captioning sponsored by cbs >> brennan: it's sunday, january the 5th. i'm margaret brennan, and this is "face the nation." nation," the conflict between the united states and iran escalates dramatically after the u.s. targets and kills a top iranian general. president trump says if they retaliate, the u.s. will hit back, quote, "very fast and very hard." plus, new cbs battleground tracker numbers show a familiar face on top of the 2020 field in iowa and new hampshire. there has been dramatic reaction around the world following the u.s. drone strike that killed iran's military general, qassem soleimani. president trump stayed out of public view on saturday, following this statement that the administration saw the

action as a dramatic de-escalation. >> president trump: we took action last night to stop a war, we did not take action to start a war. >> brennan: but late saturday, the president took to twitter to programs a staggering response if iran retaliates, saying, "if iran strikes any americans or american assets, we have targeted 52 iranian sites, and we will hit them harder than they have ever been hit before." the u.s. is sending more forces to the region, and around the world security has been heightened on american facilities and installations, and homeland security officials warn of potential attacks on u.s. infrastructure. we'll talk with secretary of state mike pompeo, as well as two influential senate voices on foreign policy, marco rubio, and connect democrat chris murphy. former c.i.a. director and retired general david petraeus will also be

here. all st ahead on "face the nation." ♪ >> brennan>> brennan: good morning, and welcome to "face the nation." in iran today, tens of thousands are paying their respects with a massive funeral procession for general soleimani. iranian officials have ramped up their threats of retaliation, warning they may target 300 american affiliated sites for potential military response. and this just in: the pentagon announced that the u.s. has paused its efforts in the fight against isis due to a need to protect u.s. troops in the region. cbs news' holly williams joins from iraq, david martin is at the pentagon. david, let's start with you. what preparations is iran making to respond. >> david: margaret, i spoke to a u.s. defense official just a short time

ago, and he says that iran, among other things, has brought its ballistic missiles to a higher state of alert. and he told me, and i want to read this so i get it correct. "it is unclear whether iranian military movements are intended to better prepare to defend themselves or to be better prepared to execute strikes." when i said to him that sounds like we're on a razor's edge, he said yes. and the tension in his voice was palpable. we are at a dangerous moment, probably the most dangerous moment of the trump administration. >> brennan: holly, iran, this morning, saying that they may look to restart their nuclear program. that's a long-term threat. what david is describing is an immediate one. what is happening on the ground? >> reporter: well, margaret, people in this part of the world are bracing for something. iran has made it crystal clear that it wants revenge. but, of course, we cannot

know how or when that might happen. the u.s. military here in iraq is on high alert. we've already had two rocket attacks yesterday, close to iraqi military bases, where u.s. personnel are also working. and hezbollah, an iraqi malitia group that has backing from iran, it has warned iraqi government security forces to stay away from u.s. military bases here in iraq beginning this evening. also today, iraq's parliament is holding an emergency session, where pro-iranian lawmakers are calling for the roughly 5,000 u.s. troops based here in iraq to be ordered out of the country. >> brennan: david, qassem soleimani crafted this playbook of using proxi forces to do iran's descrs the state of iran itself preparing to take action. what is the u.s. preparing for? >> david: well, you saw the president's tweets.

he said that if iran attackss americanattacks americr american assets, they have identified 52 targets. that number 52 apparently represents one for each hostage taken when amman stormed the u.s. embassy in tehran nearly 40 years ago. and he also said they would include high-level targets, presumably he meant leadership targets, and targets that are important to iranian culture. now, in most military operations, cultural targets are off-limits. so this was a very extraordinary threat from the president of the united states. >> brennan: holly, qassem soleimani directed mass murder. are there people in the region who are actually celebrating? >> holly: it is interesting, margaret, when it comes to regional reactions. israel is pleased. the israel government who's praised president

trump for his, quote, "decisive action." but when it comes to other countries, even those who feared and loathed qassem soleimani when he was alive, they seem to be concerned about the repercussions of this assassination. they are worried about escalation. and we also spoke with two iraqi lawmakers today. they are not friends of iran or its influence in this country. in fact, they're very supportive of the u.s. military presence. but they told us they are frustrated by american actions and fearful that iraq is going to turn into a battlefield for a proxy war between iran and the united states. >> brennan: holly and david, thank you. we turn now to secretary of state mike pompeo. good morning to you, mr. secretary. >> secretary of state mike pompeo: margaret, good to be with you. >> brennan: does eliminating qassem soleimani take out the specific plot that you say was an imminent threat?

