nbc's chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. she has quite the lineup including an interview with susan rice, senator jack reed, and democratic senator chris murphy from the foreign relations committee as well. "andrea mitchell reports" starts right now. thank you so much. i'm andrea mitchell in washington where president trump is signaling an end to escalating military confrontation with iran. speaking from the white house to the american people moments ago, his first direct response since the killing of qassem soleimani, delivering a message to iran and an update on our soldiers in the region. >> i'm pleased to inform you the american people should be extremely grateful and happy. no americans were harmed in last night's attack by the iranian

regime. we suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe. our great american forces are prepared for anything. iran appears to be standing down which is a good thing for all parties concerned. nations have tolerated iran's destructive and destabilizing behavior in the middle east and beyond. those days are over. iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism in their pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens the civilized world. we will never let that happen. >> joining me now, nbc white house correspondent kristen welker, richard engel in iraq, nbc correspondent ken dilanian, and chris matthews, of course, the host of hardball right here on msnbc.

the president's strong language but not a military action and he repeated the inaccurate characterization of the iran nuclear deal, we can fact-check that in a moment. he says nato has to get more involved, but the nato allies have been very de-stressed by his lack of notification by them and nato had to stand down on their anti-isis training in combat in iraq because they had no warning of the soleimani kill. >> reporter: that is one of the key questions moving forward, how will president trump try to get those nato allies on board when so many of them have been critical about the way in which he carried out the attack against soleimani, the fact that they weren't looped in. a couple of key takeaways that i thought from the president's remarks. he said iran appears to be standing down. he noted the fact that there were no casualties last night in

the attack. the question is, is that in fact the case. what if any proof does the white house have that there won't be attacks through iran's proxies? the president gave a very robust defense of his decision to pull out of the iran nuclear deal and his decision to attack iran's top general. the administration has for days been arguing that the general, qassem soleimani, posed an imminent threat to the u.s. but has yet to provide any evidence and the president didn't provide anymore details or evidence today in his remarks. instead he really focused on soleimani's past, the fact that he says his hands are drenched with blood, the blood of americans and others in the region. but he didn't give any new indication as to why the administration thought there was that imminent threat. so we know that senior administration officials, secretary of state mike pompeo, defense secretary mark esper will be among those on capitol hill later today who are briefing both the house and the senate on not only the iran

policy moving forward, but that critical decision to attack iran's top general. they will undoubtedly press for evidence, for facts to backup the assertion that he posed an imminent threat, that this was necessary. i asked the president as he was leaving, has he ruled out military retaliation, right now he didn't answer that question or any questions for that matter. but i anticipate those will be among the questions top of mind for lawmakers later this afternoon, andrea. >> absolutely. and to that point, to iraq, and richard engel. richard, there in iraq, there was some warning by the iranians to the iraqis, we're not exactly sure of how much. but there were no casualties. we know that they have made great advances in the precision of their weapons, their missiles. and that was signified certainly in september by their strike against the saudi oil fields.

so was this a deliberate attempt to avoid an escalating confrontation and to take enough action to satisfy the desires for revenge or are we just going to see more proxy efforts by iran or cyber efforts that cannot be tied to them directly? >> reporter: well, the iranians could have done a lot more than they did last night. and while this was going on, we heard iran talk about some of its capabilities. iran as it was firing these ballistic missiles at bases in iraq including here in erbil, we heard iranian officials and we saw the tweets coming out from iranian news agencies talking about how hezbollah was being mobilized or put on high alert, how militias in iraq were being put on high alert, how it was

prepared to attack other areas. iran has those capabilities and decided not to use them. there have been numerous reports that iran deliberately misfired or tried not to fire ginto the most populated parts in the bases. the fact that it landed in areas that did not cause any casualties, iraqi or americans, i think is worth noting. also the issue of notification. the iraqi prime minister came out in a statement and said that his government did receive notification from the iranians. now it is not clear if it was notification as the attack was already in progress or slightly before. the language suggested that it was somewhat right before the missiles began to drop which would also suggest that the americans had a little bit of

