Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

President Trump: Iranian Commander Killed By U.S. Was Plotting "Imminent and Sinister" Attacks Against Americans; Reports: New Airstrike Targets Iran-Backed Militia Near Baghdad; Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is Interviewed About Iranian Commander Killed By U.S.; Trump: Iranian Commander Killed by U.S. Was Plotting Attacks Against Americans; Washington Post: Some Democrats Privately Worried About Sending Impeachment Articles To Senate Amid Iran Tensions. Aired on 8-9p ET

Aired January 03, 2020 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[20:00:12]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: We've been waiting for the next move after the killing of a notorious Iranian general. Now, it's happened.

A new airstrike on Iranian-backed forces in Iraq just a day of after the drone strike against Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad airport. That's according to the militia in question and the Iraqi state news organization. We don't know who is responsible for this new airstrike.

President Trump today said he ordered the killing of Soleimani to stop a war, not start one. Those were his words. Tonight, new hostilities.

A remarkable statement from a former defense secretary and CIA director, Leon Panetta, who's not known for wild exaggeration, calling this the closest we've been in 40 years to war with Iran.

So, with America now sending about 3,000 troops into the region, with Americans being told to leave Iraq, with Iran calling for, quote, forceful revenge for Soleimani's killing, it looks for all of that, all of what may follow from perhaps the most consequential decision this president has made.

There's also a new claim from the administration on the question of why now. National security adviser Robert O'Brien telling reporters that General Soleimani was planning attacks on U.S. troops and diplomats in the region, something that the president touched on as well today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He was plotting attacks against Americans, but now we've ensured that his atrocities have been stopped for good. They are stopped for good. He was planning a very major attack and we got him.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Qasem Soleimani, make no mistake, had plenty of blood on his hand, some of it American, much of it. His Quds Force and his allies in the region have caused turmoil for decades. Other presidents have considered killing him as well, decided not to because of what might follow.

This president, though, decided differently. As you'll hear in a moment, he did so without consulting or notifying lawmakers who may normally have been in the loop and now we're bound to see what happens next.

We've got correspondents tonight in Tehran, Baghdad, the Pentagon and with the president, as well as some of the best strategic thinkers that we know.

I want to start with this new airstrike and CNN international correspondent Jomana Karadsheh in Baghdad.

So, Jomana, what are we learning about this latest strike? Where did it take place? What about it?

JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, what we know is the statement that was put out by the Popular Mobilization Force, that is that umbrella group mostly made up of these Iranian-backed Shia militias. And they say that one of their convoys was targeted in an air strike north of Baghdad in the town of Taji. They say it was a medical unit targeted. They say a number of militia members were killed in this strike. Some were wounded but they say no leaders were killed in this alleged airstrike.

But just to give you a sense, Anderson, of how tense the situation is, how everyone is really on edge here, just a short time after the reports came out of this reported air strike, there were rumors that a senior figure in the Popular Mobilization Forces had been killed in this airstrike. The PMF had to put out a statement saying that the senior leader was not killed. He himself had to put out a statement saying that he was not killed.

So far, there is no indication, no confirmation that this was a U.S. airstrike, Anderson.

COOPER: There's also no independent confirmation this actually occurred. This is -- this is -- basically the claim is being made by an Iranian-backed Shia militia force, correct?

KARADSHEH: Absolutely. This is just a statement coming from them. We have not seen any visuals. We have not heard this from any other source and the concern that a time like this is rumors and disinformation, Anderson.

COOPER: Yes, Jomana Karadsheh, appreciate it. Thanks very much.

For more on what went into the president's decision, I want to go to CNN's Kaitlan Collins just outside Mar-a-Lago.

So, Kaitlan, what are you learning about the timeline of how this strike came together?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we know in recent days that's when the president made the final decision, he was going to authorize this strike, Anderson. And that came after national security officials and White House lawyers had been meeting to develop essentially a rationale, an option for the president to do this, a backing that he could do this without going to Congress for approval. Something you're seeing him take heat from today from Democrats over the decision not to go to some of those congressional leaders for this, instead going to some of his allies like Senator Lindsey Graham.

And essentially, once they felt they had that backing and the president made this decision, that's when they decided to move forward.

Now, the president had been maintaining a pretty similar schedule to what he's been doing while he's been here in Florida, but we're told he was constantly updated by those national security aides like the national security adviser Robert O'Brien while he was here and he even canceled a planned round of golf this morning so he could continue to monitor what the reaction was.