>> secretary of state mike pompeo: margaret, we made the right decision to take out this terrorist. he not only caused enormous death and destruction and killed hundreds of americans over the years, but had done so in the past couple of days. killed an american on december 27th. we watched him to continue to actively build out for what was going to be a significant attack, what we believed, and we made the right decision. >> brennan: has it been eliminated? >> secretary of state mike pompeo: there have been constant threats. we've been under threat when the previous administration made the mistake of entering that horrific nuclear deal and gave money and resources to this regime, and the threats remain. >> brennan: so iran can still carry out that specific threat that you described as imminent? is it still imminent? >> secretary of state mike pompeo: we continue to prepare for whatever the iranian regime continues to put before us, in the next 10 minutes, in the next 10 days, and the next 10 months.

we're going to get it right over the days and weeks and months hide. we have put iran in a position it has not been in before, it is under enormous pressure, and we continue to be successful in denying them the resources for the direct campaign we're confronting which happened before we came into office. >> brennan: up until this point, the u.s. avoided targeting and taking out top iranian military leaders. were all of the president's national security advisors in full agreement that qassem soleimani needed to be killed? >> secretary of state mike pompeo: yes. >> brennan: complete agreement across the cabinet? >> secretary of state mike pompeo>> secretary of state mike pompeo: it was a checcollective decision that -- there was unanimity that we were making the right decision that day. it was based not only on this intelligence, but you need to look no further than the days that led up to this. qassem soleimani led and orchestrated an attack

that killed an american. there was sound and just and legal reasons for the actions that the president took. and the world is safer as a result of the bold action that president : esident trump is saying there are 52 sites that the u.s. would target if iran retaliates. how is that consistent with what you say is your message of de-escalation. >> secretary of state mike pompeo: entirely consistent. iranian leadership needs to understand that attacking americans is not cost-free. setting out conditions, saying these are expectations, these are the things american is expecting from you, and if you don't do them, the cost is clear and direct. we have an obligation to speak to the iranian leadership clearly and directly, so they understand that america is prepared, that we will reduce threats throughout the region. the entire strategy has been one of deterrents. conhe is and to suppor t i

le so they could see what their leadership is g isestroying their country. >> brennan: why do you think that this will make them back down? isn't this such a threat to iranian pride, to have one of their most powerful leaders killed? >> secretary of state mike pompeo: qassem soleimani killed hundreds of americans. the risk of terror is increased by appeasement. that is what the obama-biden administration did, and what president trump will never do. >> brennan: but he also killed thousands of people in the region. >> secretary of state mike pompeo: hundreds of thousand in syria, absolutely true. >> brennan: does this mean other iranian leaders are now potential targets? >> secretary of state mike pompeo: we're going to do everything to keep the american people safe. >> brennan: that sounds like a yes. >> secretary of state mike pompeo: we are going to do under president trump what he directed for months, we're going to execute our national security strategy and convince the people of iran we're with them, and

the islamic republican leadership that we are with them. >> brennan: iraq has been carrying out threats over the bases of the u.s. troops, and the question is: if iraq legally requires, this is what they're looking at, u.s. troops to leave, will the u.s. comply? >> secretary of state mike pompeo: we're following very closely what is taking place in the iraqi parliament. make no mistake about it. the iraqi people, too, are protesting, but not against america. what you see on tv is actually at the direction -- >> brennan: this is iraq that is talking about this, expelling 5,000 u.s. troops. >> secretary of state mike pompeo: the acting prime minister of iraq who resigned because of massive iranian interference -- it is why he left. >> brennan: but irrnment has now voted to op prove it. >> secretary of state mike pompeo: it is the united states government that will help the iraqi people get what they

