great respect within republican conservative circles. >> reporter: that's right. this is not a witness they might try to undercut the way they did with other officials, bureaucrats. this is somebody who has been a national figure in republican circles three administrations now, another reason his testimony could be so significant. >> garrett, thank you. sure we will be hearing from you. great reporting. that wraps up this hour of "msnbc live." andrea mitchell reports. >> thank you. on the tinderbox, massive crowds in ire rain uniting behind the regime for killing the general. and president narrows down on cultural sites contradicting his own secretary of state. >> trump didn't say he would go after cultural sites. read what he said very closely. we made clear the coasts if they

use proxy forces in the region will not be born just by those proxies, by iran leadership itself. >> the fall-out, now, iran is breaking out of more limits on the nuclear deal while iraq's parliament votes to kick the u.s. troops out of the country. >> our troops will almost certainly have to leave iraq, unintended consequence. our fight against the islamic state will be seriously degraded as a result. >> breaking news in washington, nbc news, carol lee confirming john bolton is willing to testify at a senate impeachment trial if he is subpoenaed. if he. and good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. today in iran, national frustration in anger spilling out onto the streets, massive numbers. a sea flooding out throughout

the day and many mourners seeking revenge for the targeted killing of long time commander qassem soleimani. here's what we know at this hour. the general to replace him is vowing revenge against america, but specific types of action iran could take? still unknown. they're reacting on the foreign policy front to end the limits of enrichment during the uranium nuclear deal. and war powers resolution to limit executive actions rargd iran by democrats. and the parliament of the big step over the weekend potentially expelling u.s. service members of the country for good. at the certainty of it all, president trump doubling down on

his threat to violate cultural law. we have nbc chief correspondent, richard engel in iraq and kristen welker and michael crowley and jeff mason. first to you, richard. extraordinary scene in iran today. there had been weeks if not months of protests, some against the regime. now, it is unified against america. >> reporter: a backfire. i think that's the only way you can describe it. if this administration, you listen to president trump in all the briefings he says he wants to isolate the iranian regime, wants the iranian regime to be toppled, talks about encouraging the protesters, although they say the official policy is not to pursue regime change it clearly has been to undermine the iranian regime. now, the iranian regime is at

its strongest point if not years and had been coming under pressure domestically with protests so strong the iranian government decided it had to go out and violently repress them, killing hundreds of people, cutting off the internet, cutting off the iranian people, even more than they normally are. here, in iraq, there had been anti-iranian protests from the very shia community iran had generally been relying on for support. now, all of that is gone. the protesters here in iraq who were complaining iran has too much influence in this country are nowhere to be seen. instead, you see, both in iraq and iran, people coming out in large numbers in support of the iranian regime, in support of the revolutionary guard, the support of the memory of qassem soleimani, and his legacy. his main legacy was to kick out

american troops from the region. that is what he was trying to do. now, you see an official call from iranian lawmakers to do just that. it has backfired in many ways. it has united people behind iran when they were not. it has increased calls for u.s. troops to leave the middle east, and specifically leave iran, which is exactly what soleimani was trying to do. >> to your point, richard, the president has, with this action, that he personally approved last week, has set off a backlash potentially throughout the middle east, and in fact in europe. kristen welker at the white house, good to see you. the president's been very busy on twitter, i can tell you, talking to ambassadors from other countries and closest european allies, everyone but israelis, supportive. this is not going well for them. whatever iran has done in the

persian gulf and saudis, they still want diplomacy with iran. >> reporter: that's right, andrea, good to see you. you essentially saw secretary of state mike pompeo acknowledge as much. he flooded the air waves over the weekend to defend this decision to take out this top iranian general yet he acknowledged the administration was not getting support from its partners and allies in the region with the exception of israel, as you point out. that is disconcerting to members of congress, as they question what was specifically behind this attack. pompeo said there was a quote-unquote imminent threat. democrats are demanding to see the intelligence, that the president declassify the intelligence behind his decision to actually take this strike. they are also demanding president trump go to congress to get authorization if he wants to take any further military

