u well know. good morning to all of you from msnbc headquarters in new york. high noon in the east, almost 9:00 in the west. welcome to "weekends with alex witt." we begin with breaking news following the killing of iran's top general, qasem soleimani. they're on the way, hundreds of more american troops from the army's 82nd airborne have left ft. bragg just a few hours ago, headed right for the middle east. it's, of course, part of the u.s. response to the heightened tensions with iran and iran's threats of harsh retaliation for the killing. in iraq, large crowds accompanying coffins have arrived in the holy city of najaf, where services will be held for an iraqi commander also killed in the air strike. then in tehran, diplomatic initiatives to ease tensions with a visit from the foreign minister from qatar, foreign ministers from europe and china. they also want to avoid any further escalation, but talks with u.s. allies have not gone the way secretary pompeo would like. >> frankly, the europeans haven't been as helpful as i wished that they could.

the brits, the french, the germans all need to understand that what we did, what the americans did saved lives in europe as well. this was a good thing for the entire world, and we are urging everyone in the world to get behind what the united states is trying to do. >> we have correspondents in various parts of the region to monitor the very latest developments. let's get into it right now and head to doha, qatar, where nbc's cal perry is on the ground. that's right near secentcom whe you are. cal, what's this i read, you sent an email about a bang that you heard? is there anything that you know about that could backfire? i mean -- >> yeah, not here in baghdad. so, reporting out of baghdad, eyewitnesses are saying they've heard an explosion in the green zone, which is in the vicinity of the u.s. embassy. the reason that i'm not going to report this fully is, one, it's baghdad. it could be anything, which is sort of what you're saying. and two, rocket attacks could be mortar attacks or indirect fire.

this is something that takes place, unfortunately, pretty frequently in iraq. so i don't know that it's anything yet. it's something we're keeping our eye on, because look, this region is on a knife's edge. it's a on a knife's edge because of that assassination attempt, because of what we've seen in the past few days. it's slowly ratcheting up. this is why the u.s. wants to get u.s. citizens out of iraq. they want to get them out of that embassy, because it's become a free fire zone again, alex. >> absolutely. so, you've got the coalition forces saying they didn't conduct air strikes following the report of the attack on the iranian-backed troops. that was in northern iraq. but look, this has got to say a lot about the tension in the region. >> reporter: yeah, absolutely. and this is why the qatari foreign minister is on the ground in tehran, meeting not only with the iranian foreign minister, but as well the iranian president. so many people in this region are waking up once again in fear. this is a region that relies on stability. you look at qatar, for example. this is a country that is literally geographically stuck

between both saudi arabia and iran. it houses a u.s. base about 30 minutes from here. some 10,000 u.s. troops on that base. and so, you have this instability that is now sort of permeating around the region. i think it's really important the way that we sort of frame how the u.s. is viewed in this region today. the u.s. is being viewed by many people as a rogue nation, as somebody that assassinated a member of the iranian government. let's be clear, the iranian government, the member of the iranian government, qasem soleimani, was a terrorist. he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of u.s. soldiers. he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of syrian civilians. that said, for iran, he was their envoy to the region. so, the question is now what happens next? what is the u.s. prepared to do? what is iran prepared to do? right now they're in a state of mourning, two more days where they will continue to mourn the death of seooleimani, where the

will continue to have the funeral. if you talk to people in the region, america is the rogue nation and iran is seemingly the restrained one. >> but you have a president who said the actions were not in effect to start a war, we want to stop a war. and yet, you have members of the 82nd airborne heading that way. do you know details of their deployment, where they will be going, what their assignment is? >> reporter: yes. those troops are going to be headed to kuwait. from kuwait, they will make their way into iraq. where in iraq is still unclear. the previous sort of 500 to 800 troops that were part of the rapid deployment, they went into kuwait and then directly into baghdad to protect the u.s. embassy, which again, we understand is not only potentially seeing some news tonight, but as you saw those protests sort of getting out of control, which is what thread to this assassination. so those troops will make their way through kuwait and then into iraq. once again, we're talking about a build-up of u.s. forces in the middle east, something that president trump vowed that he would not do, something that he said he wanted to avoid. and we're seeing exactly the

opposite. now, interestingly enough, you look at the persian gulf right behind me. this is where a quarter of the world's oil comes through. this is where iranian boats and u.s. boats are very close together. they're always trying to sort of deconflict. but when tensions are this high, and you have these iranian groups like hezbollah in southern lebanon, there's no telling what these groups can do. and keep in mind, qasem soleimani, the man who was assassinated, was the person who was in charge with communicating with these groups. he was the person who was really operationally in charge of what would happen if the u.s. laid out an attack. he's gone now. the question of command and control i think is a serious one for iran. >> okay, cal perry there under centcom in qatar. thank you. following all this, nbc chief foreign correspondent richard engel in erbil, iraq. richard, from what's been reported by you and others, you have iraqis shouting "death to america" not only because of the killing of the general but also the pro-iran/iraqi militia