deserve, and to take down terrorism from isis and others that is in defense of the american people and iraqi people, too. >> brennan: what are you doing diplomatically behind the scenes to try to de-escalate. >> secretary of state mike pompeo: it is not just behind-the-scenes. we're doing it some publicly. my counterpart knows exactly what president trump believes, wants, and desires, and is demanding from the iranian leadership. make no mistake about it. it is not just the past few days. we've built out an enormous coalition. gulf states, israel, we built a maritime initiative, we've flowed american forces, but we've had forces coming in from our european friends and partners as well. and the canadians. this is a multi-effort -- >> brennan: but the u.s. has now taken out a foreign military leader on foreign soil. >> secretary of state mike pompeo: he is a terrorist.

>> brennan: maybe, but this is a significant action. do you really believe that iran is going to sit down and negotiate now? >> secretary of state mike pompeo: it depends how smart they are and how much they take seriously what president trump has communicated. the instability they have created for ally israel, for our partners, our friends, all of these countries, soleimani and his band of brothers have been a negative influence in the region for an awfully long time and they are thankful for the actions that the americans took. >> brennan: the details of the threat that is imminent and sounds like is ongoing, has not been shared with congress. the details were kept classified. when will the american people know what president trump decided to do what they did? >> secretary of state mike pompeo: you said they have been kept from congress and classified, congress has seen it, and the members who come back will get to see almost all

of that information. i don't think any reasonable american-elected official would see what president trump and i and secretary esper saw and would conclude we could have done anything but the action we did -- >> brennan: but will that be classified and submitted to the american people? >> secretary of state mike pompeo: we will do so. president trump has done so in tweets. i've done so in messages. i'm sitting with you articulating why is it is the best action that we took. as the director of the c.i.a., there are things you simply cannot share. there are available information streams we must protect. we will never present risk to theiendos by putting at risk that is valuable information. >> brennan: to be clear, that threat continues to exist, that plot? >> secretary of state mike pompeo: there remains enormous set of risk in the region, and america is preparing for each and every one of them. not only the threats from the proxy malitias in iraq, but along every

vector, including cyber. >> brennan: thank you so much for being on. >> secretary of state mike pompeo: margaret, thanthank you so much for having me on. >> brennan: we'll be back with marco rubio, he is standing by.

>> brennan: joining us now is an influential member of both the senate intelligence and foreign relations committee, florida republican marco rubio. good morning to you, senator. good morning. >> brennan: overnight, there are ballistic missiles being prepared, and here at home, they're issuing a terror bull tain. do you believe now that america is safer after carrying out the strike with qassem soleimani? >> i believe that iran was on the virge of scaling up the attacks they were aiming to the united states, probably through surges and other places, and the united states had to take action in order to prevent that from happening, ns to make very clear what would happen if they undertook further attacks down the road. we were the subject of, i

believe, 10 or 11rocket attacks just since october. it was made very clear to iranians would what happen, and to soleimani, what would happen if a single american was killed. that happened and they crossed that line, and if you don't enforce the consequenses, they wouldn't believe it. i believe they are probably dispersing the missiles because they fear that a u.s. counterattack will come. but that is not unusual. by the way, the fact they even have ballistic missiles tells you why the iran deal was so flawed, it provided them millions of dollars -- >> brennan: senator, qassem soleimani was the director of mass murder, there aren't a lot of people mourning him. but the idea of taking this to the level of escalation in a cycle that was already growing in threats, taking out one of iran's top leaders, has many asking if the administration has a strategy in place to followup so that there

isn't a cycle that further escalates. >> i keep hearing that about the strategy. here is the strategy: we are there for an anti-isis operation and to support the iraqi government, by the way, at the invitation of the iraqi government. the iranians don't want us there and they're threatening to kill americans. the president of the united states has an obligation to protect those americans. soleimani was there on a terrorist mission. >> brennan: are you concerned, though, about what the strategy is here. overnight president trump issued a threat on twitter to bomb 52 sites in iran. has it been explained to congress? >> yes, at least as i understand it. and it is called self-defense. the united states has over 5,000 military personnel in iraq and additional personnel in syria under direct threat.