action over iran. the president tweeting defiantly these media posts will serve as notification to the u.s. congress should iran strike any u.s. person or target the united states will quickly and fully strike back and perhaps in a disproportionate manner. democrats fired back, essentially, you're not a dictator. there's a real clash with house speaker, nancy pelosi and democrats to introduce a resolution that would in fact require the president go through congress for any further military action. not clear how that will end at this point, andrea. >> to provide more context there, jeff mason, you were on air force one flying back from florida last night with the president, when he doubled down going after cultural sites. i will read you what was filed by the pool report you were part of. he said they're, the iranians are allowed to torture and maime our people and use roadside bombs and blow up our people. and we're not allowed to touch

their cultural sites. it doesn't work that way. there is a matter of international law and congressional notification. for the first time going back decades the so-called "gang of eight" were not notified and we are aware lindsey graham was down and played golf and saw the president socially. there was no prior notification, nor has there been a detailed intelligence briefing yet. it's supposed to come wednesday. >> that indicates where president trump's mind is right now, certainly with regard to the cultural sites, he was very defiant when we asked him about that last night. despite saying on new year's eve we did this to avoid war with iran, he feels if he's being pushed into a corner he will be bellicose back. that is certainly the tone he took last night, that in general to what's going on in the middle

east. not only iran he also said last night he would impose sanctions on iraq, a major u.s. ally, right now in the middle of all of this as a result of that killing. >> a pivotal geographic location given he has withdrawn from syria as well. >> absolutely. >> iraq is a key pivot point. michael crowley, a lot of reporting in the "new york times" and today following up in this "washington post" about mike pompeo, that mike pompeo and mike pence were pivotal in this decision. they very much supported it. it's unclear whether the defense secretary, mike esper, was going along with pompeo. he's newer to the national security cabinet but mike pompeo has been fiercely against iran and according to the "washington post" today, was actually urging the killing of soleimani for quite some time and was morose when the president did not react to the shooting down of a u.s. drone earlier and also the

attack on the saudi oil field. >> you watch mike pompeo closely, so you will understand really it's clear when you follow pompeo and his activities and his rhetoric, there's nothing he cares about more than iran and nothing that animates him more than iran. i can think of several times he's come down to the briefing room of the state department, what is pompeo doing? making an announcement today, what is this about? he says, i want to update you on our maximum pressure case against iran and doesn't have in many cases, anything particularly new to say, been toughening his rhetoric. he likes to threaten iran and talk about what the administration is doing in regard to iran. it's clear this is something that truly animates him and he subscribes to this theory and talked himself about this motion of deterrence.

he subscribes to this theory iran responds to strength. punching iran in the nose is not a way to escalate, it's a way to get iran to back down. the critique is in the obama administration allegedly the iran nuclear deal was a sign of weakness and negotiating with iran emboldened iran. mike pompeo has been at the forefront saying iran basically respects strength and if we hit them they will back down. that is a big gamble. we will see whether there might be any truth to it in the coming days and weeks. >> a critic of the "new york times" over the weekend, one of the precip taitors with the president, michael, was seeing the assault against the u.s. embassy in baghdad. we know mike pompeo and the president see this through the filter of benghazi. mike pompeo was a house member

on the benghazi committee grilling hillary clinton as secretary of state for hours at that noteworthy hearing. >> it's possible mike pompeo felt iran was going after him in some respects knowing he was so vocal and vociferous about benghazi and political about our embassies in the middle east in particular and felt like what iran was doing in some ways might be targeted to him for that reason. then, you have president trump who felt those imageser with showing america on the offensive, america being weak and threatened. he did brag this was not another benghazi and spun it as a successful security clampdown that repelled the attack. i think probably both made him anxious and that he might be losing face and his pride was on the line. you saw what happened next. >> carol lee joining us, carol's

breaking news, john bolton, the former national security advisor who left on not very good terms with the white house, we saw the tweet storms back and forth, has announced he will testify if subpoenaed by the senate. my own take, tell me if i am wrong, he really favors this iran aggressive action against soleimani. i'm not sure democrats should count on john bolton to enforce their essential argument that the president is erratic and incompetent on foreign policy. >> that's a really great point, andrea. he is not someone that favors democrats and their impeachment investigation. if you just look at the facts, which are that he didn't want to testify and said he would only testify if under subpoena and the court ordered him to defy the white house and testify before congress, when the house was seeking his testimony or

