every second counting, as we are learning more and still have so many questions. we do not yet know details about any american casualties. we do know, however, there were casualties on the iraqi side. unclear whether they are killed or wounded. a huge night unfolding. our coverage continues now with anderson cooper. >> good evening tonight. just days after a u.s. drone strike killed a top iranian general and terror organizer, american troops who come under fire in iraq and iran is claiming responsibility. according to the pentagon, more than a dozen surface-to-surface ballistic missiles were launched from iran, targeting at least two iraqi bases housing americans and coalition personnel. one at al asad, the other in erbil. president trump visited al asad a little more than a year ago. this is video from iranian state tv. we can't independently vouch for it, but it claims to be of missiles falling on al asad. the question is what happens next, of course. will the president -- will

president trump respond or how will he respond? remember, just two days ago, this is what he promised in a tweet. quoting now, the united states just spent $2 trillion on military equipment. we are the biggest and by far the best in the world. if iran attacks an american base or any american, we will be sending some of that brand-new, beautiful equipment their way and without hesitation. we have correspondents in all three capitals, washington, baghdad, and tehran. i want to first check in with our cnn's barbara starr. so what's the latest from the pentagon? >> the latest from the pentagon, anderson, is they say that more than a dozen, we now know them to be short-range ballistic missiles, were fired from inside iran against these positions at al asad and erbil, both locations inside iraq, that host u.s. forces. so we now have firing of weapons, very significant weapons from inside iran and that means absolutely, no question, regime backing. there's simply no question about that. this is something that the u.s. had been watching for.

we don't know that any of those incoming missiles were shot down by any u.s. assets. they had seen -- we had reported that they had seen iran move its ballistic missiles around in the last few days, so they were certainly on watch for this. but, you know, if you're talking about retaliation, iran has a very large ballistic missile inventory spread out in key areas. they have also moved their areas around the u.s. for essentially survival, worried about u.s. retaliation. if the u.s. wants to move into iranian air space and launch missiles against targets inside iran, it can be done, but it is a very dangerous business. iran has significant air defenses. their military is not one of the most modern in the world, by any stretch, but they would have the capability to try and shoot down any u.s. aircraft. we know that if the u.s. was

going to go launch something against the iranian regime, it would be by aircraft and by sea. u.s. ships at sea, perhaps launching missiles. this is the way they could avoid those air defenses most significantly. but let's be clear. tonight,he pentagon says it is still assessing the situation on the ground inside iraq, trying to determine exactly what damage, what has happened, and we will then see how president trump decides to move ahead. anderson? >> and barbara, just talk a little bit about the significance that ballistic missiles were used. >> well, you know, what we have seen over the months is rockets and mortars. this is so-called indirect fire. it's those militia groups inside iraq that can readily use those relatively lightweight, shoot and scoot kind of thing. they do cause damage, but most of the time, they don't, because they're very inaccurate. those -- that's the category or rockets and mortars we have seen for months.

this, ballistic missiles, they have to be feudueled up, they h to be put on a launcher. there has to be a crew to man it and fire it off. the iranians would have to have the intelligence, they would have to understand in terms of weapons firing, exactly where al asad is, exactly where erbil is, and be able to fire against those targets with some level of precision. >> which obviously the iranians have, i mean, given their involvement in iraq, they have been backing these proxy -- >> sure, sure. but this tells us -- what this tells us tonight, anderson is they tonight twb real issue i think it's fair to say is the iranian regime, from inside the safety -- relative safety of their own borders, the iranian regime reached out and touched and they hit u.s. forces. we have no reports of casualties at this hour. and they reached out and touched

basically sending a message to president trump, you know, essentially, now what are you going to do about it? because they do have a very significant inventory of these missiles, both short range, medium range, which go longer distances. we know for the future, they're working on long-range missiles. that's not relevant terribly tonight. but the iranian regime, the supreme leader, the iranian leadership tonight, they made a decision to reach out and touch the president of the united states' military force. >> barbara starr, thanks. there's significant activity at the white house, including preparations for a possible oval office address by president trump tonight. we'll obviously bring that to you live. the secretaries of state and defense were seen going into the white house just a short time ago. the chairman of the joint chiefs aririved as well for what will likely be a very long night. our jim acosta is there. any response so far from the white house? >> reporter: not yet, anderson. we understand from talking to officials over here that they're planning for the president to make some sort of statement tonight. whether that's in the oval office, whether it's even via a

paper statement, they are making those preparations right now. we do believe that he will be on camera making some sort of televised address to the nation. perhaps at the oval office at some point tonight about what has happened. this is, obviously, perhaps, the biggest test of his presidency. on day two of the president being back at the white house after his holiday break, anderson, you were just showing this video a few moments ago. just to show you how dramatic a moment this is for the president, we did see exclusively over the last hour the chairman of the joint chiefs, mark mille, the defense secretary, mark esper, and the secretary of state, mike pompeo, all filing into the west wing, just, you know, a few dozen yards from where we're standing right now to go meet with the president and talk about these next steps. now, obviously, we heard the president ratcheting up the rhetoric earlier today. he was essentially warning the iranians that if they were to retaliate, he would strike back. so at this point, he has essentially telegraphed his next

