this is "cnn tonight." we have major developments at this hour. tensions heat up between the united states and iran. over the killing of top general soleimani. the reports of deadly air strike near baghdad targeted a convoy. backed by iran. cnn hasn't confirmed reports and no claim on responsibility so far. the president is defending his decision ordering the pentagon to take out the top iranian

commander. he says soleimani was planning to kill americans. >> he was planning a major attack and we got him. >> we're covering every aspect of this story. from iraq and here at home. we're in baghdad and saudi arabia. and with the president in florida. we'll start with you about these new air strikes on the iranian backed forces in iraq. what can you tell us is anyone claiming responsibility? >> so far we have very little information. we don't have independent verification of this alleged air strike. what we know is that the popular mobilization units that umbrella group made up of the iranian backed militia put out a statement saying one of the convoys was targeted in air strike north of baghdad early hours after a few hours ago.

none of their senior leaders were in the convoy. it was a medical unit. and there are a number of casualties, dead and wounded. there's no indication no confirmation that the u.s. mull tear was involved in this air strike. certainly the popular mobilization units haven't pointed the finger at the united states. right now. but the situation is so tense. everyone is on edge. there is this anticipation of further escalation here. >> what are you learning about the time line of how this came together? >> so we have heard from sources about exactly what took place over the last few days this plan to attack soleimani solidifying tuesday the president holding a meeting at mar-a-lago with top adviser and military.

and friendly law makers on hand as well. there was a very frank debate and the president heard some opposing views. and push back. specifically about what retaliation might entail and what the strategy is in the middle east. we're told that he was adamant even when confronted with the reality of what a war with iran would look like. he wanted this to happen and felt it really was a message that had to be sent. about their escalations. the president saying as much to reporters saying it should have been done a long time ago and he's not trying to start war but prevent one. >> to you, the secretary general came out and condemn the killing of soleimani. and said there would be consequences. i wonder if the frame work of what will be iran's response is the wrong one.

if instead this will be a pepering of attacks. what does it mean for the u.s. in the region? >> it goes beyond the reon. back and look at what happened after the u.s. back in 1988 in the persian gulf. accidently shot down an iranian passenger aircraft. 200 people killed on board. the full on response from that included iranians waiting nine months and trying to kill the captain of the back home in the united states. the pipe bomb that went off under his didn't harm her. iranians will in a situation like this try to reach beyond the region. in some sort of attack. soft targets. generals at home for example. that's what they have a track record of doing. undoubtedly the proxies will

take it into their hands to try to attack u.s. interests and u.s. targets in the region. and proximity to them. a peppering of attacks in the region is possible. there will be iran we can believe will try to have a strategic goal. for them they will likely believe that they're better off with a democrat in the white house than a republican. which would indicate they would try to undermine president trump. their actions would try to reveal president trump decision to kill soleimani to be the wrong decision. >> none of this happens in a vacuum. the secretary of state today referenced iraq dancing in the street. i wonder if that and we saw the video, if that is representative of the larger reaction across at least baghdad or the country. to the announcement of the death

of general soleimani. >> i don't think it's very reflective of the reaction here. that seems to have been a spontaneous sort of celebration. very small one. limited to one area in baghdad. it seems. we haven't seen people celebrating on the streets here. there are some who are happy to see soleimani gone. but over all the feeling here people are terrified. they are really concerned about where this is all headed. what happens next. they are very concerned about the country future. there's so much anger the fact iraq is being turned into an arena for international and regional powers to be settling scores here. there's mounting pressure on the iraq political leadership. to act here. the government that has been seen as so weak especially in

recent months. they are under pressure to stand up to the united states. caught between two allies. iran and the u.s. and so many people here especially when it comes to the powerful iranian backed militia they want to see the government standing up to the united states and also they want them to reassess iraqs relationship with the u.s. they want them to also reassess the presence of u.s. forces here. something we might be seeing discussed in the iraq parliament on sunday during the session they'll be holding. >> what is the president saying -- we'll hear from iraq sunday. but what is the president saying about the next steps and the possible retaliation in the region. >> it's quite interesting. today during that session with reporters the president seemed subdued. we're hearing he is well aware