iran needs to understand if it is attacked even by these proxy groups, we will respond. after everything that happened in the shipping lanes, after the mines they placed on the ships, after the attacks to saudi arabia, he has shown tremendous restraint in not resnding to those. but now we have reached a new level -- >> brennan: do you think that the president's failure to follow up on his past threats against iran, to carry out some kind of action against all of the things you just laid out that iran was doing, did that force his hand on this? is that what you're suggesting? >> no. what i'm suggesting is that the iranians, at the end of the day, do cost and benefit analysis. for whatever reason they calculated that the benefits of these continued attacks through the use of these proxy groups, the benefits outweighed the costs. it was time for the president to reset that analysis for them, and he did through this strike and the strike last friday as well. it was an important moment

and had to happen. here is the bottom line: the president of the united states acted on reliable intelligence. >> brennan: the people of the united states want to know, and you're in a position to perhaps shed some light here. what was the imminent threat to americans? >> yeah. so when you gather information like this, it is highly sensitive. it cannot be disclosed at this time without putting in danger our sources and methods, losing access to future intelligence of this kind. here is the bottom line: if the president of the united states is presented with information that there is an imminent and credible thet that could cost the lives not a couple hundred, but potentially hundreds, if not thousands of american men and women and other personnel in the region, the president has an obligation to act, and this president did. >> brennan: what was so particularly to this intelligence, though? qassem soleimani had been carrying out attacks on u.s. interests for decades, and this had been happening in the weeks prior. what was so specific that

caused the president to take this specific action? how do you justify that to the american people? >> well, again, it goes -- justify? the question is: how would you justify not acting on even the possibility that americans could die. >> brennan: do you know what the threat was? >> not only do i know what the threat was, i know what they have been for months and are. this is not something overnight and they woke up one morning and said, let's start attacking americans. this is an ongoing pattern of escalation in which they use proxy groups to carry out attacks, they can kill americans and deny it was them. we know it was them, they know we know it was them, everybody else knows it was them. and some of the other countries pretend it wasn't them so they don'tvity to get out of the iran deal. they thought they could get away with it because we're distracted by our

domestic politics. >> brennan: you say you know the threat but it t point with the american people. is that something you did share -- you tweeted that qassem soleimani was plotting a coup in iraq. what did you mean by that? >> absolutely. if you think about what he strategy is, his strategy is to put in place a government in iraq, in iraq, friendly to the iranians, almost a puppet state, so they could turn the entire country of iraq into a platform to attack american interests around the world. this is not about us putting in place someone in iraq that we want. it is about his desire to put in place a government and leaders in iraq that allow him free rein to use iraq -- >> brennan: so more of the same, the u.s. and iraq jockeying for power. >> but in this case, there wouldn't be any jockeying. he wants leaders that are friendly to him, expel us, and they can use iraq as a base, in combination with syria and lebanon, to

continue their expansion deidesires in the region -- >> brennan: and you think that iran is going to stop doing that now that qassem soleimani is dead? >> i think iran has to sit there and say, how willing are we willing to go when we know that our adversary is a l advocating we bomb iran. i am saying that it has to be clear to the einneerns, iranf they take action, directly or through proxies, we will take action. if they do not believe that, then americans will die and we will be in danger. israeli prime minister benjamidanger iranians will kill as many americans as they can get away with. and we have to make them understand we are serious when they act. everything that the president is warning about is all defensive. he is not saying, congress, i need 100,000

american troops to invade iran. the president is not talking about invading iran. he is talking about responding to anything iran may do in the future. but the president not only has the full authority to do that, but an obligation to do that. >> brennan: senator rubio, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> brennan: and we'll be right back.

>> brennan: coming up next, we'll hear from a key democrat on the senate foreign relations committee, responding to the republicans. that's connecticut's chris murphy. he is here with me, and we'll get to talk to him in just a moment. stay with us.