move. and the question is, at this hour, anderson, whether or not he takes that next step, which obviously would draw the united states closer and closer to war. one other thing we should note, anderson, this evening, and i spotted this with my own eyeballs coming into the white house grounds a short while ago, a law enforcement official tells cnn that security measures have been upgraded around the white house grounds. there are some secret service officers with assault rifles, at various checkpoints around this area. that is obviously a precaution that the secret service is going to take because of just how very delicate the situation is right now, anderson. >> jim, i think we'll be talking to you probably throughout the night. cnn's arwa damon is in baghdad for us tonight. arwa, what are you learning about these attacks? what are you hearing? >> reporter: well, what we have been hearing at this stage is that at least the initial assessment is that there are no casualties among the u.s. military personnel at these locations.

when it comes to the al asad air base, and remember, the vast majority of military installations here don't just house use forces, they house iraqi security forces as well, and what an iraqi security source is telling us that there is an unknown number of casualties among the iraqi forces that are at the al asad air base. we do not yet know if this means that they have been killed or wounded, but it goes to show you just how entrenched this country is ending up being in this growing battle. and this is exactly what the iraqi government has been fearful of. it is unclear at this stage, if this is just a single isolated message that perhaps iran is sending and if iran's proxies here are also going to want to chime in on their own way. remember, they are not just flan enraged over the death of qassem

soleimani, but also over the death of the leader of sa hezbollah, an iranian proxy here, a very powerful paramilitary force that does have significant capabilities. this is a force that the u.s. has said has targeted its military installations repeatedly in the past. we do understand that there has been some sort of a conversation between the upper echelons of the u.s. and the iraqi government. this is right now a situation that is very much, as one senior iraqi official was saying, staring down the abyss. this country does not know how to extract itself from this proxy battlefield, nor at this stage, how to prevent itself from becoming an even bigger one. remember, this is this huge push by the iraqi government, but shia parliamenttariarians to dr u.s. troops out of iraq. that is iran's main goal, as

well. and it is the goal of its proxies in this country, despite the fact that there is concern among some members of the iraqi government as to what that would look like moving forward. but this most certainly at this stage, anderson, is going to cause a lot of fear here. not just for the potential security of u.s. military personnel, but also for the iraqis who are alongside them, at all of these bases, and for the iraqi population. what is this going to mean for them moving forward, if america and iran continue playing out their war games in this country. >> yeah, arwa, just for folks who haven't spent time in iraq, if you could just talk a little bit briefly about the shia paramilitary forces, about the iranian proxies, just explain how that works. because it's sort of confusing for people who haven't been there. you have the iraqi government, you have iraqi military forces,

iraqi police personnel. and yet you have these paramilitary forces who have power, who have weapons, who, you know, have freedom of movement. the cow just explain, how many are there and how could they play a role in this if iran wanted to attack on multiple fronts at once? >> well, rook, tlook, the exact at this stage sis unknown, but thousands, potentially thousands fighters that these forces could call upon. we have to go back to the years of america's occupation in iraq, when one of the many militant groups that the u.s. was fighting also included shia militias. very powerful, mostly backed by iran. they were the ones developing

those roadside bombs that were able to penetrate through armor. many of these forces, these militias ended up also as iraq moved forward throughout the year creating political representation. they are political branches are in the iraqi government. when isis was sweeping through, iraq, when it quite literally reached the gates of baghdad, these various forces mobilized. they ended up being the initial front line on the ground force that was driving isis away from the capital. they were the ones who were instrumental in recapturing key cities and towns from isis. then the iraqi government to try to gain a certain measure of control over them absorbed them into the iraqi security forces. but they're only ostensibly actually under the control of baghdad, hence the situation you have right now. this very powerful paramilitary force that has very close ties

to iran, that has this history in iraq, not just of targeting u.s. troops, but also being heavily involved in the secretary warfare that broke out in this country, that in the post-isis phase, anderson, has become extremely powerful, both militarily and politically. and that dynamic really is at the very core of what is unfolding here. >> yeah. arwa damon, appreciate it. again, we have video from iranian state television that claims to be of the strike on the al asad base, shortly after the missiles began falling and what appears to be a jab at president trump or at least a response to the killing of iran's top general soleimani. iran's chief nuclear negotiator tweeted out this. no words, just the iranian flag, a response it seems to the president's tweet of the american flag after the killing of general soleimani. i want to go now to cnn's fred pleitgen who is in tehran, iran.