of the gravity of the situation of the wide number of options that iran has in terms of response to this strike. the president uncertain about how they may respond. he did make something clear the president saying the u.s. military is prepared for anything. the readiness is all time high. the president saying he's ready and prepared to take whatever action necessary to protect americans. something he pushed for despite some opposition. he's ready for a conflict if it amounts to that. >> we know that the president according to national security is willing to talk. willing to have conversations with the president without preconditions. is that plausible. do you think they're in any mood to have a conversation with president trump? >> that idea that president trump could get into

conversation senior iranian leadership. it really sort of got some momentum in the end of summer in the summit. there was a sense in new york there could be communication. the last time of course there was an opportunity where you had iranian leadership and close proximity to trump where you could engineer a meeting-over close communication. after the unga, in september. there hasn't been a natural venue for that that occur. the killing of soleimani it seems in that light it's so unlikely iran would get close to discussing anything with president trump. in particular because returned down a meeting with president

trump based on the fact the president had hadn't given in to iranian demands to take all sanctions off iran or take a number off sanctions off. at the moment we don't seem to be in frame work where we'll result in talks any time soon. iran is going to want to get revenge and be seen taking revenge for soleimani's death. before they can even be thought about a conversation. it seems such a aremote idea. >> let's bring a new york democratic on house foreign affairs. thank you for being with us. president trump said he took out soleimani to prevent a war. not to start one. >> he said he has to send 3,000 troops. and we have to have people all over the world just about that wait and see the next move. by doing that strike he did

doesn't end the military that iran has had and actions there. they replace someone there. the american people are not as safe. american assets and individuals. civilian and military. if you listen to the words of the members of the administration that's clear. they're looking for and know there could be and will be retaliation. and trying to prepare for it and seems to me escalating. to say we are safer now when we didn't have the send the troops in and do everything seems to be ridiculous. >> we have heard from the president and members of the administration there was an imminent planning of attack. that something that was in the near future. chairman of the joint chief of staff says there was clear evidence of planning a significant campaign of violence against the u.s. do you have reason to doubt him?

>> i have reason to doubt the entire trump administration. >> specifically about the chairman. >> yeah, i have reason to doubt. i would like to know and see for myself. i was in congress when i was told there was weapons of mass destruction in iran. we had individuals that came before our committee. i had to then go and went to the pentagon to get information and talk to individuals. i would like to see and like to talk. that is my responsibility. that's why the president of the united states had information should have come to congress. at the least with the big eight. this president made sure there was no one else in the room as far as the big eight and members of congress from the house particularly who happen to be democrat. what are you hiding? because this is the most serious part of my job. we put and risk the life and

limb of young men and women in the military. >> the justification of not coming to the gang of 8. lawyers from the white house from department of justice and department of defense according to a senior official say that they didn't need to come to congress to get clearance because this was an imminent attack. and as soleimani has been identified as a terrorist. under article 2 powers that he doesn't need to come to the gang of 8. you say what? >> if it was imminent it requires him to meet with congress or the leadership in congress. within 48 hours. that hasn't occurred yet. even if it was, he should have called in all of the big 8 and the leadership both the senate and the house.

within 48 hours. there's no getting around that. so it seems to me and i want to get to washington. he could have called us back into session or say we want to have a classified session. to give us and inform us what the evidence was. >> if there's no getting around it, are you questioning the legality of it? do you believe the strike was illegal? >> possibly. that's why i have to get the information. it seems to me that's important because it can make a determination whether there was an assassination. or whether or not it was some legitimacy. we were not engaged in military war with iran previously. so if we're going to do this type of attack that is engaging in essence saying we could be going to war. that's what i hear the president say. there is a responsibility on his