heads up and that president trump talked about the early warning system. now, the ballistic missiles would have had to travel from iranian territory at least 200 miles before hitting the al asad base. these are not that fast missiles. so they could have been tracked and apparently were being tracked giving u.s. troops time to get into bunkers and take shelter. i think what we saw today was president trump perhaps at his most measured. he talked about how the u.s. military is strong, how it's been rebuilt under his leadership, but that he does not want to use it. and he did seem to be offering an off-ramp. he was talking how iran could have a prosperous future. he said there should be this new track with nato. there are european countries that have much better relations with iran than the united states. it was not the speech that some in the region here were bracing for. i remember, andrea, very well, and i'm sure you remember it

too, i was standing on a rooftop in baghdad in 2003 and president trump came out and said, saddam hussein has 48 hours to leave iraq, that was not the kind of speech we heard tonight. it was a de-escalation and if anything, it opens the door for potential new path forward. is it over? we don't know if iran is going to take other steps through cyber or militia groups might decide that they need to take some sort of action as well. in addition to qassem soleimani, the iranian general being killed, a top iraqi militia leader was killed in the same attack. that militia might decide it wants to get its revenge as well. >> this was certainly not the president bush 2003 warning that we're about to go to war. that said, and there's some broken pottery in iraq.

right now in iraq, there had been protests for months against the iraqis and the influence there. and now, richard, the iraqis are angry at the americans because the u.s. killed soleimani at baghdad airport. the decision to do that on iraqi soil -- >> reporter: that was the glaring omission here. >> right. and there was no -- >> reporter: that was the glaring omission here. as if the iraqi -- as if the iraqi government doesn't exist, as if this country is some playground for proxy war between iran and the united states. and i'm sorry for stepping on you. there's a bit of a delay here. the iraqis are feeling that. they don't want this country to be a battleground where the united states can decide to carry out a drone strike at or just outside the baghdad international airport against one of its enemies and they

don't want -- for the iranians to be firing ballistic missiles in order to enact revenge against the united states. in fact, just today there were demonstrations in baghdad by a group of people who want the iranians to scale back their presence and they say that it is now time for the united states and for iran to pay for all the damage that they are causing in this country. so, yes, iran is -- iraqi is caught in the middle of this. doesn't like being caught in the middle of this. there have been calls for u.s. troops to leave this country and now after there has been this exchange of fire and increased tensions, hopefully tensions that are dissipating, i think that issue does remain, what happens to the troop presence in this country. >> richard engel, powering through a windy night in erbil, iraq. thank you, richard. to iran, and our tehran bureau

chief. the president threatened more economic sanctions. what is left to sanction in iran? they have done everything that we know of. >> reporter: not a lot, andrea. the main things here have been sanctioned, oil, that's iran's most valuable commodity and they've pretty much choked off iran's oil sales. there are other certain minor banking sanctions that they could go through. there isn't anything that could hurt the economic any more than they have hurt it already. iran's economy is in terrible shape. the local currency here has just lost its value completely. after all of these tensions happened here, the stock market in iran just took a complete nose-dive. i don't think sanctions are going to be very effective anymore. and iran has learned how to deal with sanctions for quite a long

time. but the one thing to take away from the president's speech is that there isn't going to be for now any way, any sort of retaliation for the attacks iran made last night on those bases. but he was very hard on iran and he also kind of played down iran's attacks last night. he said there were no casualties. he didn't talk about any major damage which is quite opposite to what was being billed here in iran. iran billed this as a huge victory where they inflicted a lot of damage on those bases, on iranian tv all day after those attacks there was an iranian flag in the corner of state tv which was to representative victory. the supreme leader gave a speech shortly after those attacks and he said that was just a slap in the face, the attacks, and qassem soleimani's assassination hasn't been avenged yet and they