interested in it. that was his position. this is a significant change in that position. also a significant change in the -- who easy leading the trial in the senate, republicans, john bolton's own party. he clearly wants to testify before a republican body rather than one led by the democrats. he has said in his statement that we obtained earlier this morning, that he has wrestled with this issue of whether or not he should listen to the congress or the executive branch, and decided if a court would not have time to weigh in between now and when the senate trial would begin, and so if he is subpoenaed, he says, he is prepared to testify in the senate trial, a huge development, as you know, because he knows everything. he was national security advisor, had a front row seat to everything that happened when the president was engaged in

this pressure campaign on ukraine. >> just to circle back to richard engel, what next? where can we expect iraq to strike? they vowed revenge. is this going to be asymmetric, somewhere through proxies in the region, do we have to worry about cybers and all of the above? i say iraq, i mean iran. >> reporter: anyone who thinks punching iran in the nose will get iran to back down and there'll be no response doesn't understand anything about the middle east. this is the region that invented the concept of an eye for an eye. it has been carved into tablets here for thousands of years. iran will respond and iran has a lot of tools it can use to do that. most likely, it will use the very forces that qassem soleimani nurtured, these militias around the region from

hezbollah to shiite militia groups in this country to smaller militia groups in syria and afghanistan. it will respond and those militia groups have already come out and said they will respond primarily against u.s. military targets. they are saying the goal, the proper response to this should be to drive the u.s. military out of the region, specifically out of iraq. if he thinks you can punch iran in the nose an that will be the end of it, you hit a bully and the bully backs away, iran might not come back and take a full front-on swing at the united states, very unlikely too. it will take its time. it will use one of its many proxy forces, it will try and use a hidden hand, but i think based on everything that the middle east has proven to us a long time it will strike back. this is a region that tends to

humble its adversaries. it has from alexander the great to the british empire and humbles adversaries that don't necessarily want to learn the lessons of the past. >> and don't understand maximum pressure does not necessarily work. thank you. kristen welker, jeff crowley. michael mason and carol lee for your breaking news. coming up next, former national security advisor john bolton saying he is now willing to testify before the senate in an impeachment trial. stay with us on msnbc. no! we need to keep moving. the whole things coming down. come on! i can't see. i can't see! you need to trust me. jump!

trumpand total disaster.mplete let obamacare implode. nurse: these wild attacks on healthcare hurt the patients i care for. i've been a nurse in new york for thirty years. i know the difference leadership can make because i saw what mike bloomberg did as mayor. vo: mayor bloomberg helped lower the number of uninsured by 40%, covering 700,000 more new yorkers, life expectancy increased. he helped expand health coverage to 200,000 more kids and upgraded pediatric care---

infant mortality rates dropped to record lows. and as mayor, mike bloomberg always championed reproductive health for women. so when you hear mike bloomberg on health care... mrb: this is america. we can certainly afford to make sure that everybody that needs to see a doctor can see a doctor, everybody that needs medicines to stay healthy can get those medicines. nurse: you should know, he did it as mayor, he'll get it done as president. mrb: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. when it comes to using data, which is why xfinity mobile is a different kind of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to other top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, unwrap $250 off a new samsung phone. click, call or visit a store today.

banged to the big breaking news here in washington that could turn a potential impeachment trial upside down. former national security advisor john bolton saying he is ready to come off the sidelines and testify before congress if subpoenaed. bolton writing in part, accordingly since my testimony is once again at issue, i have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best i could based on careful consideration and study. i have concluded if the senate issues a subpoena for my testimony i am prepared to testify. joining us, moderator of the week on pbs, robert costa. your reaction to the bolton statement? >> he is saying he is willing to testify but has to be subpoenaed

