from congressional districts. there may be casualties. there could easily be a
casualties. the intelligence why it had to be taken this way and right now or if it's been made in some classified briefings, i used to get those, too, toss mark warner and adam schiff senior members of the house and senate intelligence committees, it hasn't been made to the public, so we're not prepared. the other point, iraq, regime change in iraq. i voted for our incursion into iraq in it's. i thought the intelligence case was solid. it was wrong. this time we don't even have an intelligence case for the public to assess as we devote more resources and human life to this. >> jane, i want you to speak on this more, number one, we should always be skeptical of intelligence. particularly this part of the world given what happened with the invasion in 2003. number two, this administration, as noted before, has issues with the truth period. so when you hear mike pompeo and
other officials say take our word for it that an attack was imminent, we have yet to see e the -- there was imminence. whether soleimani could have been directly involved with an imminent attack. >> i have -- i shed no tear for soleimani. it's not that. he had the blood of hundreds of americans on his hands. and he may -- i assume he was plotting with others additional attacks through proxy groups and maybe directly through cyber and other asymmetric tools on the united states. but i read all the intelligence in 2002 on iraq, i traveled to cuss that helped us collect it. we were wrong and i was wrong. the lesson i learned with others on a bipartisan basis in 2004 we informed our intelligence community, created director of national intelligence. we set up a process to develop
these really bulletproof national intelligence estimates. i don't think there is one in this case. i don't think our government mechanisms are working at all. so i'm dubious, not just because it's mike pompeo. he's a capable man in many respects. i'm dubious after my experience and how we went wrong that a case that hasn't been made to the public is a serious case. >> so there's jane's experience of trying to do something exhaustive, trying to do something thorough. then on the flip side, look, which american could be blamed for having some questions about the trump administration's veracity when the president uses a black sharpie to change a hurricane's path. we've all seen the administration not necessarily be forthcoming and forthright, so here we are. >> it's not only that. this may be a subtler point but i think jane would agree it's crucially important. when you have a breakdown of
trust within the government, when you have a president who attacks intelligence agencies, providing the very intelligence he's acting on, you have to worry about what the consequences are of their policy and a lack of trust within and whether this is a more extreme option and maybe not the one they thought was best. all of that will play itself out over time. you know, in the case of iraq, you had a case building against iraq that went back to the '80s. there was finally a reason to make the invasion to attack. there has been a case building against iran for a long time as well. a most immediate case would be in the middle of the iraq war and the influence iran had in iraq and shia arc those within the middle east and u.s. policy described as something that would be menacing at the end of the bush administration there was a cause to attack iran, including by the former national security adviser to president trump.
so you know, all of these things have been building. the immediate question is do we get some kind of deterrence? has deterrence been restored? general petraeus said that was an option or is something much worse about to happen. >> john, i want to get in, a quick word on the timing here. a lot of people pointed out there may be, could be possibly a senate impeachment trial coming up. what's the relationship and what could be the impact of that trial be? >> we don't know if the president was motivated to try to take americans' eye off the ball when it comes to impeachment. there is this wag the dog raised. clinton was accused of it with strike when the monica lewinsky was occurring. we need to get to the bottom of that. that's one of the many reasons the evidence is in tact. certainly this means folks attention is elsewhere. this is a matter of "war and peace" not just the president's
impulses. >> one of the things people raised any question about what president obama was doing with iran and whether there was a political underpinning at the time was president trump. new details in the attack on a military base used by u.s. forces in kenya that killed three americans. cnn is live in nairobi, kenya, with more. what have you learned? >> alsisyalisyn, the story, as mentioned three americans died in this outrageous audacious attack by al qaeda affiliated terror grob known as al shabaab. the camp they are based, a beautiful spot, alisyn, that sits on the edge of the indian ocean full of pristine white beaches and unesco world heritage site. unfortunately the proximity to the border with somalia, it is
constantly under attack from these terrorists. i cannot overemphasize how crucial american forces have been in the fight with al shabaab, airstrikes, drone strikes. this the first attack by the terror group on american troops on kenyan soil. that is since five years ago when the camp was established, that has never happened. whether this was in retaliation to the many strikes hitting al shabaab, who knows. but i can only say, alisyn, there has been a ramping up of al shabab activity. 28th of december they killed over 85 people in mogadishu, january 2nd they stopped a bus and shoot four dead, then this massive attack. now general, commanders of the u.s.-africa command told us as we honor in sacrifice less harden our resolve, alongside partners an international partners we'll pursue those responsible.
