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 time.

you're looking at video that was released of those missiles on launch. a key point. early reports suggested that these missiles may have been launched locally, by iranian proxies. that would have been a less extreme step. but no, that is not the case. defense department officials say it is clear they were launched from iran. in retaliation to the air strike that killed a top iranian general last week. that means at a minimum, those missiles traveled about 800 miles from here in erbil to the closest border in iran, if that's where they came from, and at the second base, a little bit more about 900 miles. now, distance was greater, obviously, than what would happen if you shot them locally, but these were more sophisticated missiles. that means that they had better targeting systems. that means they could be more precise. and that leads us to an interesting question in a moment. but here is more information about what we know. two missiles hit in erbil. one in the airport, the international airport there. the report is it did not

explode. another landed outside the city. no injuries reported from that one. now, u.s. military reports that it saw missiles being organized in iran, loaded, taken out of the garrisons, put on to the launching devices, and readied for launch. a question that arises, why didn't the u.s. strike at them then? that is interesting and complicated and we can answer it tonight and we will in a moment. now, the question is from iran releasing these missiles and not being done locally, do they have the ability to target missiles close enough, but not dead-on target? in other words, was this a step to save face within the region without doing maximum damage? yes, every report that you're seeing and i'm not repeating their words, because i don't see the benefit in that kind of invective, but tough talk aside, was this the move to show that we could have, show we retaliated, and now that's that? we have intelligence on that as well. but what we don't know right now

is probably more important. like i said, we're awaiting word of casualties. so far, no reports of any american casualties or death. anything a all, we don't have a report. there are reports of iraqi injuries, maybe other allies. if it holds this way and god willing it does, could that be a reason to have an end to this cycle? now, to the news that we thought we were going to get and didn't, that may be a good sign. we were on alert for the president to announce to the nation tonight. we are now told that won't happen. you can read that two ways. one, the president wasn't ready to announce another strike, which might be good news for those who don't want to see escalation here. or it could mean the u.s. military doesn't want to flag what's coming next. we don't have further information on that, but you're not going to see the president tonight. at least that's the latest word. however, he's already said holds a lot of weight here. the president set a red line that these media posts will serve as notification to the united states congress that --

here's the key part -- should iran strike any u.s. person or target, the united states will quickly and fully strike back and perhaps in a disproportionate manner. now, they certainly crossed that red line, iran. iran has said in response recently, if any strike by the united states occurs inside iran's border, then they plan to attack dubai and the uae, obviously a u.s. ally, and israel. that is a sensitive site and of course israel is a key ally. so we have what we know and what we need to know covered from every angle from the white house to iraq to iran. our reporters are live across the globe. we also have a key perspective from someone who has been in the chair when it matters, former homeland security secretary, who spent years dealing with the iran threat, michael chertoff.

let's start with caitlkaitlan cs at the white house. so my read is, no word from the president tonight means there may not be further a, at least right away. what are you being told? >> reporter: it sounds like they're still judging what their response is going fob. but that's the number one question coming out of the white house, how are they going to respond to this. you just laid out the president's past threats, but not just that, he got as specific saying if iran did target an air force base with u.s. troops on it, talking about how he would respond to that, saying that america would respond. now the question is, how much do they do that? we know he essentially spent the evening surrounded by his top national security aides, who came over here to the white house when we were first getting these reports about these attacks and this being launched and that was mark esper, mike pompeo, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the vice president all here around the president tonight as they are essentially asking themselves, what are we going to do in response to this.

now, we should update our viewers -- >> let me ask you a quick follow-on that. it's great reporting that you know who's around the president. in these situations, what happens next is almost always the category of intelligence. they dictate action about what's happening on the ground and what needs to happen. and that can start a cycle of council for the president. do we know if he is relying on the dni, the director of intel, or is it really pompeo that he's listening to? >> well, pompeo and the president are incredibly close. you saw him come over here within moments, and he was reading something in the backseat of his car, we could see him. and we should note that of course, there is no confirmed director of national intelligence at this time. it's just someone who is in an acting position in that role after the president nominated someone who capitol hill, of course, lawmaker, john radcli e radcliffe, and that ultimately fell through. so the question over the intelligence has been, of course, is the president in the past who has repeatedly doubted and undermined u.s. intelligence, but that's what you've seen not only the president, but also mike pompeo referring to and relying on time

and time again over the last several days. >> not only is the president now telling us that we have the best intel in the world, he actually did something that he's always criticized in the past. this is probably one of the most pros provocative actions by a u.s. president in our lifetime. ka kaitlan, thank you. now let's go to tehran inside iran. fred pleitgen is there. we've been showing fred live pictures of a memorial to general soleimani. obviously, he was more than more to people in that country than a perceived terrorist, as he is to the u.s. government. he was more than a general. he was a cultural figure. i think in iraq recently, he was polled at about 80% popularity. what are you hearing on the ground about why this happened tonight? >> reporter: well, i think you just hit the nail on the head, chris. i think why this happened tonight, the u.s. had that targeted killing of qassem soleimani. and one of the things i've been hearing from the iranians,

chris, is the reason why they feel they are almost forced to do these strikes that we're seeing or have seen tonight is because the u.s. took direct responsibility for killing qassem soleimani. i had an interview earlier today with the foreign minister of iran. and the foreign minister said to me the u.s. killed one of our top commanders and the u.s. admitted that it killed one of our top commanders, therefore, they say, they saw this as a direct aggression against the iranian nation. and therefore, the foreign minister told me, iran is going to take action. chris, a couple of days ago, i had an interview with one of the top advisers to iran's supreme leader. this is someone right in the power center. and that person told me, look, i can tell you right now, there is going to be a military response from our side. that military response is going to be against military targets. iranian also have been saying they don't want this to be a full-on war. and so therefore, it really wasn't much of a surprise that the iranians immediately took responsibility for launching

those ballistic missiles towards iraqi territory and hitting those u.s. bases. what they're essentially trying to do, chris, is on the one hand, they're trying to obviously send their message, but they're also saying, chris, that they have the capabilities to hit american targets, even from iranian territory. one of the things we've been talking so much about is iran's ballistic missile program. they've been investing a lot into it. they have made it more and more sophisticated. and now they're showing this stuff actually does work. and this stuff can actually be a threat to the united states. so some significant messaging that the iranians are also sending. and what we've been seeing here over the past couple of days, in the aftermath of the killing of qassem soleimani, has been big outpouring of grief, but also calls for revenge. i was actually at one of the main funeral processions for soleimani just yesterday. and there were people holding placards, chris, that had two words written on them "hard" and

"revenge." guess what the operation is called tonight? they call it operation hard revenge. they are saying, they are warning the u.s. against striking back. they say that will lead to more retaliation. they're warning other nations here in the vicinity that house u.s. bases not to let america use their bases to launch attacks against iran or those countries will become targets as well. certainly a very tense situation. it does seem as though, and this is something we have heard from iranian officials, the iranians don't want this to escalate any further, is what they've been telling me through various channel, chris. >> well, actions speak louder than words. one of the questions for u.s. military to assess, thank you to fred pleitgen. we'll be back to him in a little bit, is whether or not they fired these missiles that are supposedly so accurate in a way that they would come close, but not cause the kind of deadly damage that might have. now, that question hangs on the answer of a full assessment of who was hurt and where. we don't have that yet. we're waiting on it.

let's go to baghdad. arwa damon is positioned basically, you know, right outside as a triangle of the two bases. arwa damon, what is the assessment you're hearing from sources on the ground about the damage done by the strikes? >> reporter: well, the u.s. military is saying at this stage, in their initial statement, they do not believe there are any u.s. casualties. however, it is worth reminding everyone who is watching that these u.s. military bases are often joint bases, as was the al asad air base. so what we're hearing from an iraqi security force is that there are reportedly casualties on the iraqi side. we don't know how many. we don't know if these casualties were just wounded or killed, but we are receiving reports of those kinds of casualties. and this is a country that has been bracing itself, realizing that it is the physical battlefield at this stamg between this brewing war between washington and tehran.

the iraqis that we've been talking to are saying that this is exactly what they have been fearing for quite some tie now. that they are going to be on the r receiving end of any retaliation from either side. and assuming this is as far as iran's response goes at this stage, let's assume that the u.s. does not somehow respond and escalate even further, in iraq, this is not where it ends, because you still have the u.s. military here and you still have these shia paramilitary forces, shia parliamentarians who do make up the majority of parliament, and a prime minister who have been saying that they want foreign forces to leave and these shia paramilitary groups, proxies of iran are saying that if the u.s. military does not leave, they are going to be

forming some sort of resistance force. who makes up these groups, chris? the very same shia militias who fought u.s. forces during the u.s.-led opposition here. so even if we do have some sort of easing of tensions at the level of washington and tehran, that doesn't necessarily translate into an easing of tensions on the ground in iraq. >> understandable and very important perspective. and the biggest problem in terms of how much catalyzing there is there, is you don't have tehran and washington, d.c. talking to each other. right now, we know of no channels of communication, which means it's hard for things to get better. arwa, you're going to keep the feed in your ear. when you hear the conversation with chertoff and torhe other experts going forward, let me know, we'll come right back to you. same for fred pleitgen in tehran. and obviously, we're monitoring the white house. hopefully we get no other word from there tonight, because that

may well be an introduction of some new action and i don't know why anybody wants to hear that at this point. so with all the information on the ground, what does it mean about those who have to make the decision next? michael chertoff, former homeland security secretary under president george w. bush, thank you so much for making yourself available tonight, mr. secretary, on such an important night. >> sure, absolutely. >> so from what you've heard of the state of play on the ground, what are your concerns and considerations? >> i think this is a -- kind of a classic example of the cycle of escalation, where you have a back and forth, how do you decide at what point you can kind of climb down as opposed to continuing to amplify the level of violence. remember, this cycle began with an attack by an iranian-backed militia on an air base that resulted in the death of a u.s. contractor and a number of u.s. service people being injured. so that began this. we then responded to that. there was then an attack on the embassy. and so it has slowly stepped up. what i'm hopeful about, but i'm

certainly not for sure, is that the iranians are now signaling that they are ready to stop at this point. >> now, let me ask you something, secretary. this suggestion that oh, it would have been better if they were locally fired missiles by proxies, it wouldn't have been as big an escalation. now the intel is, no, it came directly from iran. now there's a secondary question that to me seems very important if it is accurate, which is that their missiles and capabilities are good enough that they could have fired them close, but not deadly on target to do maximum damage. do you believe that is true of iranian capabilities and plausible of their intentions? >> well, i would be guessing if i told you that i know what their capability is to hit directly on target. but i do think what's significant is that they chose not to hide behind proxies, which is typically what they do in many cases. but to actually come out front and basically say, it's us, we're using ballistic missiles,

you know, which are sophisticated, and we're launching from our territory. that to me is a symbolic issue. frankly part of which i think is directed at the internal population. and it's designed to kind of navigate between two possibilities. one is not creating a c cataclysmic effect that guarantees an american response, but guaranteeing that there's a level of seriousness that has pulled them from behind their proxies and they've come out front. >> if god willing there are no american casualties or worse, does that give the american president space and those around him to say, we don't -- i know what you tweeted. i know what you tweeted, but we don't have to act on that. we don't have to do anything else. there is no exchange of actual blood on american blood. >> i think that's exactly right, chris. if, in fact, no americans got killed. and i recognize it's tragic that iraqis apparently got part of

this, but if no americans got killed, there's an opportunity at that point to say, okay, you didn't kill any americans, we're calling a halt here. that requires you not dance in the end zone and humiliate the iranians, because then that kind of pushes them to take the next step. >> all right pb so two more points. in terms of who's in the region, okay, we have a lot of troops there, about 50,000. they just sent 4,500 more to the region, we don't know what that means. but look, this area is rich with targets of opportunity for the iranians. and just for you at home, i am not giving out information right now that is not publicly knowable and widely distributed within all of the relevant circles. we're not giving information away about american vulnerabilities. i would never do that. but mr. secretary, when you look at how many different troops there are in the surrounding areas and countries, all well within reach of iranian capabilities, without them ever having to leave home, and more being sent to the region, what does that mean in terms of u.s. preparation? >> well, i think it means that -- and this is i'm sure

something that's been underway, that you have to then make force protection of all of your assets, including civilian assets, diplomats in the region. that has to become a high priority. it's always been a dangerous region, but in this case, you really want to dial it up a little bit. the good news is, to the extnt you're dealing with the military, they do have forced protection capabilities. and i believe they've indicated that a lot of the diplomats ought to leave. but i think this is now going to become a kind of a top urgency for the department of defense and the department of state. >> the iranian officials, they said, the anything happens inside iran from the u.s., we're going at dubai in the uae and we're going at haifa in israel. why those? >> well, i think, two things here. first of all, they're signaling that they regard an attack on iranian territory again as a step up in escalation. and as i indicated at the

beginning, controlling the cycle of escalation is really the big challenge in these kinds of back and forth. so what they're also doing is they're holding our allies hostage. they're basically saying, if you attack us in iran, your allies are going to pay a price. whether it be israel, whether it be the uae. and that again is designed to be a brush back, to prevent the u.s. from kind of just leaning into taking this up to the next level, which is attacking the territory of iran. >> to other big points. one is, of course, we care about our allies in the region, we care about those who are fighting on the ground. we care especially about the u.s. fighting men and women who are in all of these areas relatively exposed, but the scariest threat, i think, for americans will be a hit in home. and there was rhetoric that came out of iranian, different levels of state that we are thinking about coming at you where you live, as well. how realistic is that?

what does that mean for us here in america? >> well, again, i think part of that is again, signaling to keep us from taking escalations to the next level. i think the biggest threat to the u.s. homeland is a cyber threat. we have seen the iranians operate in cyberspace in a destructive manner. they did it in saudi arabia. they've tried to do it in the united states. and certainly, they could cause disruption and damage if they took that approach. they've gotten more sophisticated in recent years. physical attack, i think, would be harder. almost ten years ago, there was an effort to assassinate the then-saudi ambassador in the u.s. but again, you would need to have in place capabilities. and we have a pretty good array of capabilities in terms of detecting people who might be a threat. so, my sense is, the more likely thing we would see would be an effort in cyberspace. >> all right. secretary, help me with legal analysis here for a second. now the case is very easy, i

think, for the executive, the president, obviously, at head of the executive branch to say, well, now i'm operating under an obvious imminent threat. now i'm operating out of self-defense, and i don't need congress to do anything. but arguably, should congress have been brought in before the soleimani move? and does congress have any ability now to be in this process, because as you and i know and the american people are getting up to speed on very quickly, this is congress' job, declarations of war and statutory authority for these types of hostilities. how long could it be the president alone? >> well, you know, typically, on something like this, the executive branch would bring in at least the very senior members of congress and advise him about something. >> which this president did not. >> but i would say this. we need to recognize again, it's not like this, quote, war, or armed conflict just started with a strike on soleimani. this back and forth has been going on for a while. you might say the first blow was

struck by the iranians when they attacked and killed an american and wounded several others. at that point, presidents generally have the ability to respond without a formal declaration of war. and that goes back to even in the civil war, the blockade cases. so i don't know that this is particularly a legal issue, as much as as it is an issue of, what's prudent in order to get the support you need at home? and also, most important to me, what is the strategy? what are you viewing several steps ahead? what's the end game? what's the objective? >> right. >> and i think that needs to be articulated ultimately to the american people if you're asking them to support continued a gau engagement in the region. >> and i think the absence of that is what is motivating my questions to you, mr. secretary. you heard our president say when asked about iran earlier, i don't need an exit strategy. that's crazy talk. as you well know from a planning perspective. mike pompeo, the secretary of state, reportedly has been working on this and working on the president to do this.

because this isn't the president's nachpresident e president's natural disposition. he doesn't believe in these kind of insurgent actions. if you combine that there doesn't seem to be a strategy, they couldn't articulate imminent threat, even though pompeo has had a lot of opportunities, you have questions about it in congress, what is your level of confidence that this is being done the right way at the highest levels? >> well, i have no visibility into what the discussions are. i know there are some very capability people in the national security community, like the secretary of defense and secretary pompeo was, in fact, the cia director. so these are smart folks. how it works in the white house, i would be guessing. but what i would say, in this kind of a very, very tricky situation, you need to have a clear sense of your objectives. most of the cases in the past where american involvement in a conflict has been turned out to be -- didn't work out so well, has been because we were not clear about what we're trying to achieve. and then there's mission creep

and there's muddled messaging. and in fact, even our field commanders aren't exactly sure what they're supposed to achieve. so given the fact that this administration came in saying no more endless wars, i would think that there's a premium to be placed on articulating for the american public, without giving away, you know, obviously, secrets, what is the general objective here? and sticking to that as part of a strategy. >> mr. secretary, i know you basically ran out of an event to come and help us tonight. your perspective was sorely needed and is greatly appreciated. secretary michael chertoff, thank you very, very much. >> thank you, chris. all right, so now, what do we have going forward? we have gaps in our understanding and very big questions. i think at the top of the list, you have to put, what is president trump going to do? what does it mean that he didn't speak tonight? does that mean that there's some reserve, some thought? or do they not want to give away that something is afoot and that this red line that we tweeted about is some type of official

standard? we will review history back from the bush area when chertoff was in there and wlahat happened in that war with some of our best military minds. what are the options here and what could each mean. cnn's breaking coverage continues, next. when you take your lashes to paradise, you take a little paradise with you. lash paradise from l'oréal paris voluptuous volume. intense length. no wonder there's one sold every five seconds. only one mascara can take your lashes to paradise. lash paradise mascara from l'oréal paris. ncan it one up spaghetti night? cleaning power of liquid. it sure can. really? can it one up breakfast in bed? yeah, for sure. thanks, boys. what about that? uhh, yep! it can? yeah, even that! i would very much like to see that. me too. introducing new tide power pods. one up the toughest stains with 50% more cleaning power than liquid detergent. any further questions? uh uh! nope! one up the power of liquid with new tide power pods.

the wait is over. t-mobile is lighting up 5g nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. now, millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. and this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. wheyou want relief... fast. only thermacare ultra pain relieving cream has 4 active ingredients to fight pain 4 different ways. get powerful relief today, with thermacare. made it myself. i love this place! made that myself, too. order up. fries on the side. right where i like 'em. don't forget the grease fire.

burn, baby -- wait, what? -[ alarm beeping ] -i said grease fire. what are you doing on the counter? when owning a small business gets real... sorry. can i get a to-go box? ...progressive helps protect what you built -with customizable coverage. -aah! ...progressive ♪elps protect what you built

all right. a quick review of what we know. iran has struck two different american bases in iraq, bases

that are often allied bases, but you have u.s. troops housed in both places. a dozen missiles. whether they intended it or not, these missiles, thus far, have been reported to have taken no american lives. that is the early word. we have heard nothing else from the pentagon. we await a further and full report of casualties. thus far, the number is zero. now, iraqis may have been hurt or worse. other allies may have been hurt or worse. we're awaiting word on that, as well. so we know what happened. we know why it happened. wh do we know about what could happen next? let's get perspective from people who know what war is like in iraq. major general "spider" marks and paul rykoff. it's great to have you pack. from the perspective of being on the ground. i heard something, help us understand it. u.s. intel was watching, saw the missiles come out of the garrison in iran, being put on

launchers, readied for fire. why doesn't the u.s. go at them then, before they launch them? what are the questions? >> well, i don't know. and i think that that's an important thing for anybody who is on television to start with. most of us really don't know. and what's happening inside the white hous and happened inside the pentagon is a damage assessment. they're trying to consolidate and reorganize and on some level figure out what happened. and hopefully think about a clear strategy and long-term objectives. for me, what we really need to think about is those men and women who are in harm's way. there are over 5,000 of them in iraq, about 50,000 in the region, a few more thousand on the way. and i know many of folks watching tonight are military families. they don't know what's happening to their sons and daughters. this is not a video game. this is a real-life occurrence that's affecting real people. and that's who i think about. and i hope people can step back away from the screen and remember that moms and dads and husbands and wives are watching right now and thinking about their loved ones. maybe that can be a unifying force. we need to hear from the white house and the pentagon about

what's next and those families in particular need to hear about what's next. >> and you have a need to hear from congress. >> we really do need unity right now more than ever. a lot of people talk about it, but this is a time to put country first. no republicans and democrats, be about americans. >> as you said to me long ago in talking about politics, left and right bleed the same. general, let me bring you into the conversation. what can you help us understand in terms of what you do? it's been explained to me from the military side that you don't just fire at rockets because you see them ready to be launched because that could be seen as an act of war and what if you missed? but what do you know when they're thinking about hitting you and you see them getting ready, how do you prepare to be safe enough? >> the first thing you do, you have to validate the intelligence. and the fact that we had pretty good intelligence, the one thing you don't know about a threat, is that you can always kind of assess a capability. it's very difficult to assess what the intent is. and the combination of

capabilities plus intentions is what equals that threat. so in this particular case, we knew what was happening. we didn't know what they were going to do with those. it might be a logical step to say they're going to fire them. they could have been putting them into a position for future operations or to further protect them. i think at this point, truly, what we need to keep in mind is every soldier that deploys, paul knows this. he was a young lieutenant in combat and he understands this intimately. the first thing you have with all your men, all your women, all your soldiers is forced protection. what is the level of force that i have that's ready, that i have available, that i can use to protect and preserve the force? i want to stay alive and be able to do my mission. step two is de-escalation. in other words, a proportional level of force and then let's turn the dial down. let's achieve the task and try to de-escalate this thing. i think what we might have seen tonight, at a strategic level, is de-escalation. and i would hope that would be the case, if we had the 12 missiles, there are probably

more, we'll probably pick up some intelligence that there might have been more, but i would hope that this administration said, let's breathe through our nose, we took a shot. we didn't have significant damage, let's try to work the de-escalation. oh, by the way, iran probably did that, as we've discussed, for internal consumption. they had to demonstrate to all their folks that they weren't going to take a blow from the big united states. >> general, are they good enough to aim missiles so they come close but don't do maximal damage? >> well, they have missiles that have what's called a circular air probable. don't want to get inside baseball too badly, but that's the accuracy of those things. so they have missiles that have various levels of accuracy. but in order to achieve that accuracy, all the telemetry has to go right. so for them to precisely aim it and just miss a little bit, that is kentucky windage and i would not attribute that to -- >> all right, p.j., message to the president. we thought we were going to hear from him tonight.

my concern was if you're hearing from him, he must have something to say. if he has something to say, that means he has something he has to do. he had tweeted already, my red line, you do anything iran, i'm coming for you. they clearly crossed that line. but he has been shy about these things before he was president, saying, i don't get why presidents do this. what about the troops? you put them out there for no reason, they die for no reason. what's your message to him tonight? >> de-escalate and remember those troops and remember your sacred responsibility to those men and women and think about what you can do long-term to keep them safe and our country safe. the fact that he's not tweeting right now, the fact that he's not out there may be a good thing. maybe he's finally showing the restraint that we need him to do. they may be planning. they may be waiting. we could speculate all day. but the key here in everybody's interests globally is to bring the temperature down. we need more light and the best president trump than we've ever seen. we should all be rooting for that right now no matter what party we're from? >> in terms of de-escalating, what's your response of, oh, but

you look weak? look at how they came after us and all this smack they're talking about. you've got to be strong. >> what is the effective counter the terms of strategy? >> east answer, chris. you stand up and say, look, i don't need to get into this dogfight. look, as a young man, it made it very clear to me that i don't need to get in and start wrestling with the pigs. i can let this kind of just take place. the united states acted very decisively going against soleimani. the iranians responded. i'm not going to attribute to them any graciousness or any magnanimous approach. what i'm going to tell you is that they struck back, they did that internally so they could tell their people that they were not going to put up with this nonsense. but now is the time for all of us to just breathe through our nose. let's take it easy for a while and let's determine what the next steps need to look like. i think this is an opportunity for some form of conversation, which is difficult for the united states certainly to do with tehran. but you know, chris, when we have the amount of pressure that

we've put on iran over the course of primarily through the application of these sanctions. when you apply this amount of pressure, at some point, you've got to have a release valve. the ball is in our court to establish what that looks like. otherwise, we're going to end up with a relationship with iran that could be a century-old relationship khomeini leaves the scene, his son takes over, and now we have a hundred-year relationship that has been defined by nothing but vitriol. we need to be able to work that. >> so our hope tonight is the president listens to somebody. hopefully there's someone around him saying, prove you can do both. you took out one of their big guys, you showed you can be strong, you sent that message not to mess with us and show that you can be better than them as well and not speak the same talk as the people that we oppose in this country. general "spider" marks, thank you. p.j., thank you so much. we'll take a quick break. when we come back, who's going to give that message to the

president? if you're listening tonight, i hope you're trying to be your best self. those fighting men and women are so vulnerable. they need you. we have a ranking member of thehothe homeland security committee in the house who was briefed by the president's dhs secretary earlier. what can he explain to us? what does he hope this president sees in this situation, next. as a struggling actor,

i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

when the murray's go to work... michelangelo goes to work, too. good thing they use new gain ultra flings with two times the oxi boost, and febreze. fresh again... i like working. what if my retirement plan is, i don't want to retire? then let's not create a retirement plan, let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade.

rnchts all right. we have new information. just moments ago, iran's foreign minister tweeted this after tonight's attacks by his country against our troops in iraq and our allies. iraq took and concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under article 51 of u.n. charter, targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens and senior officials were launched. we do not seek escalation of war. but will defend ourself against any aggression. so here he is, the iranian minister saying the foreign minister saying that iran took the measures that it thinks it

was allowed to under article 51 of the u.n. charter. i'm not going to take you into those water, but that is a questionable claim. nonetheless, the key part of this tweet in terms of our latest understand of what might happen next is we do not seek escalation of war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression. now, arguably, that may put the ball in the president and the united states' court. we are still awaiting word, however of any american casualties from the air strikes. so far, we haven't been told of any. and we have not heard from the president tonight. >> however, if that changes and there are casualties, he has set a red line that has arguably already been crossed. this is a very big test for the american president that started with last week's move to take out the iranian general. how business is it for him. cnn's john king joins me now with perspective on this.

this is helpful for the foreign minister from iran. if you're looking for a window of de-escalation, this is helpful. >> he is sending a clear public signal, chris, that iran believes this is a response. we're done if you're done. that is how you should translate the tweet from foreign minister zarif. the issue is, just earlier today, secretary of state pompeo said he's a liar and a propagandaist and he should never be believed. my question is, as we sort this out, you make a key point. there's so much we don't know tonight and we should be careful. one of the things we don't know is, were there casualties on that air base? the president is in a battle between his own words. he said if iran did anything to retaliate, he would up the ante more. those are the president's words against his own instincts. this is a man who campaigned on saying all of his predecessors were stupid for keeping american troops in the middle east, for having endless wars and he wanted to end them. he's now sending more troops to the region. he now has to make a momentous decision with 70,000 troops in the countries that encircle iran already, does he want to

escalate or will he step back? my biggest question in addition to the foreign minister's tweet, are there any other conversations? in his interview with cnn's fred pleitgen earlier today, the foreign minister zarif said absolutely not to any diplomacy directly with the united states right now, but we all know there are other ways to communicate, the french, the germans, the brits all speak to iran. there is a swiss channel that is used to talk about american hostages or american tourists who go missing and things like that. are there any other conversations, have there been or will there be in the near future to send a clearer signal about what iran means? but i think you've teed this up throughout the program. the battle assessment, the military strategy assessment from the pentagon, and let's hope not, but if there are any casualties here will impact the president's decision. >> god willing it holds, and we don't have american blood spilled in this situation. and i'm not in any way minimizing iraqi blood or kurdish blood, it's going to be bad, but not as much as a direct metric for the american president by his own definition. you then get to the president,

john, of whom is the president listening to. is this about where the dni, traditionally intelligence would take over at this point in guiding steps further? is he still reline on pompeant ? that's a very important question. we know, not as a criticism, but as an observation, this is not the president's strong suit. he doesn't understand these dynamics. he's not been through them. it's tough to learn on the job. >> one of the improvements, if you will. there are many people listening who don't like this president and don't like anything he does. he'll just say, i just said improvement and they'll backlash. if you go back throughout the administration, even if you had jim bolton in the white house or jim mattis as the defense secretary, michael flynn first, there were disagreements and competing forces throughout the trump national security apparatus. that has been consistent. rex tillerson often at odds with the president and other members of the white house staff as well. one thing we do hear now, chris, consistently, is with mr. o'brien as the national security adviser, secretary pompeo from the cia to the state department, and now with esper, the

secretary of defense, that they all get along. general miley the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. not saying that they agree on everything, but that they have a much more supportive cohesion and communication among them. and we also know to your point, we know that secretary pompeo has been one of the most fierce and vocal iran hawks in this administration, just decided he's not going to run for senate, at least for now and he's going to stay, because he was a big pushing force in the decision to target general soleimani. so, again, a lot of people, you might disagree with how the president's national security team operates, but from democrats and republicans and everybody involved, they say at least now it is a team that gets along and functions much more coherently than it has in past crisis. >> you know, and we hope that their focus is on protecting the u.s. fighting men and women who are in that region, they just added to the number. but, you know, first-term president, strong economy, ordinarily in very good position. i know this is an atypical presidency, nobody knows that better than you, john king. but one thing that can mess up the calculus is a problem abroad

and iran is something that he started by pulling out of that deal and the talk that has fold. hopefully that's part of the calculus here and it will give some pause and thought about how aggressive to be going forward. john king, thank you very, very much. all right, we have new information during that interview. cnn has learned that the initial assessment is that the iranian missiles struck areas of the al asad base not populated by americans. now, this is according to a u.s. military official and a senior administration official. officials have said the u.s. is awaiting daylight to get a full assessment, but this is a good early word. now, earlier, an iraqi security source told cnn that there were casualties among iraqis at the base. we have a key member of congress to discuss this with and the president has just tweeted. congressman, thank you very much for being with us. i want you to see this tweet, as

we well. "all is well. missiles launched from iran at two military bases located in iraq. assessment of casualties and damages taking place now. so far, so good! we have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far. i will be making a statement tomorrow morning." all right. straight read on that right now is that we don't know about any further casualties and the hope is that it is also somewhat of a cooler head coming from the president in this recent tweet. congressman, thank you very much for being with us on such an important night. >> sure. glad to be with you. what does this tweet mean to you in terms of the status quo in terms of what might happen next? >> i think that's the first indication by the president that he does plan to de-escalate. he recognizes that this was intentional by the iranians to hit near the air bases in unpopulated areas as a way to

tell their domestic population, we hit back, but to not cross a line of killing americans that they knew would in fact bring retaliation by us. i think this is a good sign both in the fact that they made the strikes the way they did and that the president is showing this optimistic measured tone in that tweet. >> are you comfortable giving a message to the president tonight through this program or directly that you do not see a need for further military force against iran at this point? >> absolutely. i believe that this was intentional by the iranians to make sure they didn't kill americans, as a way to bring this to an end. i think the president recognized it. i'm certain that he recognized. it and this is a time to start de-escalating and start getting into talks about how we can resolve our differences going forward. >> now, if nothing else happens, and god willing that happens, because we don't need anymore violence in the world, the president has really high ground

