the situation is and why we're proceeding in our impeachment inquiry phase of our oversight work. >> sean: real quick, jim, you know, the fact that syria and iraq have been -- american soldiers have been attacked in both syria and iraq recently. i'm actually -- my initial instinct is to be glad that they fought back they fired back. >> yep, yep. >> sean: i'm happy at that news. your reaction quick. >> same here. i want to get the details but, you know, when someone attacks the united states servicemen and women, we have to respond back. so i want to see what's happened here but it shows you how serious this wholeall situation is and why we need strength projected from the oval office. >> sean: all right. jim jordan, thank you as always. that's all the time we have left this evening. stand by though, continuing coverage on all the breaking news tonight. the manhunt, what's happened with these strikes, trace gallagher takes over from here. thank you.

>> good evening. it's 5 a.m. jerusalem. this is "fox news at night." there is word coming into "fox news at night" that the united states has conducted airstrikes in syria. let's get to our chief national security correspondent jennifer. >> we broke the news moments ago that u.s. warplanes made airstrikes in syria against iranian proxy forces that had been firing on u.s. bases more than a dozen times in the past week. we now have a statement from the defense secretary, lloyd austin those strikes what are being described as iran's islamic revolutionary guard and affiliated groups inside syria. these were precision self-defense strikes they're being described as on two

locations in eastern syria. way told by senior military sources this is very similar to the kind of strike that we saw in the march 23rd time frame when the u.s. had to respond to multiple strikes by iranian forces so we know f15 and 16s were involved. the statement from the department of defense reads that the united states does not seek conflict and has no intention nor desire to engage in further hostile advertise but these iranian backed attacks against u.s. forces are unacceptable animus stop. that's a quote from the defense secretary tonight trace. i also learned earlier today that the president took the decision earlier this week to carry out these strikes. there were a number of reasons that tonight was the night that the warplanes the u.s. warplanes decided strike those target, but

the pentagon has been in discussions with the white house all week since this constant ramping up of almost daily attacks attacks by iranian proxy forces. i'm told if they do not get the message, more airstrikes will follow. >> jennifer what's your take-away from this? you've covered the pentagon a long time and these situations weather we see a robust security measure put in place at some of our military installations in the middle east. you talk about these strikes the last 8 days, 16, do you see a robust security presence in the wake of these strikes? >> trace i think what we have been seeing in re-sen days and perhaps one of the reasons for delays up until this moment has

been all those bases in the middle east, we have 900 u.s. troops in syria 2500 troops and embassies in iraq. all have multiple ways to protect forces there but we have seen defense systems including the high altitude defense system which deals with medium range missiles and rockets. those have been sent with along with a number of patriot batteries. we have seen other navy vessels move into position. we have seen the uss thomas hudner has put down, the uss baton has moved into position in the red sea for defensive

purposes as well as to send a message to iran that the uss eisenhower that's on its way to the% gulf you have the uss ford the carrier strike group a very, very advanced strike group in the eastern mediterranean all within striking distance of those iranian proxies. we are told it was u.s. warplanes that carried out these strikes on eastern syria but it's not to say in the coming days there won't be more strikes particularly if the iranian proxy groups strike back at u.s. bases. >> the question was asked i'm wondering i saw ought the pentagon briefing and there were briefings all day that the state department briefed and you had john kirby and brigadier general briefing. were they had indicating maybe this was about to get underway jennifer or is this a total surprise? >> well first of all, we have

been watching this for some time and i think there was some misunderstanding out there through the lack of action. i know from my sources that there have been meetings at the white house for days now as to how to respond and there were plans in place, the president signed off on those plans earlier this week, but certain conditions had to be right and you also have to take into account the geo political environment in the middle east. it's extremely complicated with what's happening in israel and in the gaza strip. the u.s. does not want these strikes to be linked in any way to the conflict between israel and hamas. this is separate. this is about the attacks by iranian proxy forces on u.s. bases and they are -- this should not be viewed as part and parcel of the israeli-hamas conflict right now. the problem is that in the middle east it could get linked

and the statements from iranian leaders in new york visiting the united nations, including the foreign ministry, minister, is ramping up the rhetoric, and right now, the u.s. is hoping that iran gets the message that they're serious, they will continue striking these iranian proxy forces if these attacks on u.s. bases and personnel continue. >> you make a good point because the nexus is there. you talk about iranian proxy groups, hezbollah one of them, hamas another one so even if you try to separate what happened with the u.s. and syria this is going to be conflated. >> i've been covering this beat a long time and the way the pentagon describes attacks when they carry out airstrikes in syria against forces that might

