this was going on. also letting you know, antony blinken is ready to make his fifth trip to the re-june. he will be stopping in israel, qatar, saudi arabia. now you have this added controversy here about how far these attacks go and just who is being targeted. we will be devoting a large chunk of time on this and the impact on our saturday show at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. we'll have more details to go on as well as a sense financially what is the impact on this region. remember, we're wanting to financially hollow up some of these groups. there had been talk that by going to their financial epicenters beyond iran that that would be a sort of powerful 1-2 pun. . we got the 1 today. some people are waiting for the 2, the 3, the ♪ ♪ >> hello.

i'm dana perino with judge jeanine pirro, richard fowler, will cain, and greg gutfeld. it's 5:00 in new york city, and this is "the five." ♪ ♪ this is a fox news alert: the united states has started carrying out a wave of retaliatory strikes in piers and serie a, five days after a -- in retaliatory strikes of iraq and syria. let's go right to the national security correspondent jennifer griffin, who has a live update from the pentagon. >> at 4:00 p.m. eastern, carrying out air strikes on six to seven locations, i am told, in both iraq and syria. the u.s. central command just put out a statement in which they said that 85 targets had been struck at those different locations that were used by the iranian revolutionary guard

corps. 125 munitions were dropped. we have heard from u.s. defense officials that two b-1 b lancer bombers flew from the united states to the region and carried out some of these strikes, targeting, i'm told, multiple targets inside of the 6-7 locations used by the iranian proxies. some of the locations were weapons storage facilities and included underground bunkers, headquarters, command and control notes that have been used for the iranian backed proxies to store their drones and ballistic missiles, and fire on those u.s. bass player less, as we have reported. 166 attacks on u.s. bases since mid-october. the one that turns deadly on sunday, killing three americans, was the trigger for this response. we are told that this is a campaign that has been drawn up by u.s. central command, that it will last for days, and that

this is the first round of strikes. we reported at about 3:30 today that there were explosions inside syria at some of these sites. we are told that they were not air strikes at the time, but they were explosions, it was part of the preparations being made for the strikes on these targets. a little bit of confusion earlier today, but we know for certain that the first air strikes began at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> dana: we will take around the table. >> will: how much heads up around had. how much they were able to evacuate from the targets, and if that is the facts, then what is left from at least a personnel standpoint, as to who was actually the target in these strikes? >> will, i think it has been the worst-kept secret in washington that this campaign was going to begin in the coming days. you heard the president to talk about it. you heard pentagon officials talk about yesterday here at the

pentagon. i asked secretary austen that very question. has there been too much telegraphing? or is the point not to kill any iranian commanders? >> in terms of telegraphing about strikes, people leave or would have left. i will not speculate on any of that. i would just tell you that we will have a multitiered response. >> will, i think it would be safe to assume that given the time of day when they struck, and the telegraph that had taken place -- we had seen reports that iranian revolutionary guard commanders had been called back to iran. i would be surprised if any of them had been at these bases. there may have been a few people left behind, but not the senior commanders. i think perhaps that was by design. again, you for the pentagon and others say they are not seeking

a war with iran. that's why u.s. officials are ruling out strikes inside iran at this time. again, this is the first. they are hoping that tehran gets the message without us having to escalate. >> dana: judge? >> jeanine: jennifer, i understand that the united states is saying they are not seeking a war, but at the same time, there are those who believe that if you just hit the proxies in syria and iraq, that it's not going to matter to iraq, and that when iran can separate itself from the proxies saying they go rogue, when the truth is the iran revolutionary guard corps trains them and pays them. it's kind of disingenuous. and what's our point of hitting the proxies? >> it's a good question. certainly, this shell game that iran has been playing in the middle east by arming, supporting, training these proxies, whether it's in lebanon with has below, these various groups in syria and iraq, whether it is the who tease in

yemen, hamas in the gaza strip. there is a common thread: iran, tyrone. the u.s. has not figured out a way to put enough pressure on iran to make it painful enough for them to stop supporting these groups, and in fact, there are some who believe that this is why it's a delicate balancing act for the white house national security team as well as the pentagon, is how not to get bated into a war with iran. some believe that's what iran wants, that they wanted israel to find itself in a war with hamas, and for the u.s. to stumble into a larger conflict. that is what people are trying to avoid, but they also believe that by striking 85 targets as well as a days long, if not weeks long campaign, that they can ratchet up the pressure on iran. they are going to a lot of valuable property that the

proxies have been using to torment and taught u.s. bases for the last three months. the question one should ask is what took so long? of course, it's tragic that three americans were killed, but the u.s. troops sitting in iraq and syria have been sitting there for months. >> dana: jennifer griffin, thank you so much. mike tobin is in israel in tel aviv, the latest reaction there. i'm sure they are on heightened alert as well. >> they are always on heightened alert at this stage, dana, but but i can confirm our locations. we have a source inside of a rock who said indeed there have been multiple targets struck in the area on the western border of iraq, near syria. this, following reports throughout the day that this area, these three areas were all hit. these are areas that are kind of near -- some of those cities are just on the banks of the euphrates river. this one is immediately across