right now, legally -- maybe he got here by bad reason, but if congress were to step in and say, hey, don't do anything else, i don't think you have a great case. because the united states' bases were just attacked. however, if nothing else happens, is it time for you and congress to finally start stepping presidents from clinton, reagan on have been given pour that the constitution didn't give them. it's congress's power to declare war and authorities to what we have seen. is congress ready to step up? >> we have been stepping up. the fact is we gave the administration the 2002 that allowed the activity in iraq this president used to take out soleimani. we have had no need to go back and revisit that aumf. we have i'm one of the most senior members.

we monitor annually what's happening over there and if we choose to differ with the white house about the actions in the region we can cut off the money. we can cut off authorization. we don't to that. there is ongoing activity to monitor what is taking place. i don't think it's necessary at this time. >> it's a debate for a different day. i don't know how in 2002. of 9/11. and going after terror organizations correlates with iran. let's put that aside. your second point is relevant. you should be in the loop. you weren't. to our understanding. until after this happened. should that change? should the president reestablish the connection at least to the gang ol 8 before he does anything else like this? >> no. the fact is with osama bin laden nobody was notified. and shouldn't have been. this town leaks like a sieve. they should make the decision based on intel to keep america

safe and take action. and under the wa war powers notify us immediately there after. we have reviews we can take after wards to make sure that the law was complied with and things were done in a prudent fashion. i'm not for congress starting to micro manage the executive branch. particularly the commander in chief. >> to be clear, this conversation is respectful and deliberately so. it's not a partisan argument. it's concern about the continuing of leadership. osama bin laden fts the head of a terrorist organization directly related to 9/11. ongoing battle of course the president was going to make a move. this is different. going after iran whether or not secretary pompeo with make a case about imminent danger. they could have consulted with you. it seems to me given what we lived through, god willing it ends here.

is this something you're really comfortable letting the president make a call like this to take oit a general without congress having anything to do with it? >> certainly. just like the 2000 drone strikes. >> those were terrorists organization. not a general. >> he was a designated terrorist. a lawful target. designated by us and the united nations. this was a very bad actor who killed 600 americans. the leader of militia and in iraq. people need to be mindful. he was in iraq and baghdad when he was taken out. not in iran. a meeting with groups planning another attack. he organized and initiated the attack in december that killed an american contractor. had needed to be killed. they had intelligence. meeting with the founders of and took him out. they didn't have time in my view

to come to congress and have a conference with the gang of 8. i don't think it would be appropriate anyway. >> with you know information we don't. that's the problem. he told us not to trust u.s. intelligence. and said classified confidential informants forget it they are deep state. now is it time to get the information you have so we can be on the same page. thank you for your argument and p perspective. you're always welcome. good bless. that's mike rogers. we'll bring you up to speed on everything. iran has retaliated. they believe they were justified under article 51 of the charter. i don't know that's a good case. we know what's happened, we know why. we have a better understanding of what may or may not happen next. stay with us. sparse eyebrows,

so celebrity makeup artist sir john is here to help. thinning or sparse brows are very common and that's why l'oreal paris created unbelieva-brow longwear brow gel. it's easy to fill in and thicken your brows. unbelieva-brow in your favorite stores. skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. it's easy to fill in and thicken your brows. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

here's our latest understanding of what may happen next. this is out of iran.

we don't seek escalation or war. they believe they were justified in what they did under article 51. i don't think they have a great argument. the intention to not escalate is a great message. and the president seemed to take the opportunity. he tweeted all is well. that the missiles launched from iron and the casualties and damages taking place are so far so good. all right. with that i appreciate yor for watching our area of the coverage. it's time to give it over to don lemon. i'll be back at midnight for more information. our breaking coverage continues. >> thank you very much. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. this is our breaking news iran fires more than a dozen missiles the at u.s. troops at two iraq bases in retaliation for american air strikes that killed a top iran general.

the moment a ballistic missile hit the base in iraq. this video that you're looking at and hearing moments ago. cnn cannot verify the video. there are reports of casualties among iraqkys at the base. the core says the attacks are hard revenge for the death of general soleimani. president trump tweeting all is well, missiles launched from iran at two military bases located in iraq. assessment of casualties and damages taking place now. so far, so good. we have the most powerful military anywhere in the world by far. i will be making a statement tomorrow