threaten their forces and their troops. it's rare that they link them so directly to iran. usually they find ways to describe this militia and not link it directly to iran. different now they're linking it to iran and you heard brigadier general ryder at the podium today very direct they're holding iran responsible for these proxy forces, they're not differentiating so they're really hoping to a, prevent the israeli-hamas conflict from spread to go the rest of the region and they're hoping that hezbollah takes notice of the strikes that took place inside syria against proxy groups backed by the irgc, the rain yain revolutionary guard and hezbollah thinks twice before launching any strikes into israel, opening a second front in that war. >> yes, it's a very good point jennifer. if you get news raise your hand,

we will put you on. great reporting as always. you talked about the northern front, jennifer mentioned getting hezbollah involved. steve harrigan is in the northern part of israel where hezbollah would fire rockets into as maybe a result of this. steve i just want to get a kind of feel for what you're seeing up there. anything unusual? are you hearing any word of these u.s. airstrikes in syria and anything out of the ordinary or you hearing maybe a beefed up security presence in the northern part of the country? >> trace, just to set the scene on where we are right now, just about a mile behind me are some hills of lebanon. a typical day we could smoke rising from those hills. it was israeli strikes on hezbollah positions so as far as hezbollah striking into israel goes that is already a regular and daily occurrence up to 20-30

times each day so there's a limited low scale fight going on at this between hezbollah and israel. the hope is on many sides this won't escalate and get worse. right now the choice of weapons tells you a lot. habs has more than 150,000 rockets many advanced and guided missiles and they've been firing close range weapons anti-tank missiles into israel, israel striking back with airstrikes and artillery so low level fight, not the most powerful rockets but worries day to day there's fighting and killing at least 5 israeli soldiers killed and a few hundred hezbollah fighters killed. public funerals in beirut last week almost on a daily basis. >> when you talk about low level steve what's the definition of high level? are we talking about longer

range missiles? are we talking about the number of total strikes in day? what do you believe is the definition of ramping this up coming from hezbollah into israel? >> it certainly is a strange idea of a low level war or a contained war, but for a people who really watch the scene here, that is what they're calling it. there's death. there's fighting. there's rockets on both sides but those numbers are official the single digits each day. more escalation by hezbollah something they could do could mean serious destruction of israeli infrastructure serious death of civilians and massive retaliation by israel about what could happen to hezbollah and what could happen in lebanon if the strikes are major if they go beyond this point. we are talking to the tune of billions of dollars of destruction in lebanon, trace. >> you covered a lot of wars

steve and we have noted that in some of these types of occasions in the past and i'm wondering because the united states president biden has said we don't want this war to expand. we do not want this to become a regional war or even one step bigger and do you find it unusual that in this situation, the united states kind of threw the first punch or not the first punch because syria these proxies have attacked u.s. forces 16 times in eight days but the u.s. struck back in syria. does it surprise you at all? >> i think it's worry some. jennifer talked about not linking it to other things but people watching is uh-oh now the suspect striking syria. it's one more and seems to many people amateurs just watching a

major step and a real worrying step as we are seeing step by step, more people involved in the fighting and with u.s. airstrikes in syria for the common viewer i think that is a very worrisome step. >> steve we will get back to you in moments. general anthony tata retired brigadier general, i want your take, the u.s. launching airstrikes into syria clearly in response to iranian proxies going after our military institutions wounding 21-plus military members some of them members experiencing temporary brain injuries. what do you think of what happened tonight? >> yeah, trace, great to be with you. i haven't spent a lot of time in this region. the iranian proxies in the shia

million tan groups in hamas they want to attack u.s. interest and u.s. personnel. they did so a week ago. the president i think rightfully responded in kind. the question is, what did we disrupt was, did we attack? did we disrupt their capability to continue to attacked our personnel in the region? iran is behind this. the administration has been very slows to acknowledge that iran is behind this. i think today with kirby's press conference and other comments made by the administration, they're coming to the realization they can't have it both ways by appeasing iran helping israel and helping u.s. servicemembers in the middle east. it's going to be con flated with

the average joe on the middle east saying this is the united states coming in to help israel because it does have that sort of tangenteffect of being able to attack into the golan and israel. >> general you said we don't know exactly what the targets were. my question would be does it matter? is there a target they're going after or a statement from the united states? >> well, yes trace i think it does matter. the shia militia groups that have attacked our troops we want to first and foremost soldiers sailors airmen marines in that area so we want to disrupt their cape bill. we want to do more than just make a statement.