should wait for that. has the president sort of provoked iran to save face and come back and do something else because qassem soleimani was the second most powerful man in this country, he was ayatollah ali khamenei's right hand. he had executed all of advertise plans that he wanted in this region to make iran very careful. so the president made it sound like they didn't get revenge for qassem soleimani's death. i doubt that iran is going to do anything radical right now. they don't want to invite some kind of huge reprisal from america. but the tensions remain extremely high. there doesn't seem to be any appetite on either side for any dialogue and the proxies in this region have -- even today been making statements that they still want to avenge his death, they will do whatever iran tells

them. those things are going to keep boiling over here. iran has basically reduced all of its commitments to the nuclear deal and the first thing the president said in his speech was iran will never have a nuclear weapon. so there's still many, many flash points between washington and tehran. we may have asserted a direct strike on iran and caused iran to really try and cause fatalities with u.s. troops. but the status quo remains for now, andrea. >> thanks so much. here with me in washington, ken dilanian and of course chris matthews. first to you, chris. the attack on the obama-iran deal with misstates facts in a speech of this nature, this was the president's opportunity to

explain what was the justification for taking out soleimani, what was the imminent threat as much as he could say in a declassified setting. why was that necessary? what about our allies in iraq? and to go after obama and claim incorrectly that the obama administration had paid for the missile strike. the facts are, $150 billion that went back to iran after the nuclear deal was unfreezing iranian assets that had been frozen since 1979 when they took our embassy and our hostages. plus there was an extra amount of money that we owed them for military equipment that they had paid for and we had never given them, plus interest. that was the money that they got. it was not any kind of a bonus. >> in the midst of this critical moment where they're playing this poker game of who's going to outraise the other guy and

say this is enough. and i thought he did say that this is going to be a slowdown, a response with restraint. in the midst of this international conversation, he throws in this clinical need to attack obama. can he not get through a conversation without -- but in this case, it was so scurrilous. he's saying, you see those bombs hitting our base, they were paid for by barack obama. like he's back -- he's the financial guy behind these bombs. it's an outrageous connection. they had the missile capability. they had the ballistic missiles. they weren't connected. they weren't dedicated funding from the proceeds of the iranian nuclear deal. it's an absurd connection, but it's feeding his red-hot base, the president's. >> how much notice did we have? what about the early warning

system that perhaps did prepare u.s. troops? >> that's right. donald trump referred to the early warning system which he said worked and there are many ways that the u.s. can get notice of a missile launch. one of them is a special unit that the national security agency maintains not far from here whose job it is to monitor ballistic missile launches across the planet and they use radar and they intercept communications. and we are told that they detected these launches and so u.s. troops had a chance to get into bunkers and protect themselves. but just simply the iranian decision to use ballistic missiles in this attack instead of, for example, artillery from a few miles away or rockets, that sent a message about what this was which was more propaganda and face-saving than an intent to kill americans with a military strike. from their perspective, it worked because donald trump also de-escalated today. on the surface, we're not going to get the war that people feared. but the point was made, the

shadow war continues. now we're back to the intelligence war and we've taken out the iranian architect qassem soleimani. >> but he was replaced immediately by his deputy. >> exactly. and what was happened here, american ambassadors, generals, intelligence officials are at greater risk as they travel the world. nobody that you and i talked to in the intelligence community thinks that this will be the last word from the iranians on this matter. >> ken, chris, and we'll be watching hardball at 7:00 tonight for all of the updates as we see how congress is finally briefed on this today. rhode island democratic senator jack reed, the top democrat on the arms services committee, a west point graduate as well. thank you very much. what is your immediate reaction to the president's speech? >> well, i think both sides recognize that they could find

themselves in an uncontrollable escalation. so last evening the attack by the iranians, as was suggested, was not as grievance or robust as could be. it was in many respects symbolic but it was still a serious, serious effort firing rockets for the first time, identifiably from iran into iraq to american bases. mercifully there were no casualties and i think that gave both sides the opportunity to reassess the next step and the president, i think, again, recognized that they're very close to a precipice and rather than a counter response. but there's very little left to sanction. talking about some type of discussions with the iranians but not relieving the maximum pressure campaign.