>> brennan: we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation" in a moment. senator murphy is here, and we'll get to speak with general david petraeus, who led u.s. forces in iraq, where he faced off against qassem soleimani. and new poll numbers from hamps. there has been some movement at the top. details ahead.

♪ >> brennan: welcome back to "face the nation." we're joined now by connecticut senator chris murphy, who was on the foreign relations committee. good to have you here. good morning. >> good morning. >> brennan: you heard them say if qassem soleimani had not been killed, there would have potentially been hundreds of americans who would have been casualties. do you believe there was an imminent attack? >> first, it is incumbent upon the administration to present that information to congress, and even if there was an imminent attack, and there are always threats to the u.s. forces by iran and iranian proxies, the administration has to prove to us that by taking out the second most

powerful political figure inside iran they are preventing more attacks rather than inspiring the attack. the reason the administration did not green light the execution of soleimani, they believed ultimately that would get more americans killed. you can already seen the u.s. consequences in the region, as you have noted, the beginning of the process to expel american forces from iraq. >> brennan: we know there was some notification given to congress. you heard senator rubio say he knew what the threat was but couldn't share it. who in congress actually knows what happened? >> my understanding is there was no consultation with congress before this strike, that is in violation of the war powers act. and there has been very limited communications since then. i would hope we'll get a full briefing. but the briefing not only has to talk about the intel before the attack, but why it was necessary to take this dramatic

escalate tory step. we know it opens a pa pandora's box, and also because we know ultimately that might get more americans killed, as it likely will -- >> brennan: the administration had designated part of the r.c. g. that soleimani ran as a terror group, and you heard secretary pompeo saying he was a terrorist as well. that argument does not hold up to you? >> he did not have authorization from congress to go to war with iran. this spthis potentially sets ona course to do just that. iran is more powerful today than at the beginning of the trump administration. they restarted the nuclear program, they have more influence in places like yemen and syria, and now they're on the virge of trikesgainst the united states. that is a disaster with this administration's

policy towards iran. >> brennan: just a few moments the word assassinate, and technically that is prohibited under u.s. law. you chose that word for a reason, it is politically loaded. why do you think that is needed here? >> i don't know any other way to describe it. this was the intentional execution of a high-level official in a sovereign nation. qassem soleimani is an evil man. he has absolutely ordered the murder of hundreds of americans. but he is a high-level representative of a foreign government, a foreign government with a military that could strike at american civilians and american service people. the question is: why didn't the administration look at other means to try to stop this attack from happening? reporting suggests that his own military leaders were shocked that the president shows an assassination versus more targeted strikes against other iranian aset assets in

the region. you've been critical of whether this was illegal for the president to do this, and specifically this authorization of military force debate. i spoke with a former obama administration, jay johnson, i'm sure you know him, he used to be general counsel at the pentagon. >> yes. >> brennan: he said this: "direct engagement of a senior military official of other official is harder to justified under the amass, but having said that, under existing office of legal counsel opinions, it is plain that the president had constitutional authority to use lethal source again qassem soleimani as vital national interests were implicated. therefore, no congressional authorization was required." a former pentagon democrat, why was his wrong? >> the president had to explain to the american congress why the strike

against qassem soleimani was needed to prevent general attacks against the united states. to prevent future attacks, imminent attacks, you can take action without congress. the contention here is that by assassinating a high-level iranian official you're going to inspire and create more attacks against the united states, not actually prevent those attacks. >> brennan: so they could argue that by imminent, they meant ongoing. qassem soleimani was always targeting u.s. interests. >> right. so if that is the case, that isn't an imminent attack. if this is just the same set of threats that have exited to the united states personnel in the region for the last seven years, then in that case, the united states has to come and get authorization from congress before taking an action against a sovereign nation. >> brennan: a lot of people are saying, that would be great if congress did something about the a.u.m.f., but when they get their own leader, no one wants to do something

that will actually constrain the powers of the executive. >> the president is bound by what congress gives him the authority to do. the framers of the constitution didn't give him the ability to start a war because it was hard to get authorization from congress. the framers wanted us to have power because they were worried about what is happening now,. >> brennan: this is from 2002, there was the entire obama administration. you're saying the reason nothing was updated to this point is what? >> the risk is much greater today, right? when president trump came into office, he set into motion a serious of blind escalatetory matters. and if had is contemplating taking future military action against a broad set of threats to the american country, he has the responsibility to come to congress. >> brennan: and he will veto any authorization, if there was one, that is sent to his desk?