commander. does this now lead more iraqis to support iran and join the pro-iranian forces? is that a legitimate concern? >> reporter: i think the divisions in this country are quite set, and the concern is that this killing will only make the divisions wider. there are people in iran, people in iraq, excuse me, who hated iran's presence, hated qasem soleimani, were genuinely celebrating that the americans killed him, and then there were the militias out on the streets and their supporters who thought that this was a horrible act and that it needs to be avenged with violence potentially taken against the embassy or some other targets. so, the real concerns in iraq is that the united states may have just condemned this country to another phase of the civil war, because there has been this tug-of-war between these two sides. there have been protests in iraq. they didn't get a lot of

attention in the west, but they certainly get a lot of attention in the middle east. there were protests for the last couple of months on the streets of baghdad where shia muslims were out on the streets, young people, sometimes teenagers and preteenagers were out on the streets at times facing gunfire, and they were there saying that iran has too much influence, that iran for years, since the 2003 invasion, has been treating iraq like a puppet, like some sort of vassell state. now you have the opposite. you have a counter swing of the pendulum, and you see after the assassination of qasem soleimani the people who like the iranian influence, who are benefiting from it, who are armed by iran out on the streets and showing their strength. so, there are a lot of iraqi leaders who are deeply concerned that more u.s. troops are coming in, that a new phase of the war is coming with the u.s. potentially finding itself at war with these shia militias.

already divisions exist in iraqi society and they know what that could mean for the fabric of the society. it could mean that it could be torn yet again. >> so richard, i want to ask you, massachusetts congressman seth moulton, who has served four tours of duty there overseas, he said that this is the biggest escalation that he has seen in the tensions with iran. and given your near full-time residency there in the area in any given hotspot at any given time, do you agree with that assessment? >> it is certainly an escalation. if it is the biggest escalation, i don't know. there's been so many seminole moments here. there was the entire arab spring. there was the collapse of libya. there was the collapse of egypt. it's hard to say that this is the biggest moment. it certainly is a turning point. it's a turning point because qasem soleimani, as cal was just describing earlier, controlled a network of militias, not just in iraq but in lebanon, in syria, in afghanistan even, and that

network has been damaged. its leader has been attacked. now the u.s. is sending more troops into the region. so, are we in a situation where the united states is now at war with what was the outer coat of armor for the iranian state, this network of militias? because if that is the case, then we could be entering into a very nasty, hard-to-understand proxy war where the united states is attacking a whole host of militia groups in a variety of countries. it will be a war that will be hard to cover, hard to explain, hard to visualize, but a war nonetheless that will involve u.s. troops and will involve casualties. >> okay, richard engel, thank you for reporting from erbil, iraq. we move from there to tehran, and iran, of course, leaders there promise severe revenge for general soleimani's death. tehran bureau chief ali arouzi

is joining me right now. what kind of retaliation are we talking about? what would you expect, ali? >> reporter: hi, alex. well, iran has a whole host of retaliatory measures at his disposal. convention convention conventionally, they are no match for the might of the u.s. military. but qasem soleimani had built a formidable network of militias across this region that were fiercely loyal to him and are still loyal to iran, even though they've lost their sort of cultish figurehead. now, these militias report directly to iran, and iran has time and time again said that all u.s. assets in this region are within immediate striking distance of their forces, that they could retaliate in a moment's notice. so, that is one of the options.

and we have seen this, alex, play out over the last six months. we've seen tankers get hit here. we've seen the saudi arabians' oil facilities get hit here. so there are a lot of options. they could target u.s. embassies. they could launch a cyber attack on the united states, because they have the technological know-how to do that as well. so, there are a lot of options available for them. but i think, alex, right now they are biding their time. revenge is a dish best served cold for the iranians today. we've seen comments by the new leader of the quds force who had replaced qasem soleimani. he has now stepped out of the shadows and is making threats to the united states, that if they don't leave this region, they will be going home in coffins. the head of the irgc today has said that the united states made a huge strategic mistake killing qasem soleimani, and that's going to spell the end of their time in this region.

