that wraps up this hour of "msnbc live." "andrea mitchell reports" starts right now. great to see you. >> geoff, thank you. what a day. the incredible news coming out of washington today and the middle east. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," on the brink. tensions soaring after president trump orders a drone attack at the baghdad airport, killing a powerful iranian commander, the leader of iran's proxy terror groups around the middle east and a cultural hero to those at home in iran. trump cabinet officials say it was to stop an imminent attack by iran. they're now warning americans in iraq and iran to leave immediately. president trump out of sight so far but defending his decision on twitter as iran vows revenge, saying, quote, the u.s. has crossed iran's red line, we will teach them a lesson they won't forget. >> there was an imminent attack.

the primary orchestrater was qasem soleimani. >> we have all the capabilities inherent in the united states military to respond to further attacks or to take preemptive action if additional attacks are being prepared. >> we just opened the pandora's box and engaged in an act of war. >> we need to presume, as a country, that we're in a state of war with iran. >> the question we have to be asking ourselves today is whether qasem soleimani is more dangerous to the united states alive or dead. as a martyr. and we continue with our breaking news. good day, i'm andrea mitchell in washington where u.s. officials are on high alert awaiting anticipated reprisals from iran, threatened reprisals, after one of the most consequential decisions of the trump presidency, the president ordering the successful strike on baghdad international airport killing qasem soleimani, the top iranian general and decades-long

commander of the revolutionary guard's quds force. now the entire region is under threat as proxies in lebanon, syria, and elsewhere in the middle east await orders to respond. democrats in congress were not warned of the military actions. the president wrote this morning that general qasem soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of americans over an extended period of time and was plotting to kill many more but got caught. he was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people including the large number of protesters killed in iran itself. while iran will never be able to properly admit it, soleimani was both hated and feared within the country, according to the president's tweets. they are not nearly as saddened

as the leaders will let the outside world believe, said the president. he should have been taken out many years ago. joining me now for more context, nbc white house correspondent hallie jackson in west palm beach. aman m muayman mohyeldin. hallie, we have yet to see the president but it is very clear what he's saying following his twitter feed. >> you're right, andrea, we've heard from the president on his preferred medium this morning on twitter. he has been working the phones today talking with allies and people close with him about the strike and about the fallout from the strike on soleimani. the president might typically head to trump international golf

club, his club in town, he did not do that today, he's staying on doct on-property, and he's heading to miami later today to speak to evangelicals at a church. i would not be surprised to hear the president speak at that rally. back to you. >> hallie, we'll consult to the senate floor where mitch mcconnell, the majority leader, is speaking now. >> -- directly responsible for the deaths of more american service members than qasem soleimani, the leaders of the quds force within iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps. soleimani's agents killed hundreds of american service members in iraq and afghanistan. he personally oversaw the state-sponsored terrorism that iran used to kill our sons and our daughters.

and as we've seen in recent days and weeks, he and his terrorists posed an ongoing and growing threat to american lives and american interests. soleimani made it his life's work to take the iranian revolutionary call for death to america and death to israel and turn them into action. but this terrorist mastermind was not just a threat to the united states and israel. for more than a decade, he masterminded iran's malevolent and destabilizing work throughout the entire middle east. he created, sustained, and directed terrorist proxies everywhere from yemen to iraq to syria to lebanon. innocents were killed.

these sovereign countries were destabilized. in syria, this leading terrorist and hisgents acted as strategies, enablers, and accomplices to bashar al assad's brutal the slaughter of the syrian people. in iraq, his violence expanded iran's influence at the expense of the iraqis themselves. his dark, sectarian vision disenfranchised countless sunni arabs and paved the way for the rise of isis. and with isis largely defeated, soleimani and his agents again turned their sights on controlling the iraqi people, who through massive protests are rejecting not only a corrupt government but also iran's influence over that government.