by senate republicans who have not negotiated the terms of a senate trial. this is not the ambassador walking forward to tell his story in any eager way. it comes as there is new pressure from different federal court decisions. the onus is on senate republicans. will they agree with house democrats, get those articles from the house and agree to have some kind of witnesses, including ambassador bolton come forward. >> what are you hearing from senate republicans about the terms of engagement of a trial during the recess? no agreement yet, mitch mcconnell certainly hard line on friday as was chuck schumer and they had not talked during the 10-day recess. what are you seeing now when you talk to republican senators? >> to be frank, based on my reporting, senate republicans have only become closer to president trump politically in light of his handling what's happening in iran and iraq. you see hawkish republicans sometimes uneasy with president trump coalesce around the

president. you don't see any real pressure from republicans to have witnesses at a senate trial. you see senator hawley, one of the young stars on the republican side of the senate talking about maybe moving to dismiss the trial early. no real pressure to have bolton come forward. you see bolton, he told me a few months ago he wants to say his story eventually, he has a book deal. the question is will he be willing to move forward without that subpoena? could he come forward in any way, in an interview, talking to house democrats and not this caveat of making it a senate subpoena. >> we know he was a hard liner on iran and certainly supports the decision to take outside soleimani, but has a different posture on north korea and ukraine. >> that's true. when you talk to allies of ambassador bolton, they say he is very supportive publicly and even more enthusiastic privately what's going on with the

confrontation with iran. he likes the president's hawkish position and hard line the president is taking. to say the president's position on iran will somehow influence how he behaves and operates in terms of what he knows about the president's conduct on ukraine, those are totally separate issues. john bolton could be called to testify under oath about what he knows and policy and political positions of the president should in no way color what he says under oath. >> according to fiona hill, former deputy for him at the nsc, he was distressed by interference by rudy guiliani and sondland and others outside the ukraine area getting involved in a separate side negotiation mike pompeo implicitly accepted. >> that distress has been reported by the nbc news and

"washington post" and others. look at the statement ambassador bolton issued today, look where it was issued, from the bolton political action committee. this is someone who still wants to have a future in republican politics. when you understand that dynamic, you see him moving forward carefully, keeping an eye on federal court decisions, the mcgahn case, to figure out if he has to come forward. as much as he has confessed privately to friends and associates he has a lot to say because of his future in republican politics he doesn't want to be seen as someone betraying president trump or crossing party lines and why he's waiting in this incremental fashion to give his testimony. >> we should point out he's an officer of the court. he's a very very good lawyer and yale law and i believe all the rest that comes from that. this is not a case he testifies in one way and has to come back and fix his positions the way gordon sondland is. he will be as honest as he can be if he were to take that oath.

>> i profiled the ambassador several times in recent years. one of the details that always stands out is he entered the white house with this huge leather briefcase and known for taking around papers all the time and taking meticulous notes and people in the white house were.often careful around him because he was known as a knife fighter, not literally, because of how he remembered everything. >> thank you very much. a lot more on this story coming ahead. first, the blame game, secretary of state mike pompeo blaming the obama administration on iran and calling that appeasement and all of the obama initiatives for iran's recent aggression. we will talk to one of obama's leading negotiates about that. stay with us on msnbc. hi, i'm bob harper,

and i recently had a heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one.

don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

lebz hezbollah lebanese hezbollah and these terror organizations and militias all

underwritten by america policy and the obama administration. we flipped the switch, we're draining those resources and we're going to protect america and keep american people safe. >> secretary of state mike pompeo on "meet the press" on sunday blaming president obama for the current crisis in iran. he said the trump administration is trying to correct the obama's administration appeasement of iran. this as tehran says it will no longer comply with the key terms of that 2015 nuclear agreement including its commitment to limit the uranium. joining us someone who helped negotiate the deal and global affairs contributor and former deputy national security advisor to president george w. bush and msnbc national security analyst. wendy, first to you, talk about the appeasement on your watch. >> i've heard that allegation before.