so, there is almost no doubt that the iranians are planning retaliatory measures. it's just when and how is the question. also, we saw some interesting footage today. yesterday the supreme leader had gone and visited qasem soleimani's family. today, iran's president had gone and visited qasem soleimani's family. qasem soleimani's daughter asks how are you going to avenge my father's death? and rouhani said, this whole country will avenge your father's death. >> all this i'm going to talk about with ben rhodes in a second, who's sitting here in the studio with me, but generally, the consensus of the nerves of iraqi citizens right now, what's the feeling there? or iranian citizens i meant to ask you about, iranian citizens. >> reporter: well, there is a combination here, alex, of fear, unpredictability, and a sense of revenge, depending on what cross

cros crosssection of iranians you speak to. we have entered into an unpredictable period with the united states now. it's not clear how all this is going to go going forward. there are certain iranians who expect revenge for the killing of qasem soleimani, and there are other iranians who are terrified as to what is going to come after his death. don't forget, there are a lot of people in this country that lived through a bloody eight-year war with iraq during the 1980s, and they don't want to see anything like that happening in iran again. but tensions are so incredibly high right now. everybody in this country is on tinder hooks. >> ali arouzi, thank you. we will go now to florida, where the president continues his holiday break. nbc's hans nichols is also there for us. hans, what's the latest coming out of the floridan white house there at mar-a-lago? any updates officially? >> reporter: the president's in a wait-and-watch mode.

the entire white house is. the president headed out to his golf course. seems as though politics is on his mind. he's tweeting about unity within the republican party. and last night at that event with evangelicals further down south towards miami, the president was making this case, how quickly he inserted the death of qasem soleimani into his stump speech. >> qasem soleimani has been killed, and his bloody rampage is now forever gone. he was plotting attacks against americans, but now we've ensured that his atrocities have been stopped for good. they are stopped for good. i don't know if you know what was happening, but he was planning a very major attack, and we got him. >> reporter: the white house is planning some classified briefings for members of congress, next week when congress returns to town. we'll see if what they are provided in a classified setting

is sufficient enough. because at least as of yesterday, many senior lawmakers didn't think there was enough evidence presented that this threat was imminent enough to merit this kind of response. so we'll see if that changed. everyone also needs to keep an eye on the 2020 candidates. we'll start hearing from them and we've heard from some of them already later today on just what they think and the latest as everyone digests all of this. >> hans nichols, thank you so much. we'll see you again in the next hour. as promised, joining me now for analysis in the studio, ben rhodes, former deputy national security adviser and msnbc political contributor. okay, the general has been on a lot of people's radars in the administrations, the one you worked for as well, previous administrations, not necessarily on the general public's list of people they were aware of. but when it comes to this action taken right now, do you believe it was warranted? why was action not taken against him before? because it seems like considerably different approaches were taken. >> well, first of all, even at the height of the iraq war in

2006 and 2007, president bush did not take this action, even when he had shots that he could have taken at qasem soleimani, precisely because of the risk of starting a much broader and more complicated war with iran. what i would say is we never should have been here in the first place, alex. we had a nuclear deal that was in place. during that nuclear deal and the implementation of that deal, not only was the iranian nuclear program rolled back, there were no rocket attacks on u.s. interests inside of iraq. those had stopped during the nuclear deal. when president trump pulled out of that nuclear deal, it started this cycle of escalation, where iran resumed its nuclear program and then resumed these provocations. so yes, qasem soleimani is a terrible individual responsible for many deaths, but we never should have even gotten to this place, alex. and now that we are here, we have to be prepared for a multiyear, complex conflict between the united states and iran that could play out in many different countries and put at risk american lives. >> let's take a listen to what brett mcgurk, special adviser on the global coalition to defeat

isis, what he had to say on "last word" about all this last night. >> the assumption that we could change the calculus of the adversary by increasing pressure was wrong. and if that assumption is wrong with respect to iran, then this is not going to stop. the escalatory ladder will continue to go up. we have no diplomatic channels that are really open, as far as we're aware. and so, right now it's a very good question, when iran responds, what do we do? and right now, i think that question is coming for the white house. >> and do you think the white house is ready to answer that question? >> no. all of the reporting we have seen is that they do not think through consequences when they take actions. and what your viewers need to understand, alex, is they are no longer in control of this situation. donald trump sees foreign policy as kind of an extension of his reality tv approach to events. but now the ball's in iran's court. and they will respond. they've said they will respond. and it might not come in a week or the next couple of weeks, but what we are going to see most likely in the coming months is

iranian efforts to target american interests or americans in different countries. iranian efforts to further destabilize places like iraq and afghanistan, potentially to chase us out of iraq. so this conflict is going to play out and it's not as if president trump can control this. and it's clear in everything that he said that he has not thought this through and does not understand at all the nuances involved here. >> meaning that the president by his stated words and having indicated that it would not be good for iran, were they to engage in some sort of reciprocity for us, and even in advance of this particular strike -- he's talking about militarily. he thinks that we could, you know, blow iran to smithereens, if we wanted to, correct? i mean, he's not thinking beyond a military response? >> he's not. and diplomacy doesn't even exist anymore with the iranians as it did under the obama administration. and you have to understand the iranian mind-set. they have been fighting for 15 years in places like iraq and syria. it is not new to them that there is violence in this region. they are prepared for this type of conflict. they have proxies in all these different places.