>> he can't act without authorization from congress unless he is responding to an im ment threat. -- imminent threat. and he has to prove to us it was an imminent threat. the worry is this is going to get more americans killed. and the very fact we're watching the united states getting expelled from iraq -- is proof that this ultimately accrue to the detriment of american national security interests. >> brennan: senator murphy, thank you for coming and talking to us today. >> thank you. >> brennan: we'll be right back with retired general david petraeus. ca

♪ >> brennan: joining us now is former obama administration c.i.a. director, retired general, david petraeus. good to have you here. >> good to be with you,

margaret. >> brennan: qassem soleimani was or adversary when you were -- >> and a very, very capable one. >> brennan: what was your thought when you heard he had been killed? >> a surprise, to be candid. we never had gone after him before, but he never dare step foot inside iraq when i was commanding the surge, nor during the time it was the commander of u.s. central command. he only really became visible in the way he has in more recent years after the arab spring, supporting the murder of bashar al-assad in syria, and very actively supporting the iranian supported malitia inside iraq that was helping to contend with the islamic state of the invasion in northern and western iraq. >> brennan: he openly traveled? >> he did. he was on social media. of course, that was a period when he was helping iraq go after the same enemy that we eventually

helped iraq defeat. make no mistake about it, those malitia and iraqi forces could not have defeated the islamic state in iraq without our en enabling forces and our intelligence and our advice. >> brennan: there has been a lot of talk that both the obama and the bush administrations had looked at targeting qassem soleimani and deemed it too risky. you just said that was not the case when you were in your position? >> during the periods i was in iraq and in central command, i can't talk about what we might have discussed when i was the c.i.a. director some years later. certainly at those times, we just didn't have the opportunity. it never rose to any real consideration, even for me, much less taking it back to washington, which we certainly would have done. >> brennan: why? >> we never had him on the "x." he was in iraq, my understanding is prior to the surge, there was an episode where we detained some iranian advisers which we had to release

under the pressure of iraq through the president of iraq, but that was prior to the start of this surge. >> brennan: you heard secretary pompeo on this program say it is entirely consistent for the president of the united states to threaten to bomb iran, 52 sites specifically, and that is consistent with trying to de-escalate? is that credible? >> what has happened here, i think, is frankly that we lost the element of deterrence, the component of deterrence that was seen as american will. our $130 million drone was shot down, and did nothing in response, and 5% of the world's oil taken out of operation, numerous attacks on shipping, and then attacks on our forces, ultimately killing an american and wounding four of our soldiers. so ultimately, the president appears to have decided that it was necessary to take an action to shore up deterrence, to show we were not going to accept this. >> brennan: does this do

doessde >> we w have sto see. again,the question is now, what will iran do? will they dare to respond directly with iranian missiles against our forces, our embassies, our shipping, what have you, or do they continue to operate through proxies, which i'm pretty confident they will. and, again, what is the scope of that. and the bigger issue is -- and you got to this a bit with secretary pompeo -- but the real question for the united states is: will there be a diplomatic initiative that says, this is not headed in a good direction. we truly want to de-escalate, and everyone will lose if this continues to ratchet upwards, and can we now sit down and talk about getting back to the nuclear agreement with addressing the concerns that the administration has had -- >> brennan: you is say there needs be to a followup? >> there does, and the question is, is that