the border. a lot of the real estate, at least for a lot of these strikes have been concentrated, there is not a lot of real estate. it's about a 16-mile area. we know that these strikes inside of a rock, the was confirming today that there were some 85 different targets hit by some 125 different munitions. that's dramatically different from the early reports we heard that some eight different targets were hit. we anticipated that the numbers would change and indeed they did. the u.s. is now confirming that they used two of those big b-1 b bombers to hit some of those targets inside of a rock. >> dana: we will take it around the table. let me quickly ask you, there was talk earlier this week, communication about a possible cease-fire and getting more hostages out. do you know where that stands at this moment? >> it stands, at the point, where hamas and islamic jihad officials met. they sent out a number of demands. they said you will need to see a massive prisoner release. they want to see all israelis

withdrawal from the gaza strip. -- come back -- no combat inside of the gaza strip, they want to see restoration for the gaza strip. they have brought demands, if you will, for the leadership of palestinian islamic jihad and hamas. as far as prisoner release goes, that puts them far apart from benjamin netanyahu, who says they want to see all of the prisoners released and how must dismantle. >> richard: thanks for joining us. picking up where dana left off, how does the cease-fire negotiation interplay with this strike and the fact that we now know today that secretary lincoln will be returning to the region to visit the west bank, qatar and saudi arabia? >> mike: well, clearly the secretary is hitting all of the key players involved in this, particularly when he talks to the qatari's. they are the primary avenue to get in and talk to hamas. you cannot have a discussion with them directly.

the fact that secretary blinken is coming here shows that there is at least an effort to move forward with these hostage release negotiations. you have to be patient and unfortunately pessimistic. if you look at this example, when this person was kidnapped, it took six years and 1,000 palestinian prisoners to get him released. now, you are talking about over 100 that we know that are still alive, or at least we have information they are still alive in hamas captivity. you cannot be optimistic that you are talking about more than women and children and elderly people released in this round of talks. >> dana: mike tobin, thank you. rich at the white house with the latest. >> hey, dana. we just got a statement from president biden, first we have heard from him since these retaliatory strikes. he knows that he did attempt the transfer of the three soldiers who were killed in that drone strike over the weekend. now, the response to this. he says this afternoon in his direction that u.s. military forces struck targets and facilities in iraq and syria.

p.i. rgc, the iran revolutionary guard corps, and this -- use to attack military forces. "our response began today, it will continue at a time and place of our choosing." the white house and initiation have been using that for some time. he also says that the u.s. does not seek conflict in the middle east or anywhere else in the world, but "let all those who might seek to do us harm this: if you -- an american, we will respond." the president attended that dignified transfer earlier today. he is back at his home in delaware today, where we expect -- we weren't expected to hear much more from him today until he released this stat statement. "there has been criticism -- there has been criticism of the white house, seven days since that drone attack on early sunday. a number of congressional republicans saying that should have been a robust response, one that should have happened shortly thereafter that attack. senator lindsey graham had said

earlier today before the details of this strike came out that the lapse of time has lessened the impact of deterrence, and by not hitting oil infrastructure in iran or revolutionary guard personnel, "you will have failed to make the point." around is one of the many subjects that republicans and the white house have been at odds over since the beginning of the administration. the white house has tried to get the u.s. back into the nuclear deal. at times have failed, but it was the prisoner swap. you remember the $6 billion at the administration, they were going to unfreeze for iranian assets. the u.s. said that fell apart especially after the hamas attack on israel. around support for hamas. this continues to be a point of friction. we will get more updates from capitol hill as the details come out. >> dana: a question for me, the judge, and will. has the white house called the lid for the day? >> rich: they did a couple hours ago which is why the statement was a surprise. the media not hearing from the president today. of course, we did.

as this continues, we may expect to hear more from it administration officials and the white house. >> jeanine: it's interesting to hear the administration say "if you harm an american, we will respond." it appears they harmed over 100 americans before the united states responded. the united states is making a claim that it doesn't want a broader war. the republicans obviously don't agree with the stance of this administration. does anyone think this is really going to change things based upon this kind of tepid response? >> rich: judge, you look at the nearly 170 attacks on u.s. positions in iraq and syria, now in jordan since the middle of october. there has been plenty of criticism about the several attacks that the u.s. has had on positions in iraq and syria since those attacks began. the timeline that it took just for those retaliatory responses, now ostensibly the largest we have had to date.