and president trump just fundamentally does not understand the pandora's box that he just opened by taking this act of war, ordering this assassination. >> but ben, the president claims that there was an imminent threat. are you convinced that is the case? i mean, it sounds like general soleimani was a consistent threat. >> yeah. first of all, we've seen no evidence to suggest that. the fact that qasem soleimani has connections and directs militias that have targeted americans in iraq for many years, for over a decade, that is true. if they had information, if they had evidence, why have in tthey presented it? why has that the been made available to congress? i anticipate that they have a vague sense of ongoing threats to u.s. personnel in that region. but here's the problem with the logic, alex. they say they took this strike to prevent attacks against americans serving overseas, but this strike itself just dramatically escalated the threats to americans serving

overseas. these are why these are complicated decisions to be made. for them to say that they're taking an action to prevent attacks on americans overseas, it flies in the face of the reality that they just put a much bigger target on americans who were serving in that region. >> last question. you're a former national security adviser, deputy national security adviser. what do you think your counterpart in the trump administration should be doing right now, and are you confident that is being done? >> well, the first thing that they should be doing is working to secure all of our embassies and diplomatic facilities in that region because they've just become much greater targets. that should be priority one, protecting the lives of the american people. we also should be consulting with our allies, who have troops serving in iraq with us, who have more diplomatic influence with iran than we do, and to see the secretary of state essentially taking pot shots at our allies on television when we need them i think just tells you that they're not thinking about this in a deliberative, smart way. you want to coordinate with your allies, secure our diplomatic personnel, and frankly, you want to be trying to find ways to

de-escalate the situation. otherwise, we're going to find ourselves right back in the wars in the middle east that president trump keeps telling us he doesn't want to get into. he said he would get us out of these wars. there are almost 20,000 additional u.s. troops that have be deployed to this region under president trump because of the instability he's created over the last two years. we are now in the biggest international crisis of his presidency, and it's of his making and it has the origin in pulling out of the iranian nuclear agreement and going down this path of escalation with the iranians and i just don't have confidence that the president is thinking about what the consequences of those actions are. >> ben rhodes, informative and sobering conversation. thank you so much. >> thanks. calls for a congressional investigation into that deadly air strike that killed that top iranian general. a house foreign affairs committee member will be joining me on that. and later, growing danger down under as changing weather patterns fuel australia's deadly wildfires. patterns fuel australia's deadly wildfires. tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance

so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

due to inclement weather... all two-wheel drive cross-overs should close for the day. wannabe suvs should close for the day. regular four door sedans should close for the foreseeable future. all jeep 4x4 vehicles will remain open- despite the harsh weather conditions. ♪

some things are too important to do yourself. ♪ get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

while many are criticizing the president for the killing of soleimani, some are supporting his decision. that includes israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. >> just as israel has the right of self-defense, the united states has exactly the same right. qasem 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.

>> nbc's matt bradley is joining us live now from tel aviv on this. okay, matt, with a welcome to you. look, israel certainly is used to dealing with conflict in this region. does it feel different where you are, there in israel, than it has in recent past? >> reporter: i'm going to be honest with you, alex, no, not really. because the fact is, is that israel is always on a heightened state of alert and this is really no different. the fact is, is there have been a lot of real backlashes against israel in the last several months, years. we've seen protracted conflicts where israel has bombed the gaza strip for extended periods of time. back in 2006, we had that extended conflict between israel and hezbollah and lebanon, and that's where israelis are expecting that retaliation. if it comes here in israel, they expect it to some from hezbollah and the north. they are the most capable, most ready. and really, they're a militia group that is part of lebanon. they actually have members who are sitting in the lebanese parliament. but they still act like a

national army. they're just that powerful. and so, while the iranian regime, the iranian military probably won't be able to mount a conventional defense against either israel or the united states in the middle east, they are expecting and leaning on the same network of militia groups and allied governments that qasem soleimani spent his entire career building. so in many ways, whatever retaliation comes from the death of qasem soleimani, it could end up being something of a tribute to his life, because really, we're talking about decades of building up all of these groups, and that's where the retaliation is going to be coming from. just tonight, we just heard that there was a rocket that ended in the green zone according to the news agency. the wit's one of the rockets preferred by these groups. it's possible that was a one-off or a beginning of some retaliation. but the fact is, here in israel, most people are expecting that if a retaliation comes, it could

