prosecute the nazis in nuremberg. their values are why i walked away from my business, took the giving pledge to give my money to good causes, and why i spent the last ten years fighting corporate insiders who put profits over people. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. because, right now, america needs more than words. we need action.

good morning, everything, i'm yasmin vossoughian along with ayman mohyeldin in new york at msnbc world headquarters. you're watching special coverage following the u.s. air strike that took out qassem soleimani. we have all the latest developments from the middle east to washington, d.c. in baghdad, a funeral for an iraqi militia commander is wrapping up with thousands of mourners marching and chants anti-america slogans. iraq's prime minister made a personal appearance at the funeral amid reports iraq is

reconsidering its relationship with the united states. the u.s. has ordered all citizens to leave iraq and closed its embassy in baghdad. iran has threatened harsh retaliation. president trump and his advisers are following up his actions with more tough talk. >> qassem soleimani has been killed, and his bloody rampage is now forever gone. i don't know if you know what was happening, but he was planning a very major attack, and we got him. >> one of the things i've heard today from some who have criticized president trump, which i find odd, but the criticism has been there's no strategy. that's willful blindness. there's been a deep strategy that president trump laid down, now goodness almost three years ago. we've been delivering against that strategy. >> if you come after us again, we're coming after you again, and if you up the ante, you better be concerned about your oil fields. president trump is going to put

you out of the oil business if you continue to try to kill americans. >> so we're looking at the fallout from the killing of soleimani from all angles. we have a lot to cover this morning. we start at the top of this hour with nbc news correspondent cal perry. he reports to us where u.s. central command has its headquarters. we have matt bradley in tel aviv, that we will get to in just a moment. let me start by asking a question i asked christopher dickey last hour. that's where the arab countries that are allied with the united states find themselves this morning. obviously many of them have very close relationships with the united states, but many of them also don't necessarily want a full out war with iran knowing that they would be among the most vulnerable in any potential full-blown war. >> reporter: yeah, and i think qatar where i am today is at the top of that list. this is a country that is both geographically and politically in the middle.

they house that huge massive -- the biggest u.s. military base in the middle east housing some 10,000 to 12,000 u.s. personnel. it's about a 30-minute drive from where i am now. which is why we're seeing the first diplomatic activity originating from this country, the foreign minister is on the ground in tehran. he has just met with foreign minister zarif of iran. we understand that that conversation was largely based around the qatar ree's urging the iranians to take restraint and to maintain stability. this is a country that wants to host the world cup in two years. we heard that the u.s. men's soccer team has recently canceled a training visit here in qatar, so the qatari's are desperate to pump the brakes on any sort of iranian military response. it also sort of is indicative of the iranians being able to take their time and consider a possible response. we see these pictures coming out of baghdad, these massive

crowds, the funeral underway for qassem soleimani. certainly there will be for the iranian population a desire to respond, but in the next few days, of course, it seems like the focus is going to be on a funeral. as you sort of say, these countries want stability. they thrive on stability. the economy of the world in large part comes through this part of the world, through the persian gulf. a quarter of the world's oil consumption travels right behind me in the waterway, and these are packed waterways with not only iranian boats but the u.s. fifth fleet. for bahrain and oman and qatar, i think the priority this weekend is to urge restraint. something we usually hear from washington. >> there were more reports last night of another attack on iranian backed troops on northern iraq. coalition forces saying they were not necessarily behind that attack. what does this say about the state of the region right now? >> i think it says it's on a

knife's edge, and certainly iraq is going to be the focal point for now, and you saw that in sort of the reporting of an air strike, which now we understand as you've sort of laid out did not take place. tensions are incredibly high, not just in iraq but in syria and lebanon as well. when you talk about these iranian proxies, we're going to be looking at lebanon and of course israel where matt bradley is reporting from. that could be a focal point. we'll hear later today from the secretary general of hezbollah. hezbollah is probably the most powerful iranian proxy. it is incredibly influential not just in lebanon but in the region as well. this air strike that we heard reports of earlier today in northern iraq turned out not to be true because i think people are really sort of frightened as to what the next step is, and i think they're wondering how far the u.s. is willing to take this. i don't think anybody expected the u.s. to assassinate qassem soleimani. he was seen as a man who was untouchable because nobody really knew what the

repercussions would be of killing such a senior member of the iranian government, frankly. so i think for iraqis, you know, and we're talking about countries we should be very clear about this, that have lost generations due to conflict in syria and in iraq, and these people are waking up today wondering if they're staring another conflict in the face. it's really the civilians. we talk so often about u.s. troops and their coming under fire, and we should mention 3,500 u.s. troops are on their way to kuwait as the u.s. continues to build its military presence. it is so often the civilians in iraq and syria and lebanon that pay the price for not only these political decisions but these military decisions as well. >> i don't think anybody expected the killing of qassem soleimani, i think you can especially say the iranians. >> thanks so much, my friend. appreciate it. while many are criticizing the president for the killing of soleimani, some are supporting his decision, including israeli