we want to deny them the right, the ability to get in there and harm our people and disrupt our ability to conduct our operations in the middle east so that's fires and foremost. now, i'm assuming that these were well designated target, well placed targets and that we had some effect on our air force navy et cetera are good at doing this kind of thing when they fly and target, they do well and i'm proud of the men and women that have conducted these operations. >> i wonder, sir if you look at some of these report, i was reading reports where you have members of hamas that are actually in russia. you have the iranian foreign minister in russia. if there's an interest on your end as to why these people are in russia as to what role that russia wants to play. is there this feeling that

russia wants to be the mediateered in some of this, that russia wants to get a bigger platform in some of this going on in the middle east? what's your thought on that, certified? >> yeah, trace i don't think russia wants to mediate. i think they want to help drive the united states out of the middle east. i think they want to inflict pain on the united states and israel by extension. this is all's about iran's influence. iran is providing drones and other munitions to russia there is an alliance with this administration has allowed to happen, alliance between china, iran, russia and even north korea less of a factor here to ossify and come into a very crystal clear existence where they're supporting one another. and so, russia's best interest their self interests are best served by the united states getting a black eye here so they're going to do whatever

they can to help that happen because we are do that in ukraine because this is geo politics, real politik at its finest. >> i'm wondering if the united states is trying to make a statement. in the a one op. stop the proxy. stop going after our military installations. what if it doesn't stop? what if you have these groups going back after or military even more robust? then what, sir, do we respond with another attack? it seems like we are now on a bad path. >> wait, we are on a bad path and that bad path started in afghanistan two and a half years or so ago and the weakness that has been demonstrated has result in iran and others flexing their muscles and taking advantage of the vacuum and so, where we are today is that we've got to really confront the dilemma that

we are in. we have really two dilemmas here. we have our interests in the middle east, which include israel, and then israel's, the attack on israel by hamas. they're really two separate problems but will be conflated and if the real issue is if we push on iran and russia and china perhaps get involved and now we are talking not just israel, hamas, gaza, we are talk regional perhaps global conflict with multiple nuclear nations involved. >> if these proxy groups in syria lebanon or where ever respond, is it one of those things that you can tolerate it for a little bit? what happens if iran in some capacity responds? does that change the equation here, in your estimation? >> well, i think iran has been

covertly involved. they had trained hamas before the hamas invasion of israel. >> right. >> they supplied all the weapons. we know this. we know this. so it's overt involvement from iran and so what step they would take beyond what they've already done, i think would just be sort of insult to injury, and we have enough justification cause means to act right now against iran and it's just a matter of calculus of what steps do we take, what are those hair triggers branches and sequels, if we do this what happens? what does the enemy choose to do? because the enemy always gets a vote. >> general, if you would stand by i would appreciate it. white house correspondent jackie with more breaking news on. this i was fascinated you're still in front of the white house. i was watching the press

briefing with john kirby and he said this is a direct message to iran. follow up on that for us and give us an idea if that was telling at the time you heard it. >> well, trace, you know yesterday in the rose garden, the president said that he delivered a warning to the ayatollah not to attack u.s. troops with its proxies or itself, and we didn't get a lot of detail how exactly that warning was delivered because u.s. does not have diplomatic relations with iran so today we were trying to get information how that warning came about, did it come after u.s. troops were injured in those proxy attacks in iran and syria last week? did it come through a third party? kirby said a direct message was relayed and that's as far as he could go. he also when i asked where is this response the president said would come if these attacks kept continuing on our troops and

they continued and he said yes he did say that but he had did not want to elaborate on any response that would be coming. he said he want to telegraph any punches but the decision would be the president's alone and the timing and manner of it would be up to him. we can gather he made that decision and jennifer griffin reported that he made that decision actually earlier this week, which sort of explains why we are getting cagey answers from the administration as responses to criticism especially from republicans why the hesitation, are you going to jeopardize u.s. forces by signalling weakness and not giving immediate response especially after the iranian foreign minimumster was allowed to come to the u.s. for u.n. meetings this week and issued a warning on american soil if the fighting continues in gaza the u.s. would not be spared from a response of some kind.