and once again, there were iran and its proxies facilitating violence against these peaceful protesters. for too long, for too long, this evil man operated without constraint and countless innocents have suffered for it. now his terrorist leadership has been ended. now, predictably enough, in this political environment, the operation that led to soleimani's death may prove controversial or divisive. although i anticipate and welcome a debate about america's interests in foreign policy in the middle east, i recommend that all senators wait to review the facts and hear from the administration before passing

much public judgment on this operation and its potential consequences. the administration will be briefing staff today on the situation in iraq. we're working to arrange a classified briefing for all senators early next week. for my part, i've spoken to the secretary of defense and i'm encouraged by the steps the u.s. military is taking to defend american personnel and interests from a growing iranian threat. i know i speak for the entire senate when i say my prayers are with all american diplomats, personnel, and brave service members serving in iraq and in the middle east. i'm grateful for their courageous service to protect our country. right from the outset of this new year, it is already clear that 2020 will require the senate and our whole nation to redouble our resolve to keep

america safe in this troubled world. now, mr. president, on an entirely different matter, of course we also anticipate that another totally different, very serious item will be heading -- >> and virginia democratic senator tim kaine joins me now. he serves on both the foreign relations and armed service committees and is a leading proponent for the use of authorization for the use of military forces overseas. he has long organized there should be authorization for military action in afghanistan and other places around the world. senator, thank you very much. you've just heard the majority leader. your response? >> andrea, the question is not whether soleimani was a despicable killer, he was. and the question is not whether iran is a bad actor. they are. the question is whether the united states should be engaged in another unnecessary war in the middle east.

i believe it is very foolish for the u.s. to be involved in another war in the middle east. but however you think about that question, should we be at war, i do know this. we should not go to a war with iran based on a presidential decision with no consultation of congress. we should only go to war with iran if there is a congressional vote pursuant to the constitution saying that we need to be at war. and so today i'm going to take the one step that i have available to me. i will file a resolution pursuant to the war powers act of 1974 to try to force congress to have a debate about whether or not it is in the united states' interests to be at war with iran. i don't think it is. some of my colleagues may think otherwise. but we can't let the president make this decision on his own. let me just say this additionally, andrea. i have argued for two years that

the president's decision to tear up a diplomatic deal with iran raised the risk of an unnecessary war. and the pentagon, beginning in 2018, warned the president over and over and over again that the maximum pressure campaign that the u.s. was carrying out against iran, economic, diplomatic, and military pressure, would likely lead to retaliation against americans. the pentagon's warnings were right. we are now engaged in armed hostilities with iran based upon presidential decisions that he hasn't sought congressional approval for. so we need to have a debate in congress about this matter before the entire american public and get members of congress to declare yes or no, is another war in the middle east in the united states' interests. >> let me ask you, senator, just to clarify. are you arguing that the president did not have the authority to act on what he said was an imminent threat against

the united states and do this targeted assassination last night without notifying the top leaders of the specified committees in congress? >> the answer is, andrea, to that question, we really can't answer it yet because the president didn't brief congress on whether the threat was imminent or not. we've not gotten any information about this. as you know, the commander in chief can take action to protect the united states from imminent threat. but they haven't briefed congress at all on the imminence of the threat or even that they were going to take that action. however there is a procedure that puts it all on the table. the war powers resolution of 1974 says if there is no declaration of war and the u.s. gets involved in hostilities, you can file a motion to force -- it's a privilege motion -- to force a debate on the floor of the senate and house on whether the u.s. should be at war. i will file that motion today.

i heard the majority leader say we'll get a briefing next week. but i know that the democratic speaker, for example, and the democratic leader of the senate, they were not briefed on this. senator schumer was told after the fact and his response was, thanks for telling me what i've already read in the newspapers. our constitution makes very, very plain that the united states should not be at war without a debate and vote in congress, because that's the way we inform the public and it is also what is fair to our military. as you know, i've got a son in the marine corps. >> i know, i was going to ask you about that. >> we should not be committing our troops to war unless congress has the guts to debate and vote that it's in the national interest. president trump clearly believes he can wage war without congress. that's not what the constitution says. and i'm going to do everything i can to force us to have that debate. there may be colleagues of mine,

i suspect there are, who believe the u.s. should be at war with iran. let them stand on the floor of the senate and make that case to the american public. many of us will make the case that that would be very foolish. but if i lose that vote, then i will accept that. what i do not accept is the notion that a president can ignore the constitution and engage in escalatory actions against the advice of his department of defense that have brought to us the brink of war. >> i want to ask you something about senator schumer, because the president retweeted dinesh d'souza, basically saying that in forming or notifying senator schumer in advance would be the same as notifying the iranian leaders. >> that is so scurrilous. first, did an initinesh d'souza