prime minister benjamin netanyahu. >> just as israel has the right of self-defense, the united states has exactly the same right. qassem soleimani is responsible for the death of american citizens and many other innocent people. he was planning more such attacks. president trump deserves all the credit for acting swiftly, forcefully, decisively. >> and in iraq, americans are being told to leave the country, heightened alerts are in place in pakistan, kuwait, lebanon and bahrain following the president's latest move. nbc news correspondent matt bradley is joining us live from tel aviv. these u.s. embassies have a heightened state of awareness after we well know after the killing of soleimani. talk to us about the state of affairs right now in israel. >> obviously the israeli defense forces are always on a state of high alert. israel is uniquely vulnerable, not just because it's been a historic enemy not just of iran, it's also it has on one of its

borders hezbollah, and hezbollah is one of the cat's paws of the iranian regime. it's unique because it's so powerful. it has a stake in the lebanese government, and it has an all singing, all dancing militia group that really rivals the size and the ve rferocity of a national military. that's right on the northern borders of israel here. that i could be in a very good position to strike against israel. you know, it needs to be said again and again, hezbollah is the model that qassem soleimani has helped to create of all of the different militia groups that iran has throughout the entire region, hezbollah is by fared stro far the strongest and has been one of the most effective. hezbollah is facing its own problems domestically. it's facing protests because of its influence in the lebanese government, and these have been going on for months and months and really brought the lebanese economy almost to a standstill.

so hezbollah might decide this is a perfect opportunity to try to burnish its credentials within lebanon by attacking israel. because hezbollah's entire reason for being is it has base kp ically a defensive posture against israel. it says time and time again they are the ones defending lebanon and the wider arab world from israeli aggression. they might use this as a moment to strike against israel and to once again remind the public in lebanon and elsewhere why they're there, why they're armed, and why they have such a big stake in the lebanese government. >> matt bradley, we want to cross over to iran now and bring in our correspondent, good to have you with us on the phone. obviously all eyes in the world are on tehran this morning to see what the next steps are, and obviously the country right now is in a state of mourning for the next three days. more interesting are the statements coming out from the incoming quds force commander. that is a telling sign of where

the mind-set is in iran this morning. talk to us more about where you see this going from the iranian perspective, from the iranian regime's perspective rather. >> hi ayman, that's right. all the rhetoric coming out of iran right now from the supreme leader ayatollah ali khamenei is very, very tough talk. it's talk of revenge. . it's talk of severe revenge after taking out the main person here, but it's also talk about calibrated revenge, ayman. iran is saying they are not going to make some sort of knee-jerk reaction to the assassination of qassem soleimani, that this is going to be very carefully planned. it's going to be calibrated, and it's going to be a strong strike against the united states. obviously they're not showing their cards as to what or when they want to do this. they're going to keep the united states anxious as to when they're going to plan this, but they are planning something, and

they have to plan something ayman. if they don't, they are going to look weak. they've released a lot of tough talk over the last few days. the second most powerful man in the country has been assassin e assassinated, so they are almost obliged to strike some sort of retribution against the united states. otherwise they will look weak, and that's not the policy in iran anymore to look weak. they tried to hold back when donald trump pulled out of the nuclear deal. they tried to adhere to the deal. they didn't do anythiwant to do anything to cause any emotion. the powers that be in this country figured out that, you know, that strategy did not work, so we have to negotiate from a position of position of strength, and that strength is showing that they can strike back at the united states. that could involve a whole host of options, ayman, that iran has at its disposal. iran does not want to get involved in some sort of c

conventional war with the united states because you know, airplane for airplane, war boat for war boat they are no match for the u.s. army, but iran has built through qassem soleimani a network of incredibly powerful militias throughout this region that could wreak havoc. they are masters in asymmetrical warfare. they are equipped to fight asymmetrically very well. that could be one option for them, and they wouldn't even have to use actual iranian armed forces. they would use their militias to conduct something like that. they also have a whole host of targets here, not only u.s. bases and u.s. warships in the persian gulf and embassy, but there are tankers that we've seen that were hit. there are allies that could be hit that belong to the united states, that the united states is almost responsible to protect in these times. so it's a very vulnerable area

for america that iran has a lot of options in. they also have the option of a cyber attack, they're technologically very savvy here. they've done that before to saudi arabia and the united states. they're sitting here planning exactly what the next move is going to be in their retaliation with the united states. but i can tell you there is a palpable sense of anger here amongst the ruling establishment, and they're not going to let this lie. >> hey, ali, this is yasmiyasmi thank you so much for calling in. we appreciate it and bringing us this analysis. if there was -- we know historically from the early 2000s there was a major fracture in the power structure of iran, whether it was from the election to the signs of the jcpoa. when the jcpoa was signed the supreme leader disagreed with the president in negotiating with the united states in coming to that agreement. is that fracture essentially now