and as a result the iranians will continue their efforts only this time through proxies. i think politically in iraq, particularly, they will try to do all they can to effectuate the vote of the parliament to expel u.s. forces and the loss of u.s. forces in iraq would have consequences throughout the region. and then finally the president made a great to do about the jcpoa, but the reality is that the iranians now are moving much quicker and much faster towards the capability of having a nuclear weapon and iran, rather, moving that way, and with such a weapon they will be a much more dangerous adversary. we're looking at a similar phenomenon in north korea where we're trying to get them back in the box and it's very difficult. >> did you hear anything in the speech that answered questions that many on capitol hill are raising about the imminence of the threat that justifies the killing of soleimani in iraq, at

baghdad airport? how inconsiderate was that? >> there was no discussion i heard about the imminence and that's a critical factor because that was the first -- if you will, the first thing that everyone said about why they had to do it, what was -- why were they taking the hit in iraq, one of our allies, why they didn't inform the iraqi government, et cetera.? were there other means, methods to disrupt the attacks? i don't think soleimani himself would have been involved in directing them. he was the overall strategic planner. there's a set of issues and none of that was responded to. and my sense is they don't have a good answer. >> and what do you want to hear from the military briefers about our relationship with iraq, about the confusion over that letter signaling that we are okay with withdrawing our

troops? unprecedented confusion in what they did after the soleimani killing. >> the situation in iraq politically is very challenging. first, a large portion of the iraqi parliament has close ties to the shia militias. that was evident in the vote. the sunnis and the kurds absented themselves from the vote. but the strong shia majority voted for the proposal. he's prepared to exact it. he's made comments that he expects it to be carried out. i think the iranians now working through their political means and their proxies will try to get that in effect, push our forces out. and then of course the popular militias as richard engel pointed out, one of the victims of the assault, one of the -- was a leader of the larger pmfs

in iran and his own folks might feel that they have to take action regardless of the iranians. the situation is far from over and it's not a situation where we're safer today than we were yesterday. you still have major threats in iraq and now you have what looks like a complete or virtually complete abandonment of the nuclear deal and the iranians will be racing towards a nuclear weapon and that puts an issue, you know, how do we stop them from doing that if we've abandoned diplomacy? >> and from my reporting our europe allies were not notified in chance. the president is calling on nato to be more involved. but nato is standing down on some of its training against isis in the region because they were not notified and felt that they had to protect their troops. >> that's exactly correct.

i was at al asad in 2019. most of the training was conducted by nato. there were colonels who were running the training facilities. now nato, individual countries at least are saying we have to bring our forces out to protect them. the united states announced a few days ago that they were stopping sort of their anti-isis activities for protection reasons both in syria and iraq. again, the confusion and the turmoil and the conflict within iraq could once again give rise to isis. our security people, our intelligence people tell us that given the opportunity, given the head space, if you will, isis will reconstitute. these are fanatical radicals. they will do that and we could be in the ironic position of seeing the isis threat multiply, the iranians actually go fullout for a nuclear weapon which would make the region and the situation less secure and less

safe than it was just a few years ago. >> senator, i know it's a busy day on capitol hill. thank you for being with us today. let's get more insight on president trump's remarks this morning from susan rice. served as u.s. ambassador to the u.n. and as national security advice to president obama. she joins me now. thank you very much for being with us. >> good to be with you, andrea. >> i want to play something that the president said basically accusing the obama administration for paying for the missiles that hit iraqi bases just yesterday. let's watch. >> iran's hostility substantially increased after the foolish iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013. instead of saying thank you to the united states, they chanted death to america. in fact, they chanted death to

america the day the agreement was signed. the missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration. >> let's fact-check the $150 billion that went to iran after the nuclear deal was signed. >> first of all, andrea, as you know and as you were discussing with your colleagues, this is another series of despicable lies by president trump. the fact that 3 1/2 years after taking office he remains -- or three years after taking office he remains obsessed with president obama just shows president trump's extreme weakness and insecurity. the facts about the iran nuclear deal are that it effectively halted and rolled back iranian's nuclear program. in the years since the signing of the deal in 2015, up until president trump's unilateral