i think that's why a statement we got from the secretary of state made clear this was a self-defense strike. >> right. >> the u.s. responding o'our troops being attacked by iranian backed proxies nothing to do with fighting in the gaza strip and also making a statement that separate and distinct from the fighting with hamas. >> jackie stand by. we will get back to you. i want to go back to the chief national security correspondent jen with more from the secretary of defense. >> in the statement released by defense secretary lloyd austin moments ago he says, quote, the united states does not seek conflict and has no intention nor desire to engage in marti hostile advertise but these iranian backed attacks against

u.s. forces are unacceptable animus stop. iran wants to hide its hand deny its involvement in these attacks against our forces. he added they will not hesitate to strike again if iranian proxies continue threatening from u.s. troops and they are separate and distinct from the ongoing con flick between israel and hamas and don't constitute a shift in our approach to the israel-hamas conflict. we continue to urge allstate and non-state entities not to take action that would escalate into a broader regional conflict. i e-think what's important is there's been an elaborate poker face on u.s. officials this week. the discussions have been ongoing since the october 17th have been as we have reported up to 16 attacks on u.s. forces, the injuries have most of the troops have returned back to

duty, there were some traumatic brain injuries and concussions reported but so far no u.s. troops have been killed. if that were to change, this will escalate very quickly. u the uss ford in the eastern mediterranean. tonight it was airstrikes by the15 and f16 jets but it could be tomahawks in the future. there were two locations in eastern syria. we should get more information. we are expecting a call with senior defense officials but the statement from secretary austin makes it clear they consider these strikes separate from the israel-hamas conflict but for the first time in my memory a very distinct strongly worded statement suggesting that iran is behind these attacks and that iran, it will be held accountable for these proxy forces if they continue.

>> you talk about iran there jen and it's important because the early part of the statement the defense secretary is saying they won't hesitate to strike again. when they won't hesitate to strike again are we talking about at the same spot? are we talking about in syria again? or is there a possibility they might go deeper and might strike something, some kind of infrastructure in iran proper? your thoughts. >> i think right now there is no desire to escalate this. they hope iran and tehran get the message. make no mistake. these proxies don't act without authority of the irgc the general in charge of the iranian revolutionary guard for the go-ahead so they hope iran gets the message. nothing is off the table i'm told but there's certainly no desire to escalate this and hoping the strikes inside syria

send that message, but if iranian proxies fire in the coming hours and respond in some way to strikes at u.s. bases i'm told there will be more airstrikes. >> i'm wondering the protocols here the political military protocols would they notify benjamin netanyahu? would he have been noticed? would others have given notice this was going to happen or would this be a surprise in encircle. >> it's a good question right now, trace. i think given the sensitivities in the region given the coordination that's taking place inside israel in the sense that israel is focusing on its potential ground invasion into gaza, its continuing airstrikes into gaza, but there is a three star lieutenant general there who is an expert marine special operations background who had

experience in fallujah in iraq, that lieutenant general glenn is there to provide some advice and to the israelis and it would be hard for me to imagine there wasn't at least some sort of heads up given to the israeli military, given what's going on in the region, but i can not say that for certain but what is clear the pentagon and white house don't want this to be linked to the hamas-israel conflict. this is about attacks by iranian proxy forces on u.s. forces. >> you would think if they didn't want to attach any concept in any way to what's hapgd in israel they might not notify the prime minister. jennifer back to you as the news warrants. i go back to lucas tomlinson our other military expert live for

us in tel aviv. when you hear what jennifer is reporting and steve is hearing at the border and what general tata is feeling, does this make sense to you? does it sound like a rationale reasonable expected response by united states? >> trace, it's always been a red line for the uns after a contractor died of a heart attack during a drone attack. those are largely ungoverned spaces in eastern syria second time biden administration that is carried out airstrikes in eastern syria. in march a contractor was killed and american troos wounded the biden administration launched airstrikes. >> syria so once again, death of american contractor appears to be that red line. 16 attacks against u.s. troops in the pat ten days the pressure was budding. you heard it in the pentagon

briefing room. we heard it at the white house. certainly the biden administration sending a strong message they don't want the attacks by iran proxy groups to increase and hoping the strikes in syria put a cap to it. it is notable syria was the target certainly if these strikes were to take place in iraq there would be pressure. >> what about the manner lucas? you're talking about fighter jet strikes. these could have been tomahawk strikes. is this a brush back? is this fighter jets coming in the brush back vs. a knockout punch from the tomahawk missiles? >> brush back is good term here. f15's have been used in the past.