come from hezbollah. it's more likely to come in iraq, where the fighting has started, fighting has continued and where destabilization and a friendly government to the iranians means retaliation is actually something on the table. whereas hezbollah here, north of israel, it would be a very expensive, very protracted and very, very violent conflict if they decided to attack the israelis. >> matt bradley, lots of fronts to keep an eye on. thanks from tel aviv. joining me, david cicilline, democratic member of the foreign affairs and judiciary committees. welcome, good to see you, sir. let's get right into this, because you are among the democratic lawmakers that are concerned that this strike that killed general soleimani was done without congressional authority. in response, you've had the president's national security adviser saying it was a fully authorized action under the 2002 aumf. what is your response? >> well, i just returned from that region. i led a delegation of members of congress to spend time with our troops in kuwait and bahrain and qatar. so my first concern is the

well-being of our troops in the region. and there certainly hasn't been any justification provided by the administration. obviously, they're going to provide a classified briefing to members of congress, and they ought to do that as quickly as possible. and look, everyone recognizes that soleimani is a terrorist, a murderer, he deserved the justice he got. but the real question is, what was the strategic plan with respect to this killing? what preparations were done? what consultations were done? why did two prior administrations, both republicans and democrats, decide that his killing would cause more harm to american national security interests than benefit? and this administration came to a different conclusion. so, i think we need to know what the evidence is, what led the administration, the president to make this decision. but i think the claim that his concern was to avoid war, i think most people would say this has made war more likely, that it's endangered the lives of more americans because the iranians will respond. and as one of your earlier

guests, ben rhodes said, this is really a product of the absence of a coherent strategy or a plan to deal with iran. the president ripped up the iran deal, the jcpoa that was leading to the rollback of the iranian nuclear capability and the reduction of their rocket fire in the region, and the behavior of iran has only gotten worse since that agreement was ripped up. they have engaged in the worst behavior under this maximum pressure campaign. so, really, this is the product of no coherent strategy, no understanding of the region, no understanding of what the implications are of these actions and no plan to confront iran in an effective way. and i think we're seeing the consequence of that. so, i'm interested in getting the classified briefing. i want to hear the intelligence that was collected. but i don't see any lawful basis for the president to initiate a war or military action without congressional authorization. he doesn't have any current authority to do it. we specifically prohibited it in the ndaa when we passed it out of the house. they stripped it out of the

senate version. but this is very concerning. the last thing we need is to begin another endless war in the middle east. >> is there anything about what you expect to find that would cause lawmakers to look at and redefine the parameters of presidential use of military force? >> well, i think there is already -- our framers designed the right to declare war and the president being the chief, the commander in chief, so that there would be a shared responsible between the executive branch and the legislative branch, the voice of the people, and that's why the consultation is required. and you know, i'm alarmed because this president, again, apparently without consultation with our allies, without consultation with the leaders in the congress, made a decision. one of the reasons you want consultation is so people will ask the tough questions. have you thought about the imapplications? what are they likely to do in response? asking those difficult questions will help the commander in chief make the right decision. about you avoid consultation, when you avoid the ability to be asked tough questions, you can

make reckless decisions. and so, i'm anxious to hear what the president has to say or his administration during this briefing, but i see no evidence that would justify a military action without congressional authorization. if there is an imminent threat to this country, the president ought to come to congress and make the case and articulate to the american people, because the last thing that we want is another prolonged, endless war in the middle east. >> look, as if congress was not busy enough, i'm going to ask you to turn your attention now to the impeachment with senators mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer, who as you know have been sparring on the senate floor over the process in this upcoming trial. you have speaker nancy pelosi delaying sending over the articles of impeachment, both of them. let's listen to this. >> 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. >> leader mcconnell reminds us today and in previous days that, rather than acting like a judge and a juror, he intends to act

as the executioner of a fair trial. thankfully, the rules of the impeachment trial will be determined by the majority of senators in this chamber, not by the republican leader. >> how long until nancy pelosi sends over both articles of impeachment? who do you think blinks first here? will there be any sort of compromise? >> well, look, i think it's very important. i think the american people want to be sure that these serious charges that are contained in the articles of impeachment are considered in a serious way in the united states senate. they must take an oath at the beginning of those proceedings to be fair and impartial, and that's a serious responsibility. i think what the speaker has said is, before i send the articles of impeachment, at the same time i have to appoint managers to prosecute this case, i need to understand how the senate proceedings will happen so i can decide how to staff the prosecution. if it's going it be a full-blown trial, you want lawyers that may be able to effectively do cross examination, present evidence. if it's limited to