convicted of a crime so i don't give him any credence. president trump clearly doesn't like leaders who hold him accou accountable. that does not give him the ability to wage an unconstitutional war without congressional authority or notifying congress. we have a tool pursuant to the war powers resolution to force this debate in congress. it's clear that the president doesn't want that debate to occur. he wants to pretend that congress doesn't exist. but whatever anyone thinks about whether shewe should be at war h iran, under no circumstance should we let this president or any president -- and as you know, andrea, i made the same argument when president obama engaged in military action without congress. i hold democrats and republicans equally accountable. presidents cannot start wars without congress and we will try to force a debate so that

congress can weigh in on whether or not this is a good idea. >> senator tim kaine, thank you so much. stand by, i want you to hear what our nbc news pentagon correspondent courtney kube is about to break from the pentagon. courtney, your news on new deployment. >> reporter: so, andrea, the u.s. military is deploying 3,500 more soldiers, more u.s. troops to the central command region, according to four u.s. military and defense officials. these are the 82nd airborne. this is the immediate reaction force. we saw the first battalion of this group move in several days ago after the u.s. embassy came under siege in baghdad. these are the additional troops as part of that immediate reaction force. those first 700 moved into kuwait. many of those are in baghdad and in iraq according to the officials that we spoke with here. and the ones who will begin moving in this weekend, these additional u.s. soldiers, they will move into the region, some into iraq, some into kuwait, some into other areas there. they will be responsible for being the response force

throughout the region, to threats throughout the region. so in iraq, in syria, even in other areas in neighboring countries there. so this is -- look, this isn't a surprise. this response force is there for situations like this when there is an immediate need for a u.s. military presence. but this is a significant uptick in the number of u.s. troops that are now in the region. throughout the region there's 60,000 u.s. troops throughout the whole area. but in this particular part in iraq, there's only about 5,200 u.s. troops there now. this now brings it to an additional 4,000 more troops ordered into that area just in the past week, andrea, a significant increase in the u.s. footprint in that area. >> very important news from courtney kube, our pentagon correspondent, courtney, thank you so much. senator kaine, before you go, if you could react to that, is this a wise protective move given the

threats from iran and given the reaction we must be prepared to expect from the targeted assassination of soleimani? >> two points, andrea. it might be a wise move, but until the administration briefs us on what their plans are, neither congress nor the american public can really reach that conclusion. and then the second issue is this. we're putting troops into a country, iraq, that has demonstrated that they don't want us to use iraq as a field of play for a u.s. versus iran war. that's not what we're there for. they invited us into iraq to help defeat isis and we've done a very, very good job at that. but when the u.s. has approached iraq and said we want to take military actions on your soil against iran, they've objected to that. and we have taken military action on iraqi soil over their objections. that's leading to a situation now where the u.s., which was popular because we helped to beat isis, is becoming less and less popular. we're more and more in danger of

the iraqi government withdrawing our permission to be in iraq. we're pushing iraq into the hands of iran. and as you also note, you've noted before, we're pushing our adversaries into each other's arms. iran, russia, and china just did joint naval exercises together in the region recently. so when we take actions in iraq over the objections of the iraqi government, we are not gaining allies. we're losing allies and are likely to make the region less safe and more anti-american. >> senator tim kaine, thank you so much. thank you for your son's service and for the contributions of all the military families, especially right now. thank you again. >> absolutely. and back now to our panel. of course our chief white house correspondent hallie jackson, a maman

mcgurk. brett mcgurk, many are describing this as a watershed moment. >> thanks, andrea. i think a couple of points. when i heard this news last night my first reaction was, justice. seeing qasem soleimani removed from the face of the earth is justice. i've had former colleagues killed by proxy groups he used to control. that's my first reaction. my second reaction, and what i said, is that i think we have to resume now that what's been an overt kind of shadow war is now potentially, and we must hope for the best but plan for the worst, a state of war with iran. sending a brigade of the 82nd airborne to the middle east is not surprising, it's demonstrating what the administration is seeing internally. in 2007 and 2008 in particular when i was in the bush white