the administration has justified its responses in saying that it's trying to maintain deterrence by trying to ensure that this doesn't spread wider, or the conflict doesn't spread wider in the middle east, because you've got israel fighting hamas in gaza, israel and hezbollah on the lebanon border going back and forth. you've got -- in yemen attacking shipping in the red sea. you have all of these attacks on american positions in the middle east. the republicans have argued, and those like senator lindsey graham have argued that unless you have something really robust and shows that you mean business, you are not showing that. in fact, you are only inviting more attacks. >> dana: thank you. if they popped the lid again, let us know. we will take it on the table. >> jeanine: what's interesting about all of this is that the united states -- in my last question to rich -- the united states is not going to respond. it's not about going into tehran. when donald trump was president, he took out the head of the iranian revolutionary guard

corps. if the united states made the decision to go after that island, wherever it is, where they have the oil supply, we would hurt iran economically and consequently hurt all of the proxies. the problem is if we did that, the price of oil would go up in a presidential year. "going to let it run in the oil market, the billions of dollars that they got from her hostage exchange," but warning them not to touch 100 and until three will they respond. it is schizophrenic. >> that is a huge capacity that's iranian backed proxies have in order to attack our troops, who are there. >> for several more days of this, that's a lot of capability that we have allowed them to build up.

>> i would make two points. i would be curious, about your response to this, one in the micro and the macro. i don't see that much has happened. in terms of some strikes, that has occurred. what has done to deter around? if they have the wh -- heads up warning -- but the macro is, and forgive the not-so-subtle plug, but i had them on my digital show. he said "when it comes to them, strike them hard. they are messing with their national shipping lanes." when it comes to this story, why do we have guys scattered across syria? why do we have guys scattered across a rocky? why are we leading ourselves vulnerable for the potential of attack? >> greg: think the phrase was used, sitting ducks. why are they there? we have learned a lot the last couple of years. look, this would be the first time in my life that i agree

with joi reid. not another fing war. gaza, around. one day they're good guys, the next day or bad guys, then they are good guys again, then we are not sure, then we talked. a wise man once said, and i wish i remember his name: "it's big if we make it big." that's what we do. we take things and make it big. why is it that we only have consequences for actions not in the united states? like you said, if you harm americans, there will be payback. there are americans being harmed in united states every day. we don't do shit about the border, we don't do anything about crime. when will we send a message to the illegal immigrants or the fentanyl suppliers? why not send a message to the people who -- i am not saying bombaing. i'm saying actually creating disincentives. i'm saying punishing people who

deserve punishment in the united states and protecting millions of americans here. i don't want our troops getting bombed over there. i prefer that they be home here. you put the sitting ducks out there, then we have to send some virtue signaling message to show that we are doing something, and we know it -- not doing anything, and then we have to sit here and act like armchair experts talking about this crap for 17 minutes? i am sick of it. >> dana: i'm not sure where to go with that. [laughter] >> richard: there is something you said that i agree with. i think if you studied the history of how we got here, and the idea that decades ago, a group of folks sat in a room and drew lines throughout the middle east. to your points, one day there were friends, the next day enemies, the weapons they sold to us as friends and to kill us as enemies. now they are here. i think that is the sad part. i think one thing that would add

to this conversation when it comes to the news of the day, is that today the justice department did announce that the united states government seems to have 1 million barrels of iranian oil. internationally sanctioned -- it was being illegally traffic to sellers in russia, china, syria. i'm just adding it because i think the news is important given the fact that the we're having this conversation around iranian containment. >> jeanine: what impact does this have on iran? we will not hit that island where the oil is. we will not hit any infrastructure. the thing that i want an answer to is is that drone that went into jordan that killed three of our servicemen and injured over 40 -- they could not track it. i want to know if it was an american drone from afghanistan. is that the reason our system of

defenses did not recognize that drone that killed three and injured at least 40? >> dana: the other thing that happened this week is that the biden administration decided to answer to the tiktok crowd and cancel liquid natural gas exports to europe. where do you think they are going to get it next? they have to keep their homes. bombing them at the time that we are also cutting off the nose to spite our face, and our allies. there is a lot to make sense of. we are going to keep going with this. we have this retired army lieutenant keith kellogg. he is a fox news contributor, can tell us where we are right or wrong, but i'm sure we are mostly right. [laughter] >> thank you for having me. i'm not going to go where greg was. here is the reason why you want to get to a level of deterrence. it's based on credibility and what you're doing.

i know it feels good to bomb 85 targets, thousands of pounds of munitions on it, rip your shirt off and pound your chest, but if you do not establish this with credibility, it will continue. my concern is that we really haven't -- the root cause is iran. that's where you have to go. you have to go. you have to go downtown to establish that. why is that important? when you look at the middle east, i am looking at it. people have thought it's the most dangerous it has been since 1973. i think it's the most dangerous since 1938, when the british prime minister went and came out of munich after talking to him and said "peace in our time." and then he started a world war. they generally start by big mistakes. this is starting to be a big mistake. you are looking at a iran that is getting ready to go nuclear, already reaching 90% of uranium, getting to 90% you can create a weapon. when you get that, it totally destabilizes the middle east.