i think president obama understood what president trump has yet to understand. there is a choice here. you can negotiate a deal to make sure iran doesn't obtain a nuclear weapon or you can create a situation where there is an unrestrained nuclear program in iran and some form of war. we are headed towards the latter choice, all by president trump's own doing. >> and what about the decision to take out soleimani? this is not about baghdadi, he's a member of a state regime, he's not a terrorist as evil as he was. >> right. he is the head of the iran quds force. this is a member of a state, not a rogue terrorist, the administration has been tougher on iran thinking about the state sponsorship. this clearly moves the line how

we think about iranian state sponsorship, a monumental move thinking how we target iranian sponsorship and terrorist proxies in the region. i think wendy is right we're in a period of real potential escalated conflict here. i think the challenge for the administration is can they contain any escalation and does this long term actually deter the iranians or does this put us in a position where we're in a more heightened state of conflict? i think that's the real challenge right now. >> the revolutionary guard was declared a terror organization some months ago by the state department and some of us were pointing to that as the predicate for exactly this happening but didn't get a lot of attention. >> that's right. this is important. the administration has been trying to change the narrative publish iran has been embolded and qassem soleimani is the leader of this strategy and

trying to drive iranian interests and undermine american interests. soleimani was listed and talk about soleimani being behind human rights violation and an entire narrative to put them as terrorists themselves. we're now going to strike the head of that group because he presents an imminent threat to the u.s. and behind all these actions. >> do democrats in congress, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer have any leverage here to argue the "gang of eight" leadership and heads of both parties and both houses were not notified in advance, this was an action against a regime player, not a one off. so, do they have any leverage? they will get a briefing supposedly on wednesday. do they have a war powers argument? >> yes. they have a war powers argument going forward.

not that the president didn't have an option of self-defense if in fact the intelligence shows there was an imminent threat, and the rationale for doing this, seems to be a moving target, listening to secretary pompeo on the sunday talk shows basically saying, you have to look at the entire context and history and what might come forward, sounds a little less than imminent in my view, not to say soleimani was a good guy, he was a ruthless killer and nobody mourns his death. the question is, what are the consequences and the outcome? nancy pelosi has said she will introduce a resolution there must be war powers consideration and vote by the congress before the president takes us to war. we've got an awful lot going on here, andrea. friday, the european union will have an emergency meeting to decide what it will do about the joint conference plan of action. we've seen president trump

really destroy every institution in front of him, to say that culture doesn't matter, history doesn't matter, institutions don't matter, and in fact he is destroying a piece that we had of peace. >> thank you. a lot of fall-out today. coming up, the commander in chief test. how will the crisis in iran reshape the race for president on the democratic side? it's the first contest on the democratic side, it is less than a month away. it's the 3pm slump. should have had a p3. oh yeah. should have had a p3. need energy? get p3. with a mix of meat, cheese and nuts.

skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

but she wanted to be close to nature. home. so, we met in the middle. ohhhhh! look who just woke up! you are so cute! but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. yeah, it was really easy and we saved a bunch of money. oh, you got it. you are such a smart bear! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be.

hour that john bolton, the former national security advisor, says he will testify in a senate impeachment trial if subpoenaed. that's sending political shock waves from the white house to capitol hill and eventually all the way to the campaign trail. joining me now, kimberly and msnbc contributor and political columnist to the "washington post" and former congresswoman, donna edwards of maryland. welcome all. first, john bolton. karen, how do we read this? he's certainly on board regarding iran but iran is not on the articles of impeachment and says he will testify if subpoenaed. we don't know if mitch mcconnell

has the clout, he certainly looks as though he does, to not subpoena any witnesses. >> ambassador bolton was one of the chief internal critics to the president's actions with respect to ukraine. he has reportedly said, i don't want to be part of this drug deal. i think his testimony, if mitch mcconnell and republicans in the senate, decide they want it, could be crucial hear to add a lot of context to this. i think not offering to testify was becoming increasingly untenable for him, because he does have a book he is working on and a number of other things. it would be hard to justify writing a book about all of this if you were unwilling to talk to congress about it. >> he is a lawyer as well. he's certainly observing these judicial court rulings so far have not supported the white house contention that these people cannot testify in any

way. >> right. >> the counter argument being they can appear and decline to testify if there is an individual question of privilege. >> right. in bolton's statement he seemed to be reading that writing on the wall. since we won't get a definitive answer from the court, i have thought about this thoroughly and if subpoenaed by the senate i will testify. this puts pressure not only on the senate, mitch mcconnell said he is not interested in witnesses but puts pressure on some republicans even, more moderate republicans like susan collins, who has not ruled out the idea of witnesses, if one of the central figures in this probe says he is willing to, it would be hard to make the case he shouldn't. >> we have to think about lisa murkowski and mitt romney. susan collins is hard to read saying, let's wait until both sides present the case and there could be a motion to dismiss and the whole thing could be over quickly indeed. donna, how does this affect the