withdraw abandoning our allies against the advice of his advisors, there were no proxy attacks by iranian proxies on u.s. personnel in iraq. there were no efforts by iran to attack our drones in the persian gulf or attack shipping. the nuclear program was under control. there were strict inspections. everybody including the american intelligence community validated that it was being upheld and our forces and presence in the region was secure. president trump decided recklessly to withdraw from the nuclear deal and impose so-called maximum pressure crippling sanctions. and it was in the wake of that that we found ourselves in this cycle that has led to where we are today, a very dangerous moment. let's think about where we are in the wake of what has happened over the last several days. first as senator reed said, we are not safer. this was an extremely risky and

costly decision to kill qassem soleimani. even though thankfully no one was killed last night, no americans, no iraqis. the iraqis want us out of iraq. that's extraordinarily dangerous for our interest. it's a victory for iran. the fight against isis has been suspended. so the whole reason why we're there to go after the terrorists, we can't do. and then the iran nuclear deal has come acroper because the iranians have decided they have no reasons to restrain themselves which they're going full steam ahead which is likely to lead to conflict. and the other key point is, for those who think this may be over, thankfully it seems the overt military exchange might be over for now and that's a good thing. but we can be pretty confident that the iranians are going to use proxies, cyberattacks and possibility terrorism to continue to retaliate as they

have historically for the killing of soleimani. >> and the protests in iran against the regime are all lean directed toward the united states. he's unified iranians against the u.s. instead of challenging their own leaders and unified iraqis against the u.s. instead of protesting against iran. >> exactly. this is incredibly ill-advised. it's a set back for our security. it's our a setback for our interests in the region and it was completely unnecessary. there has been no demonstration of an imminent threat that we were facing. qassem soleimani clearly has killed many americans. he has blood on his hands and no doubt they're plotting something. but the fact that by taking him out we have ensured our departure in iraq, that the fight against isis has been suspended and the nuclear

program is now completely without brakes or restraint is a very, very dangerous situation and as i said, i do think we have to be prepared for the high probability that there will be unattributable attacks on the united states in forms like terrorism or proxy attacks or cyber form that are yet to come. >> i just want to fact-check also the $150 billion that the president suggested helped pay for the missiles that were launched last night. >> you already fact-checked that. the fact is, that's another lie. the $150 billion as you pointed out was iranian money that was unfrozen as a result of the nuclear deal and they have been complying with the nuclear deal. that's not america giving iran $150 billion. quite the contrary. and iran has had these sophisticated missiles. they've been developing their capacity for many, many years to say that that money funded the

attack on our personnel and on our base is just the most disgraceful kind of lie, of the sort that president trump tells every day. >> is there a diplomatic track? >> there isn't a diplomatic track now but there's a potential to establish one if the united states were so inclined. president trump came out in his first words were, iran won't get a bomb, a nuclear weapon on my watch. they weren't going to get a nuclear weapon on anybody's watch had the president adhered to the nuclear deal. certainly, you know, iran in committing to the deal had fore sworn nuclear weapons f. the deal extended for 15 years. now 4 1/2 years into the deal, their constraints are all off. and so what is president trump going to do to ensure there's not a nuclear weapon on his watch? he's got two choices, basically. one is to pursue diplomacy which

is very, very difficult now given how he's ruptured everything that was agreed diplomatically and given the iranians no reason to believe that he would adhere to any terms of a deal. or it's to allow to iran to rush to the capacity to acquire the materials for a nuclear weapon. and we either let them get there or we have to take military action which was precisely what the deal was designed to avoid. >> he demanded that russia, china, the europe allies get out of the nuclear weapon deal themselves. what leverage does the president have with germany, france, the uk -- >> none. >> because? >> we are the ones who with drew from the deal. we are the ones who have precipitated this cycle of escalation unfortunately and we treat our allies under president trump like trash. as you pointed out, we don't give them even a heads-up when

we're about to take dangerous action that put their personnel directly at risk. we don't consult. we don't concert our efforts. and so why should they simply follow along like sheepish puppies just because president trump finds himself in a bind and has to give a speech. >> susan rice, ambassador susan rice, thank you very much. >> thank you. and coming up, will congress get anymore guidance today on what the administration says was the imminent threat that led to the killing of iran's top general. democratic senator chris murphy will join me right here on "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. one of seven delicious entrées - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today.