obliterated? is iran and the power structure now reunified? >> yes, i think so. i think there's no question here anymore of any negotiation with the united states. they have closed ranks over this. look, yasmin, from iran's point of view, they're saying we have swallowed a very bitter pill to negotiate with the united states over the jcpoa. they negotiated the jcpoa, they signed the document, they signed the contract, and they adhered t to that deal. what happened after the next president came in, iran said they abided by the deal. they got clobbered by sanctions. the united states waged a financial war against iran, and then they killed the second top guy in the country. there is no point in negotiating with america anymore, even, i think, it's sad to say that iran will go as far as to say if another president came after

donald trump who is very pro-iran, and wanted to give iran a great deal and return back to the jcpoa and give them everything they wanted, iran would be reluctant even to go down that road because they're saying what happens when the next guy comes along. are they just going to rip up the deal we made with them? there is absolutely no trust left. they've closed ranks here, skan the usa is not somebody they can do business with anymore. they've been very clear about that through all of the rhetoric that has come out since the assassination of qassem soleimani. so i think we have now entered a whole new phase in an already incredibly difficult relationship between washington and tehran that's become very unpredictable. >> ali, i know you have to go, but before you go i want to ask you one question, it was a point that christopher dickey brought up. this was about the issue of humiliation and treatment. are we about to head to war in

iran, and i want you to give a perspective if you can about the sense in iran. do iranians feel that they have been at war with the united states for the better part of the 40 years that this islamic revolution has taken place? they have been under economic sanctions. they've obviously been under a tremendous amount of pressure and now a targeted assassination of one of their top generals. what is the view of ordinary iranians when they look across the region as to what is happening on their borders, the american military presence in the region, and that general perspective about whether or not they are constantly under attack? >> there's a genuine sense of fear here, ayman. anybody you talk to here, i mean, as soon as people heard about the deaths of qassem soleimani, loathe him or love him, there was a fear that there would be retribution here, that maybe this was a step too far by the united states, and the reality is, ayman, that iran and america potentially have been locked in a cold war for 40 years, and that has varying

degrees of pressure over those years. there's been times when it's been very bad skmr, and there's times like over the jcpoa where it's calmed down and there's been some sort of talk between them. this is probably the worst phase we've seen between iran and america, and that's why people in iran are genuinely worried what the next move by both sides would be and what the ramifications of that move would be. don't forget, iranians who are very young generation here have -- a lot of them have witnessed that bloody eight-year war with iraq that cost well over a million lives. nobody here in that country wants that, and that was with iraq, let alone with america, with you know, the sort of fire power america has. iranians are genuinely worried that, you know, massive missiles will start landing in major cities in iran and take out, you know, large numbers of people or

the infrastructure in the country, and that's not what they want. they just want to get on with their lives, but every day over the last two and a half years we've seen something to ratchet up the tension between washington and tehran, and that's kept iranian people completely on edge for 40 years and especially now over the last two and a half years. >> ali arouzi, our tehran bureau chief live for us in iran this morning. as iran's supreme leader vows a harsh revenge over the killing of soleimani, the one big question on the minds of leaders across the globe is how will iran respond. former deputy national security adviser to president george w. bush and msnbc analyst, and an msnbc contributor as well. great to have you join this conversation. first, let me get your perspective on where you see the situation this morning, and i know a lot of people are putting the analysis to we don't know what is going to happen next, but in the calculus, and i know

that you sat in on these national security meetings before, you've been in a position, i'm sure, where people brought to various administrations the possibility of taking out qassem soleimani. give us the calculation as to why in the past the u.s. did not take that decision and why they decided to do it with trump from your analysis? >> good morning. i think this soleimani was not only a key figure in the iranian government, but he was the chief proponent and grand master of the -- of the external malign activity strategy for the regime. soleimani created the proxy forces. he was the main strategist behind the creation of the iranian crescent, that is the area of geography between iran through the middle east all the way to the mediterranean, and i think in the past he had been seen as untouchable to a certain extent, not because the u.s. couldn't get at him but because he was a senior government

official and one who was working within the confines and constructs of the iranian military, even though he was running the quds force, the external forces for the revolutionary guard. i think what happened here in the calculus, and what i can read in the tea leaves is not only had the iranians been pushing the bounds of conflict and proxy war too far with the attacks on the u.s. embassy, with attacks on bases where americans were based, but you had a series of attacks on saudi oil installations, the straits of hormuz, a number of other attacks, use of missiles by the houthis, hamas, others, that had begun to push the bounds of that war, and soleimani was the chief proponent and general behind that. and what strikes me is that we got to a moment not only where the u.s. was feeling that that -- those boundaries were being pushed too far, but that he was behind something that was