constitutional arguments, that requires a different skill set. so i think the speaker's absolutely right to say, before i send it over, i need to understand what the proceedings are. obviously, the senate will decide what those are, but i think she's being very, very wise to say i need to know how to properly manage or appoint managers to prosecute this case. but i think it's been very disappointing to see mitch mcconnell and others act as if their role is to defend the president. they are not part of the president's defense team. they swore an oath to uphold the constitution. the president of the united states abused the power of his office. he undermined our national security. he tried to persuade or coerce a foreign leader to corrupt an american presidential election, to cheat so he could win in 2020. this strikes at the very heart of our democracy, of the right of people to free and fair elections in this country, and i expect members of the united states senate to take this seriously and to uphold their oath and to set forth trial proceedings that are fair and that are deliberative and that will render a fair judgment based on the evidence. >> rhode island democrat david

cicilline, good to see you and happy new year. >> good to see you. down to the wire with less than a month before the first votes are cast in iowa. how the 2020 candidates are trying to set themselves apart from the crowd. trying to set themselves apart from the crowd

now, less than a month before the first voegts cast in the election, the iowa caucus coming up, candidates stumping the state. cory booker in walterboro. in new hampshire, pete buttigieg is holding a town hall in nashua. andrew yang is in knoxville, iowa, for a meet-and-greet. joe biden also in iowa to canvas and kick off a phone bank in waterloo. that is where nbc's mike memoli also happens to be today. mike, with a welcome to you, what is biden's plan for getting through to and winning over the iowa voters? >> reporter: well, alex, you know 30 days away from iowa. it is, in fact, crunch time. and you know how you know it's

crunch time? the candidates aren't just doing the kind of rallies we saw them doing for weeks and months, but you can see them doing what joe biden was doing to my left here, making phone calls to caucusgoers, trying to win them over in person and now is thanking those voters helping him here. taking photos one on one after a pep talk here. it's interesting, we talked about the candidates descending on iowa. they're even descending on this pacific part of iowa, eastern iowa. that's why biden brought some reinforcements with him. abby finkenauer, the congresswoman from this district, newly elected, just endorsed him on friday. biden's closing argument to iowa voters at this point has a lot to do with iz had ability to beat donald trump, to unite the country, work with republicans to get things done and also electability. listen to what he was telling voters in independence, iowa, last night, not far from here. >> whoever gets elected is going to have to be able to demonstrate they can get something done in the united states congress, that they can

actually get the things we desperately care about -- health care, education. who has a record of being able to demonstrate they can cross the aisle and actually get things done. well, i think -- by the way, i think i can, but here's the point -- it's a legitimate question for you to ask all of us -- what have you done? what have you passed? i have spent my whole career being able to get things done. >> reporter: and so, that finkenauer endorsement is part of biden's closing arguments about that electability. it's about ability to bring candidates along with him at the top of the ticket. just before when he was talking to voters here, he said one of the reasons he loves iowa, campaigning in the iowa caucuses, they know how important it is to have a democrat like that who can win and bring along candidates in states like north carolina, in georgia, states that democrats need to win in november. alex? >> okay. mike memoli in waterloo, iowa. thank you so much, mike, for that. coming up next, a potential calm before a storm on capitol

hill on both iran and impeachment. capitol hill on both iran and impeachment.

in the wake of u.s. actions in iraq, antiwar protesters are taking to the streets today. in fact, one protest just got under way in washington's lafayette square park, right across from the white house. there's another one taking place at times square right here in new york city. the demonstrators are calling for a complete removal of troops from iraq. both protests have been peaceful thus far, but we'll keep you updated on the goings on there. meantime, democrats are calling on the trump administration to immediately brief lawmakers on that u.s. air strike that killed the top iranian commander in iraq and what the white house plans to do next. president trump said that the iranian general was plotting imminent attacks on u.s. interests, but some are raising questions about the use of that word imminent to justify the killing. >> 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. >> joining me now, laura basset, contributor at "gq and francesca chambers with mcclatchy. welcome to you ladies. the fact that the top congressional democrats, including members of the gang of eight, were all kept in the dark about this strike. critics say that is a breach of protocol. is it? >> well, look, presidents have been doing these acts of war for decades without asking for congressional approval. it certainly is a problem and it's not supposed to be the way it's going. i don't think that's the central problem here. i think what's happening is a repeat of the iraq war, where they are using these false justifications because they want to go to war for political reasons. in 2003, it was the supposed weapons of mass destruction, which we later found out didn't exist. and now trump has presented