house and expected a lot of time in iraq, we had 167,000 troops in iraq. we fought shia militia groups under the control of soleimani with very few restrictions. we inflicted significant casualties on those groups. we never stopped rocket attacks, roadside bomb attacks. those really stopped in 2011 after a political deal was reached between the iraqi government and others. we saw these attacks again pick up 7 1/2 years later, just a few months ago. so these groups have significant capability if they actually choose to begin attacking us in a significant way. i think that's a very huge risk. and what senator -- what i just heard the senator say, strategically what soleimani wanted was for americans to leave iraq. he did not like us being there. i know this for a fact in terms of talking to iraqis who obviously spoke with him all the time. he wanted us out. that was his strategic aim. and we're at risk now of being kicked out of iraq.

and i hope that the administration right now uses this moment to reinforce our presence in iraq, to be on the phone with our coalition partners who interact with us, we have 20 coalition allies who interact with iraq, france, australia, new zealand, they're all with us, so that there is burden sharing and we're not spending as much money as we would otherwise. we want to maintain that coalition. a lot of capitals are nervous about where this is going. the strategic risk here is that we leave iraq, which is something that president trump might want, frankly, but if we leave iraq, that will just increase further the running room for iran and shia militia groups and the vacuum that will see groups like isis fill and we'll be right back to where we are. so that would be a disaster. in terms of strategic risk, andrea, our presence in iraq is first and foremost. in terms of iranian decisionmaking, they're meeting as we speak, the supreme leader joining the supreme council of

national security meeting for the first time in years, they're looking at response options. i would not expect anything immediate. i think we can have very high confidence there will be a response. but i think everybody should have pretty low confidence in exactly how. anybody who says they know how this will play out hasn't spent much time in the middle east. so we don't know. and we need to be prepared for all contingencies and be prepared for this potentially getting much worse. the bottom line, it's a good thing that soleimani is no longer with us and now we have to prepare for the consequences. >> ayman mohyeldin, when we look around the region, what would you expect the response to be given the fact that soleimani did have a lot of support in many places? >> andrea, that's a really good question, i've been asking it to officials i've been speaking to in the region. not a single one i've spoken to says they don't expect iran to respond in some capacity. one senior gulf minister says he expects direct iranian action,

saying the iranian government back on september 14th when he believed they carried out that attack against the saudi oil installations changed the calculus of how they operate. yes, they always have the ability to use their proxies in striking various assets of the united states' and others' in the region, whether from iraq to syria to yemen, even places like afghanistan. they may now take the decision to act directly against some u.s. interests. and for them, that is a game changer. their country has been put in heightened state of alert. they house american forces in the region. so there are two schools of thought they can't are emerging about this, one, that it's not that in the immediate short term that you'll see an iranian response to this but something in the course of weeks, perhaps even a decade. one official i spoke to earlier today characterized as saying the americans are playing checkers with the iranians, the iranians are playing chess. they've already appointed the new general who is going to be

in charge of the quds force, somebody who worked closely with soleimani. they announced they're going to continue very much their same policies across the region and they're going to maintain those relationships with the various proxies that have been so counterproductive to a lot of things in the region. so if there was any calculation or strategy by the trump administration that this attack was going to somehow change the iranian calculus in the region, somehow make the iranians internally more divided, more fractured, it is having the exact opposite effect in the immediate short term, in the day after, we're seeing iranians unify behind the government, behind the regime. even moderate factions are expressing that sympathy. now you're seeing iranians perhaps regroup and by the calculus of other arab officials in the region, begin to plan what their response is going to look like. modified people i've spoken to say they anticipate an iranian response, the timing of which is not yet clear to them.