going to be bigger and more significant in terms of putting u.s. interests at risk, and i think in the context of the trump administration strategy of trying to pressure as much as possible the iranian regime, the sense that the iranians are on their back heels with protests against their presence in lebanon and iraq, pressure internally in iran and pressure economically due to the sanctions pressure, this was probably seen as a moment to strike and one that was not only a tactical moment but potentially even strategic. it has all of these implications that are very hard to determine now, but i think the trump administration with a maximum pressure strategy and mentality saw this as an opportunity to prevent an attack and a series of attacks but also to pressure strategically. that's, i think, what the thinking was. i think that's what was different than in the past. >> do you believe it is incumbent on this administration to show the evidence as to what

led them to this decision? >> i think there is going to be a major debate around this, in part because the legal justification, the domestic justification is that this was an act of self-defense in essence, and you've heard that from the administration using the term this was an imminent attack. that then gives under international law, under principles of self-defense, a country the right to act against individuals. it also moves the needle, and this is, again, different than in the past. it moves the needle from where we've been in attacking terrorist leaders for example, for al qaeda or the islamic state to attacking the terrorist sponsor leaders of a state like qassem soleimani. and so we have now moved the boundaries of what that looks like, and so i do think that there is going to be pressure both domestically and internationally to lay out what the evidentiary is for what qassem soleimani was planning on

doing in addition to laying out all the things that he's done in such horrible fashion in the past. so i think that will absolutely be a part of the debate in the coming days. >> christopher, did the united states make a miscalculation per iran's response? when you're hearing from the national security adviser that iran has two roads to take. they can take revenge, which would be bad for the regime, bad for the country, could mean an all out war, or they could come to the table. they could negotiate. they could act as a normal country. they could act as north korea did exactly. >> send love letters to the president. >> we know things have gone really well with north korea. >> exactly. >> as we heard from ali arue she that's not happening. iran's not coming to the table even if you have a new president in place. it's not happening. >> no, it's not happening. let's step back and look at the question from the iranian point of view. they want to guarantee their national security. part of their strategy was the strategy of the near abroad if you will, building up militias, building up a presence in the neighboring countries. but if you can't do that or if that's not enough, what do you

do to guarantee your national security? you need a deterrent to american power if you're iran, and what is that deterrent? nuclear weapons. i think we are much closer to the complete end of the jcpoa agreement than we were three or four days ago. i don't -- i think the europeans are going to find it almost impossible to persuade iran to stay in the jcpoa. it wouldn't be surprising if the next thing you see will be a withdrawal of the u.n. inspectors who are part of that agreement, and once that happens, we are on a road toward a nuclear weapon for iran. how will trump respond to that? that is when we really are on the verge of war, a major war. >> how will trump respond to that in an election year. >> how will israel respond to that as well. >> thank you both, appreciate it. let's go back to iraq for a moment, the u.s. embassy in baghdad is embraciining -- nbc'

chief foreign correspondent richard engel is back with us for another few minutes. let's pick up on the point we were talking here with juan as well as christopher dickey, and that is iraq today wakes up, finds itself in this very difficult position. how compelled are iraqis to try and expel americans, the american forces, the american presence there as a result of this strike? a lot of people are saying this is a violation of iraqi sovereignty. you spoke to the iraqi president who expressed reservations and fears about where the region is going to. this morning there is growing anger against the americans. >> reporter: wise words from christopher dickey, and i hope they're not prophetic, but i think he's probably right. if iran fears that it is losing its protective shield around it, if it's losing the control of the militias that it had hear in

iraq, the militias that are out on the streets, if it fears it doesn't have the same degree of influence over hezbollah or other proxies, then to ensure the existence of the islamic revolution, this 40-year experiment, it could very well go and pursue a nuclear weapon and rip up the deal that it felt so cheated in being forced to sign or in having agreed to sign i should say. what happens to iraq? this country is divided about the iranian presence here. there are today on the streets you're seeing tens of thousands of shia protesters and shiite militias expressing support for qassem soleimani, expressing support for the other shia militia groups, but if you roll back the videotape a few days ago, you saw also thousands of protesters on the streets who were protesting against iran. many of them shia themselves. they were saying that iran has

treated iraq for the last couple of decades really since the 2003 invasion as a puppet state, that qassem soleimani and others have been able to come in here and bribe iraqi politicians, bully the iraqi army, create security forces at will, arm them at will, move weapons in and out of this country at will, and treated iraq as if it was somehow subject to the will and the whims of tehran. so tehran is in a precarious position. it has supporters here. we're seeing them, but it has many people who don't want this continued what they feel is an iranian boot on their throat, and that makes iran very nervous, and when iran gets very nervous as christopher dickey was saying, it could arm itself with the ultimate weapon. >> richard engel thank you so much for this, appreciate it. want to go to florida now where the president is spending the weekend.