john, we keep on unpicking this for you. >> in nairobi, thank you for covering that for us. i don't believe we have heard yet from the president on this attack. his focus clearly has been elsewhere. the full senate yet to be briefed on the intelligence behind u.s. killing of iran's top general. what will lawmakers do about authorizing use of military force in the future? we're going to ask a member of the senate armed services dmt next. ♪ ♪ ♪ country roads, take me home there's a booking for every resolution. book yours at any price, at booking.com
tell us the strike with iran was a response to an imminent threat against americans. is that true? what do members of congress know about the underlying intelligence? joining us now democratic senator gary peters. he's the ranking member of the senate homeland security committee and member of senate armed services committee. senator, great to have you here this morning. >> great to be with you. >> do you understand what the imminent threat was? >> we don't. we are waiting it hear what that may have been. we're going to have a briefing for members of the senate sometime this week. i think we have a lot of questions about how imminent it was. i think the other question that i certainly want to have answered in that briefing as well is if there is an imminent threat, the department of defense would come up with a number of different options
available to the president. and my question is what were the options, why did the president pick this option and how does this option fit into a broader strategic plan the administration has. i think we know we really can't see a strategic plan that has been put forward. but what was the thought process that went into the very consequential decision. >> does he owe you that explanation? does the president owe congress to share his thought process, or does he, as president, have the purview to act against what he believes is an imminent threat? >> he does have an obligation to talk to congress. actually our founders wanted to make sure that congress had a role in war making. in fact, the power to make war resides in the congress. the founders believe there needed to be a check on executive power. we know when we go into a conflict anywhere in the world in the past, we are always stronger when we're united. we need to be united, the
congress, american people, the executive, we should all be united before we send men and women into harm's way. it is the most serious decision anybody in elected office can possibly make. we've got to make sure we're making that decision on facts. we have to make sure we're making the decision on sound intelligence and united. not just as a country but with allies. right now we're in a situation where our relationship with our allies is tenuous as best as a result of actions from this administration. you're dealing with a skeptical american public for obvious reasons with the administration. it doesn't appear we have any kind of diplomatic channels open with the iranians. this is a very precarious situation that the president has put us into. >> the white house said they did meet the 48-hour window to alert congress. they briefed, i guess, or sent a statement at least to the gang of eight. but speaker pelosi has raised
questions about that notification that begs answers. classified notification of war act delivered to congress raises more questions than it answers. this document prompts serious questions about timing of the administration's decision to engage in hostilities with iran. the highly unusual decision to classify this document in its entirety compounds our concerns and suggests the congress and american people are left in the dark about our national security. do you know what she means? do you understand what is so highly unusual about what the white house did with this? >> it is unusual. i think it's important certainly for the white house to put out the reasons for the attack and the imminent nature of it. we need to understand it. certainly congress needs to understand in a more detailed fashion than in this document. we'll know more this week when we have our briefing. you'll have a roomful of democratic senators that will have an awful lot of questions for this administration.
we want to be united if this is an imminent threat, we are all going to be there. there isn't anything more important than protecting our country. i served as an officer in the u.s. navy reserve. i served with patriotic men and women who are committed to defending our country, but we want to make sure it's done based on facts and based on good intelligence, and it's being done in a way that furthers the national interest and our strategic objectives in the region. these are serious questions. these are important questions that have to be answered. if the administration is unwilling to do that, that should raise all sorts of danger flags. >> we just had former obama homeland security adviser on with us, and she said her biggest fear is that they will retaliate with a cyber attack. is that your biggest fear of what iran will do next? as someone on the homeland security committee, are we prepared for that? >> well, cyber security is a critical issue. i think the cyber threat gemelli
is a major threat we face as a country, whether from iranians, russians, chinese and others. we know iranians have sophisticated cyber attack capabilities. we would not be surprised to see it used against soft and critical infrastructure in the united states. that's why the department of homeland security has stepped up their efforts to make sure they are working very closely with some of the private entities that control infrastructure. we have to be focused on this and be prepared and understand it is without question a very serious threat. >> all right. senator gary peters, thank you very much. please let us know what you can share after you are briefed with all of this. >> will do. >> senate republicans threatening to change the rules if house democrats don't hand over articles of impeachment. we're joined by a member of democratic house leadership next. or stale? try febreze car vent clips
to eliminate those odors for up to 30 days. stuffy, stale car odors occur because of everyday smells that are absorbed and released from soft surfaces. then they're circulated by the ac system. febreze car vent clips eliminate the stale, stuffy smells in your car and leave behind a fresh scent for up to 30 days. plus, they come in a range of scents including extra light. try febreze car brand power, helping you buy better.