>> and for a perspective on president trump then as compared to now, this is what he had to say back in 2011 about president trump obama's responses to iran. >> our president will start a war with iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. he's weak and he's ineffective. the only way he figures he's going to get reelected and as sure as you're sitting there is to start a war with iran. unfortunately we have a president that doesn't know the first thing about negotiation. we have a real problem in the white house. so i believe that he will attack iran sometime prior to the election because he thinks that's the only way he can get elected. isn't it pathetic? >> ben rhodes, that obviously might resonate with you as the former national security adviser when president obama did not attack iran but negotiated with

iran. >> yeah, andrea, and what he negotiated was the iran nuclear agreement. and i think to understand what happened yesterday, we have to understand that this cycle of escalation began when president trump left that nuclear agreement over the objections of his intelligence community and defense department and that initiated all the consequences that president trump and mike pompeo and others said were going to be averted by their policy. so you pull out of the nuclear agreement, iran has increased provocations in the region and resumed its nuclear program. frankly, as brett pointed out, you didn't have these type of rocket attacks against u.s. interests inside iraq during the implementation of the nuclear agreement. this is actually the logical next step in the cycle of escalation that president trump initiated when he pulled out of the iran nuclear deal. what concerns me is that throughout this whole process trump and his team have taken steps without thinking through what is the strategy and what are the consequences. we're now living in a world in

which absolutely iran is going to respond to this. and we could be living with a conflict with iran that plays out in many different theaters over many different years. and they have options to respond in iraq, they have options to respond in places like lebanon, in afghanistan. and they have proxies in this hemisphere and all over the world, frankly. so president trump has consistently escalated the situation with iran. he has said to the american people that he wants to get us out of these wars, but we have thousands more troops heading now back into the middle east. we have a greater risk of a direct military confrontation with iran. americans who are serving around the world are in greater danger today. and we don't have a commander in chief who seems aware of the consequences of these very important decisions that he's making. >> andrea, can i add one thing really quickly to this, this is the iranian foreign minister in his own words. he said this quote that i think is very telling right now about a possible iranian response. he essentially said, mutual unpredictability will lead to

chaos. president trump cannot expect to be unpredictable and expect others to be predictable. unpredictability will lead to mutual unpredictability and unpredictability leads to chaos. that is something he said actually several months ago speaking at a forum but it gives you a sense of the mindset where the iranians perhaps are going to be taking this, is that this was an unpredictable action by the trump administration, certainly it's going to lead to chaos. but now iran is going to use that same playbook which is, you cannot have a monopoly on unpredictability in the region and expect us to behave rationally and predictably. >> it's exactly the opposite of mutually assured destruction, the uneasy balance during the cold war in terms of the nuclear strategic conflicts. hallie jackson, what about the unpredictability of this president? he's now surrounded no longer by john bolton, a very hard liner on iran, but certainly by mike pompeo, by less experienced

defense secretary, frankly, and national security adviser. and none of the guardrails, the generals, jim mattis and others, who in the past might have argued against taking this action. and he didn't take strong action when iran went after or iranian proxies went after the saudi oil fields. so there is a degree of unpredictability in this response. >> right. and andrea, it's an interesting discussion because remember, this is what the president wants. i and sources that i've talked to inside his administration say, listen, the president ultimately gets to be the one who makes the decision and this is the decision he wanted. sources have talked with our team members about that issue, that the president, and i've talked to folks who say he's shown restraint in those moments and perhaps iran underestimated the president because that have, it was the death of that american contractor that seemed to change the game last week in

that strike that happened. so there's that piece of it. there's also this, the president, what is he going to do later today? go to a rally with evangelical coalitions supporting his presidency. he likes being in a rally setting among his supporters. but remember what he pledged to those supporters during the campaign and in his time as president, that he would pull troops out of the middle east, that he would not commit more troops to the region. so he is caught in a bit of a conflict here of his own making, where he doesn't want to have more u.s. presence in the region but activity like this almost mandates it. and now you have that new reporting from our colleague courtney kube that in fact there will be more of a troop presence in the region because of this, heading to iran, heading to iraq, heading to the area. for the president, it will be a difficult puzzle to unwind here as far as how he manages to commit to the promise he made and be able to tell his supporters and his base this is what i wanted, this is what we're doing, and the reality on the ground. >> in an election year, and of course in the middle of impeachment nonetheless.