hans nichols is standing by for us there. talk to us about the latest coming out of the white house this morning? >> reporter: well, the president's waking up. he's already up here in mar-a-lago ready to hit iran if they decide to retaliate for the killing of soleimani. the president's insisting, and this is some of the tension in the president's rhetoric, he's insisting that he doesn't want regime change but if he's forced to act they've already identified specific targets. president donald trump topping off a florida campaign event by touting the death of a notorious iranian military leader. >> qassem soleimani has been killed and his bloody rampage is now forever gone. >> reporter: defending the drone strike that killed him as an act of self-defense. >> he was planning a very major attack, and we got him. >> reporter: earlier insisting that he ordered the strike to stop a war, not start one, but still warning of repercussions if iran retaliates.

>> we have all of those targets already fully identified. >> reporter: meanwhile, the pent gone announcing the deployment of 3,500 troops from the 82nd airborne, some already en route to the region. the targeted killing provoking criticism from congress as lawmakers complained they weren't told of the strike in advance. >> what's the intelligence behind that, and what comes now? >> reporter: democratic senator mark warner telling nbc news he worries about dangerous consequences for americans in the middle east. >> all that anger in the region will be now directed against america rather than against iran. >> reporter: but senate majority leader mitch mcconnell defending the president's actions. >> countless innocents have suffered for it. now his terrorist leadership has been ended. >> reporter: and on the campaign trail, praise as 2020 front runner joe biden heralded the

death of soleimani. >> no american mourns his passing. >> reporter: while expressing concerns about regional repercussions. >> and there's no doubt that iran will, in fact, respond. >> reporter: other top democratic candidates expressing their worries of a major conflict in the middle east. >> this must not be the beginning of another endless war. >> reporter: now, congress comes back to town in the next week. the white house says they're going to plan classified briefings for lawmakers that may include the gang of eight. it may include others, but they're willing to share more intelligence. now, there was some briefings, there were some briefings yesterday, but lawmakers are pretty skeptical. we heard it from congressman adam schiff saying that he wasn't convinced, so this all comes down to how imminent the threat was, how instant it was. whether or not there were any other options. the chairman of the joint chief of staffs, mark milley, he briefed reporters yesterday. he said he was convinced and that there was a cost for not

acting, so we could end up having a debate about intelligence but that's of course all after the fact, not before it. >> hans nichols live for us with the president in florida. thanks, hans. joining us a security fellow with the truman national security project and professor for peace and development at the university of maryland and a non-resident senior fellow in the saban center at brookings. i'm going to start with you shibley on all of this. we're hearing from you for the first time on all of this. i want to get your reaction to the killing of soleimani and if you feel like it was the right direction to take for the united states. >> well, you know, there's no question that soleimani had blood on his hands, american blood on his hands. the question's all about repercussions and consequences. i think this creates a situation of a slippery slope, a slope toward confrontation even if both iran and the u.s. want to avoid it. i think it's not just a strategic decision.

this was a symbol of iran's clout in the region. they feel they have to do something, and they have to do something very major in order to retalia retaliate, but this is also an emotional blow because he was very close to so many of iran's leadership, including the supreme leader and also to regional actors like hezbollah's nasaralo. even though the iranians are known to be calculating, they take their time, they show strategic patience, they deliberate. in some ways the anticipation, the waiting, the patience is part of the punishment because imagine all of the american forces that are preparing, they don't know where it's going to come anywhere in the middle east there could be retaliated against a diplomatic mission. that's part of the punishment in some ways. the emotional part makes this entirely unpredictable, and i think we've always worried about the slippery slope knowing that

both sides want to avoid war, and this could be one of those instances that are unpredictable that could lead where no one wants to go. >> i do follow and track a lot of your work about public sentiments and attitudes across the arab world as well in the region. do you get a sense from your data from the research you've conducted that the arab world views itself in a state of war with iran, that countries in the gulf want to see this type of escalation, and give us a sense of what you think the public sentiment is in the region about where these types of attacks land? >> well, let's start with the fact that soleimani was a sectarian player. he wasn't just a major iranian player, but he was of course meddling in arab affairs in sectarian ways. he was preying on sectarianism, he was mobilizing sectarian in iraq and syria and lebanon. let's put the strategic picture in perspective. across the arab world outside of