2020 democrats? i want to play what's being discussed on the campaign trail. elizabeth about wag the dog and the president tweeting, i'm so busy, how can they be trying to impeach me i'm so busy running this crisis. here's how joe biden and bernie sanders reacted. >> no president has a right to take the nation to war without the informed consent and authority coming from the united states congress. but he thinks -- he thinks he can do it by having formally told the world in a tweet. >> the strength of the united states is to bring people together to resolve their differences without killing each other. that's the kind of world that i would like. >> donna, this is the first time bernie sanders on this foreign policy issue has also gone after joe biden, bernie sanders doing well, raising a ton of money in

this last quarter and now questioning j questioning biden's judgment on iraq. >> it raises the question whether an iraq vote will play into voters' mind. >> it did in 2008 between obama an hillary. >> it did. that was a very different race. here we are 18 years later and this does play into joe biden's wheelhouse around foreign policy and the question of electability, whether people trust -- which of the candidates people trust the most. on the other hand, i think that, you know, some of the other candidates are going to have to step up their game as well when it comes to these questions around foreign policy, even though they haven't been erased completely on the campaign trail, right now, it's an open question because we don't know what the response of iran is going to be over these next couple of weeks leading up to iowa and new hampshire.

>> kimberly, when i was covering joe biden back when the war in iraq was being contemplated. he and his partner at the foreign relations committee, the late great kick luger co-moderated hearings what to do with iraq and there was gates, the defense secretary saying he has never come out on a foreign policy issue and shown good judgment. >> there's a lot. joe biden coming in with the strongest foreign policy resume and bernie sanders in his established non-ventionalalism. i'm looking at other candidates, elizabeth warren calling soleimani a murderer and having to change her tone because she's trying to appeal to those who might back biden or sanders and she's squeezed in the middle and having an impact on the trail. >> thank you very much. karen and donna, great to have

you all today. up next, unintended consequences, formered a mirl leader saying they might go after a diplomatic figure seeking revenge for its top killing. you're watching msnbc reports. c. better taste, better nutrition, better eggs. their medicare options...ere people go to learn about before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! well, you've come to the right place. it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why... medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. only about 80% of your medical costs. this part is up to you... yeah, everyone's a little surprised

to learn that one. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. that could help cut down on those out-of-your-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today... to request this free, and very helpful, decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. there are no networks or referrals to worry about. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! see? you're able to stick with him. like to travel? this kind of plan goes with you anywhere you travel in the country. so go ahead, spend winter somewhere warm. if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire,

find out more about the plans that live up to their name. thumbs up to that! remember, the time to prepare is before you go on medicare! don't wait. get started today. call unitedhealthcare and ask for your free decision guide. learn more about aarp medicare supplement plan options and rates to fit your needs oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance. and you may remember us from your very first sandwich,esh, your move-in-day feast, your bold canine caper, your dinner in the dark, your mammoth masterpiece, (whispering) your 3:47am snack, and whatever happened here. oscar mayer is found in more fridges than anyone else, because it's the taste you count on. make every sandwich count.

i don't make compromises. i want nutrition made just for me. but i also want great taste. so i drink boost for women. new boost women with key nutrients to help support thyroid, bone, hair and skin health. all with great taste. new boost women.