you react differently to nuclear power than a nonnuclear power. you see all of the destabilization. we are not forcing ourselves -- forcing the rest of the world to understand that it's gone about as far as we wanted to go go. stabilized the region and we are not getting there. when the chinese make a peace deal between saudi arabia and around, that would have never happened previously. ukraine and russia and china -- this all impacts. i think what we're doing right now is feeling good. a lot of sand and asphalt. we are not going after the root cause. i hate to say it but we have neck and into iran. i know that if you can do that, the risk goes up. i've got that, but you have got to get uncomfortable when you do something like that. they do not want to go to work with the united states of america. they know what we can do. we should make them understand that we are going to take a step

that's going to prevent you from doing anything. that means take out their economic facilities like their oilfields, taking other leadership. either the leader of that force -- you are talking about the supreme leader, talking about taking out all of their military facilities. you have got to be willing to go there. when the other side realizes that you are willing to step up and go there, they are going to back down. right now, we have not sent that message at all. i don't think this campaign has a good answer to it right now. >> jeanine: there is no question, general, that we, i believe, have the military ability and capacity to be able to have war with iran. i'm not promoting it. i'm not interested in that. i'm not interested in world war iii, but to continue to say we don't want to conflict with iran. if they don't want to conflict with us and that is your opinion, why are we so afraid to at least threaten them, at least take out some infrastructure, at

least take out some of the oilfields? why are we so afraid? >> we've got the capacity and capability. it all comes down to leadership. there is a commander in chief, a president, and it is his decision-making and his advisors as well. what your -- they redo this. we do that as well. we say that we know this leader is probably going to react this way, this leader is going to react that way. they are looking for some but he liked president biden who has traditionally been risk-averse. you set patterns, i set patterns. you go to the same service station, grocery store. you set those patterns of leadership as well. you see a leader who is risk-averse and doesn't want to go there, so they are going to push the envelope. you've got to break away. that's the only way you reach a conclusion. it's nothing to do with capacity. we've got plenty of that. i think the iranians have said "i think we can push this guy,"

and -- i understand it's a harsh assessment. i think it's true. >> if i heard you correctly, what i heard you describe is something akin to what lindsey graham might have tweeted today when he said bomb to run. might not have targeted to run, but you talk about oilfields and a direct hit on iran. anything would -- just curious. what would be a historical precedent if you are selling that to the american people to take a aggressive action against the nation-state, they will back down and it will not metastasize. can you give me that when it happened in american history that it was a great success? >> i will start with the civil war. >> the civil war was a success? >> burned atlanta. coming towards us this way. when the united states of america had a clear message in world war ii, firebombed dresden to the ground, bombed nagasaki and hiroshima instead of

invading. those things happen all the time. >> and sorry to interrupt. what i'm curious about, the examples you gave for the civil war and world war ii, clearly worldwide metastasize actions that resulted in millions of dead. i thought you were describing an aggressive attack in iran to avoid a greater war. >> what happened in this administration with president trump, very clear. we killed them, things quieted down. we took out one key leader. i will give you another good example. when we were having peace discussions with the taliban, and president trump -- and i was in the oval office. we were talking about the leader of the taliban. it was translated and i sat there wondering "how is this being translated?" we were clear in what we were going to do to him and the taliban if something happened. after that discussion, not a single american was killed in over a year in afghanistan. you sent a certain message to certain people. they received a message because

they believed they were serious. we could spend an hour if you want to. i can give you historical examples. from this war to currently. it makes a hard decision to do it. box, you've got to make that call sometimes. that doesn't mean you totally bomb iran, but you are selective in your targeting. it needs to be done. >> general, thank you for joining us. my question to pick up where we'll left off is this idea that if we decide we are going to primitively strike in iran, are you saying that we do not believe that the iranians with retaliate in some way, given the fact that they have a lot of troops in that region? you said earlier in the show, many of them are in bases. we've lost three there, 40 injured. are you saying there is no potential for the iranians to strike back and hurt american troops on the ground? speak of course there is, richard, but i will take issue with one word you used. for us to preemptively attack iran. they have been attacking us for the last 90 days.

>> within the borders. >> we would go after them -- of course we would have to accept them. that is the risk level. it's not a gamble but there is a risk level. you make sure that they understand: if you want to dance with the bear -- the united states being the bear -- we will decide when the dance stops, not you, and you make that hard call. look, i'm not big on starting a war. i have had kids in the military. i've been in the military. i understand what you have to do to establish some level of deterrence in the world and the region, and we are not there yet. you have to establish that. you are heading for a larger war, more conflict, more jeff, more americans who will be lost. we have been dodging a bullet for the last 90 days. it finally hit home with the deaths of three americans and that continues into the future. this is nonstop. i would like to know what is the end state of this contingency plan that the united states have established with all of this bombing. i don't know whether they are going to. >> they called us so i don't

know if they're going to get that tonight. dan hoffman, also a fox news contributor. i'm curious about what you think about that leak from last night. it came out from the administration, suggesting that around really had no idea that this was -- that iran really had no idea that this was going on. trying to give iran cover, that they didn't know that, as they sat on martha's show, that they let the kids have a kegger and pretended to know nothing about it. >> that is a distinction without a difference, because none of those proxy terrorist groups would exist without iran's support. iran provides them with military equipment, with all the missiles they need, with intelligent support, with financial support. iran might not have told them when to strike, but iran certainly is providing them with all of that support, because those groups intended to strike us. let's be clear: we are at war with iran. it's a proxy war right now, but

there is a war going on. it's happening because lebanese hezbollah is targeting israel. remember, this all started 40 years ago when hezbollah -- the predecessor prede -- terrorist group to them -- in beirut. that is the way iran operates. that is the way they conduct war. >> anyone have a question for dan hoffman? >> we talked about these guys scattered around these bases in syria and iraq. what are they having accomplishing this presents? >> we have a couple of interests, important national security interests, in the middle east. won his freedom of navigation. a lot of trade happens through the red sea. in syria and iraq, very small numbers of u.s. troops -- 2500 in iraq, a few hundred in syria. they are there to do counterterrorism operations. they are not there to bring democracy to the middle east, not there to build girls schools, but they are there to protect us at home.

there are terrorists, al qaeda and isis terrorists. if we do not target them way out there, then they are going to target us in the region and potentially here at home. i served in those places. i served in iraq for a year, and for two years in the dash we were perfectly fine serving in harm's way as long as we had te right equipment to keep a safe and the right policy. that's been lacking over the past few months, where 160-plus strikes against our people. we have lost escalation dominance to iran. >> dan rock, jeanine pirro here. the whole idea of our policy of allowing -- how many, i think it is 80 or 100 who were injured, some with traumatic brain injuries in iraq or syria before this last attack with three that were killed and 40 injured. how much influence has the

commercial interference of shipping had on the american policy? it is almost like you see the commercial -- not going through the red sea now. they are going around the cape of africa. do you see policy changing when it comes to commercial vessels and countries getting a little more aggressive then, as opposed to when americans are injured? i am not convinced this administration is so concerned about americans where we allowed 160 tax on our servicemen in syria and iraq. >> i'm sure the administration and those who were serving our concern about u.s. men and women, and others serving in -- they are also concerned.

100% right about that. the world will suffer greatly because of these terrorists. one thing i will add as if you do not strike back early, the price of deterrence goes up. the price of deterring the who - as well as the iranian proxy terrorists in the syria and i iraq. speak of the $10 waiver that the bite in the administration gave to them is still in effect tonight. >> and we know where the money goes, dana, it is straight to iran's ballistic missile program, and its proxy terrorists. it has to be in all of government approach. the doj seizing the $500,000 worth of iranian oil is a good first, albeit small step, but there's got to be a lot more. they've got to come up for rands access to funds.

we know what they're doing with it. unfortunately, russia and china, as well as north korea and iran, make up this centuries axis of tyranny. that's been one of the results of the war in gaza, and russia was brutal, barbaric war in ukraine. that's another wickedly complex challenge for this administration. >> dan, thank you. it's also another reason why i brought up -- i'm just putting this out there to the table. this decision by the biden administration to stop all permits for liquefied natural gas that's cleaner burning and our allies need to prevent them from getting their energy from china and russia. it doesn't make sense. >> i refer to it as a schizophrenic approach, but that's a benign way to describe it. it really is an approach that is political, so you are able to say to the americans "i'm doing this or i'm supporting israel, or we are attacking them, or we hit them 65 times were 85 --"

whatever the number was. at the same time, saying to her room "we will let you have the $10 billion waiver and $6 billion for hostages, and we will let you sell oil on the international market." that is so frustrating to me. i don't want to have a war more than anyone else, but i think they are right. we have americans all over the place in iraq and syria. i understand, but we need to keep an eye on al qaeda and of her videos. wooden donald trump was president -- and i don't want to make this political, but you had a leader who said that the iran revolutionary guard corps "i'm going to kill their leader," took them out, that was it. joe biden leaves afghanistan to how many billions of dollars worth of armaments in the middle east? i believe they are using them against us now. so, the administration is not stupid. there is some other agenda going on where it's not just "we have

to do this, but we have to let china, iran do that. we don't want to fight them. we have to give them warning. we want them to know that we don't want to have a war." you kill an american, you should have a war. >> judge, you and both the general brought up donald trump making a threat to the taliban and the backing off of power. what i would offer his donald trump is an exception to the rule. donald trump, one of the reasons he was so hated by both the machine that exists within washington, d.c., that's gearing up for another war. whether it's left or right, republican or democrat, it was -- it stood in the way moments like this. you need someone to say, if i'm connecting the dots correctly, that we have a presence scattered around this area for counterterrorism end. a target gets hit, and not just listening to the conversation through the first 35 minutes, we have to go hit the people that hit us. we h -- to live under this delusion. that is against the backdrop of

about 50 years of talk of regime change in iran. a great history of regime change. that's worked out well in afghanistan. of course, in our regime change in afghanistan feeds instability and chaos across the greater middle east, everywhere we go to set stability. before we know it, we have ceded the ground for more terrorism which comes back and hits us which undercuts the original purpose of putting troops into the middle east in the first place, counterterrorism. we might need some sobriety before we fire the war machine on this cycle that seems to always end up in american death. >> jeanine: and why? why was it that there was so much going on with al qaeda and all of the beheadings and the bombings, and then in six weeks, you get rid of the caliphate when shrum came in? he gave the general's full authority: -- to when trump came in? you give the general's full authority to go in there. >> you are speaking to something that is absolutely right. you rewind the tape before you get to donald trump. when you talk about the caliphate's coming talk about al qaeda, afghanistan, the death

of our troops, and how our troops died. i think that is the hardest part about it. they died with weapons that we sold to the people to begin with in the '80s. >> sitting in the desert -- >> let's go back to the 1980s. we were selling weapons to many of these places that used of those weapons to then kill american troops. the history of this region, and is not the only region where this is the case. any time america goes into places and says "we are going to build a democracy here, we are going to make this place better, hoping to sell weapons to his them a chance," what ends up happening is that it can start as a result. it might happen 2-3 decades later, but it's weapons that were sold a decade before. >> a great job of regime change in ukraine. that worked out well. i'm sorry. i'm sitting at home watching "the five" right now. i am just going "don't lecture me on deterrence." we don't have any deterrence

anywhere, especially in the united states. we have no idea of what an incentive or disincentive is. obviously, i've become cynical about this. i spoke out about ukraine the first week that it started. called it a put in public. we are two years in and we have 70-80000 ukrainian dead. that all could have been prevented, but no, we had to have a war. anyway, i have no -- i am no expert on this, but i know if i were sitting at home right now, i feel like all of this information and speculation, you've heard of before. you are going to hear it again. we are just filling a bucket. >> let's bring in special report anchor bret baier to help us fill the bucket. [laughter] you have been watching this. you know the region and the issues well. catches up on what you think tonight. >> a couple things. the white house put out a statement saying that the president, making this statement that he had this afternoon, that at his direction, he issued this

order for u.s. forces in response, at the time and place of his choosing. he kept on saying that the white house said -- the defense secretary said, the state department said that the -- today was the time and place. proxy groups on the grounds, 85 targets, 125 precision munitions. interestingly, happened moments after the transfer of the american bodies of soldiers who were killed in that base by drones that were funded by the iranians. when anybody takes this, can't prove that these proxy groups are tied directly to iran. you talk to experts in the intel world, it is direct. there are hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to these proxy groups. they don't fire a bb gun without getting the blessing, essentially, of iran. interestingly, in the white house statement and this statement, it says and mentions the irgc: the islamic

revolutionary guard corps, as being part of this, saying they are part of the targets. it goes on to say "the united states does not seek conflict in the middle east or anywhere else in the world, but let all those who might seek to do us harm know this: if you harm an american, we will respond." already, there has been response from some republican lawmakers who are very critical of how long this has taken. the chairman of the house committee saying almost a week after today's strikes "it is long overdue," following a delay that allowed our enemies to prepare. there will be criticism about how long it takes, but to greg's point, it is a deterrence when the u.s. military is fully engaged. when you fly b-1 bombers from the u.s., the middle east pays attention. whether it is right or wrong -- in response to an american soldier being dead -- this is a big response. we don't have a targets yet. we will see more as the hours

progress. >> dana: you interview the prime minister of qatar earlier this week. what would he be thinking about this tonight? with a welcome it? >> i asked him specifically when, if and when the u.s. response to this attack in jordan, the killing of three american soldiers, what would they say? the response, depending on what the attack was. he said the u.s. will do what the u.s. has to do, and i think that that is the message you are going to get from many of the middle eastern countries, that they respect power and strength, and they understand that if you were attacked, there is likely an attack coming. there was nobody in the middle east, tehran to damascus to riyadh, who did not think this was coming. just didn't know exactly when. >> jeanine: we gave them warning. >> and a lot of time. and that is the criticism. all of these people scattered to different places. again, we do not know the targets, but there's 85 of them. that is more significant than --

in the desert. >> they say storage facilities and weapons. >> irgc. it suggests more significant targets. we will not know until we find out where they are. >> do you think there is a possibility, besides the 85 targets that have been announced, do you think there's other targets that are covertly -- that we do not know about? >> there's a couple of undisclosed locations we are being told. it is not inside iran. i know there are lawmakers who were suggesting that. that's not going to happen, i'm being told. the first wave of the use strikes. there will be a series of them is what we are being told. how long this lasts, where exactly it goes, we don't know, but inside iran is probably not one of them. they are not talking about a couple of them. >> to the point of deterrence, do you think it will accomplish the goal of deterrence? the general who we just had on i

think seems to suspect it wouldn't. i think that's why he was suggesting -- the necessity to strike within iran. >> go back. we can go back decades. the ideological struggle is what it is. it's that we should die. it's that they don't think western civilizations should survive. we have this ideological

generational struggle. you do not have the president of the united states, perhaps not capable, perhaps not willing to lay this out for the american people to say "here's what i believe. here is what i can assure you of, americans," or "here's where we are going. this is why you should stick with me." that's why there is a confusion. the leadership scenes to not be able to drive. they are not in the driver's seat. >> that's a fair criticism. you know better than anybody that talking with the white house carries with it a lot of power, and the ability to make the case to the american people. to greg's point, the american people are frustrated. you see the on every poll. you have to make the case, if you're going to be aggressive in foreign policy, of why that's important for the u.s., why the u.s. being engaged in a war, why it keeps areas safe.

otherwise, you are going to get a lot of political fall back from people saying "just come home." that has not worked in the past broadly in history. that's part of the problem. >> speaking to the ideological differences, my question to you is what is -- from this pentagon of how they define deterrence? there seems to be ambiguity from white house to white house what it is or isn't. >> that's a great point. i don't think they have clearly defined it. i think that's part of the problem. if you can't define it, the people on the grounds -- >> but also, do you have to? or can't it just be obvious? i recognize deterrence when i see it. any questions for brett? >> i don't have a question or comments. i think -- the thing is, again,

we are talking about deterrence, yet what is the larger risk for americans? something over there or something to the south of our border? we have absolutely no deterrence there. i think, you know, we are talking about, are we talking about punishment? what you try to do is put somebody in a deeper hole than they were if they hadn't done something.

>> i was just going to say, listen, what is not deterrence is saying repeatedly "don't, don't." that didn't work. i will see what 6:00. i have a lot to prepare for. [laughter] >> joe jones is on the phone with us. high, joey. >> how's it going? >> we will give you the floor. >> listen, if this were about deterrence, it would've happened a couple months ago. at least 150-audit strikes against the united states ago. really? we will let us be hit 200 tons, killed three of us, injured over dozens of us and just say don't?

that's the best policy? i don't believe that presidential politics has to do with -- and i heard the judge talk about it earlier on the show -- that anything now make potentially affect this and escalate into a worse economic situation at home, but why is that? will policy has led to that? the truth is -- saudi arabia is watching, israel is watching. i don't think any of those countries that we want to be an ally, want to be on our side of the breakout, are being inspired by the united states right now. what is happening is that a lot of americans are sitting here going "i don't think my son or daughter needs to serve in this military, and i am for whatever --" changes our perspective in our government's ability regardless of the president is.

doing something that most americans are not aware that they are doing. >> good point. judge? >> one of the things that general kellogg said a few minutes ago is "if they don't want to go to war with the united states, iran --" and yet we all know that -- in charge. iran trying to deny the connection is absurd. they supply, trained, and paid them. why is iran pushing us if they are afraid to go to war with us? do they have, are the close to a nuclear weapon? >> i believe iran got what they wanted already. i mean, immediately after three americans were killed, there is a dispute between united states and jordan as to where this happened, because they don't want this mess on the doorstep.

look at what's happening in israel. look at the fact that america is having to excuse himself for answer for every cycle thing it does in the middle east right now among its own people with a presidential election coming up. i think for iran, that's enough. they don't need to go to war with us to show their neighbors that we may not be as strong as we say we are, we may not have as strong of a voice. i think the goal for them is the doubt among countries that aligns with the u.s. or israel moving forward. i don't want to go to war with iran. i'm not lindsey graham. i have spent eight years fighting two wars over there. i knew less about it today than i did when i was 18 i think. it's not that i want us to go to war with iran. a administration that is so decisive, well planned, that before our own dead make it home, we have settled the score and discourage them from doing it again, or -- and this is a

lot to ask for -- still so decisive and strategic that we never had both sides -- 170 attacks that happened. >> can i ask you what you think about the decision, on the timing of telegraphing that there was going to be a response for several days, and that the irg seat pulled all of its leadership out of syria yesterday. >> i think that president biden truly believes, this is not against him, but i truly believe that the president biden administration, their strategy from the beginning, and they are sticking to it, they can get their way out of a potential crisis or more.