iraq, there's no question that the public opinion in the arab world basically blames the u.s. more than they blame iran, and over the years in public opinion polls i have done and others have done show when you ask people to rank who the top enemy is for them, they rank the u.s. heye higher, and they blame the u.s. for the iraq wars. this has shifted the blame that was already emerging towards iran. iran is not contaexactly loved e arab world but blame more towards the u.s. >> i want to pick up on a point that shibley brought up which is the emotional response. i want you to play that out and how that adds a different calculus to iran's response in that soleimani was incredibly close to the supreme leader, and as we've talked about earlier he was revered amongst hard line government circles. >> well, he was revered in hard line government circles, and also he was a unifying figure

for the entire spectrum of the iranian government. they're all going to pay their respects to his family. their response to his death while you would think there would be a knee-jerk emotional response, iran can ill afford a knee-jerk emotional response because of what we discussed before. the u.s. has escalation dominance blow for blowg, gun fr gun against iran. the response has to be calcul e calculating. it has to be strategic. it has to send a message within iran that his death was avenged. however, it cannot be such a knee-jerk response where a u.s. counter attack or counter reprisal will put iran in a worse position than it was before. >> do you think that this -- we know it's a setback for the iranians for sure, and obviously the new general has come in. he's been announced, so there is that ability for the revolutionary guard to replenish its leadership quickly in

experience and battle hardened, but do you think this has set back iran's calculation of how they operate in the region? that now the next general as he travels abroad could be a target and we could see a pace of acceleration of these types of killings? >> i don't think it changes iran's regional posture or regional calculus at all. he is one man. there's a long line of people in iran that are ready to replace him. are they going to be as effective, as charismatic as soleimani? we don't know. probably not. he was unique in iranian military circles. however -- >> and he's been there for an incredibly long time. >> and he's been there for a long time, and he's built a network, an occultive personality around himself. however, moving forward you're going to see iranian officials moving around the region more cautious, much more careful. the fact that the u.s. was able to penetrate that inner sanctum

of the iranian leadership and the iraqi leadership and targ targeted soleimani with such ease. >> we talked about about that repeatedly how it was incredibly brazen of soleimani to be there a couple of days after the storming of the u.s. embassy in iraq, and that says in and of itself what iran thought and their calculus with regard to the facts he wasn't a target. >> i can't help wonder if they will recalibrate their internal movings. if they've gone after the number two guy, could they go after other senior members. >> they're going to calibrate the way they're communicating. that is for sure. >> thank you so much. so house speaker nancy pelosi says that the air strike that killed soleimani was carried out with consultation or approval from congress. >> we're going to be joined by a senior member of the foreign affairs committee. we'll be right back. my gums are irritated.

i don't have to worry about that, do i? harmful bacteria lurk just below the gum line. crest gum detoxify, voted product of the year. it works below the gum line to neutralize harmful plaque bacteria and help reverse early gum damage. gum detoxify, from crest. it's not getting in my way.? i had enough! joint pain, swelling, tenderness... ...much better. my psoriasis, clearer... cosentyx works on all of this. four years and counting. so watch out.

i got this! watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are feeling real relief with cosentyx. cosentyx is a different kind of targeted biologic. it treats the multiple symptoms of psoriatic arthritis to help you look and feel better. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability... ...to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen... ...or if you've had a vaccine, or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i just look and feel better. i got real relief with cosentyx. watch me! feel real relief. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. fine, no one leaves the tablefine, we'll sleep here. ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win.

welcome back. developing this morning, several democratic lawmakers expressing concerns the u.s. strike that killed iran general soleimani was carried out without congressional approval. >> but the president's national security adviser robert o'brien is responding to that telling reporters it was a fully authorized action that is consistent with president trump's constitutional abilities as commander in chief. joining us here on set new york representative gregory meeks, a democratic member of the house foreign affairs committee. great to have you with us this morning. lots to get to here. yesterday the state department put out a statement mike pompeo has been saying that there was an imminent attack against american forces. this was strictly self-defensive in nature. as a member of congress, do you believe this administration? >> no, i don't. they would have to show me something differently because number one, the credibility of

this president who has continually lied for me, talking about me now, by the "washington post" estimate over 15,000 times, and he's flip-flopped, and he has shown no policy with reference to the middle east. i've been in congress long enough to remember the vote on iraq when there was an imminent threat, and though i felt and voted no on iraq, there was the opportunity to try to see what that imminent threat was. there was the sharing of information of what they thought the imfreminent threat was befo there was this strike. i don't believe in preemptive strikes just as it is because to take out as we did here one person doesn't mean that it's going to change anything. you can get one bad person, i should say, because no one says one bad person, doesn't mean you're going to get three bad people back, and it doesn't do anything to resolve the issue or calm the situation that is taking place in the middle east.