hallie jackson, thanks so much. ayman mohyeldin, brent mcgurk, thank you so much. an impeachment update from capitol hill. majority leader mitch mcconnell speaking moments ago on the senate floor pushed back against criticisms from senate democrats and speaker pelosi. >> about this fantasy that the speaker of the house will get to hand-design the trial proceedings in the senate, that's obviously a nonstarter. the structure for this impeachment trial should track with the structure of the clinton trial. we have a precedent here. president trump should get the same treatment that every single senator thought was fair for president clinton. just like 20 years ago, we should address mid-trial questions such as witnesses after briefs, opening arguments,

senator questions, and other relevant motions. fair is fair. >> and back to the senate floor, chuck schumer, the democratic leader, now speaking about iran. >> and any advance notification or consultation with congress. i'm a member of the gang of eight, which is typically briefed in advance of operations of this level of significance. we were not. the lack of advanced consultation and transparency with congress was put in the constitution, or rather the need for advanced consultation and transparency with congress was put in the constitution for a reason, because the lack of advanced consultation and transparency with congress can lead to hasty and ill-considered decisions. when the security of the nation is at stake, decisions must not be made in a vacuum.

the framers of the constitution gave war powers to the legislature and made the executive the commander in chief for the precise reason forcing the two branches of government to consult with one another when it came to matters of war and of peace. it is paramount for administrations to get an outside view to prevent groupthink and rash action, to be asked probing questions, not from your inner and often insulated circle, but from others, particularly congress, which forces an administration before it acts to answer very serious questions. the administration did not consult in this case. and i fear that those very serious questions have not been answered and may not be fully considered. among those questions, what was the legal basis for conducting

this operation, and how far does that legal basis extend? iran has many dangerous surrogates in the region and a whole range of possible responses. which responses do we expect? which are most likely? do we have plans to counter all of the possible responses? how effective will our counters be? what does this action mean for the long term stability of iraq and the trillions of dollars and thousands of american lives sacrificed there? how does the administration plan to manage an escalation of hostilities and how does the administration plan to avoid a larger and potentially endless conflagration in the middle east?

these are questions that must be answered. it is my view that the president does not have the authority for a war with iran. if he plans a large increase in troops and potential hostility over a longer time, the administration will require congressional approval and the approval of the american people. the president's decision may add to an already dangerous and difficult situation in the middle east. the risk of a much longer military engagement in the middle east is acute and immediate. this action may well have brought our nation closer to another endless war, exactly the kind of endless war the president promised he would not drag us into. as our citizens and those of our

allies evacuate iraq and troops prepare for retaliatory action, congress needs answers to these questions and others from the administration immediately. and the american people need answers as well. on impeachment, mr. president, the senate -- >> msnbc's garrett haake is on capitol hill with the latest on when the democratic leaders are going to get the intelligence briefings they're asking for. >> reporter: well, andrea, these briefings are starting today on something of an ad hoc basis. there is a staff briefing that was previously scheduled about the protests that have been going on in iraq. that briefing will now include information about this attack. also adam schiff, who is one of the first members who just happened to be back here today ahead of congress, so the house rejoining officially their business on tuesday, said he will receive a briefing today.

mitch mcconnell on the senate floor told those of us watching that just now he's trying to set up an all-senators classified briefing for early next week when folks get back. so they are trying to get folks up to speed even now, after the fact. that's not going to be good enough, particularly for democrats who are very frustrated to have been left in the dark on this process up until now. on the impeachment front, just to put a button on all this, you did hear mcconnell saying he's essentially not budging on democratic demands to guarantee witnesses up front. he wants to see this impeachment trial proceed in the same way the clinton trial did, starting with opening arguments, questions to the impeachment managers, defense by the president's counsel in this case, then he would entertain motions for witnesses or, he says, other relevant motions, which could be even to dismiss the trial, which is why what you just heard from mcconnell will not be good enough for democrats either. the impeachment impasse continues. >> garrett haake, on all subjects today, thank you so much.

meanwhile iran vowing to seek revenge against the united states after last night's american air strike killing one of the country's most powerful military leaders. joining me is retired four-star army general barry mccaffrey, helene cooper, "new york times" pentagon correspondent, and david ignatius, foreign chill t columnist for "the washington post." general mccaffrey, what are the risks, the plusses and minuses for what many are describing as the most conventional foreign policy decision america has made since invading iraq? >> yeah, no question, this was a major turning point. let me start by just saying you've got to feel really good and proud of both the intelligence services and special operations people that took out soleimani and several other senior leaders. very dangerous people. this is an appropriate response and what appeared to be a new

phase of attacks on either the embassy or americans in iraq. so i think it was a great move. now, having said that, mr. trump tweeting out an american flag, taking personal responsibility for it, escalates the situation in a very dangerous manner. i don't think they thought through it. there is almost no iraqi government. it imploded. so the 165,000 military people in the iraqi armed forces, we don't know what they'll do next. will we be ordered out of iraq? will they try and enforce it? we've got a small footprint tread all over the country. the embassy is clearly vulnerable. the iranians have a tactical advantage on the ground. so one brigade of the 82nd is not even remotely capable of defending our position in iraq.