you get more than yourfree shipping.ir, you get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now!

and in the last hour, president trump speaking about the alleged imminent threat that prompted the killing of top iranian general qassem soleimani. >> he was planning new attacks on american targets but we stopped him by removing soleimani we have sent a powerful messages to terrorists, if you value your own life, you will not threaten the lives of our people. >> joining me now chris murphy of connecticut, a member of the foreign relations committee. thank you very much. did the president give you enough answers about why soleimani was killed, what was the imminent threat, and why was he killed on iraqi territory?

>> we have a briefing scheduled later today and my hope is that we'll get many of those answers then. i don't know whether they'll be sufficient. of course the burden is twofold. first the administration has to present imminence threat evidence but they have to explain why going after soleimani was necessary and whether it was proportional. i'm glad that it appears that we are on a de-escalation path militarily. but the fact of the matter is, the damage that has been done already just in the last four days to american security interests in the region is perhaps irreparable. the soleimani restarted the entirety of iran's nuclear weapons program. it's on its way to getting us kicked out of iraq. all of that provides grave danger to the united states and i just don't know that we can turn all of that around.

maybe we are no longer in a war in a conventional sense with iran, but right now isis is stronger, right now the region is less stable, all of that is bad. >> i wanted to play mitch mcconnell's comments about speaker pelosi and her response to the air strikes last night. >> it's troubled me that speaker pelosi responded to the reports yesterday about leaping to blame, quote, needless provocations by our administration. in other words, blaming the united states. >> can you react to that or put it in context? >> listen, i'm used to it, right. this is exactly what republicans did in the leadup to the 2003 invasion of iraq. any time you try to criticize republican military strategy, you are told that you're criticizing america. listen, there's nothing more patriotic than criticizing your own government. that is in fact the foundation upon which this country is

built. and i am not going to allow for this congress or this president to lead us into a war of choice against iran that will get thousands of americans killed. i'm not going to sit by and not criticize what i think is a backwards strategy towards iran that's making iran stronger and making america weaker. i've been through this before. it doesn't hurt me when mitch mcconnell or anybody else says if you're criticizing donald trump, you're criticizing his military strategy, you are criticizing america. that's bs. >> i want to ask you about the national security process going into all of this, the military as well as the national security advisers, the staffing. according to article in the "new york times" in recent days, as tensions with iran has escalated, president trump opted for the most extreme measure, she wrote, top american military officials put the option of killing him which they viewed as the most extreme response to violence in iraq on the menu

they presented to president trump. they didn't think they would take it and in fact were shocked when he did take it. how is he getting advised and how do you explain missteps like that letter that has been taken seriously by the iraqis in which they now claim was a draft. but my reporting is from former pentagon officials, it had a date stamp on it which indicates it was prepared for signature and approved by washington and the pentagon? >> listen, there's been diplomatic fumble after diplomatic fumble. part of the problem here is that we pulled all of our diplomats out of the baghdad embassy six months ago for cause that i think is very unclear and that allows for mistakes like this to happen. and so we've had a lot of mistakes being made almost on a daily basis when it comes to our diplomatic strategy in the region. i trust the reporting i hear from the "new york times." i wonder, though, whether our military really would put an option before this president