in fact, it probably does just the opposite as we see now. there's got to be some panic and concern in the white house. why do i say that? because now you see how many troops that he's trying to place into the area. now we have problems with the iraqi government as to this strike that took place on their sovereign property. now we don't know and have problems with some of our own allies who don't know what's going to take place in the region, both european and arab. it has caused a bigger mass of concerns and the president has a lot to prove to me to show there was an imminent threat of the nature that would cause him to commit or to strike in the manner that he did. >> if you're not buying the white house's line that there was an immediate threat, an imminent threat, why do you think they struck now? >> well, listen, i want to deep dive into that. it is my hope that it's not

involving with reference to impeachment. i hope that's not why he did it, although, you know, now the topic of impeachment would have been just impeachment when we went back to washington, now we're talking about something else. i hope it's not what had been a strategic plan of his since he became president of the united states because initially he -- the first thing he did was pull out of the nuclear agreement with our partners. then putting on the sanctions and then continuing to do what he had to do or what he said he was going to do to push iran to the edge. and now we have what's going on the so-called preemptive strike that now puts us on the verge, i believe, of war and not coming to congress, not giving us any information, not trying to show evidence of why this is of such urgency. it raises concerns, particularly

with this president. >> all right, so given all the questions that you raised and as you mentioned, this president is notorious for hiding facts. he doesn't want to cooperate with any of the impeachment stuff. he's not sharing information with the internal communications about the issue of ukraine. do you think congress has the responsibility, your party is obviously in the leadership position here, should they be investigating? should they investigate and open investigations into why and how the united states carried out this strike based on information that has not been presented to the public? >> i think that's our obligation, you know. it was my obligation, one of the toughest decisions i had to make in my 21 years in congress is whether to vote for or against the war in iraq, and i took the time to try to get information and move forward to do that so that i could make a proper assessment for the individuals that i represent. it is my obligation now to look and try to get the facts as to why this strike took place and whether or not there was an

imminent threat to the united states of america and/or some of our interests. and so that is my job. otherwise i'm not -- we are an equal, a separate but equal branch of government, not just to take, for example, you know, at a whim what a president, any president says. i did the same thing with barack obama, you know, when you talk about certain decisions he'd made or didn't make, it was my job not just because he was a democrat, because as a member of congress to be a check on the president, the executive branch of government. that was the case under bush. that was the case under obama, and that is definitely the case under trump. >> at what point is that decision made to launch a full-blown investigation into the strike on qassem soleimani? >> i think that starts now. >> are you getting the leadership of your party where that's where they want to take this? >> i think that you hear from

the leadership of my party and other members that -- >> what is the back and forth until that decision is made? >> well, i think the decision has been to get the facts of the matter. i think that the decision, that decision has been made already. i think that you see that the speaker and that the minority leader in the senate and others that were part of the big eight who were democrats who were not invited into the -- the dialogue and the conference to get the evidence of what took place, they are demanding and looking to do that right now, and i can guarantee there's a member of the foreign affairs committee when i get back washingtto washi will be talking to chairman ingle and i want to dive into the facts. i want to make sure we get into the pentagon as i did when we talked about imminent threats from iraq back in 2002 that i want to dig into, i think it's the responsibility of the foreign affairs committee to make sure that we get the facts. we understand what took place. that is the oath of office that i took, and i would not be doing

what my responsibilities are as a member of the foreign affairs committee in the united states congress if i didn't drive to get the facts. >> you have a lot on your table, my friend. you have a senate impeachment trial looming. you have a possible investigation into the killing of qassem soleimani, and you have an election. >> and we're only a couple of days into 2020. good luck to you in 2020. always a pleasure, thanks so much for joining us. game changer or not, we're going to talk about this opinion piece that said soleimani's death changes nothing for iran and that the iranian republic won't lose influence in the region. stay with us. your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get

when you've got wayfair. so shop now! what do we wburger...inner? i want a sugar cookie... wait... i want a bucket of chicken... i want... ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. if you listen to the political it sounds like we have a failed society. but nothing could be further from the truth. americans are compassionate and hardworking. we aren't failing. our politicians are failing. that's why i'm running for president. to end the corporate takeover of the government. and give more power to the american people. that's how we'll win healthcare, fair wages, and clean air and water as a right. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message.