what's the reaction been in iran? >> reporter: well, so far, it's been quite interesting, anderson, in that the iranians, since we heard there were missile impacts on or near those american bases inside iraq, the iranians immediately took responsibility for it. almost immediately as that took place, there were banners on state tv saying that the irgc was claiming -- the iranian revolutionary guard corps were claiming responsibility for these ballistic missile attacks. and then, also, news agencies were sending out messages saying that there was a second wave of ballistic missiles that had been fired. so the iranians absolutely taking responsibility for this. and that's key. i've been speaking to iranian officials over the past couple of days. and one of the things that struck the most is when the u.s. hit qassem soleimani, that iranian general, that the u.s. took responsibility for it. and with the u.s. doing that, the iranians said that to them made it an open act of

aggression towards iran. and with that, they said, it would require a response from the iranians. what the iranians have been telling me over the past couple of days is that there would be a military response, anderson, and that that military response would be against military installations. so that appears to be exactly what's been happening. and then you've had some of the messaging, which is only really becoming clear right now. for instance, at the funeral procession for qassem soleimani, there were scores of people who had placards with simply two words on them, hard revenge or harsh revenge. well, according to statement i've just gotten from the revolutionary guard corps, saying this operation is actually called operation hard reven revenge. it's interesting, because on a telegram channel from the revolution guard corps, the revolutionary guard corps seems to indicate that if the u.s. responds to this retaliation, that the revolutionary guard corps could respond then inside the united states. that's another threat coming out. the revolutionary guard also warning the united states not to

retaliate after these strikes that the iranians are conducting right now. they're warning america's regional allies that have u.s. bases on their soil that if attacks against iran are launched from those bases, those countries will become targets as well. in the u.s. now seeing how it wants to respond to this iranian retaliation, what are some of the countries in the region that have u.s. bases on them going to think of this iranian threat? the iranians also once again threatening israel, as we've seen in the past assi well. but one of the interesting things is that the iranians are using their ballistic missiles to do this. it's one of the most sophisticated weapons they have in their arsenal, and it's certainly a case that the iranians are making a point that they're not using their proxy forces to strike back at america, but using their own forces and homeland weapons,

which are more significant in their arsenal. >> we'll check back with all of our correspondents throughout the night as new developments warrant. right now we're joined by retired rear admiral john kirby, former commanding officer of the "uss cole," and dexter filkins. admiral kirby, let me start with you. iran's islamic ref lugsary guard corps taking credit for the attacks. it's obviously a significant escalation from iran, a response. what do you make of the form this attack has taken given all the options frankly at iran's disposal? >> it's very clear to me that the way they did this was deliberately intended, not only to send a message to donald trump that they immediamean bus but that they have the capability to cause real damage. that's why they chose three particular weapons and that they were willing, brazen enough to

launch them from iranian soil. clearly, it's a statement of not only their capability, but their willingness to use that capable. so we'll see the president hopefully latter tonight. what i think is going to be interesting to see is obviously how he responds to this, but trying to understand the degree to which for him decision space is now getting smaller. it's getting a little bit more closed, as this pattern of escalation continues to increase and that's the concern. that finding a de-escalation method, finding a diplomatic off-ramp here is going to become increasingly difficult for the administration, now that the iranians have so upped the ante with the use of these particular systems. >> former ambassador to iran and one of the former hostages who have held, who i talked to earlier today who is also an historian said throughout history, countries have been drawn into war, each side saying they do not actually want to go to war, that it's the other side. i'm wondering what you make of what we have seen tonight and what the next steps may be or

could be avoided to be? >> well, i think right now, what you see, anderson, this is a prime opportunity for everyone to take a step back and de-escalate from what's deloping. we had the strike against soleimani which was extremely effective and achieved our objective of taking out the number of one terrorist in the world that was working for the iranian government. by the same token, the iranians got their message across by sending these rockets into the base at al asad and up into erbil. right now, we're kind of like that operational pause. we're assessing damage, seeing what's going on, signals have been sent and received on both sides. this is actually the perfect opportunity to take that measured step back and determine, okay, do we need to continue an escalatory process? or is this, in fact, the opportunity to allow diplomacy to step in, allow both sides to disengage, go to their neutral corners, figure out what we can do? and in fact, i see a greater

opportunity to now come to the negotiating table than i think we've had previously. >> dexter filkins, i don't know what you make of that. the president tweeted, which we read at the top of the broadcast a couple of days ago, if they strike an american base, we have all of these -- i'm paraphrasing -- highly beautiful new expensive weapons that we'll send over there. >> yeah, membership sense of this strike that happened this evening is that everything about it suggests that it was done for primarily for iranian domestic political reasons. they are basically speaking to their constituency -- >> showing that we've done something. >> look, we did it. yeah. if you start with the national security meeting that the iranians had yesterday, there was a story in "the times" this morning, "the new york times" in which the supreme leader was quoted as demanding a proportionate response. you know, i want us to do this and i want it to do it visibly and rapidly. and there were three sources for that story.