part to come and get authorization of the utilization of military force. >> what your degree of confidence this administration put this killing of soleimani in a larger strategy to deal with iran and with the region at large. >> i have not seen any strategy on behalf of the president. that's what bothers me. i'm from new york, he's always shooting off at the mouth. it's this president who says that he knows more than the military. he knows more than intelligence agencies and the generals. he can do this all by himself. that's why i would like to know who was in the room and who was opposed to it. i would like to question and talk to the general that just made a statement. i can make sure i know how and what the president may or may not have done. it is we already know this president flip-flops all over the place. "washington post" documented that he's lied over 10,000

times. so how can i just have a level of comfort? i need to be -- there's got to be krcorroborating evidence fro some place. when you see the whole piece of hiding information and not being forth with reference to impeachment. i'll take his word on this? >> the over lap here. "washington post" is reporting there's some house democrats who are skiddish about sending over articles of impeachment. considering what's on the table with iran. are you one of them? >> what we want to do is find out what with mcconnell and the procedures. and have witnesses that come in that has to testify. same as what happened with the clinton impeachment. just as schumer talked about. we're not going to have a wag the dog. i hope i truly hope this is not part of the trying to change the

dialogue about impeachment. and we're not going to give that up. >> iran ambassador to the un is calling the killing of soleimani an act of war and there will be revenge. hear more from his interview next. more! but with the new lending tree app you can see your full financial health, monitor your credit score, see your cash flow and find out how you can cut your monthly bills. download it now to see how much you can save.

a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum... ...with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time.

cascade platinum.

♪ ♪ ♪

tonight iran ambassador to the united nation calls the kils of the top general in iran at the hands of the united states an act of war. vows his country will not remain silent. and will be what he calls harsh revenge. ambassador spoke tonight with cnn. >> mr. ambassador, thank you for your time. >> pleasure. >> with the sudden developments obviously the world is focussed on this story. when you look at what happened here, was this a declaration of war?

>> it was. on the part of the united states. against the iranian people. the u.s. started a war against the iranian people back in may 2018. then the president trump decided to withdraw from the nuclear deal. and this started the pressure policy against the iranians putting economic pressure on the iran. and they have continued until today. last night they opened a new chapter. attacking against by assassinating one of the most beloved generals. who is popular. not only in iran but also in the countries in the region. that was as i said a new chapter. opening a war against iran.

>> so you say it's opening war against iran. president trump said we took action to stop a war. we didn't take action to start a war. what do you say to president trump? >> i do not believe that the u.s. took an action to stop war. because the assassination the plan was in the making for quite sometime. john bolton the former national security adviser tweeted last night that it was in the making. so it is not acceptable to agree to what the administration is saying that they had enough evidence as they put it. that general soleimani was planning to attack u.s. citizens. >> did you say it has been in the works. >> for quite sometime. in the plan. >> secretary state pompeo says

general soleimani was plotting imminent attack on americans. can you -- >> definitely it is rejected. if they have evidence they should show it. provide the evidence. i'm sure they don't have any evidence that can be proven in court. >> so, president trump says he's not looking for regime change in iran. do you believe him on that? obviously bolton the former national security adviser said the opposite. as he said many times before. when president trump says it's not about regime change is he telling the truth. >> what matters is the u.s. deeds not words. what they are doing is exactly to put lots of pressure on the iranian people to stand up. and that is u.s. obligations. based on international law. >> you say act of war.

the supreme leader of iran today said vows severe revenge and harsh retaliation to the criminals who perpetrated this attack. americans. so what does that mean? if you're going to have revenge and real nation to act of war. is that a war? >> the u.s. already started the war. not only economic war but beyond that. by assassinating the top general. who is being mourned by people in iran. he cannot just close our eyes to what happened last night. there will be a revenge. there will be a harsh revenge. iran will act based on its own choosing. and the time the place and we will decide. >> i want to ask you about that. when this happened last night president trump didn't say that he was targeting someone else and general soleimani happened

to be there. he said it was him. and we targeted him and we killed him. there were no proxies. no excuse making. he owned it. will iran's response be the same? iran targets the united states. >> i'm not in a position to go into the detail of what's going to happen. we're going to act in the revenge. but what i can tell you is that by targeting one of the top generals in contra vengs of u.s. obligation using the air space of iraq. sovereign country. the president the prime minister of the country condemned the act by the u.s. they should expect anything as as a result of this aggression. >> general soleimani was one of the most powerful people in your

country. it's hard to overstate the influence. for people to understand. americans can understand what the reaction would be if someone like that were killed here. or another country. but was let's say the chief of the cia. defense secretary. or vice president. does this death change the game? completely. between iran and the united states. >> it has i can say it has given a blow to any attempt. that might be considered as a possible dialogue between the two countries. it seems to us and it's our belief that this administration doesn't believe in dialogue. they want to put lots of pressure on iran to agree to -- that is not acceptable to us.