here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today. the sooner this trial is over, the better for the american people.
so what i would do if she continues to refuse to send the articles as required by the constitution, i would work with senator mcconnell to change the rules of the senate so we could start the trial without her, if necessary. >> thais the senate judiciary chair lindsey graham suggesting republicans won't wait for house speaker nancy pelosi to hand over articles of impeachment against president trump, would officially begin the senate trial process. joining me now is house democratic caucus advice chair congresswoman katherine clark of the commonwealth of massachusetts. congresswoman, thank you very much for being with us. senator graham's comments aside, because it's not clear he could even do that if he wanted to, on the house side you're a member of leadership. what is your current understanding about the timing of handing over those articles of impeachment to the senate? >> good morning, john. what we are looking for is for the senate to stop their stance of willful ignorance and to look
at the evidence that has come out not only through the impeachment process in the house but the revelations of the last few weeks that have shown there are e-mails and further information that is being withheld by this administration that directly links and further explains how this president ordered the military aid to ukraine to be withheld to further his own political gains. the senate needs to take responsibility, remember their oath of office, and hold this president accountable. >> if they do not do what you are asking them to do, do you think at this point that the house leadership would withhold those articles indefinitely? >> i do not think we'll withhold them indefinitely, but we do want to make sure the american people know what is at stake. every single senator is going to have to take an oath of
impartiality and we want that to mean something, that the evidence of this president, how he has broken his oath of office, endangered our national security for his own political election and trying to gain a personal advantage has put our 2020 elections at risk, and it is a very serious matter. we have impeached in the house. the senate needs to stop being a lap dog to this president and remember their oath is to the constitution and to the american people. >> there is now an international crisis with iran. the united states, as you well know, has killed this top iranian figure. does this crisis or how does this crisis affect the impeachment process? >> you know, i think that the two are linked by the fact that both highlight we have a
dangerous president. we have a dangerous president, who is unpredictable, who acts out of his own self-needs and ego wants and not those of the security of the country and of the american people. when you combine that with a dangerous and unpredictable world, we have a threat to our security and to americans here and abroad. this situation, we really can't emphasize that the reckless nature -- >> are you suggesting, though, killing general soleimani was somehow for personal gain by the president? >> i think that he is obsessed with how he is viewed worldwide. we don't know exactly why he did this, because the white house is not being forthcoming. this president and his administration do not exactly have a deep well of credibility
either with the american people or abroad. what we've seen is a continuation of reckless action that now is already having very, very dire impacts. whether it's impacting our ability to combat isis, having the iraqi government and prime minister asking that foreign troops be removed from their country. we've seen the attack in kenya. while we don't know if they are related, it is amazing and disturbing that the president has not yet commented on that and yet continues -- >> we have not heard from the president on the attack in kenya, to be clear, nor have we seen any link between the kenyan attack and what is happening in iran. who knows what will happen over time. i do want to ask, senator elizabeth warren from massachusetts, whom you've endorsed for president suggested or at least raised the question
about whether or not the president ordered the killing of general soleimani because of the impeachment trial. listen to this. >> here is the thing, we've known about him for a very long time. why didn't this happen a month ago? why didn't it happen a month from now? why right now as donald trump faces a potential impeachment trial in the united states senate next week. >> what evidence have you seen, if any, that the president made this decision to order the killing of soleimani because of the impeachment trial? >> that's exactly the problem. we have not seen the evidence. we do not know why this administration decided that this was an imminent threat. what we have seen is secretary pompeo just trying to assure us that everything is going to be
okay, we are more secure. we know from what's happened in a few days we are not more secure. when the president takes to twitter to try and replace what should be strong, tough diplomacy with our allies with just trying to bully his way out of this, it is not going to be resolved with a tweetstorm. it will be resolved, i am afraid, with the precious lives of our sons and daughters. that is what this president has to realize, there are implications here for american lives, and he has to come to congress and make sure we understand what is the overall strategy. why was this tactic undertaken. nobody is morning the loss of general soleimani but we do want to make sure it improves our security. at this vantage point, at this time, it looks like this president has endangered americans. >> we have about 30 seconds
left. i just want your quick take on why the vote that nancy pelosi is proposing, a war powers vote, basically denying the president the ability to do further action against iran without congressional approval, why that vote is important. >> the vote is critical. the constitution is clear. it is congress that gets to decide about matters of war. this president has launched us into an escalating situation with iran and has really thrown flames onto what was already a tinderbox in the region. we need to be able to restore order, restore the constitutional roles of congress and be strong. put your case forward. but let's work for the security of the american people not for the needs of the edo go of a president. >> congresswoman katherine clark, thank you very much for being with us.