the u.s. soldiers were deployed to the area. eventually just under 4,000 troops from fort brag are being deployed to the region. for military families in fort brag, there are a lot of mixed emotions. brianna's husband is already on the ground there. >> i was in the 82nd myself, and i got out a couple years ago. i know both sides of it. i think t just as a wife and a mom, it's really hard to think about what's happening over there. >> ray gene's husband shipped out. they were scheduled to be married in june. >> my main concern is him not coming back. this is real people leaving behind real loved ones and we

don't know if we're going to see them again. >> joining me now, someone who understands all this, fochief international security analyst for msnbc. you know how compelling this is, and your book is sailing true north, your latest book. you know how compelling and heart breaking it is, but commanders do what commanders do once the path orders troops in. >> indeed. and you know this from years up front with our soldiers and airmen and marines, every one of those young men and women are ready to go. i am retired, but my son-in-law is a proud navy physician. he just came back from a deployment, and i know firsthand how seriously they all take it, and how dedicated they are to the country. that's the good news in this situation. >> looking for good news, there isn't a whole lot of good news in the president's tweets,

frankly. first, saying his posts are basically a response to congress. that doesn't comply with notification to the gang of 8, as far as i can tell, but r rouhani responding that he would hit 52 cultural sites or 52 targets including cultural sites representing the 52 american hostages who are memorably held once the ayatollah took over from the shaw back in 1978 held at the embassy. that's clearly on the minds of both the president and mike pompeo. now, hassan rue maunny, the president of iran responding. those who refer to the number 52 should also remember the number 290. ir 655. never threaten the iranian nation. that was the airliner we mistakenly shot down. >> yes.

this was a brand new cruiser simply in the fog of battle intention. unintentionally entirely, but tragically shot down a civilian airliner. and andrea, that is a pretty good depiction of what we see now. this fog of war that's descending on the region, leads to miscalculation. and so i think it would be a miscalculation for the iranians to strike a u.s. military target, go after a senior u.s. general or diplomat, go after one of our embassies. if they do that, there will be a significant response in return, and that ladder of violence will continue to grow. >> what if they build in deniability through proxies and/or cyber attacks making it harder for us to go to the unite united nations. the europeans are distressed

with this decision. >> they are. i think we'll see a combination of tactics and procedures by the iranians. they're going somewhat dark right now in terms of our ability to penetrate what they're doing, but look for them to use proxies against our ground forces. look for them to use cyber almost certainly. look for them to potentially threaten israel, hezbollah, a creature of iran has tens of thousands of surface to surface missiles. the iranians, unfortunately, have a wide range of tools to bring to bear here. >> and they're lifting their self-imposed restrictions on the iran nuclear deal but will cooperate with the atomic agency. presumably inspectors will be on the ground to try to see whether or not they're building up centrifuges, enriching uranium to dangerous levels. that said, we've lost some of our visibility. according to new york times

reporting and some reporting i think elsewhere as well, we were intercepting communications between soleimani and the ayatollah to come back to b baghd baghdad for consultations on threat plans or also on the saudi back channel with iran negotiations, diplomacy. >> indeed. and if we look at this, andrea, this is a very good example of unintended consequences. so we launched the strike. we kill soleimani. that's a good thing. we take a very powerful chess piece off the board. strategically, what happens, this is the law of unintended consequences. u.s. troops are asked to leave iraq. our campaign against the islamic state is on pause. any back channel is dead. the nuclear deal is dead. that's just in the region. and given all of our distractions in the region, our need to focus our intelligence and our national security on

iran, what's happening in venezuela? ma due ra decides now is a perfect time to take out other people. the unintended consequences ought to concern us. >> and nato which used to command as stopped the training exercises in iran for security reasons. >> yes. >> the depth of your knowledge is special. stay with us on msnbc. next hour new york senator kirsten gillibrand on the growing issues with iran. 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

whor here on a wifi hotspot,te xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. moooo. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, unwrap $250 off our best phones. click, call or visit a store today.

and that does it for this edition of andrea mitchel reports. here are vel cshi and ruhle for "velshi and ruhle." >> hello, everybody. it is monday, january 6th. coming up this hour on "velshi and ruhle," shock waves felt through the white house as john bolton says he is ready to testify in the impeachment trial. what he knows about the uk and controversy and what it could mean for president trump. and we're digging into the iran crisis. hundreds of thousands of iranians show up for soleimani's funeral. also this, as thousands more american soldiers are being deployed to the middle east even after iraq votes to force u.s. troops out, we're going to look at america's strategy across the region as tensions spike. let's start with breaking news. former national security