that they opposed? my feeling is that the military provides a range of options but none of them are done so in the hope that is the president won't pick it. i'm sure it surprised his leaders that he chose the most extreme option. i'm not sure that the military put that option in front of him if there wasn't a significant element of the u.s. military command that supported it. >> and i want to ask you whether -- the same question i asked susan rice. what leverage do we have to now demand that europe, russia, china, get out of the iran nuclear deal as we did? >> well, we have less leverage than we did before. already our relationships with our europe allies were fractured. they have become more fractured by the fact that we continue to take this escalatory path against iran that the europes did not support. and i think to myself what would have happened if instead of

getting out of the nuclear agreement, instead of going forth on this blind escalation, the president had taken the foundation that president obama had built and worked to built upon it. what if he had stayed in the nuclear agreement and used the alliance that president obama had built. when the whole world, including russia and china were with us against iran and gone after their ballistic missile program, gone after their support for terrorism, we could actually be in a stronger position today. iran actually could be weaker. but in almost every single way iran is stronger than they were when president trump came into office and we are weaker in the region. he made a horrible mistake by not building on obama's foundation and now we're left trying to pick up through the rubble. >> senator chris murphy, thank you very much. thanks for being with us today. >> thanks. what is the calculation in iran right now? do they think they've done

enough to assure their domestic audience that they have found revenge for the death of soleimani? >> it's interesting as i've been speaking to people there, i think the world, iran, americans across the world certainly breathing a sigh of relief after hearing the president speak today. but there was a major calculation in iran's activities when it came to that strike in iraq. there was -- it was for domestic consumption as i've been hearing. also it was about a show of force. we saw a ground swell of support after the killing of the general. you saw millions of people mourning his loss in the streets of iran. you remember, andrea, as you well know, there was a frack temperatu fracture in the top tiers of the government. the iranian government as we well now, vowing to avenge his death, the supreme leader vowing to avenge his death, the

president avowing to avenge his death, also proxy forces vowing to avenge the general's death. they did not want an all-out war. they knew their regime could not necessarily survive a war with the united states. they wanted to show what they could do. they struck with surgical precision avoiding all casualties and you had iranians waking up to headlines like american lives lost, basically saying that we leveled this base when we know that's not true after hearing from the president of the united states. but nonetheless it is a unifying factor for iranians behind their government looking to them and seeing that they can be basically -- they can see them as a guiding factor moving forward and all this existed, they feel unified behind that government. and i will say as we've heard from a lot of your guests as you've been having this amazing coverage here is that we cannot

count iran out at this point. with regards to the proxy forces, you can't help think that there could still very much be a factor which were they employ their proxy forces to strike and of course the cyberattack. >> thank you so much for your insights. appreciate that today. coming up, a view from inside the situation room from a former deputy national security adviser, megan o'sullivan joining us on "andrea mitchell reports." rts. what's going on? 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. looking to simplify your skin care routine without sacrificing results? try olay total effects. one dose provides more vitamin b3 than 50 cups of kale and improves 7 key areas of visibly healthy skin. try olay total effects.

nexthi. oh, susan what a surprise, you're here early! you know life line screening assesses your risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease. looks like somebody should have gotten screened. life line screening is the easy and affordable way to make you aware of undetected health problems before they hurt you. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries for plaque that builds up as you age. after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke. so if you're over 40, call to schedule an appointment for five painless screenings that go beyond annual checkups. and if you call us today, you'll only pay $149 an over 50% savings. it's affordable and painless and they have convenient locations, like everywhere. everywhere, i know! so avoidable! i didn't know! life line screening. the power of prevention. hey frank, our worker's comp

insurance is expiring, should we just renew it? yeah, sure. hey there, small business owner. pie insurance here with some sweet advice to stop you from overpaying on worker's comp. try pie instead and save up to 30%. thirty percent? really? get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. wow, that is easy. so, need another reminder? no, no no, i'm good. uh, yes please. oh. ho ho ho, yeah! need worker's comp insurance? get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com.