happy new year. >> thank you. happy new year. as you were discussed 3,000 troops deployed to the middle east. how are military families feeling about these tensions with iran? that's next. - why are drivers 50 and over switching to the aarp auto insurance program let's take a ride with some actual customers and find out. hey, well tell me about your experience when you switched to the hartford. - when i switched to the hartford, i'm sitting there, like, man, i should've turned 50 years ago.
they saved me a bunch of money. you can't beat that. - what blows me away about the hartford is their lifetime renewability benefit. now this is their promise not to drop you, you know, even if you have an accident. - i know when i'm driving, i'm covered. - [announcer] drivers 50 and over can save hundreds of dollars when they switch to the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford. not an aarp member? the hartford can help you join in minutes. to get your free no-obligation quote and see how much you could save, call the hartford at the number on your screen. or go to the website on your screen. the buck's got your back.
a team of federal safety investigators is on the scene of a deadly pileup on the pennsylvania turnpike. this happened near pittsburgh. at least five people were killed. sixty others hurt in this crash that involved three tractor-trailers, a tour bus and a car. just look at these pictures. cnn live in monroeville, pennsylvania, with the very latest. those images, miguel, terrifying. >> those, they literally are terrifying, pictures of chain reaction crash. heartbreaking as well when you realize this happened 3:30 in the morning saturday morning as the bus was traveling from the new york, new jersey area to cincinnati. we now know that the youngest person killed of the five killed, the youngest person was nine years old. we also know the bus driver of that tour bus was also killed as well as one passenger. in one of those semitrucks,
there were two drivers, both of them were killed in this accident as well. what authorities are saying about the way this thing played out is that the weather, perhaps it had started to rain or sleet about the time the bus accident happened, but this was on a long stretch of the pennsylvania turnpike. a long downhill stretch with a turn in it. they said the bus driver was unable to negotiate that turn, went upon an embankment, slid over, overturned, basically, and two semitrucks hit that bus. a third semi hit all of that and a passenger car was also involved. dozens of people taken to various hospitals around the area. that team of investigators, national transportation safety board now in the area looking at not only the bus but the road conditions, the road itself, the design of the road, and trying to understand how this could happen. alisyn. >> miguel, just horrible. the pictures are horrible.
that trip can be harrowing. thank you very much. about 3500 u.s. service members are being deployed to the middle east days after president trump ordered the killing of iran's top military leader. many of those being deployed from 82nd airborne in ft. bragg. cnn has more with them. >> we ask you, god, to give comfort where comfort is needed. >> at the baptist church's sunday night service, family members of soldiers being deployed were asked to stand. at least six members of this fayetteville, north carolina, church are on their very first deployment. first brigade of airborne division has trained for this. they run drills to go from that phone call to boarding the plane in a matter of hours. still this deployment shook families at the end of their holidays with first notification sent on new year's eve. this military spouse may have a smile on her face but sunday was rough. >> i've cried a lot.
>> reporter: she found out at lunch time her husband already deployed at training would be rerouted to join others in the middle east. we're not naming her or her husband for security reasons. the added challenge was he was not able to tell her exactly what was happening so he told her to look up a particular news article. >> it's hard not to hear it from somebody and see somebody else's perspective. >> from taylor smith he's doing all he can. >> 82nd is trying to push back his deployment date as much as possible. his wife is a high-risk pregnancy. he's leaving somewhere around tuesday and his wife is due wednesday. >> smith is a veteran like many others at this church who know all too well what it's like to deploy. they say the comfort is knowing their family at home has a support system. a volunteer group called deploy love is doing its part in building that support. >> i know it's scary, and we want to make it a smooth flow
for you and keep your kids going through the school year and not be stressed out as well. >> reporter: stressed out and concerned about when they will see their loved ones again. >> this is what the 82 pd airborne is trained for. it doesn't make it easy on the families there. even those soldiers new year's eve to get that call and say, hey, you're going. >> we're so grateful for their sacrifice and the personal stories of that one husband who may miss the birth of his child by one day if he has to deploy on tuesday and his baby coming wednesday, we hope they can adjust. i'm so glad she brought us that to show us the real life consequences. what is iran's next move? what is president trump's? we get the bottom line next. d, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it -