the way they acted last night shows once more that this administration is eager to use whatever it takes to attack iran. to put pressure on the ironen people. >> to the definition of the word war. you also said the war has been going on requester quite sometime. it started with economic sanctions and the united states ending the nuclear deal. is this going to become a dirnt sort of war? a different war. a shooting war for lack of a better word? >> as i said, the u.s. started economic war in may 2018. last night they slaughtered a military war. by assassinating an act of terror against the top general. so what else can we expect iran to do? we cannot remain silent. you have to act and will act.

>> you have to act militarily. >> the response for military action is a military action. by whom, by when and where. that's for the future to witness. >> ambassador, thank you fr your time. >> thank you. >> he's calling the strike against general soleimani an act of war. we have a lot to talk about with max boot. and nick. next. robinhood believes now is the time to do money.

without the commission fees and account minimums. so, you can start investing wherever you are - even on the bus. download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. when we were looking he wanted someone super quiet. yeah, and he wanted someone to help out with chores. so, we got jean-pierre. but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with renters insurance. ♪ yeah, geico did make it easy to switch and save. ♪ oh no. there's a wall there now. that's too bad. visit geico.com and see how easy

saving on renters insurance can be. ♪ new fixodent ultra dual power provides you with an unbeatable hold and strong seal against food infiltrations. fixodent. and forget it.

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.

iran ambassador to the united nation calls the killing of iranian general soleimani an act of war. and says the response for a military action is a military action. joining me now max boot and nick. you heard the interview and watched it. what would be if they're looking for a proportionate response. what would be to killing someone of that stature? >> obviously killing a senior u.s. official. which i would not take that off the table as a possible iranian response. the more likely response would be in the region itself. we have more than 60,000 troops. we have diplomatic missions and civilians. the iranians are a very capable adversary. they have hundreds of thousands of militia fighters. they have sthous of missiles. in september they used cruise mus sills to disable a major saudi oil facility.

they could use those against any u.s. military or diplomat out post in the region. there's risk of escalation. trump is gambling by killing general soleimani. he will deter iran from further action. and secretary pompeo said today make americans safer. that is certainly one possible out come. but there's a huge risk that the iranians will be goaded into retaliation and wind up killing more americans and u.s. will be put on the spot of having to escalate further. this is how wars start. >> what are you expecting? >> i agree. there will be targeting of u.s. bases in the region. and probably u.s. embassy or kons lates in the region. iraq is a major potential target. u.s. presence in lebanon and afghanistan. are easy. it would be harder to hit a

senior u.s. official. but in addition there can be cyber attacks on the u.s. iran has a an impressive cyber capability. and the advantage is there is plausible deniability. and i think that iran could like to inflict damage that everybody thinks is coming from teheran. but is not obviously. >> we know this president has a credibility problem. as we have discussed. is asking the country and the world to trust him. we'll talk about how this could play out.

the pentagon ordering thousands of additional troops to the middle east as iran vows revenge for the u.s. strike killing one of the top generals. back with me now.