♪ ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs for everyone you love. expedia. the american people should understand that iran is eager to establish peace and security. we do not want to do anything in contravention of international law. we are supporting dialogue, but at the same time, we cannot accept bullying.

so we want to be in peace with our neighbors. the united states is not our neighbor. >> that is a new reaction this morning from iran's ambassador to the united nations on the killing of general soleimani. in an interview with nbc news the ambassador messaged to the american people saying iran wants peace in the region but won't accept intimidation from the united states. joining us now is our guest. what do you make of those comments from the iranian ambassador yesterday? the signaling that iran is actually open to negotiations, we can just shelve that for the next couple years. >> oh, yeah. that is out of the question. i don't think any iranian can suggest that and survive domestically after the strike on qasem soleimani. i think the ambassador is trying to point out to americans and he is being interviewed on american television, that they are not in danger. iran does not have a problem with the american people. this is especially after bill de

blasio said they are ramping up security here, los angeles, the u.s. is sending troops to the middle east to protect americans, not necessarily american soldiers. i think that's the message. we don't have a problem with americans. we want peace. but you're in our neighborhood. get out. >> last week as i was covering the storming of the u.s. embassy in iraq the question i asked most was is iran betting the president will not act? and it seems as if that is exactly what they were doing. >> no, i think, perhaps, they may have been betting less before or betting more before and betting less now. certainly with john bolton as the national security adviser, this is someone who openly advocated war, bombing roirp. i think they continually felt under this administration especially with john bolton where he was and secretary pompeo there was always a chance there would be conflict. i think that's been clear. their calculations were always

that way. but i think after john bolton left perhaps they felt, and the signaling from the white house has always been contradictory. one day president trump says let's sit down and talk. let's do this. let's do that. almost begging, almost, at least in the last u.n. general assembly almost begging the iranian president to come and meet with him. at the same time saying, you better watch out. we're coming after you. so i think they're a sophisticated government. they're a sophisticated nation. they can read between the lines. but it is difficult for them to understand exactly where trump stands or the people around him stand. there are plenty of hawks who give advice to president trump, including think tanks in washington, d.c. the very far right or hawkish thinking. >> we've talked a lot about the fact that john bolton was an iran hawk, a proponent of war with iran and regime change but secretary of state mike pompeo we haven't necessarily talked about as frequently though he is

also an iran hawk. >> absolutely. >> historically has been so. >> from when he was a congressman, certainly, yes. and also let's not forget he was also a soldier. he went to west point. so he has a military background himself and kind of believes in military responses. at least it appears that way. >> throughout our coverage we've tried to put the spotlight on the protests inside iran over the last couple months, those pushing for reform and change internally. a lot of people say they want evolution not revolution in iran. i am curious to get your thoughts on where this pushes iran domestically going forward. if there was any hope of this kind of internal political fight between the moderates, reformers, hardliners, inside iran it is safe to say that has been totally shelved. >> at least temporarily for sure. qasem soleimani was seen as a bipartisan character. he was not involved despite what president trump and others have said about the protests in iran he was not involved domestically and most iranians know that. his mandate was foreign.

he was a foreign expeditionary force. it has no responsibility internally. it's always externally, which is why he's always traveling, he was always traveling between lebanon, syria, iraq, and iran, and afghanistan. so he's not seen as someone who was involved in putting down protests or anything like that. not the traditional revolutionary guard job. certainly temporarily there is a rally around the flag kind of mood right now in iran even among people opposed to the regime or at least this government. i think you'll see that dissipate a little bit over time. there is no question because people are still dissatisfied. the dissatisfaction hasn't gone away but imagine if you would if for example a foreign government particularly one that is an enemy of the u.s. or adversary were to assassinate someone that you don't like, like perhaps john bolton or perhaps secretary pompeo. what would americans feel? we would, i think all americans

would feel that would be an offense against -- >> nonetheless he was an iranian, nonetheless he was an american. >> exactly. the rally around the flag effect does happen. how long that will be for, i don't know. >> which speaks to the incredible amount of nationalism, patriotism that exists in iran. >> absolutely. >> as existed in almost every country but certainly in iran feeling as isolated as they are definitely it is very strong. >> all right. always a pleasure. thanks very much. >> appreciate it. ahead, unredacted e-mails become the focus of a new push for the witnesses in the president's impeachment trial. that's next, this morning on "up." hi dad. no. don't try to get up. hi, i'm julie, a right at home caregiver. and if i'd been caring for tom's dad, i would have noticed some dizziness that could lead to balance issues. that's because i'm trained to report any changes in behavior, no matter how small, so tom could have peace of mind.

we'll be right there. we have to go. hey, tom. you should try right at home. they're great for us. the right care. right at home. but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections.

needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". my grandparents that i never knew.ch about i'm a lawyer now, but i had no idea that my grandfather was a federal judge in guatemala. my grandfather used his legal degree and his knowledge to help people that were voiceless in his country. that put a fire in my heart. it made me realize where i got my passion for social justice. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com

here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.

we are all out of time for this hour of msnbc live. >> stay with us now for "up" with david gura. ♪ this is "up." i'm david gura. in iran this morning, mourning for qasem soleimani. we have new details on what led president trump to make the call to take out iran's top general something his predecessors decided not to do given the potential risks. as iran vows to retaliate there is growing fear of what happens next from world leaders and from members of congress, who say it is a decision leadership should have known about in advance. this morning, reaction from candidates trying to win the