sending u.s. jets to make those strikes is significant. you probably want need tomahawk missiles hitting these target. it's the second strike in the past year. >> lucas thank you. we will get back to you very quickly. let's bring in former national security adviser rich broberg. i just want your take on what is going on here and does it surprise you at all or was this expected, a signal that something happened? >> yes, trace this is exactly what i expected but it's been way too long since i thought it would come. it's unsustainable to keep taking hits on u.s. bases in iran and syria. this had to come at some point. i think it's important for everybody to understand of all the responses on the escalator of escalation this is the lowest

levels. the irgc coordinating attacks mostly from iraq, taking incoming in northern iraq in al assad, syria, altana, you could have targeted iraq irgc commanders there, i remember the attacks with president trump. you could target yemen. this is targeting syria where the administration likes to respond. they don't want responses in iraq because they're afraid that iraqi politics with explode and they'll call for the expulsion of u.s. forces. they don't want to respond in yemen because there's been a civil war. the saudis are in a deal with

the huttis so they go to syria the lowest level response. in a statement from the secretary of defense he says two facilities use build the irgc and other million is as, let's get more information on that if we can because if threes are irgc facilities if their personnel were hit that is a very strong message. it would be more of a message than what the administration has sent previously just targeting empty buildings for arab militias. >> and i asked the question to lucas tomlinson rich where i was saying does this appear to be give land of a brush back pitch? jennifer griffin says fighter jets went after syria. maybe if this thing doesn't stop you go tomahawk missiles and the like so in your estimation until we find out exactly what they hit and what the mission was, this would be on that level of a brush-back.

>> that's what i would say. i think we will have to obviously know who they targeted what they targeted if there was anybody there if anybody died on their casualties on the other side that would be important to know as far as escalation if you look at the range of options this is the lowest level of escalation in front of them which is likely why they took this opportunity. >> i'm wondering rich if you believe this, keep the nexus away from what's happening between hamas and with israel. is there any possible way this could be separate? or is this automatically included in what's happening in the middle east? >> listen. for days now, the president secretary of state all of them have tried to separate iran from the conflict. obviously that not possible. denying there's any intelligence or just our basic intellectual capacity that iran was behind the massacre on october 7, denying iran was behind the

attacks on u.s. forces. all of this. why? because they continue to hold out some sort of hope and on the other side of this conflict they'll still have a nuclear understanding with iran opening up cash valves to try to keep the iranian ex-complicating on the nuclear program. they want their nuclear cake and eat it too, i think they're coming to the realization can you not disconnect. you're trying to deter iranians and control the northern front to prevented a hezbollah salvo of missiles opening up on central israel while the idf wants to go to gaza. you can't have two separate policies. you have to show it to tehran now. >> jennifer griffin, you have information from top notch defense officials. >> well, trace we expect to have a briefing with senior officials, two senior officials

in about 7 minutes time and we will bring the details after that happens but i want to point to some of the air defense systems and other news that we broke earlier today about how there were 2,000 u.s. military personnel who were on ready to deploy orders and we learned that 900 of them have already been sent to the middle east. these are u.s. personnel not being sent to israel but to positions around the middle east to bolster defenses of the makeup bases the u.s. has. it's also notable that more air defense systems the thad system has been put into the region as well as more than half a dozen pratt missile batteries have been sent in addition to the systems that have been sent to israel. but it is very clear that there

are concerns tonight about the hutis taking advantage of this moment in time. we saw them fire missiles toward israel it was not only the u.s. warship that had to intercept those missiles but also saudi arabia, we learned fired on those missiles come from the hutis. tonight in kuwait there was a warning 24 hours ago that the base there was going to be locked down because of potential threats there on social media from iraqi based shia groups that were threatening u.s. bases in kuwait. so there's going to be a lot of attention to defense of those bases and that's why we have seen a rush to get more and more air defense systems into the middle east along with those 900 u.s. military personnel who were coming in with specialized abilities to defend these bases. >> it makes sense, general.