and it struck me as, that was an orchestrated leak. the iranians wanted us to read that. they want to show, they want their own people to see it. they're trying to satisfy their public now, which is like very agitated and very angry and wants revenge. and i think this was more about them than it was about us. they didn't kill any americans. as far as we know. >> right, yeah. and we should say, you know, these are very early reports. we really have no idea. and as we all know, and as everybody who is watching knows, early reports in any kind of conflict, kinetic activity, are often wrong or just, it's just too early to tell exactly what has gone on on the ground there. we're also joined by general mark hurtling, who has spent a lot of time obviously serving in iraq. general hurtling, dexter filkins, i don't know if you just heard what he was saying, that this seems like a very thought-out response and perhaps in response largely to domestic

pressures within iran, for some sort of response, given all the other options at the disposal of iran. >> i agree completely with that, anderson. we're talking about not only the timing of the attack, which appears to have coincided with the same time that soleimani was attacked, with the drone strike, that it's messaging towards the iranian people, saying that we pride ourselves on countering any kind of actions by the great satan. and then the third message, which i think is just as important, is it's done on iraqi soil. it pulls them into this fray. iran and iraq have not had a history of great relationships. that i have be they've been trying to pull together a little bit closer more lately. there have been some dynamics involved in that. but to strike a u.s. base on iraqi soil is sending not only a message to the united states, but to iraq as well, to stay out of this proxy war, because if you're succeed into it, you're

going to bear the repercussions, as well. all of those are huge messaging attributes. to include the fact that they used ballistic missiles, not the kind of rockets that have been launched by proxies in the past, these create some devastating effects. and the fact that there were 12 of them in the first wave to both al asad and erbil is significant, because those are two major u.s. bases right now. >> admiral kirby, the pentagon said they're working on initial battle damage assessments. not sure exactly how long that might take. talk a little bit about if there are american casualties, and there are some reports, based on at least one iraqi source to our arwa damon, that there are some iraqi casualties, although we don't know if that means wounded or casualties, if this attack has not killed anyone what the

chances are for this to kind of breathe and reassess and de-escalate? >> i definitely think if there are american casualties, that certainly closes down decision space for the president and makes it harder for him not to respond in some way in a military fashion. hopefully, obviously, there aren't going to be any deaths caused by this, but the fact that they conducted this strike in such a sophisticated manner from iranian soil certainly itself is escalation enough. and i think, again, it's going to force the president to do something. and what that is, we don't know. and as for the de-escalation, i certainly agree that right now is a good time for everybody to try to find a way to get off of this cycle of escalation and violence. the problem is that that's difficult to do now. this administration has basically cut off all ties and communications of diplomatic

coordination with iran when they pulled out of the iran deal. they have not given themselves much leeway, much leverage, to have any type of direct negotiations with iran. it's not that it's not possible. certainly, if things get tense enough, it could happen. it's just less likely now than it was certainly before we got into these more recent escalatory moves. >> commander liphold, how difficult is it to maintain that communication when hostilities have actually started. in the past, there have been communications between countries, even if there are strikes happening, because you do want those channels to at least remain open to have some sort of potential for de-escalation or off-ramps? >> i think right now, what you'll find, is there are more paths open to communications than before. we have never had direct communications with the iranians, we have always done it diplomaticicly through the swiss emissaries who have been willing to relay messages back and forth. but a key point going back to the strikes themselves that you

have to remember is that we actually have shown revacant already. earlier today, we knew that these ballistic missile missile batteries were coming out of garrison, they were positioning, they knew they were getting ready to fire. every indication was there. if we wanted to stop that, we could have struck as a preemptive or preventative measure and chose not to. instead, we let the -- >> i want to go quickly to jim acosta at the white house with new information. >> we're still waiting to find out exactly what the president is going to do in terms of giving a station to the nation. we're monitoring that. he's apparently meeting with advisers as we speak. we saw those top advisers entering the white house a few moments ago. but anderson, i wanted to pass along something i picked up from a source close to the white house who has spoken with the president in recent days. this source essentially saying that the president has no choice at this point but to retaliate against iran, based on some of

the talk that this source heard down at mar-a-lago and some of the other things that the president has been saying. and according to source, he's already set a standard that he's going to do a massive retaliation. if he fails to do that, i think he looks weak. those are the words coming to a source close to the white house that has spoken with the president in recent days. i have spoken with other republican officials up on capitol hill, and there is a concern, i will tell you, anderson, even on the republican side of the aisle that this thing could get out of control. obviously, we haven't heard from the president yet. we don't have a full assessment as to what damage has been done on the ground in iraq, but this is a significant moment for the president and people who are close to this president seem to understand that all too well at this moment, anderson. >> jim acosta, appreciate that. joining us right now is former navy helicopter pilot, mikey sheryl who serves on the house armed services committee.

congresswoman, you're a navy veteran. as a veteran and a member of congress, what's your reaction to this attack tonight by iran? >> as a veteran, my first thoughts are really for the families. a lot of us have signed up in the past to go serve our country. we know that we might put ourselves in danger, but it's the families often that are sitting home, waiting for news from their loved ones and right now i keep thinking of all of those families who are just waiting to hear from their service member. >> are you confident that the pentagon would have seen these attacks coming. that u.s. personnel equipment would have been protected in cases of something like that? i'm not sure what the hardened capabilities are on either of these bases. >> well, we certainly weren't expecting an attack from iran. and i know we were moving troops to try to protect them as best we could. and so i know we've been very thoughtful about that. i'm just hoping that we hear that there are no casualties.