there. we have sto se to see how that plays out in the days and weeks ahead. but i'm sure that the national security council in iran is working hard to do all of the calculation and determine what would the u.s. response be, having seen that the u.s. is willing to take a very significant action. it is impossible to overstate the significance of the attack that takes out qassem soleimani and the number two malitia leader in iraq as well, who also never dared to set foot in iraq after the surge, after we missed him in the escape. this is bigger than bin laden and baghdadi. this is the presidential envoy for the region for iran, the most powerful figure in iran, for the solidcation of the shi'a crescent. >> brennan: and if another country had taken

out even one of the officials you just listed there, how would the u.s. interpret that? an act of war? >> these are terms of destinations. were were not at war already? i'll leave that to the scholars. >> brennan: iran's revolutionary regime, you heard senator murphy say they're stronger now than they've been -- >> i don't think that is entirely accurate. their economy is in dismal shape. people are demonstrating on the streets in unprecedented numbers since the revolution. and the lack of employment and the plummetting of their quality of life. they're not that invested the kn adventures that have been funded and carried out under the quds force under the leadership of qassem soleimani. they care about themselves and their families and they're not that happy.

>> brennan: what i've had other military officials say to me, that all may be true, this may be a blow to the regime, financially they are struggling, but that the united states may be underestimating the brutality the regime is willing to take to keep themselves in power. that this is not a tip towards regime -- >> i don't underestimate that at all. there are two million besieged malitia, and these are thugs with pipes on the streets, that will clear the streets if they can, and that's in additional to the revolutionary guards corp, and, again, this regime is not going to go quietly into the night. i don't think this leads to regime replacement or some kind of failure of the regime. that's not to be expected. the question is: what does the regime do in response to the killing of qassem soleimani? >> brennan: last question, a quick one, how does it end? >> well, this is the reason i was asking about what is our strategy from

here? do we have a diplomatic initiative to reach out? it is not quite enough, i don't think, to say, they know how to reach us. i think we should be trying to reach out through intermediaries, as we have in the past, and trying to come to some kind of agreement on how to get back to the nuclear deal which had its strengths, as well as some shortcomings, to be sure, and address the other legitimate grievances and issues we have about malitia activity support and the missile program. >> brennan: je general petraeus, good to have you here. we'll look at some brand new tracker polls out this morning. malitia the mental health safety net is in crisis.

i see it every day. people undiagnosed, untreated, and nowhere to turn for help. many end up here. our patients are in jails, prisons, psychiatric hospitals and treatment centers. i work for wellpath... along with over 8,000 professionals, we provide medical and mental healthcare services with a single mission: to be there for those who need us most. it helps to have someone in your corner. that's why there's covered california. we're the only place where you can get financial help to por youhe could receive additional financial help from the state

to help lower the cost of health insurance... more for those already getting it, and new help for many who haven't gotten help before. so check to see how much you could save. it only takes 5 minutes. the last day to enroll is january 31st. so get covered today. ♪ >> brennan: we turn now to campaign 2020. our cbs news battleground tracker shows another shift at the top of the polls. we surveyed two early contests this week. in iowa, senator bernie sanders now shares the topot wi,

along with former vice president biden, and former indiana mayor pete buttigieg. elizabeth warren follows, and the rest are 3% or below. in new hampshire, sanders is also on top. he comes in with 27% support, compared to biden at 25%, and pete buttigieg the 17%. there is more detail on the pol on our website at cbsnews.com. >> sanders has solidified his support. sanders rise is due in part to some liberal supporters of elizabeth warren's moving his way, and, also, his core support is strong and steady, as opposed to others who compaigns have seen more volatility. we want to note that sanders also came in op in on top with fundraising among

democrats in the forth quarter, raising almost $35 million, just under $10 million under mayor pete buttigieg. it now stands at 14 representatives. for a closer look, we turn to the chairman of the democratic party, tom perez. good to have you here. >> always good to be here. >> brennan: what do you make of these polls? >> we have a deep bench and this is a fluid field. and this is not new for the run-up to new hampshire and iowa. we saw it in 2008 with senator obama, and with senator clinton. what i see are the following: fluid field because we have a deep bench. the enthusiasm is off the charts. 2008 was the high water mark for participation in iowa. i'm confident we're going to surpass that because there is so much energy across everywhere. and i'm equally confident