max, let's talk about this credibility problem that the president has. the administration has. this is a moment in which the country needs to trust the president. because there's some things that he likely will not disclose. what's the importance of that gap that we see? >> now the cost of having a president who sa pathological liar. uttered over 14,000 falsehoods since coming to office. it's impossible to believe anything he says. as you suggest this is a moment where it is imperative you believe the commander in chief. he has access to top secret intelligence. and you saw the credibility gap on display. mike pompeo was saying there was an imminent threat against u.s. personnel and interest in the region. and that's what justified this strike on general soleimani. people are quite properly skeptical and heard a different story from the department of

defense fishl officials saying t wasn't imminent per se. it's hard to take the administration at its words and under mines ability to generate support at home or abroad for this risky military action. >> this would be a great time to turn the cameras on in the briefs room. >> we need an explanation. we more than tweets. we need to have the president and people talk to the nation. take questions and really tell people where we're going. and we're not getting that. >> the president did a 180 today on intelligence officers. saying now that he has quote the best intelligence. that's a very different opinion of the intelligence community than what we have heard from the president. >> that's a reversal. in larger sense it's not just credibility gap or this history of 15,000 false statements.

it's this assumption that the other side doesn't get to a move as well. and so repeatedly president trump is taking action iran and other countries. in expectation you end the nuclear deal and think they'll crawl back and ask to be renegotiated. you kill 25 pro-iranians and think they will be deterred. they attack and support attacks on the u.s. embassy and like had wise he appears to have thought attacking soleimani would deter iran. when every expert believes it will be the opposite. it remind me of the run up to the iraq war in 2003. so many people argued saddam hussein is bad guy. and take him out. only model is hitler in 1938. without understanding somebody can be a bad guy and the cost of removing them can be trillions

of dollars. thousands of american lives. vast numbers of iraq lives. and i hope we're not making a similar mistake of the escalation again. >> there's a tweet for everything in the administration. this one comes with video. this is donald trump private citizen back in 2011. speaking about then president obama. >> a president will start a war with iran because he has no ability to negotiate. he's weak and he's ineffective. so the only way he figures he will get reelected and is start a war with iran. >> let's put up the tweets. the president claimed that president obama would start a war with iran to get reelected. this time there are three tweets for this. and the video. what role does this play here. is this inconvenient? or learning more about the

president. >> i'm reluctant to ascribe a political motivation to president trump. in this case. but i think everybody knows that president trump has habit of impuding to others motivations he has himself. until everybody looks at the tweets from 2012 accusing president of trying to foster a war for political reasons. and of course everybody is wondering whether this is simply a reflection of how he thinks. >> i think that's a legit concern. clearly whether intended or not the consequence of the strike is for a few days to take attention away from impeachment and onto something else. so trump can claim credit for killing this evil master mind. i think the larger question is does he have an end game? he has tactics and impose sanctions. he can kill generals.

what is the objective that he is pursuing? he seems to want a massive change in iranian behavior. he seems to think if he ratchets up the pressure the iranians will cave. e remind 1980 iranian lost half a million men fighting iraq. and didn't cave. i would not be so confident they will cave under pressure. he needs to have a diplomatic off ramp before we wind up in a major war and just don't see that diplomatic off ramp. >> the president promised he wouldn't send troops into battle without a victory. we answer questions about what's next after the killing of soleimani. congress returns to washington but with this major foreign policy crisis going on what happens to the senate impeachment inquiry? t never bothered me. until i found out what it actually was. dust mite droppings! eeeeeww! dead skin cells! gross! so now, i grab my swiffer sweeper and heavy-duty dusters. duster extends to three feet to get all that gross stuff

gotcha! and for that nasty dust on my floors, my sweeper's on it. the textured cloths grab and hold dirt and hair no matter where dust bunnies hide. no more heebie jeebies. phew. glad i stopped cleaning and started swiffering. ♪ new fixodent ultra dual power provides you with an unbeatable hold and strong seal against food infiltrations. fixodent. and forget it.