certainly, you know, right now, seeing the number of missiles being shot at the bases there, you know, i have a great deal of concern, but i'm still very hopeful. >> the -- we've been talking about the fact that ballistic missiles were fired from inside iran, according to the defense department, as opposed to smaller scale rockets fired from iranian proxies. what do you believe should happen next, could happen next? well, anderson, that's why we in congress have been saying we need all of the information that the administration has so we can help make good decisions for our country. as you know. we are the body from the constitution that declares war. i certainly want to make sure that we don't end up from this administration finding ourselves in another unending war. we want to make sure that cooler heads prevail and we don't simply see escalation after escalation after escalation and

we find ourselves in a situation that we didn't thoughtfully and strategically determine was in the best interests of our country. >> congresswoman sheryl, i appreciate your time. thank you very much. >> thanks, anderson. >> back now with our military security and regional experts, dexter filkins spent a lot of time in the region. a lot of extraordinary reporting dexter has done and continues to do. just in terms of, you know, we were talking about the iranian -- the proxy forces, the shia paramilitary groups and stuff. if there is now this drumbeat to respond for this administration, if there's a back and forth, you know, the options on the table for iran, it just seems to me are -- they're multi-fronts. and we're not just talking about in iraq or syria, it's really wherever u.s. forces are or other u.s. civilians or installations. >> anywhere, yeah, absolutely. if you just take iraq, they

fired the missiles today, but they could have used one of their militias inside the country. i mean, those publishmilitias h proven themselves to act on behalf of the iranians. the iranians, historically, particularly through hezbollah, they've shown a capability to act all over the world. thailand, india, nigeria, latin american, they can strike pretty much anywhere they want. >> there's u.s. troops in somalia, there's operations going on. >> u.s. and civilians, too. >> yeah. >> the things that the iranians have proved themselves to be very good at in the past truck bombs and hostage taking. and they haven't done anything like that yet, but they certainly could. >> general hurtling, just in terms of kind of next steps, you know, how in the past, these situations have either, you know, kind of de-escalated or how they have escalated.

>> i'll prevase face by first s, anderson, it's an old tenant, it's very easy to fall into a war or stumble into a war and a whole lot harder to get out. let's put this into perspective. iran is four times the size of iraq. they have about three times the population, and as we saw on the news over the last couple of days, they are very rabid for the most part in supporting their government. you're talking about a very large military to include the quds force and the ability to strike back in not only conventional methods, but also unconventional means, such as cyber attacks along with the conventional attacks. you're talking about a nation that truthfully, probably rear admiral kirby will say the same, from the 1980s, we've looked at different exercises and in fact war games of how would we tackle an iranian regime if we ever got into a conflict there?

it's extremely challenge. not only from the standpoint of going against a very challenging force, but a terrain and a demographic that's very tough as well. the president tweeted out about how we have billions of dollars worth of new equipment. well, frankly, that's not true. you know, anyone in the military that tells you we suddenly had -- went to a walmart and got a bunch of new patriot missiles and new tanks and new submarines and new aircraft carriers know how long those things take to get into the pipeline. we have a budget to purchase more and refresh what we've seen over 20 years of war that's taken its toll on our equipment, but right now, it would be a very strong challenge to go up against the islamic republic of iran. >> admiral kirby, you talk about those war games, the game to get out. how do you see the potential for this in terms of escalation? >> obviously, that depends on what decisions the president

makes. i'm sure that they're teeing up some options for him probably from low to high in terms of intensity and the level of violence. i think my supposition is if they're looking at military targets right now, they're probably looking at command and control facilities or launch areas or trying to get at the source of these attacks, rather than prepping for an all-out conventional conflict with iran, which is general hurtling rightly points out, would be extraordinarily difficult and very bloody. it's one of the top ten armies in the world in terms of size and iran's a much bigger country than iraq. and i would be surprised if that's really where this is going. but i think in terms of cankines right now, they're probably teeing up options that make sense to address the specific origin or capabilities that were put in place tonight against al asad. >> commander liphold, you talked

about the possibility of de-escalation and taking a breath, taking a pause, seeing what the casualties are and what the possibility for de-escalation is. how does that work when it doesn't seem as if there are diplomatic channels that are at least open or, you know, vibrant at this point? >> well, i think, anderson, we take advantage of the channels that we know are there. as i mentioned before, we've got the swiss, that have always been open and able to talk to the iranians. >> the swiss represent the u.s. interests in iran. there's not obviously an american embassy anymore in the iran. >> the others might be the european powers. they were very connected with the jcpoa or the iran nuclear agreement. germany, france, both of them obviously are going to have connections within the iranian government that we could work through and use them as pathways for communication. so i think there's a variety of ways to do it. it's whether we actually choose

to do that, and we may do that in concert with or in parallel with preparing for more kinetic options if the iranians want to continue this fight. >> dexter, one of the things -- and i'm listening to commander liphold, who's talking about the option of using switzerland or european allies. our relationships with a lot of european allies is not what it was before. and it doesn't seem like they were informed about the attack on soleimani. and i don't know where they would be in terms of willingness to be involved. >> well, i think they would be happy to try -- >> just to avert -- >> yeah, because this is like freaking them out. but i think the whole -- starting with president trump withdrawing from the nuclear agreement, but his entire posture towards the iranian government, which they see essentially as regime change, they don't like it. they've made that really clear. if they could have their way, i think it's fair to say that the europeans would go back, restore the nuclear agreement, put it all back in place and go back to

what the obama administration -- >> as someone who's spent a lot of time in iraq, what -- if there are iraqi casualties here and this attack was, you know, an attempt to bring iraq into this, how does that play out on the iraqi front? not only are these shia paramilitary forces, but you have the iraqi parliament who has already said that u.s. forces leave. if u.s. forces leave, and there are many americans who would like to see u.s. forces get out altogether from iraq, the irony is that's exactly what soleimani had wanted all along, to get u.s. forces out. >> it's ironic. and i think it's classic. they are literally stuck in the middle. they have iran, which is right next door, and they have the united states, and they're both coming at them all the time, saying, i want you, i want you, and the other one is saying the same thing. and the prime minister there who is about as pro-western,

pro-american prime minister you're going to get in iraq, he needs the americans. i don't think he -- you know, whoever he's telling, whatever he's saying publicly and whatever he's telling the parliament, i think in his heart, he would like to keep the americans there. >> because? >> to play them off against the iranians. otherwise, he's powerless. they'll thoroughly dominate the government there. >> jim acosta is standing by at the white house. what are you hearing? >> reporter: we should update our viewers that at this point, it does not appear the president will make an address to the nation tonight. we are hearing from the white house press secretary stephanie grisham that the president will not appear in front of the cameras tonight, will not make an address to the nation about what is unfolding tonight in iraq. the possibility of a paper statement, i suppose, still exists or a tweet of some sort of, i suppose. but as of right now, we don't expect that to happen. obviously, in situations like this, anderson, we've seen this movie before. they have made preparations for

these kinds of statements in the past and decided ultimately not to do them. the other thing we should point out is some of the top advisers who are meeting with the president, people like secretary of state mike pompeo and others who are meeting with the president this evening, they have also departed the white house. what all of that means, obviously, we're going to be talking to our sources over the next several hours to determine exactly what was going on behind the scenes over here at the white house. but at least for the very moment, we can update our viewers and say that the president does not appear to be looking to make a statement to the nation tonight here at the white house, anderson. >> so just to be clear, you're saying pompeo, mille, esper, they have left now? >> reporter: we believe they have all left at this point. we just saw -- that's right, the defense secretary, the secretary of state, the chairman of the joint chiefs all file out of the white house, within the last 10 or 15 minutes, anderson. the vice president as well. they were all here for about an hour, hour and a half, meeting

with the president behind closed doors. the white house press secretary was also meeting with the president. they were all going over what has transpired in iraq tonight, but it appears at the moment, at the very least, that the president is not going to be at least making a statement to the nation over the airwaves in terms of what the next step will be for the u.s. obviously, this is a very tender, delicate moment and i think all of that is being taken into consideration at this point. >> we'll see if he decides to communicate in another form tonight. jim acosta, appreciate it. we'll take a short break. remember, we're live at the 11:00 hour as well. coming up next, how this crisis could open the door to return of forces such as isis. we'll hear from someone who wrote the book on it as our live coverage continues.

breathe freely fast, with vicks sinex. my congestion's gone. i can breathe again! ahhhh i can breathe again! ughh.. vicks sinex, breathe on

trumpand total disaster.mplete let obamacare implode. nurse: these wild attacks on healthcare hurt the patients i care for. i've been a nurse in new york for thirty years. i know the difference leadership can make because i saw what mike bloomberg did as mayor. vo: mayor bloomberg helped lower the number of uninsured by 40%, covering 700,000 more new yorkers, life expectancy increased. he helped expand health coverage to 200,000 more kids

and upgraded pediatric care--- infant mortality rates dropped to record lows. and as mayor, mike bloomberg always championed reproductive health for women. so when you hear mike bloomberg on health care... mrb: this is america. we can certainly afford to make sure that everybody that needs to see a doctor can see a doctor, everybody that needs medicines to stay healthy can get those medicines. nurse: you should know, he did it as mayor, he'll get it done as president. mrb: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