president trump called on u.s. allies spels russia and china to bend in the iran nuclear deal that he pulled out of. >> iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions and end the support for terrorism. the time has come for the united kingdom, germany, france, russia, and china to recognize this reality. they must now break away from the remnants of the iran deal. and we must all work together

toward making a deal with iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place. joining me now, meghan o sullivan, the author of "wind fall". an expert on iraq and iran. thank you for being with us. let's talk about the potential damage here even after the deescalation of military action. what can we expect now in iraq which has been traumatized by this killing of this prominent iranian general on its soil? >> thanks for having me on the show, andrea. i think that we definitely as your other guests were saying, have a moment, an opportunity for deescalation. but i agree when they say we shouldn't expect this episode is over. there's the possibility that damage is done by iran in

another format or either as susan rice was saying cyber or something else. but i also think that there's a lot of damage to america's diplomatic and political standing in the region, and certainly as you suggest, there's a crisis that has been precipitated by the turn of events over the last week between the united states and iraq. iraq viewed the killing of qassem soleimani on its soil to be a real violation of its sovereignty and an explicit violation of the agreement between the united states and iraq that says the united states will not use the presence on iraqi territory to target any other country. this has, as you've, c used a movement to get u.s. troops out of iraq. one of the things to pay attention is the iranian president said the real goal is to get u.s. forces out of the

region. the question is how will the iranians pursue that? will it be through military or diplomatic means? i would say both. iraq is the theater in which the cha chapter to going to unfold on whether or not u.s. troops find a way to maintain a presence in the country. >> we've seen russia having more leverage because of the u.s. withdrawal from syria. putin was in damascus. now angela merkel is going to moscow on saturday to talk to vladimir putin about how to handle the aftermath of the soleimani killing. >> well, let's think back to when assad first used chemical weapons against his own people in syria. and president obama and that fateful moment when he decided not to use military force to address that violation of widely held international norms. who stepped in? putin and russia to broker a diplomatic deal to broker something that gave everybody a

bit more space but one of the big impacts was, of course, to enhance russian power in the region. and i think we should expect very much the same thing. whether or not it will be successful, i don't know, but putin probably sees this as an opportunity where there needs to be a third or fourth, i guess it would be, figure in the region to try to broker a deescalation and maybe a tentative understanding of what comes next. so i would expect that putin will try to play that role. my hope is that the united states would look to europe or others to play that role so that the outcome could be certainly much better than it was with syria from the perspective of american interests. >> you're right. that was a very helpful reminder that it was when president obama did not take action after the crossing of the red line of chemical weapons when russia first began to move into the

middle east and then, of course, we're seeing it continue with the withdrawal from syria that president trump agreed to. let me ask you also about -- >> actually, if -- >> go ahead. >> i would also just say that russia has offered to train iraqi troops after the departure of american troops. so that's another way in which russia might enhance its influence in the middle east on the back of an american retrenchment. >> was it a mistake not to notify the european allies the nato allies before the assassination of soleimani? >> i don't know the nature of the intelligence that this attack was based on but my instinct would be that it definitely was a mistake. these are allies who have people on the ground. and who have fought with us. who have shared our interests and our objectives in this theater. and i think the fact that we did not bring them into the circle in some sense makes it more

difficult for us to achieve what we need in the next stage which is very dependent on our ability to work with allies like the europeans and partners like the iraqis. so i think that there's a lot of restoration of alliances that needs to be done that we're starting from a very low base in any instance. >> meghan at harvard, thank you for being with us. we'll be right back. hey, saved you a seat.

this round's on me. hey, can you spot me? come on in. find your place today, with silversneakers. included in most medicare advantage plans. enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers.com

here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help?

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

as the administration top officials arrive on capitol hill to brief congress on the justification for the killing of qassem soleimani, that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchel reports". thanks for being with us. here is ali shevel which i. >> one of the things our viewers don't know in addition to seeing you here and on nightly news, when things like this happen there's a amount of guidance that your experience in foreign affairs gives us that you spread around to us. i ended up on tv overnight. i was relying on your guidance. we lie on that for you and thank you for that. >> thank you, but you were up all night and i was sleeping. thank you for being the strong man. >> good to see you and have a great afternoon. we are following fast