we got about 3 minutes until your briefing. don't want you to be late. give us an idea how this works. is something we can listen in on our a q and a over the phone and you bring back the information and how long do they run? >> this briefing i expect to run about a half hour. it's for the pentagon press corps so myself and producer liz will be on the line asking questions of the senior defense officials who are operationally involved in this strike and know the details what was struck so we will turn around to the network and provide a read-out of the briefing but it's off camera and on background without names. we know who the individuals are who are briefing us but we should be able to turn it around in about a half hour's time, trace. >> jennifer we will get back to you in 30 minutes and 30

seconds. go do your job. great so far. jackie, this is clearly something you would understand the president might be listening in on the briefing of top military officials unless he's already been fully briefed on this. >> i would expect he probably has all the information before any of us get it. as jennifer reported, he had made this decision to carry out this reretaliatory strike early in the week which does give us some insight why we were getting cagey answers from officials here when we were pressing them about why has the president not followed through on his vow that the u.s. would respond if these strikes on our forces continue from these iran backed proxy groups and there was a lot of

criticism especially from republicans that it projected weakness. he needed conditions to be right to be carry it out and it was done a while ago. i think what we are going hearing is next from the white house an effort to make very clear to the world this is in no way linked to what we are seeing the war between israel and hamas because you have the iranian foreign minister in new york. he was here for meetings at the u.n. issueing a threat to the u.s. that if the fighting in gaza didn't stop that the u.s. would pay a price for that. obviously is u.s. is backing israel as it seeks to defend itself and root out hamas and insure that this never happens again but the white house needs to be very clear these strikes that were carried out in syria on irgc and proxy group facilities is a response to the attacks on our troops that happened last week in syria and in iraq which until now had not

been responded to. so we are going to be trying to get clearer answers from the white house about how this decision the president's involvement in it. we know earlier in the week he cut short an event in the executive office building when we were talking to him, he was talking i think it was bidenomics and he said i got to go to the situation room. we are going to learn details about his decision but i expect the white house wants to be clear this was not at all related to anything but the attacks on u.s. forces last week. >> when we hear from the president himself? >> i wish i had an answer to that question. we do expect to see him tomorrow. there's no briefing slated for tomorrow right now, but it's possible that the white house press office could put one together. there's going to be a lot of questions from reporters in that this is carried out overnight

after the press is gone home. we will press the white house for more details tomorrow. we are going to see the president tomorrow. he has an event in d.c. in the evening and typically does speak to reporters when something of this magnitude has happened but that's the only event we are aware of. we have asked if a statement from the president is forthcoming and the secretary of defense so that's what we are waiting on now. >> if you get it less us now. let's bring in retired army general colonel daniel davis. thank you for coming on so quickly. it's 41 minutes past the hour, jennifer griffin is in this briefing get from the top brass of the pentagon kinds of going over the details of this. the defense secretary issued a statement, colonel but it's really good to get a briefing so

can you vet some of these questions bet nor information brought in and out. what do you think initially of the u.s. striking syria, the mode, what is the first thing that comes across to you? >> tell you trace i'm worried about this one of more than the previous whether obama trump or biden previously striking targets in syria. that was a pretty denine environment. this is such a powder keg already. you have the iran backed groups talking about attacking our troops and wounding some. now that we've struck back that's going to invite additional retaliation. dion think this is going to scare anybody off. i fear we would be in an escalation cycle. i don't know how far it could

go. >> who are those others you're speaking about. >> several other iran backed groups. there's like a half dozen probably more than that and the question is always going to come down are they open rate ong their own or are they operating out of tehran and doing what they're told? because that's going to be important. if people in united states find out that iran was ordering these there's going a lot of pressure to strike iran and that's where you have a chance for this to blow up into a war on top of all the things going on here. that's the thing hive been most worried about concerned that this has tamped down. >> you're not the only one worried about this. the common odometer and all these briefings tend to be we do not want this in any way linked to what is hang between israel

and hamas and that's one of throws things where it's very tough not to link it because we know that hamas is nothing but a proxy for iran that hezbollah is nothing but a proxy for iran and that is a toughed thing to break it off when you have these iranian proxies in syria going after our troops in iraq and syria. >> well, look. you already have people in the region. they don't buy that for a second. president biden is say it all he wants but the people on the ground won't. many in the arab world believer we are with complicity with israel, so there's already some connection there and if more of those connections are made by some of these malcontents and violent people in the world they'll say okay, we are coming after you too, your troops in