hey, our worker's comp insurance is expiring. should i just renew it? yeah, sure. hey there, small business owner. pie insurance here with some sweet advice to stop you from overpaying on worker's comp. try pie instead and save up to 30%. thirty percent? really? sure! get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. that is easy. so, need another reminder? no, i'm good. reminder for what? oh. ho ho, yeah! need worker's comp insurance? get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. to bring you up to date on events of the last few minutes, mike pompeo, defense secretary mark esper have just departed

the white house. vice president mike pence has also left, so as the chairman of the joint chiefs, we derstand. the meeting just hours after iranian missiles fired from iranian soil, ballistic missiles, more than a dozen according to u.s. authorities, targeting american forces in iraq, landing at two big bases. no proxies, no shia paramilitary forces, no deniability. a clear claim of responsibility from iran's revolutionary guard corps. the question now, how will president trump respond? what happens next? a source close to the white house who has spoken with him over the last couple of days telling our jim acosta, quote, trump has already set a standard that he's going to do a massive retaliation. if he fails to do that, i think he looks weak. that is somebody who's had communications with the president in the last several days. dexter filkins is back with us from "the new yorker," joining us as well, a national security reporter for "the washington post," author of a book i'm a huge fan of, "black flags: the rise of isis." joby, first of all, this attack

tonight, what are your thoughts on it? >> i've just been struck by how many times conventional wisdom has gone out the window in the last couple of days. i don't think anyone would have predicted that the u.s. would have gone after such a public figure such as soleimani. someone who was out in the open, a very bad guy, but not a typical case for us to go after someone so directly. and who would have thought that the iranians would respond so directly and so quickly? most people i spoke to thought it would be a measured response, maybe so much later, using proxies or something else, but this has been very direct, so we're in essentially uncharted territory. >> and you wrote about what you called a quantum change in the missile technology being used by iran. >> so about a decade ago, a pretty significant decision was made at senior levels in iran. they have a really crappy air force. essentially 40-year-old planes that aren't very effective. they decided to invest very heavily on their missiles, especially precision guided.

you see a whole new generation of cruise missiles, drones that are armed, missiles, ballistic missiles like we've perhaps seen tonight that have maneuverable reentry vehicles so they can control them after they fly. so they can be very precise to the tens of meters. and that's new for iran. that gives them all kinds of new cards to play they didn't even have a year, maybe five years ago. it's just quite dangerous. >> dexter, what is the power that iran -- i mean, obviously, there is, you know, there was an iran/iraq war, in which a million people were killed on either side. a horrific war involving, you know, children in mine fields. how is iran viewed now and how does that play into, you know, it's an attack on iraqi soil? >> well, good question. i think in iraq, iran is seen as this kind of, the big neighbor, who's never going to go away. he's always going to live next coor. >> and iran has obviously been putting a lot of money on all of these proxy forces and there's

political forces, as well. >> yeah, they are deeply embedded in the iraqi establishment, in the iraqi government in every way. and they live right next door. and they makethatverylear. and if they need to exert leverage or pressure and all the way up to assassination, they can do it. so when the iraqis try to talk to the united states, they say, you know, we've got to live with these guys next door. don't forget that. so they're right in the middle. >> joby, we were talking with dexter before you joined us about the -- you know, we now have the iraqi parliament saying that they want to expel u.s. forces, you know, the iraqi cabinet has to take that up. the leadership, as well. and how if the u.s. actually, you know, a sick irony would be if the u.s. did actually withdraw forces from iraq under pressure, that's exactly what iran has wanted. in terms of isis, though, what is the potential for isis to come back, as they did the last time u.s. forces pulled out?

>> well, if you think about why we have troops in iraq to begin with, it's -- right now, it's mostly because we want to control isis, to go after the remaining pockets of isis that still exist. there are still networks that are there, and and to prevent its resurgence. already, you've seen a win for isis, because we've stopped training. we've essential shut down training of the kurdish forces and others who were helping us go after isis. the same is, you know, true with nato, has just announced stopping training as well. that's lalready a victory for isis. if the u.s. has to win, that's an absolute windfall for isis. there's no question they're going to try come back. we've already seen them try. there's a tempo of attacks in the last few weeks, something like 20 attacks in iraq alone in the week of christmas. they're trying to do something now. if we leave, are forced to leave, forced to scale back, there's an opportunity for them to come back. >> it's not clear how president trump would actually view that, though. obviously, he's been very proud

of the destruction of isis that has occurred thus far and has claimed credit for it, not really recognizing the efforts of the prior administration, as well, which is certainly the rise of isis happened under the prior administration's watch. but if iran is then drawn into a crisis with isis in iraq, as they were through these proxy forces early on, to battle isis, it's not clear if the president would actually be okay with that. >> there's so many ways this could go wrong. you can potentially see the recreation of conditions that existed in 2012 in iraq, when you essentially had sunnis feeling they needed to join siss or align with isis because they were being pressured by some of these iranian groups. that could happen again if the u.s. isn't there to refry. that was part of the problem in 2011. we pulled all of our forces out, so the shiite-friendly iraqi government allowed some of these iranian proxies to run roughshod