absolutely no evidence that there was an imminent threat on american troops over in iraq, and it seems, based on his pattern of making foreign policy decisions for his own political gain or his own financial gain, that this might be another one of those situations. so, whether or not he consulted congress sliding into a war with iran to benefit trump politically is an extremely dangerous and problematic idea. >> and look, lawmakers are asking questions, francesca. so, there any indication that the white house will provide lawmakers with the evidence they are seeking, the evidence as the basis for this strike? >> well, national security adviser robert o'brien told reporters on a call yesterday, alex, that he couldn't say at the time, and at least not in a public setting, what that evidence would be. now, he also said that lawmakers would be getting a classified briefing this upcoming week. so it's possible that he could say what that evidence is there. and mitch mcconnell even said that while he does support the

action, that he anticipates and that he would welcome a debate among lawmakers after they heard that evidence as to whether or not this was warranted and what should happen next. >> okay, but lindsey graham has said on the record, on video, that he appreciated being brought into the know. i believe those were his exact words, on what was happening. so it's not as if there was not time to let congress know, right? i mean, is there any pushback on that front, francesca? >> bell, lindsey graham had said that he was briefed on potential options for an operation, not necessarily that he was told that this was going to happen and when it was going to happen. and so, he certainly was somehow brought into the fold. it's not entirely clear how much information based on that that he had beforehand, but sources told myself and my colleagues at mcclatchy that president trump had had this option before him to potentially take action against soleimani since the strike on the drone over the summer. so, that was six months ago or so, so something that he was

considering. >> wait a minute, so if you say six months ago, talk about the word imminent. does that square with you? >> well, that he had this as a potential option, the assassination itself as a potential option going back six months ago. but he decided not to take this option at that time because it wasn't justified or warranted in the administration's opinion. but now, given the death of the american and the protests at the embassy, he thought it was warranted at this time is what sources told us. >> okay. okay. obviously lots to talk about on this, but i also want to move to impeachment, because congress is back in session now. so, laura, is there any movement on setting the rules for the trial in the senate? >> not really, alex. it looks like mitch mcconnell is not intending to budge at all on calling witnesses. he's pretty set on holding this sham trial where they just basically act as trump's defense. all the republicans have already agreed that they're going to acquit him and refuse to remove

him from office. so, i don't think there's been any movement on that front. it will be interesting to see whether this iran development changes anything on the democrats' perspective about whether they want to move forward or not. i think it would be very dangerous for them to allow this to thwart an impeachment trial because it would set a precedent for future presidents, if you get into political hot water, you just provoke a war to get out of it. so i hope they hold course. >> we heard mcconnell and schumer yesterday dueling out the senate rules for an impeachment trial. here's that. >> president trump should get the same treatment aevethat eve single senator thought was fair for president clinton. just like 20 years ago. we should address midtrial questions, such as witnesses, after briefs, opening arguments, senator questions, and other relevant motions. >> never, never in the history of our country has there been an

impeachment trial of the president in which the senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses. leader mcconnell's proposal to vote on witnesses and documents later is nothing more than a poorly disguised trap. >> so, while this all plays out, francesca, is there a sense that the president has aligned himself with mitch mcconnell's approach at this point? because as you know, part of the christmas holiday, the president was saying we should call witnesses, i want to call witnesses, and mitch mcconnell was on the other side of the argument. does this square up? >> well, the president did send a tweet that suggested he agreed with senator josh holly, who said that it should just can dismissed altogether. but he didn't really elaborate on the position. he was just quoting somebody else who was quoting josh holly. but that is a signal that potentially the president has changed his mind about the length of this. and of course, as we discuss iraq and iran this morning,

there is a question as to whether or not this potential conflict that's brewing has changed the thoughts on impeachment for both the senate and potentially also the house. >> okay. lots to see how it plays out. we'll do so with your help, ladies. laura basset, jessica chambers, thank you so much. >> thank you. on the brink of war? a stark headline from a british tabloid. is it true? k headline from a br tabloid. is it true

across the globe, world leaders are bracing for dramatic escalation between the u.s. and iran, while iran's supreme leader is vowing harsh retaliation for the killing of general soleimani. the president warns he is prepared to take whatever action is necessary, if iran seeks revenge. joining me now, brett mcgurk, former special envoy for the global coalition to defeat isis and msnbc senior foreign affairs analyst, also, hesha melam. with a welcome to you both. for those who are not experts on