it's a thirteen-hour flight, tfifteen minutes until we board. oh yeah, we gotta take off. you downloaded the td ameritrade mobile app so you can quickly check the markets? yeah, actually i'm taking one last look at my dashboard before we board. excellent. and you have thinkorswim mobile- -so i can finish analyzing the risk on this position. you two are all set. have a great flight. thanks. we'll see ya. ah, they're getting so smart. choose the app that fits your investing style. ♪

wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. . the battle over the senate

impeachment trial is heating up again as lawmakers return to capitol hill, but will the foreign policy crisis over the u.s. air strike that killed iran's top general complicate the impeachment trial? with us now to talk, juliette kayyem and renato mariotti. renato, mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer back in washington today fighting over the impeachment trial. watch. >> let me clarify. senate rules and senate history for those who may be confused. first, about this fantasy that the speaker of the house will get to hand-design the trial proceedings in the senate, that's obviously a non-starter. >> leader mcconnell has been clear and vocal that he has no intention to be impartial in this process. leader mcconnell reminds us today and in previous days that rather than acting luke a judge and a juror, he intends to act as the executioner of a fair

trial. >> renato, who's right? >> i think in a certain way they both are. i actually think that mcconnell's right that the senate's going to decide what the trial is. i don't particularly like mcconnell's desire not to hear from witnesses and how unfair he's going to make things. but in the end, the senators are going to vote, you know, and their 51 votes are going to carry the day as to rules. but schumer is absolutely right that mcconnell is not setting up a fair process. he's not even trying to create the appearance of being fair, of listening to witnesses. you know, we already know, i think, how senate republicans are going to vote, but the very least they could do is have a respectful process that takes into account the witnesses and the evidence that are there, and there's very substantial evidence, i'd say overwhelming evidence of trump's wrongdoing here. >> so they will vote. the question is when. in december of '98, president

clinton launched a strike on iraq after a report said -- that's in the way back machine with a clip from cnn. >> now, this surreal intersection of international policy and domestic politics cann continued tonight. >> an impending impeachment vote in the house. american military forces ordered into action. the question is what concerns this president most at this late hour of the evening. >> bernie, the president has retired to the white house residence. aides say his focus is on the 34i89 operation, that he is receiving periodic updates, but we also know that throughout the day he did speak with his political advisers about impeachment. >> so, juliette, those strikes ended up delaying the impeachment vote in the house. i mean if this conflict with iran escalates, what could this mean for the trump impeachment trial as it moves to the senate? >> well, i think what you're seeing from the trump white

house is its inability to separate the impeacment proceedings from everything else because that's because donald trump is tweeting about the impeachment proceedings while there is an international crisis or while there is other news. so i don't think you're going to see much of a delay. i honestly believe that. first of all, we don't know what iran is going to do in response. it may be a very delayed response. as we saw with the clinton impeachment, we go on with impeachment even if there are military strikes or other foreign affairs issues. and i think what's important to remember is that in some ways, i think they're the same story. >> hmm. >> in many ways, you know, i've been on air the last 24 hours talking about iran and talking about the sort of carelessness. even if you believe this was the right thing to do, the sort of lack of looking at consequences, the foreign intervention, the sort of disrespect for other branches of government, the lying -- all of it sort of the same story. i think if democrats want to

sort of weave these two different lanes, they should think about these common narratives, about the way this president governs, which is essentially falsehoods. so you can get into the little nitty-gritty details about the impeachment proceedings, but ultimately it's about respect for the office and the constitution and honestly respect for us, which i think is lacking in both arenas, in both the foreign and the domestic affairs arenas. >> renato, "the washington post" is reporting tonight the democrats could submit articles of impeachment to the senate within days. right move? >> yeah. you know, frankly they may want to submit that during this crisis. frankly, the white house, you know, i think has to be concerned about the fact that the president is, you know, certainly been irregular in the way he's handled this operation. it may change, you know, some votes from senators. it's a political process, and frankly the senators are going

to take that into account. >> thank you both. and thank you for watching. our live coverage continues right now.

>> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. hello and welcome to our viewers here in the united states and all around the world. i'm michael holmes in atlanta. >> and i'm becky anderson in abu dhabi. anxiety and uncertainty seem to be the prevailing mood right now across the middle east, indeed in much of the world following the u.s. drone strike that killed iran's top military commander. >> indeed, the death of qasem soleimani early on friday sent shockwaves around the globe. tehran vowing harsh revenge. but there's no clear idea yet exactly what that might mean. right now a funeral procession getting under way in baghdad. >> despite dramatically raising