that at the end of the day, we're going to come together around a nominee. i don't know who that is. i think the fact that we have such fluidity is a source of excitement. and that's why it is so important for us to understand the four early states constitute about 5% of the delegate count. they're an important 5%, but only 5%. so this is a marathon. >> brennan: it is a jump ball at this point. >> i would agree. >> brennan: for this week, we saw julio castro drop out. and cory booker and deval patrick -- they're all campaigning hard. why do you think minority candidates haven't gotten more traction in the way that meets your standard to stand on that debate stage. >> i was very sad with kamala harris left the race. she qualified for the december debate stage, and i'm confident she would have qualified for january.

>> brennan: her issue was fundraising? >> i understand that. i take a back seat to no one in our commitment to making sure our field is diverse. and we've had so many people and so many candidates of color who have been in the race throughout -- >> brennan: the debate stage is all white. >> we don't know yet because we have a number of days left. so we'll see who makes the debate stage. for me, the most important thing is we've created thresholds, and these aren't new thresholds. those who say that we've somehow done a disservice or have made it harder for candidates, i disagree with that. the candidates who make the debate stage are the candidates who do the best job of working across the idiological spectrum of the democratic party. jesse jackson, al sharpton -- am will qualify for the debate criteria. >> brennan: are you

actually suggesting that you might revisit these standards for the future debates, to allow for more diversity? >> again, if you're question is, should we lower -- again, the debate threshold right now is quite low. it is quite fair. nobody who has been below 5% a month before the caucus or primary has ever won a caucus or primary. so what we have done is to make sure we've set a fair bar. it is the most inclusive bar ever. and then you have to demonstrate progress. and the candidates who are at the top of the field right now are the candidates who have been able to amass support among the wide array -- >> brennan: so in a sense, you're not changing. >> you have to demonstrate progress here. again, the candidates who you saw there, are the candidates who have been able to demonstrate that progress. that means that they are showing support in communities of color.

you can't win the democratic primary if you don't have strong support in communities of color. >> brennan: but you're not changing standards to make the debate stage for february, march, or april. >> we don't know what the standards are for february, march, or april, but if you lower -- >> brennan: i did not say lower. i said change. >> you have to raise the bar because we will see people who have voted as of february. so we will assess then and then make those judgments. >> brennan: so bernie sanders, we just showed the war chest he has built. in the past, you said you wanted to i in centavize grassroots. so they would want -- it is what michael bloomberg is doing, self-support.

>> what we have seen is there have been democratic fundraising, and the d.n.c., have actually outraised trump and the r.n.c. in 2019. >> brennan: so you're fine with self-financing -- michael bloomberg is self-financing -- >> that is up to mayor bloomberg. he has decided that. and the voters will decide whether they believe mike mike bloomberg is the candidate. i applaud senator sanders. all of the candidates are making grassroots havo lee it tre we want to have you back again. again. >> i'd love to. >> brennan: we have a lot of news today. we're going to be right back.

at at&t we believe in access. the opportunity for everyone to explore a digital world. connecting with the things that matter most.

and because nothing keeps us more connected than the internet. we've created access from at&t california households with at least one resident who receives snap or ssi benefits. may qualify for home internet at a discounted rate of $10 a month. no commitment, deposit, or installation fee. visit att.com/accessnow, to learn more. >> brennan: that's it for us. next week we'll be talking to gary cohn and his first sunday appearance since leaving the trump administration. for "face the nation," i'm margaret brennan. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> announcer: the following is a paid commercial program proudly brought to you be prosvent. do you make frequent trips to the bathroom... suffer from urgency... hesitancy? do you get up more than once a night? can you even sit through a movie? or, worse, have a diminished sex drive? if so, chances are you have an enlarged prostate. fact -- 30 million men now suffer from an enlarged prostate. fact -- every other man now watching this show will someday face the same painful problems. until now, you had three choices -- take expensive drugs with potentially serious side effects, face painful and bloody surgery, or try and live with the pain and embarrassment. fact -- you don't have to live with it anymore.