iraq and syria are the perfect opportunity. i worried about that for years that their a vulnerability point for our country. we got to make sure this is going to be careful. we cannot allow this to escalate. >> the time i've been here in israel sir the big concern here is always hamas but you have israel that's always hitting these things and in the past four days there have been 800 or 900 terrorist strikes from the air defense forces so what's happening here is even though this ground war has not yet begun in israelites been delayed and who knows what the reason is for that, but the israeli defense forces, the air forces have been been extraordinarily effective. they've gone after hamas targets. they've killed top hamas leaders including today where they killed one of the architects of the october 7th massacre. so you wonder maybe the worry is not so much hamas but you look at the northern part of the country in lebanon where you

have hezbollah and as steve harrigan was pointing out to us earlier, hezbollah is hitting the northern part of israel every day, 20 rockets, 15 rockets, 30 rockets every single day. they call eight lower level war or a lower level whatever. >> yes. >> but it seems to me that's a problem area in the north for the next step in escalation. >> you know there's a related group fatih hezbollah in our iraq and making threats against our troops there. the worry i have is they may start to coordinate actions and see u.s. and israel as one and we are going after all of them. again the chance of this escalating is just growing by the hour and these airstrikes in there are just going to stir that up because you have this axis of resistance which includes iran and syria and these groups so there's a lot of

risk here. >> a lot of risk and it's interesting because i'm watching you colonel and looking at a map and i'm not sure if you can see it but we go back and forth looking at the middle east map and they're highlighting lebanon gaza israel. the other map can you see how close and you've got syria. you've got iraq. you've got egypt. you're surrounded by these people. you talk united states there's new jersey new york connecticut d.c. that's how close they all are in this region and when you see there's a strike in syria, it's like a strike in tijuana when you're sitting in san diego. >> right. yes. to your point there a second ago, this is starting, this whole issue with the israeli airstrikes hitting into gaza strip and all the palestinian casualties produce cdc having enormous impact on the enormous

i am pack on egypt lebanon jordan and all these countries around there, saudi arabia, the emirates. there's a lot of anger out there and sometimes their governments may be forced into doing something that is opposed to what we want and those people themselves may rise up and help and again, this is just a very fraught time. we have to manage this careful that we don't go in with too heavy a hand follow this but you know we got to protect our troops so we are in a really tough situation here, i have got to say. >> colonel, if you would stand by. i thank you for your time and appreciate your insight. swing back to steve harrigan talking about lebron james in the north. steve is not there but as we talk about hezbollah in the north we should note that steve harrigan is in northern part of israel. he spent the first 7 or 8 days in the middle east and he was actually in lebanon proper, very

close to beirut but now we have moved him down. he's on the israeli side of the border still near the lebanon border. kind of where we were in 2006 when they had the 31 day war between hezbollah and israel. steve harrigan back to you. did you listen to what colonel davis is saying and some of the other military experts here? does it change your framing at all on concern about what's happening in this big push jennifer griffin telling us the secretary of defense you maim it to make sure that this is not in any way linked to what's happening between israel and hamas? will it work, in your estimation? >> wednesday -- well, i don't think it will work. i don't think they'll see the nuances of a pentagon or press release. i think there's a general sense as your military analyst openly

honestly expressed his own worry his own personal fear about the way things are going. i think that's how a lot of people feel in this region. i think could you sense that in lebanon. we pent about a week there and especially for the older generation they remembered what happened in 2006. were you there to see some of it yourself, the complete destruction of huge parts of southern lebanon and how that created a hole for the country it hasn't gotten out. it's a caretaker state economy on life support. they can't afford to be involved in another war. at this point it looks like hezbollah will either attempt to drag them into another war or be pushed into another war. the pressure on hezbollah is going to build if we do see a ground operation in israel. if we see higher casualties and the hype on the media charges around the clock will be revved to 11 and we will see hezbollah

increased attacks on a daily basis. >> do we have dan with us? how about general tata? no. let's go back to steve harrigan. we are trying to get a couple of our generals up. jennifer griffin now is in the middle of a press briefing with top pentagon officials. it is on boundary which means we cannot reveal their names. she clearly will have a chance to ask questions and join us in the next 10-15 minutes to give us some answers but if you were in that briefing what's one of the things you would like to know from these pentagon command percent when this strike was planned why it was planned in syria, is there anything you're curious about that right now you're not getting answers to. >> i would have them, if possible, talk a lot about the choice of weapons used, choice