iranian politics, give me a role on the significance of soleimani, the role that he played in the iraqi government. >> this is the second most important man in iran, and people argue that he could be the first man in iran when it comes to security decisions in the neighborhood of iran -- iraq, syria, lebanon and the arabian peninsula. this is the biggest blow that iran suffered in 40 years, political blow. and it will take the iranians a long time to absorb the meaning of that loss. he will be replaced. he's already been replaced by his deputy, ismail, but perhaps a thoroughbred horse was replaced by a mule. time will tell whether my prediction is right or wrong. he has been extremely significant. he has tremendous knowledge of all these proxies that iran has been developing in the region. he knows their leaders. he knows their points of

strength and weaknesses. he has tremendous experience. so, he will not be -- he's not, i wouldn't say irreplaceable, but everybody will feel his absence. so, we are talking about a man -- i mean, look, people like qasem soleimani and abu maddie al muhandis, these are men with hearts like railroad steel and they are not easily replaceable, but they will be replaced because we are talking about a state called iran. we're not talking about a leader of al qaeda or a leader of isis. so, whatever plans they have, the long-term strategy, the long game that iran plays, that will continue. it will be shaken a little bit with the absence of qasem soleimani, but that will not change the fact that iran is out there to get the united states out of the gulf. >> of course. >> the gulf region. >> sure. brett, to you now. this description that hisham has

given us, how a thoroughbred has been replaced by a mule -- does that potentially add more concern to what we might expect in terms of retaliation? i mean, could it be that things go sort of haywire? we were talking earlier this hour and can confirm that there is at least one rocket that's landed within the green zone in baghdad. it doesn't appear to have caused any damage, no reports of casualties, but it is the kind of thing that could begin the types of escalations that are most concerning. >> so, thank you. i've been working on these issues for a long time and let me say two things. at a strategic level, it's iran's objective to get us out of iraq, out of syria, and out of the region. that was soleimani's strategic objective. and i think they will now pursue that. i think what we'll see over the next few weeks -- number one, tehran will use this to consolidate his grip on power inside iran. we've had protested going on in

iran over six months, they've been under a lot of pressure. you'll see a regime, they have a monopoly on force inside the country. you will see the regime cracking down and using this to consolidate their position. also in iraq they will be pushing in various ways to get us forced out of iraq. i think that's been soleimani's strategic objective. and in his death now, they will try to utilize that to try to do that. i think that would be a disaster for u.s. interests. on the rockets, i just want to say one thing -- there's no military solution to this. i worked in the bush white house. i spent a lot of time in iraq during the surge period in 2007-2008. we were fighting these militia groups tooth and nail, conflicted significant casualties on them and never stopped rocket attacks or roadside bomb attacks until there was a political decision in 2011 for those to stop. and we did not see rockets again until just a couple months ago. so, if the decision has been made to begin to rocket our facilities, i am concerned that we're going to see more of these over the coming weeks. >> but look, to your point about the situation in iraq, brett,

there's an article today in "the new york times" titled "a shock to iraq --" reconsiders its relationship with the u.s. and say the killing of soleimani as a shot against iran could accelerate an iranian objective, the one you're speaking of, brett, pushing the u.s. military out of iraq. what do you make of that? what effect does think on the united states' relationship with iraq? >> well, iraq is in a very fragile situation with a weak caretaker government right now. you have kind of dual protests, one a kind of liberal secular, the youth of iraq are protesting for better governance and protection. i think they are now very much on the back foot. i think you're going to see through the martyrdom celebrations and the funerals and everything a kind of consolidation by hardline actors that we have been trying to marginalize. we have about 5,000 troops in iraq, but very important to remember, we have about 20 coalition partners with us in iraq. we returned to iraq in 2014. we wanted to make sure that we pursued this mission against isis, which remains a significant threat, in a way

that reduced the burden on american taxpayers and also on american lives. we do not want to be fighting and dying again in iraq. we want to protect our interests and serve them in a very smart way. if we leave iraq, we just open up the vacuum again to be filled entirely by iranian-influenced actors and by isis. it would be a total disaster. so, i think out of this, out of his death, we need to make sure that is not the outcome. that would be a major setback. >> yeah, and a potential domino effect for other regions there in the middle east. hisham and brett, thank you so much for your insights. i appreciate them. meantime, we'll continue eyeing iran's next moves. the big questions about how the country will respond to the air strike. as to the decision, it revives an old debate about presidential powers to wage war. member of the house armed services committee is going to weigh in on it next. services committee is going to weigh in on it next. the good news? our comfort lasts all day. the bad news? so does his energy. depend® fit-flex underwear offers your best comfort and protection guaranteed. because, perfect or not, life's better when you're in it.

be there with depend®.

even when your car is clean, does it still smell stuffy or stale? try febreze car. it eliminates stuffy car odors and leaves behind a fresh scent for up to 30 days. try febreze car in a variety of scents including extra light. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one.

for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies