directed the attack, but has tehran done anything to reign in the militias they fund and arm? >> well, we know he that iran is behind these militia groups, they train them, fund them, arm them, as your question suggests, and they do have influence with them. i can't sit here today and tell you that day ran has shifted its policy. what i can tell you is what the united states' approach is going to be, that if we continue to see threats and attacks from these militia groups we will respond to them and hold those responsible accountable. >> there are reportedly civilian casualties in iraq and syria as a result of these strikes. does the u.s. assess that any of those hit in these strikes were actually iranian al quds force personnel? did the fact that this was so telegraphed in advance give those personnel time to go to ground? >> well, first of all, margaret

on the telegraphed point, president biden has been saying for months that he would respond to attacks. we have responded to previous attacks. when three service members were killed, of course, iran knew that the united states would respond. so the idea that somehow this was telegraphed, i think, is a bit more of a political talking point than a reality. secondly, the targets that we hit, we believe with conviction, were valid military targets. command and control centers. they were the instruments that iranian-backed shia militia groups were using to attack american forces. we are looking at the casualties, who precisely was killed. i don't have anything to report to you this morning publicly on that. we will continue to make our assessments. >> but no one, for example, in irgc leadership and iranian leadership, no one of significance was targeted? >> as i said, we are continuing

to assess the battle damage and when we are prepared to share that publicly, we'll do so. i am not prepared to do that with you today. >> okay. jake, half of u.s. adults, according to the ap, say israel's military campaign in gaza has gone too far and 31% approve of biden's handling of the conflict. at what point is this open-ended israel frikconflict in gaza nott a political problem but a national security one for the united states to be so closely associated with the netanyahu government's war with the civilian casualties and the starvation of women and children in gaza? >> well, first, margaret, i'm glad you put the question in those terms because you know, we don't design our policy towards israel or gaza or the middle east based on politics. we do it based on the national security interests of the united states. we've been clear from the

beginning that we believe israel has a right to respond to the horrific attacks of october 7th and deal with the threat that a hamas continues to pose to israel as it asserts it wants to conduct another october 7th and then another one until israel no longer exists. we've been equally clear that we have to look out for and respond to the immense and terrible suffering of the palestinian people. and that means pressing israel on issues related to the humanitarian assists than we have helped unlock and get into the gaza strip and there needs to be much more of it. secretary blink been is on his way to the region as we speak, and this will be a top priority of his when he sees the israeli government that the needs of the palestinian people are something that are going to be front and center in the u.s. approach and that we want to ensure that they are getting access to life-saving food, medicine, water, shelter, and we'll continue to press until that is done. >> it's still not the degree to

which you are asking for. today, prime minister netanyahu said israel will not agree to a deal that is related to the release of terrorists. his national security minister ben gvir gave an interview to the "wall street journal" that he would oppose any deal with hamas that would end the war or free palestinian prisoners and said donald trump would be better for israel than joe biden. does benjamin netanyahu who has control of his government and these right wing ministers risk blowing up a hostage deal the united states is trying to put together? >> i'm going to let the israeli government and politicians speak for themselves. they certainly have no trouble doing so, as you related. we're only going to speak for ourselves. from our perspective a hostage deal that brings out the hostages, including the american hostages, that gets a sustained pause in hostilities so life-saving assistance can easily get to the palestinian people, this is in the national

security interests of the united states and we're going to press for it relentlessly as the president has done, including recently in equals with the leaders of egypt and qatar, the leaders that are central brokers in this effort. it's a paramount priority for us. the israeli government can answer whether it's a paramount priority for them, and depending on that answer they will have to answer to the israeli people. >> do i understand you saying there then that israel's government has not signed off fully on the proposal that u.s. is backing? i know qatar has said they're waiting on hamas. >> no. you haven't. you didn't hear me correctly. israel has put forward a proposal and as qatar has indicated publicly, the ball is in hamas' court at this time. >> okay. this minister was threatening politically the prime minister in regard to a hostage deal, and saying he would vote against it. >> well right. there seems to be, obviously, an ongoing debate spilling out in public in the israeli

government. i'm not going to speak to that debate. they have to decide for themselves and work through their own political system. >> do you stand by your statement you made on this show previously that palestinians in gaza have a right to return to their homes? that's also an issue of conflict right now. >> i do stand by my statement. it's not jake sullivan's statement. that's the statement of administration policy. secretary blinken has laid it out now in full. we do not want to see a circumstance in which israel occupies gaza or where there is an effort to permanently displace palestinian from their homes. >> jake sullivan, thank you for your time this morning. we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation." stay with us. discover a different first treatment. immunotherapies work with your immune system to attack cancer. but opdivo plus yervoy is the first combination of 2 immunotherapies for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread, tests positive for pd-l1, and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene.

opdivo plus yervoy is not chemotherapy, it works differently. it helps your immune system fight cancer in 2 different ways. opdivo and yervoy can cause your immune system to harm healthy parts of your body during and after treatment. these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have a cough; chest pain; shortness of breath; irregular heartbeat; diarrhea; constipation; severe stomach pain; severe nausea or vomiting; dizziness; fainting; eye problems; extreme tiredness; changes in appetite, thirst or urine; rash; itching; confusion; memory problems; muscle pain or weakness; joint pain; flushing; or fever. these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur together and more often when opdivo is used with yervoy. tell your doctor about all medical conditions including immune or nervous system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, or received chest radiation. your search for 2 immunotherapies starts here. ask your doctor about opdivo plus yervoy. a chance to live longer.

hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. ask your doct♪r about opdivo plus yervoy. changing your habits is the only way that gets you to lose the weight. and golo is the plan that's going to help you do that. just take the first step, go to golo.com. still to come the heads of the house intelligence committee, mike turner and jim himes. stay with us. each day is a unique blend of people to see and things to do. that's why you choose glucerna

to help manage blood sugar response. uniquely designed with carbsteady. glucerna. bring on the day. i'm a parking gate. and i'm all out of whack. automated voice: please insert your parking ticket. it's going to take a lot more than a little ticket to get out of here. and if you have cut rate car insurance, this could leave you all bent out of shape. no...ahhh! so, get allstate and be better protected from mayhem... yeah...like me. uh, someone! that's broken to pal... hahaha. automated voice: please insert your parking ticket. [cough] honey... honey. nyquil severe honey. powerful cold and flu relief with a dreamy honey taste nyquil honey, i'm orlando and i'm living with hiv. i don't have to worry about daily hiv pills because i switched to every-other-month cabenuva. for adults who are undetectable,

cabenuva is the only complete long-acting hiv treatment you can get every other month. it's two injections from a healthcare provider. now when i have people over, hiv pills aren't on my mind. don't receive cabenuva if you're allergic to its ingredients, or if you're taking certain medicines, which may interact with cabenuva. serious side effects include allergic reactions, post-injection reactions, liver problems, and depression. if you have a rash and other allergic reaction symptoms, stop cabenuva and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have liver problems or mental health concerns, and if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. some of the most common side effects include injection-site reactions, fever, and tiredness. if you switch to cabenuva, attend all treatment appointments. it feels good to just live in the moment. with every-other-month cabenuva, i'm good to go. ask your doctor about cabenuva today. we'll be right back with a report from iraq on the tensions in the middle east and former

centcom general commander frank mckenzie. stay with us.

welcome back to "face the nation." we turn to holly williams in erbil for more on the conflict in the middle east. >> reporter: the u.s. says the

strikes targeted houthi missile systems and launches and weapons storage and radar used by the group. a spokesman for the houthis supported by iran says the strikes will not deter them. the group says its assault on commercial and naval ships in the red sea which started in november is an expression with solidarities of palestinians and a bombardment in gaza. the strikes in yemen come one day after the u.s. says it hit 85 targets here in iraq and in neighboring syria that are used by iranian forces and milt shah groups backed by iran. there's been an uptick in those groups targeting the military in the region since the israel-hamas war began with around 170 attacks using rockets and drones. the u.s. strikes reportedly killed around 40 people, including both fighters and civilians and were retaliation for the deaths of three american soldiers in a drone attack a week ago at a military outpost

in jordan. there are around 2500 u.s. troops based here in iraq and around 900 over the border in syria. iran called america's response, quote, a strategic mistake. the question now is whether the militia groups it backs will ratchet things up even further. when we interviewed iran's foreign minister abdollahian in november he claimed the groups make their own independent calculations and decisions. there have been fears the israel-hamas war could widen to a regional conflict likely involving iran's proxies. ironically a few years ago, u.s. and iran-backed militia groups were ehe specially on the same side in a different conflict, the war against isis. now the u.s. appears to be trying to carefully calibrate its response.

on the one hand doesn't want a further escalation of violence in the middle east, but on the other, it doesn't want to risk emboldening its enemies. >> holly williams in erbil. the leaders of the house intelligence committee. mike turner and jim himes. welcome to you both. >> thank you for having us. >> chair turner, the speaker of the house criticized the biden administration for public hand wringing, excessive signaling ahead of these strikes saying it undercuts the u.s. ability to put a stop to the attacks. do you accept the explanation that you heard from jake sullivan, the national security adviser? >> so margaret, i think they have confusion among their goals and objectives. they keep shifting as to what they're trying to achieve with the attacks and what their policy is with respect to response. you know, secretary austin, secretary of defense, said that when americans are attacked we will respond. however that's not true.

they've tolerated over 160 of these attacks. >> they've been carrying out strikes against some of them. >> well, in minor areas, nothing to actually counter what is occurring here and that's the issue. you heard with jake sullivan he said, when there are attacks or deaths of american service members we will respond. he was coupling it to both which is what they've done here. this is a problem, margaret. they keep saying they want to, you know, retaliate, but then they say it's about deterrence and then diminishing capabilities. those are all different goals and objectives and they're not doing any of them. this is just about iran. these are all franchises of iran and the administration has no policy with respect to iran how to diminish their capability, diminish these attacks and their nefarious acts in the middle east. >> congressman himes, how do you respond to that? you have said you hope these strikes would cause significant pain to the iranian revolutionary guard corps.

jake sullivan says they don't know if they were able to take out any personnel from the irgc. >> yeah. look, margaret, you know, i respectfully disagree with chairman turner. what needs to happen here is exceedingly clear. there are two things that must happen. number one, we must make it very clear to the iranian and iranian-backed militias attacks on u.s. troops, on u.s. assets will be enormously expensive, enormously expensive, and i think we are in the process of doing that. number two, the other objectsive, of course, is we don't want to go to war with iran. that, by the way, is an objective that iran shares. they don't want to go to war with us. there is a certain amount of ambiguity. you listen to what the other side's red lines are. the iranians would regard an attack on their territory certainly the killing of civilians inside iran, as a red line that they would then be forced to react to. the chairman was just not right

when he said they hadn't responded, the administration hadn't responded to the 160 attacks. those attacks were proportional. the iranians in a dark way got lucky in their ability in tower 22 to take out three americans. that, obviously, requires a much more dramatic response than the earlier attacks in which we didn't suffer casualties and that, of course, is what their militias in syria and iraq have experienced over the last 24 hours and will continue over the next couple days. >> i think you're referring to the strikes on like january -- i think january 3rd or 24th that were militia people targeted by the united states, but not the kind of b1 bomber mission we saw carried out on friday. chair turner -- >> the b1s come out when americans are killed. when they're not killed the response is going to be less dramatic. >> right. but to the point it hasn't

deterred the continued tit-for-tat attacks going on before october 7th. those have been going on for years. >> they've been going on for some time and this administration has responded incredibly poorly. one is the result of another. if you tolerate attacks you're going to tolerate you will have casualties. the administration has no goal and objective. iran pays no price when militias are attacked. the militias don't care. when you diminish their capability for the moment you've struck them you haven't diminished their overall capabilities. the attacks are going to happen. the administration needs a real plan with respect to iran and counters iran in the area, secondly, diminishing capacity to stop these attacks. we can't play defense forever. our systems to protect our troops and ships cannot continually respond to attacks with 100% success. tolerating the attacks tolerates casualties. we need to diminish their

capability and take this problem to iran. >> let me ask you, congressman turner, speaker johnson said he's putting forward a standalone israel security bill for $17.5 billion. you'll need 219 republicans in the house and one said he's not on board with this. this does not look like it has an easy path forward. what does this do to complicate all the other significant national security priorities that i know you support like ukraine? isn't this just a political statement? >> well, i'm concerned about the strategy. i was very concerned when we did it last year and they brought up an israel bill paid for, this one does not have a pay for. i think we have four significant national security threats. we've shah, we have ukraine, we have israel, and what's going on in the middle east and we have our border. right now, we've been proceeding on negotiations on those four. ukraine has to be funded.

it has to -- we have to respond to russian aggression or we will have a broader war there. also the atrocities that russia has been undertaking in ukraine need to be responded to. we have to respond and support israel. again, back to our activities in the area, we need to make certain we were responding to the nefarious actions of iran in the region. all these are -- >> so that would suggest you don't like the stand-alone bill strategy. >> i'm very concerned about this process. >> yeah. >> the speaker has said openly that he fully supports the funding for ukraine. we have to make certain there is a path to do that. the kraenz are getting to the point where it's critical the funding come through, and i certainly am looking for the speaker describing if he's going to piecemeal how each piece gets accomplished. >> congressman himes, democrats may have to essentially deliver the votes to allow that to pass. you have said on another network

referencing these -- this thin majority the republicans have and threats by some of the republican members to oust the speaker, you linked his survival to whether he works with democrats to pass ukraine aid. are democrats offering johnson protection here from his own party? >> well, the move he's taken to offer an israel-only deal is very dirty pool. an act of bad faith. why do i say that? mike and i were in the situation room when the brand new speaker laid out for the national security adviser the way we're going to do this a border deal as a condition to doing ukraine aid and then it will be a package with ukraine, with israel money and endo paycom money for east asia. before the wording of a bipartisan border deal was even available to anybody, at a time in which mitch mcconnell was saying, we will never get a border deal that is better than

this one, mike and i both heard him say that in the cabinet room, the speaker said it's dead on arrival and it will not happen. i don't mike's optimism here. what's happening here is the speaker is taking a move to get israel aid done which we all support, most of us support, i shouldn't say all, but will allow him to ultimately not do a border deal because there are republicans, mike turn not amongst them, rather that problem be an issue in november and not be solved and there are roughly 50%, we know this from the votes, of republicans who oppose ukraine aid. as much as it is important for us to provide aid to israel, this is the first step in getting aid to israel at the expense of any aid to ukraine and the expense of a generational opportunity to actually get a border immigration deal done. >> so your offer essentially to protect speaker johnson from a motion to vacate is off the table? >> well no.

step back to that question. first of all, i didn't offer to protect the speaker. i made the point in the cabinet room that we were all agreeing on the importance of ukraine aid and a good border deal. the president said he will shut down the border and do a big deal. the challenge becomes, how do we position the two congressional leaders who matter in the house, hakeem jeffries and speaker johnson, who i pointed out was in a very precarious position, how do we position them to get to yes? the reality is, that with a whatever two vote majority anything that gets done in the house of representatives, anything, will get done with some democratic help. how do we tee up the position to move forward in a bipartisan way and here's the challenge for the speaker, any bipartisan activity certainly activity that requires a lot of democrats puts him in great peril and, of course, he thinks about that. >> right. >> chair turner, you called the border the most significant national security threat in

previous interviews. i know you haven't seen the text, but you heard senator sinema lay out in great detail what she has helped put together. did you like what you heard? >> well, i think those are certainly important elements and we have to -- in any instance we have to see the bill. i just want to compliment jim himes one more time. we work on a bipartisan basis and, you know, despite our disagreements on the administrations, but you heard him say this is a difficult process to get all of this done. the -- over 300 members have always voted for these funding packages, everyone recognizes these are national security threats and we need a path to get these done. on the border, fbi director wray says we have the highest threat right now for the possibility of a terrorist attack on u.s. soil as a result of the open border and people who have come into the united states, we don't know where they are, some of which you have alees jans to international terrorist groups and organizations. the fbi director has said that.

i think that that certainly should be part of the impetus for everyone to look to how do we resolve this issue. >> you can't wait for the election to be over? there should be a bill voted on and you're open to voting for this one? >> yes. absolutely. this is an issue that needs to be addressed now, and i look forward to reading the text and seeing what's in the bill. this certainly is one of the highest priorities. >> and congressman himes, there are congressional democrats including from the hispanic caucus complaining about this even though the text is not out, do you think democrats will ultimately examine out to support this bill the white house negotiated? >> i do, margaret. you're exactly right. i've heard, you know, we have a general sense of what's in the bill and yes, there is dramatic concern in the let's call it the progressive wing of the democratic party but the president has said and mike and i heard this three times in the cabinet room he will go big. it is clear on a bipartisan basis if you have eyes you

understand we have a crisis at the southern border, and it needs to be fixed. so the challenge here is, and i go back to what i told you previously, how do we put the two leaders in a position to do a very hard thing, because immigration border deals are hard. there's a reason we haven't done one in 40 or 50 years. they're very, very hard. again, i'm not looking necessarily to protect mike johnson but mike johnson is a very precariously situated speaker of the house. the question is, how do we get instincts like mike turner's to prevail in the republican party and how do we get enough democratic votes on the left to make sure that we take advantage of this truly generational opportunity. don't listen to me about this. mitch mcconnell in the cabinet room said if we had donald trump as president a republican senate and republican house we would not get this deal. so my hope is that the two parties can come together to get it done. >> well, we will s■ee. and gentlemen, we appreciate you speaking in this bipartisan fashion and joining us both today. we'll be right back.

our advice is personalized based on your goals, whatever they may be. all that planning has paid off. looks like you can make this work. we can make this work. and the feeling of confidence that comes from our advice... i can make this work. that seems to be universal. i can make this work. i can make this work. no wonder more than 9 out of 10 clients are likely to recommend us. because advice worth listening to is advice worth talking about. ameriprise financial. i'm sholeh, is advice worth talking about. and i lost 75 pounds with golo. i went from a size 20 to a size 6. before golo, nothing seemed to work. i was exercising for over an hour every day. it was really discouraging. but golo's so easy, the weight just falls off. ( ♪♪ ) ( ♪♪ ) ( ♪♪ )

introducing the new 2024 ford f-150. tough this smart can only be called f-150. ( ♪♪ ) (vo) it's ultimate endless shrimp with another limited-time tough this smart can onlflavor drop.f-150. new crispy salt & vinegar shrimp. it's all that... and a batch of shrimp. now one of seven endless choices. only at red lobster. welcome to fun dining. my name's cody archie. and i'm erica. cody: and we're first generation ranchers from central texas. erica: and because of tiktok, we're able to show people from all over the world where their food and fiber come from. cody: we have dorper sheep and we have beef cattle for the sole purpose of going into the food chain. we use tiktok as a tool to inform people of what we do and why we do it. there's just a plethora of knowledge and of information swapping going on there. tiktok is helping us protect this way of life for future generations.

for some analysis on the situation in the middle east we turn to the former head of u.s. central command general frank mckenzie in charge of u.s. forces in the middle east for three years under the trump and biden administrations. welcome back. >> good to be here, margaret. >> general, how would you assess the impact of the strikes so far which you just heard national security adviser sullivan say is just the beginning? >> i think that's pretty accurate. i don't think we know yet. it's going to require more work and we do need to have an understanding of what we wants as an end state for me as the operational commander when i was in command. they cease attacks on our basis and operating positions in iraq and syria. that's a clear end state. the problem is, a lot of talk about iran actually not giving the order for the specific attack and there's truth to that bee