i have felt much better about it then back then. >> you are in georgia. i spent my weeks in texas. everyone that you know, the polling shows america has no appetite for another war. you hear individuals like the general suggesting strikes are warranted in iran. wars don't happen overnight. they metastasize from a bunch of small decisions. you end up in a war. we don't launch wars anymore. we certainly don't declare wars pick the last time we had a congressional declaration of war. do you think there is a case for any leader to be made that convinces the american public that we should be messing around with war with iran? speak of my biggest concern as i was part of a 20 year war that ended so desperately that the american people, i don't know iy don't have an app appetite for

war as much as they don't trust their government to get them into a war no matter how just or necessary it may be. that is what is scary. when the american people, who ultimately have to spend the money and shed the blood, no longer trust their government to send their sons and daughters or themselves to war, it is not about "we don't have an appetite for war." if something like 9/11 happens today, we would have the appetite to seek retribution and prevent it from happening, our faith in the system we have, that has broken down at every level along the way. the fact that we -- for the borders we have, to the work we do. that is the industry of politics making its way into the minds and hearts of us, to the point that we don't trust our government for our security anymore. that's the biggest concern i have. that leads to the recruiting of -- that spending woes, lends to people calling for what may be the best strategy, but

everyone of us sitting there going "that is the warhawk, the one that just wants to drop bombs." that's what we've all seen for four years, that's all we've seen. i lost my legs in a war that lindsey graham was saying -- i'm not beating up on him, he's just the most honest and vocal advocate. he told me this sitting on the couch on "fox and friends." "lost my legs because we did the right thing, fighting the war over there --" but it's an easy thing to say when you can do a 60 minutes or bret baier piece that shows the connections, that we are told to just believe that they get to be the press secretary or president at that moment. the american appetite for believing the facts as the government tells you has gone out the window with the age of information and some of the bigger voices in politics right

now. political commentary. >> wonderfully said. >> it's always good to hear him. a litter really, he is the expert in my mind. punishment, and joey, you cannot tell me to shut up, but punishment for me is always you put somebody in a hole that they wouldn't be in if they had not come into the infraction. these things always seem to me incredibly performative, not as a deterrent, but just to say we did something. the bad guys end up back at the starting block where they just start back up. >> here is the deal, greg: we spent 20 years taking out strategic target after a strategic target, strategic person after strategic person, as after asset of our enemies. they never lost the ability to harm us at about the same rate. it is hard for me to believe that these bombings today reduced the ability for enemies in the region to attack us. that is what is concerning. if you are not sending the right signal, which i don't believe

this is a signal for anyone but the bargain people, at least there is something affective that stops their ability to harm us. i don't have the experience that will lead me to believe that's what happened today. >> dana: joey jones, thank you. we are going to rich edson at the white house. app. apparently have new information. >> good afternoon or good evening, dana. what we heard from the white house the attacks were successful. also saying that we -- the united states selected them to avoid civilian casualties. right now, according to the white house, the department of defense is in the early stages of a damage assessment and they are unsure, unclear of the number of militants that may have been killed or injured in this attack. it began today, according to the white house, but officials here saying that it's not going to end today. again, this is something that president biden and other administration officials have been discussing that this is going to be multi-tiered, multi-step response to the drone

attack over the weekend that killed three american soldiers. and so this is going to be ongoing for a period of time. the strikes, according to officials iraq and syria. we know the iraqi government was notified. that's according to the white house. this stuff is coming out right now. again, john kirby saying that we're not looking for a war with iran here. we have talked about this earlier in the show today, the administration is trying to thread that needle between deterring iran but also making sure that it doesn't lead to a wider war. and there is a big discussion ongoing right now that has been ongoing as to whether or not this succeeds. we have some congressional reaction pouring through. largely what you are hearing from republicans is this just took too much time. they say the irgc the iranian revolutionary guard corps which supports a lot of these backed militias across the region had time to move their assets out of the way. this took way too much time for the administration. and so that's going on right now in the ongoing debate between

the white house and congressional republicans. we are still getting information slowly coming out from the white house here. but that's the latest from what we have got from here at 1600 pennsylvania. >> dana: rich, just a very quick question, when does secretary blinken still leaving for the region this weekend? >> that's expected. yes, it's one of the many, many, many trips that the secretary of state has he taken across the region. a lot of aggressive trips where he ends up in a number of different countries throughout including israel. has been the point person as far as diplomacy is concerned for the administration. >> dana: thank you so much. we imagine "fox & friends weekend" is going to be hot. >> will: that's what we will be talking about for four hours. >> dana: it's going to be must-watch television. >> greg: it better not bump my show. >> you know, greg, i really rarely agree with you on anything. i agree with you a lot today. it speaks to where the american people are i think there is a lot of american people and so many are looking at this foreign

aid funding bill that sort of stalled in congress, looking around their neighborhood and saying i'm paying 24% for child care, all right? looking around their neighborhood and they are saying we have a problem at the border. there is an immigration crisis. they are looking around their neighborhood and saying the cost of groceries are too high. >> dana: look at new york. we just let all of those migrants beating up cops leave. >> i think what they're saying to their lawmakers so many problems we fixed in america and we need to invest in america more so than figuring out how we fix the world's problem. >> will: are you america first. >> no we need to invest in america. build some parks and roads. >> will: this is the philosophical underwinning of what donald trump presented to america. every single calculation most 'especially war should be through it the prison term of america first. >> richard: same as barbara lee. >> dana: that is it for us. coverage continues next. we see you monday. >> bret: good evening, welcome toas