over some of the sunni groups and really persecuted them. so there's that potential. and there's just also, you know, just endless opportunities for isis to find ways to regroup in areas that are essentially lawless. and there are areas where they can go right now and try to train and plan and to do bad things. so those are all opportunities we see coming back right now. >> dexter, it's also been -- it's been a fragile couple of years, i guess, you know, good compared to what it was before, for iraq over the last couple of years, it's sort of a fragile, you know, diminution of isis. but those shia/sunni tensions, which are confusing for many people who don't know the region well, that all still exists, as well. >> definitely. and i -- you know, not to confuse everybody more, but one more point on isis, the shiite militias and the iranians, we were all fighting together against isis, the americans and

iran and the shiite militias that they basically oversee, they were basically cooperating in the fight against isis. >> you were saying fighting together. there weren't actually operating in the same units. >> no, they weren't. they weren't communicating with each other, but they were coordinating, certainly. >> dexter filkins, thank you so much. joby ward, thank you so much so much. appreciate. great to have you on it again. up next, we'll go to tehran for the very latest from there. we'll be right back. whoa, this is awful, try it. oh no, that looks gross what is that? you gotta try it, it's terrible. i don't wanna tray it if it's terrible. it's like mango chutney and burnt hair. no thank you, i have a very sensitive palate. just try it! hey guys, i think we should hurry up. if you taste something bad, you want someone else to try it. it's what you do. i can't get it out of my mouth! if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. dog, dog, dog.

i can. the two words whispered at the start of every race. every new job. and attempt to parallel park. (electrical current buzzing) each new draft of every novel. (typing clicks) the finishing touch on every masterpiece. (newborn cries) it is humanity's official two-word war cry. words that move us all forward. the same two words that capital group believes have the power to improve lives. and that, for over 85 years, have inspired us to help people achieve their financial goals. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information.

♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia. for everyone you love. hey. ♪hey. you must be steven's phone.

now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network... only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today. a lot of movement obviously over the past few hours. iran launching more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two iraqi bases that house u.s. troops. a lot of threats and rhetoric

from the regime since then, but no more missiles, it seems. fred pleitgaitgen joins us now iran's capital, tehran. fred, what else are you hearing about these attacks from the iranian side? >> reporter: well, the iranians very early on, anderson, came out and admitted and took credit, if you will, for launching these attacks. what's going on right now is that on iranian state tv, which is essentially the main way to get information at this point in time, they're sort of alternating between showing pictures of qassem soleimani, of course, that general who was killed in that u.s. strike in baghdad, and then reading a statement by iran's revolutionary guard corps, which is the entity that fired those missiles, essentially explaining exactly what they did, saying that they fired this -- these missiles, saying it was in retaliation for the killing of soleimani, and warning the united states not to hit back. so essentially, the message that the iranians are trying to send right now is they fired back and they want things to end here. so they're warning the trump

administration not to escalate this any further. also, another interesting point, anderson, there's a telegram channel that the revolutionary guard uses as well, and that sent out two names of the ballistic missile types that were allegedly used. i was looking those up. those are allegedly both short-range ballistic missiles, apparently capable of traveling a little less than 500 miles and both fairly new models, as well. the iranians also very much showcasing their military technology. >> so fred, i want to ask you to drill down a little bit on what you just said about their sort of -- their saying don't retaliate. i can certainly understand them saying, don't retaliate, and it meaning a whole bunch of different things. is it -- i mean, are they saying, they're not clearly saying, this is a one-off, we're now done, or are they saying there's going to be more attacks? or are they just not saying anything about that at all and just saying, you know, no more -- you know, don't

retaliate? >> reporter: well, look, what the iranians have been saying, and it's interesting, because they've actually been really sending this message for the past couple of days now. they are saying that after the attack on soleimani, there was going to be a military retaliation on their part. it was going to be against military targets. that's exactly what's happening right now. and they say that's going to be proportional attack and after that attack, they want things to end. they don't want the u.s. to go any further. whether or not these missile strikes that we're seeing right now are the end of it is very hard to tell. but certainly, judging from the statement that we're seeing from the revolutionary guard corps, it could very well be the case that the iranians are saying, look, you hit our top general, we've just hit you back. we've shown that we have the technology to do so, to also wage open warfare. we can leave it at that, or you can try to escalate even further. that's what the iranians are warning against, anderson. >> fred pleitgen, also, i think, we're just running -- tv is showing images of soleimani

being buried in his hometown or being at least returned to his hometown. our breaking news coverage continues right now. i want to hand things over to chris cuomo for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo. we know that iran has struck multiple american bases. we are awaiting a full report of any casualties. that information may determine what happens next on both sides. we just got word of something that may be a good sign, that there may be less coming next. we have that. welcome to prime-time. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >> all right. two air bases in iraq that house u.s. troops have come under attack. iran has claimed responsibility directly. now, according to the pentagon, more than a dozen ballistic missiles were launched at al asad and erbil bases around 5:30 p.m. eastern ti.