our advantage is strategic air and naval power. but that means attacking iran directly. so i think the iranians are going to respond in some way. if it's a successful and striking attack on u.s. interests or senior military leaders, i would anticipate the persian gulf war will begin anew. >> that is an alarming forecast for anyone who knows the depth of iranian ability. helene cooper, you've been covering this for years as well. what is the administration's game plan? to go up against iran directly? >> that's the scary thing, andrea, is i'm not entirely sure there is a game plan at this point. the pentagon is still scrambling right now to tell a story of why

now. the "why now" is an essential question that the trump administration hasn't really explained. every single thing that they -- that the administration says general qasem soleimani has done, he has, and more. but he's been doing this for ten, 15 years. we've had a bead on this guy for more than a decade and we've tracked him and followed him for more than a decade. and both president bush and president obama made decisions not to assassinate him and not to strike him because they were afraid of where this could lead. president trump now has taken the opposite tack. and the question we now have is not just why he decided to do this now, because we still have not heard any specifics about any specific threats that will be coming down the line, but we also have not heard anything at all about any planning beyond the 3,500 additional troops that we're sending to kuwait. >> david ignatius, what do you see as the president's long term strategy here?

>> well, like general mccaffrey and helene, i'm troubled by all of the things we don't know about where the administration is going. until this strike, you would have said that president trump's strategy for iran was maximum economic pressure that would be punishing and would force iran eventually into negotiations for a new nuclear agreement and limits on its ballistic missiles, limits on its regional activities, things that many of our allies agree with us would be productive. that strategy has not been working. instead of drawing iran toward negotiations, it has pushed iran to a series of escalating attacks against the united states and its allies. and that's what brings to us the

point of, i believe, president trump deciding with the support of his secretary of state and secretary of defense, that we needed to be tougher, to take tougher action or iran would continue escalating, that they were seeing what has been trump's relative restraint as a sign of weakness. and so we have this extraordinary act, essentially of assassination of a military commander of another state, by a state, claiming credit for it. that's something new in warfare. where that goes depends on the ability of the united states to find ways to de-escalate the crisis. there's sure to be an iranian retaliation of some kind. how punishing will it be? the iranians will have to make some choices there. they're more vulnerable than they pretend. we're obviously taking steps to

get our people out of harm's way where we can in iraq and the middle east, but there's only so much you can do. i think we're now in the situation where each side is going to have to think very carefully about risks and benefits of going further. >> and david, you're making the exact point that actually helene made in part of what she wrote today, which is that the trump administration officials were worried, among the president's senior advisers, that mr. trump had indicated so many times that he did not want a war with iran, that tehran had become convinced the united states would not act forcibly. there has been an erratic quality to the president's comments, in fact in one comment on new year's eve saying if there were war with iran, he said that they would regret it and at the same time saying but i don't want war, i want peace. general mccaffrey, has the president sent so many mixed signals that iran took advantage and escalated, and we've seen the escalation of iranian

misbehavior, including at the saudi oil fields where there was very little u.s. reaction? >> yeah, i honestly don't believe there is any coherent strategy by this administration to deal with iran. by the way, all generals can be easily replaced. soleimani getting killed does not in any way -- it should not be interpreted as anything more than a provocative act. it is not going to change the capability of the iranians. as david ignatius said, we've put them in an economic box. they've got to get out of it. they're using military strikes through surrogates. the next step up on their part will be to go directly after u.s. forces. they have a huge capacity to absorb punishment. there were a million dead during the iran/iraq eight-year war. i think we should understand we're heading into uncertain ground. the iranians are not going to