with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa trumpand total disaster.mplete let obamacare implode. nurse: these wild attacks on healthcare hurt the patients i care for. i've been a nurse in new york for thirty years. i know the difference leadership can make because i saw what mike bloomberg did as mayor. vo: mayor bloomberg helped lower the number of uninsured by 40%, covering 700,000 more new yorkers, life expectancy increased. he helped expand health coverage to 200,000 more kids and upgraded pediatric care--- infant mortality rates dropped to record lows. and as mayor, mike bloomberg always championed reproductive health for women. so when you hear mike bloomberg on health care... mrb: this is america. we can certainly afford to make sure that everybody that needs to see a doctor
"new york times" columnist. nick, great to have you in studio. i know i'm asking you unknowable questions but you are steeped in foreign affairs. you do travel the globe, is there any way to know how iran will respond or what they are planning? >> there's no way to know but i think there are ways to make some good guesses. i think it's almost certain that iran will respond in some dramatic way that it thinks will be similar in scale to what happened to general soleimani. what form that takes or where, we just don't know. certainly military bases in the region are an obvious target. i think cyber attacks are likely to happen. we may see attacks on american economic targets as a way of iran responding to attacks on iran's economy. you know, i would be worried if i were in charge of security at trump properties around the globe. i can imagine them being a
target. beyond that, you know, there hasn't been much talk about the iraqi killed along with soleimani. some militia in the area may seek retaliation as well, either in coordination with iran or on their own. that may be more ad hoc. this was not over. this will continue. then the u.s. will be faced with how will we escalate. what worries me is both sides have miscalculated. the u.s. dependent understand when we initially had airstrikes on five different locations and killed two dozen iranian supporters on september 29th that iran would respond. iran did not respond but general soleimani is dead. that miscalculation is dead.
>> they had no idea this was happening. this man wasn't in hiding. this man travels out in the open. had he been expecting he would have been in hiding. military response is action, reaction and counter-action here. we're trying to figure out how iran is now looking at this. one of the things that's been positive, david gregly noting general petraeus is this, maybe there's a sense of deterrence. maybe this action will create an action inside iran that we have to be careful how we react. >> i think general petraeus made the point there for iraq was lack of deterrent. iran last may upped the game, created a series of provocations and the u.s. had not responded. i think it's fair to respond in that period after may the u.s. had not created a price for iranian provocations. we went from underdeterrence september 29th to dramatically
escalating and then raised that again with the killing of general soleimani. i think the notion we deterred anything killing general soleimani is completely wrong. i think it will lead to more attacks on americans and more dead americans. what i most fear is this will raise the escalation ladder and cause issues that we can't pretend to predict in the strait of hormuz involving shipping, cyber attacks, economic infrastructure, we just don't know. >> we do know a couple of things. one is iran no longer feels any compunction about violating 2015 nuclear deal so they have announced they are not going to be hamstrung by that anymore and iraqi parliament voted to get rid of u.s. troops. >> i think that's exactly right. if you look at the consequences
of this, it's certainly not obvious they will argue the opposite. in addition, as you say, we are probably on the way to losing mer american military presence in iraq. that makes it difficult to operate in syria, 1,000 troops in syria. we have kind of rescued the iranian regime so unpopular both at home and iraq and we've devastated our ability to combat isis. so certainly there has been a backlash so far. this has not gone the way we've wanted either for the u.s. or, of course, for general soleimani. >> i think we have live pictures from the streets of tehran. we have been watching these demonstrations all day. this is a funeral for gem soleimani. we saw the supreme leader mourning over his body and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, over a million people on the streets there. you just listed four things. setbacks for what you would
think strategic goals in the region. number two, unifying iranian people. number three, getting kicked out in a vote in parliament. four, having to pause. that's a lot. >> it is. in the long run, the way out of this crisis in the long run is going to be what happens in iran. and been to iran multiple times, i've reported there. the regime is extremely unpopular. there's deep resentment at the corruption and oppression of the regime. you travel in iran and it is also in make ways the least religious country in the region. it's a place where people don't fast during the day during ramad ramadan. we begin to see protests gaining strength in november. now i, you know - now as you say we've unified the country. i think we've put off those kinds of threats to the
government. what soleimani wanted his whole career was to oust u.s. forces from iraq. and by killing him, we may have helped him achieve that objective. >> kristof, great to have you here. >> thanks for explaining irony and unintended consequences. >> great to be with you. >> we've been watching tehran all morning long. new developments in the standoff with iran next. ♪ robin hood and little john runnin' through the forest ♪ ♪ laughin' back and forth at what the other'ne has to say ♪ there's a booking for every resolution. book yours at booking.com