of fighter jet vs. tomahawk and what that means. also, i will ask about when will hezbollah across the line with attacks on israel and what could force u.s. military to strike hezbollah in lebanon. i think that's going to be a key issue about whether or not this escalates, especially along israel's northern boarder. steve harrigan thank you. appreciate it. retired general anthony tata, that's again for joining us and we are near abukamal one a weapons storage area and one ammo storage area. those are the targets in syria. >> yeah, trace like i was saying earlier, if this gets at the

means to harm our troops then it's a good thing. so that's what it sounds like in the initial reports are that if it's weapons and ammunition and we can degrade their capability to do harm to our soldiers our ghints the region then that's a good thing. i agree with everybody else asking so what really are we trying to accomplish here, and if it's to degrade the means to harm our troops it's a good thing. the location is interesting, and maintaining it in syria as opened to -- opposed to the shia militia groups and the huti rebels that have fired and harmed a lot of people in the region with their missiles fired by iran. but it's a good thing that we are degrading their capability if that report is true. >> general, i want to play sound herd from brigadier general pat

ryder from the pentagon press secretary on not signalling too much. watch. hold on. we don't have it. we will try to get it. but the whole concept here is -- hold on, general. we got it now. let's play it. >> look. i'm not going to get into telegraphing whether we are or not going to respond other than to say we would do so at a time and place of our choosing. i think we have been crystal clear we maintain the inherent right of defending our group and we will take all necessary measures to be protect our forces overseas. >> interesting while the brigadier general says they're not going to telegraph this every department held a briefing today. there were briefings all day long every time i looked up on the tv some other department was briefing stated, you had everybody briefing today, sir and i'm not saying they're trying to telegraph this but they certainly waunth to answer

questions and felt like they're clearing a pathway for something. what do you think? >> yes, it's kinds of like pizzas at the pentagon when dominoes goes overtime at the pentagon you know something is happening. but i think they've den a relatively good job of operational security, opsec protecting our men and women planning and executing these operations to help degrade the capability of the militia groups in the area that are supported by iran. i think this is a reasonable, good first step. it sends a message. we can escalated from there. entire world knows that we can esca escalate. i think the targeting is reasonable. i'm sure the men and women that planned and executed did a first

class job and are proud of everything they've didn't and we will have to wait and see. it would be nice trace if we had good diplomacy coming in on the back side because remember, there's more than leading with the chin of the american soldier. there's diplomacy. there's information and there is military. there's economic levers of national power. all too often we lean on the backs of our men and women in uniyorm and the state department has been rather neenl i can for the last 2-3 years and it would be nice if they were to come in and do some of that diplomatic stuff they get paid to do. >> i wonder if you would want to give us your inside on whether you think this will have reverberation around the middle east when we talk about this ground war yet to begin. israel has been effective with air defenses. we are talking about 800 airstrikes on terror targets in just the past several days.

they have killed a number of top hamas leaders including one of architects of the october 7th attacks so it's not as if they're sitting on their hands until you have the defense forces at the gaza border but it's not like they're doing nothing. they're making definite impact with tremendous effect on doing damage to hamas and the hamas infrastructure but the ground war itself sir, do you expect that to happen any time soon or do you think there's going to be a pause? >> trace, i've been saying for a couple weeks now that what israel the idf are doing is developing the situation, doing intelligence preparation on the battlefield. getting logistics in place and this is tough of this is ph.d. level. instead of good men and women from the idf into the meat grinder in gaza, have some finesse. do some targeting. develop your human intelligence your signal intelligence your

imagery intelligence layer that develop good target folders and go after in in a very deliberate way. this is a long fight for israel. it's not a blitzkrieg through the rubble of gaza. as far as the united states goes we can help separate some of these strategic issues from israel so they can focus primarily on the south. they're mixed in the north by hezbollah so they got to keep forces up there in an operational sense but the real issue for the united states interestingly trace in my view is you've seen this outpouring of support for whatever reason for the terrorists in hamas here in our education institutions and our large cities and you know, it makes me wonder if we, the united states, can build consensus within this nation to go to war to fight this war

against an enemy that clear they say death to the united states, iran, they are listed on our national strategy as one of the main adversaries w so can we marshal the support allowing the erosion of national values in name of there appeasement of iran and other factions has that kneecaped us from having consensus going forward. >> we would like to continue the conversation on the other side of the breaking news. we are continuing breaking news coverage the united states has struck back and fired on syria. we will continue after this break.