like a war by the u.s. air force and navy against iran proper. and neither are the american people. so i think mr. trump is probably marching boldly ahead without having throughout through any of this. >> general barry mccaffrey, thank you so much. helene cooper and david ignatius, i'm grateful to all of you for your insights today, thank you very much indeed. coming up, on alert. the 2020 candidates responding to the escalation of tensions with iran as possible war becomes the hot topic on the campaign trail today. stay with us. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. ♪ limu emu & doug

hour 36 in the stakeout. as soon as the homeowners arrive, we'll inform them that liberty mutual customizes home insurance, so they'll only pay for what they need. your turn to keep watch, limu. wake me up if you see anything. [ snoring ] [ loud squawking and siren blaring ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

and we have fresh reaction from the candidates, the democrat democratic candidates against the strike that killed one of iran's top general including this video from bernie sanders. >> i am doing everything i can to prevent a war with iran. if you think the war in iraq was a disaster, my guess is the war in iran would be worse. >> bernie sanders who is on the

trail there in north conway, no, ma' new hampshire. this is a moment for joe biden who's been making of course such an argument about his foreign policy experience. >> yes, absolutely, andrea. with one month to go here in this eiowa caucus campaign. if they see this attack from his opponents as evidence of what they are feeling, he's in a strong position now especially even winning here. for a candidate like joe biden, this development in iraq with the death of soleimani presenting an opportunity for him. his ability to be president and commander in chief on day one. we heard him speak moments ago beginning with saying listen no one mourns the loss of soleimani

here. he deserves to be brought to justice. he says the president's action is a latest of the string of dubious action that raises the threat of war. let's take a listen to the former vice president. >> the new administration says the goal of killing soleimani was to deter future attacks by iran. the action is certainly have the opposite impact. >> does donald trump have a plan now for this going forward? he warned of the risk of multiple attacks using multiple methods in multiple locations in the coming weeks ahead. he pivoting back to the race, a strong response where he said, the next president is going to be inheriting a country divided and a world of disarray, this is

not as time for on the job train. hitting hard on that argument here in iowa with one month left. >> vaughan hilliard in new hampshire, the first primary state with pete buttigieg. vaughan? >> reporter: exactly, andrea. pete buttigieg just wrapped his remarks here. he's about to make his way to talk to dozens of reporters or so. he made it clear that if the united states have learned anything the last 20 years is that removing the bad guy without a plan for what comes next is a bad idea. this is a little of what he said on stage >> one thing i am certain of right now is this. this must not be the beginning of another endless war. >> pete buttigieg serves for seven months in afghanistan as an intelligence raindrop raoper.

it is important for americans to understand the coming days to understand what extent our allies made aware and congress made aware. it is important for america to understand whether this was a strategic decision or carelessness. >> vaughan and mike have reactions from members of the other candidates, elizabeth warren tweeting all three of her brothers served in the military and the last thing we needed was another middle east war. it is another big topic on the campaign trail as we are just about a month left before the iowa caucuses, the first voting in 2020. mike, joe biden's next stop in iraq and rather in iowa speaking about what's going on in iraq and iran. >> reporter: yes, absolutely. this was supposed to be a day, andrea, about the endorsement of congressman abby as she joins him for the first time today. an economic argument of his middle class roots saying they

share those. all these candidates have their closing arguments. that i have a careful plan. what we have seen the last 24 hours is how events transpire that can set those plans. i have been in iraq with him and you travel overseas with him. this is something he can only lead into harder and helps him with vote rs here. >> indeed. i was in fact at that embassy in baghdad, over the walls and landed by the vice president's regime. they denied anything happening. did you see that thing hitting right here me. the vice president characteristically confirmed something that was denied by local officials. vaughan hillyard and mike, thank you so much from the campaign trail, we'll be right back. from

trail, we'll be right back when it comes to using data, everyone is different.

which is why xfinity mobile is a different kind of wireless network that lets you design your own data.

choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to other top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, unwrap $250 off a new samsung phone. click, call or visit a store today. thanks for being with us, i am andrea mitchell in washington. here is "velshi & ruhle," stephanie and ali. thank you, andrea. we continue with the air strike that killed one of the most powerful people in that country. more than 3,000 u.s. troops are now headed to the region with