COOPER: So that's what the president was doing, he's been gauging the reaction to the strike?

COLLINS: Yes, he has. He's been on the phone. He's been in conversations. Essentially, what it was described to me by sources is he's surveying people on what they think of his decision.

Now, this hasn't all been positive. He's gotten some pushback from people and told by sources in these conversations, the president has been sure in his decision, defensive of it at times, but when it comes to what's next and what the president thinks Iran could do in response, sources say he's been pretty unsure of what that could look like.

COOPER: And when is the president scheduled to return to the White House?

COLLINS: On Sunday. So, today, we saw him for the first time publicly and several days when he went to Miami. He's now back at Mar-a-Lago right here behind me and not scheduled to go back to Washington until Sunday.

And he's going back and he's going to have a lot on his plate, Anderson, essentially, A, waiting to see how Iran responds to this, because sources say it's essentially a case of when, not if. He's also dealing with North Korea and that recent statement from the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and, of course, this looming impeachment trial which you saw those congressional leaders addressing from the Senate floor today. A lot going on for the president, he's dealing with a lot at once.

COOPER: Kaitlan Collins, appreciate it. As we mentioned, as we touched on at the top, the president did not

notify the four top Democrats in the so-called Gang of Eight before taking action. That would be the top Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. About Senator Schumer, he retweeted this, suggesting that discussing the raid with Schumer would have been like tipping off the Iranians. In fact, notifying top lawmakers in both parties has been the rule, not the exception, until this administration, even for the most sensitive operations like the killing of Osama bin Laden.

As you might imagine, it's not sitting well with Democrats. Just before airtime, I spoke with Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Senator, I know a member of your staff was briefed today regarding the strike. I know there's no specifics about that that you can reveal. But did the briefing impact your view of the strike? Do you have the information you would like to have?

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Well, Anderson, it's good to be with you. Yes, there was a briefing for staff members, and I had a representative there, and, no, nothing that came out of the briefing changed my view that this was an unnecessary escalation of the situation in Iraq and Iran.

While I can't tell you what was said, I can tell you, I have no additional information to support the administration's claim that this was an imminent attack on Americans, and obviously the issue of intelligence is important, especially given the fact that bad intelligence, false intelligence is what got us into the earlier war with Iraq.

COOPER: It is interesting because this -- President Trump has obviously been very critical of U.S. intelligence, the U.S. intelligence community and yet he is now basing this on what he says was intelligence about an attack being planned. Do you believe the administration?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, my view is you've got to be shown the evidence. There will be a briefing for senators on Monday. I hope the administration will come prepared to present the evidence about their claims at that time but I think the bigger question right now is how do we get to this spot?

And the reality is that for the last three years, this administration is engaged in a reckless maximum pressure campaign on the Iranians with no end game. I mean, we don't know what the administration's end game here and here we are today closer to war with Iran than we've ever been -- even though the president during the campaign said he wanted to keep us out of unnecessary wars in the Middle East.

COOPER: President Trump said today they took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war. He also added that the world is safer without Soleimani.

Do you believe it is safer now?

VAN HOLLEN: I think the world is more dangerous. It's certainly more dangerous place for Americans in the region today than it was yesterday, and if that was not the case, you would not have had the State Department issuing today a warning urging Americans to leave Iraq. They did that today.

Today, the administration announced we're sending 3,000 more troops to the region. So, clearly, the administration recognizes that this action has actually dramatically increased the risks in the Middle East, increased the risks of an attack from Iran and it should be no surprise to anybody who has followed these issues that Iran does mean what it says when it says this is essentially tantamount to an act of war.

COOPER: Do you have any concerns that impeachment or domestic politics may have factored into President Trump's decision?

[20:10:10]

VAN HOLLEN: Well, we know from the tweets that have surfaced today from 2012 that this was an idea that President Trump had, he, of course, at the time ascribed these motives to President Obama. President Obama, of course, did not attack Iran. But it was president Trump who obviously had this idea back in 2012.

So, look, I think that we're in a very, very dangerous place. The president has taken us to this place without a strategy, without an end game. And it's going to be up to Congress on a bipartisan basis and I worry given the polarization in Congress today that you're going to have more of a Republican colleagues acting as rubber stamps for the administration.

But Congress really needs to stand up and make clear the president cannot take us to war in Iran without a congressional authorization.

COOPER: Senator Van Hollen, I appreciate your time, thank you.

VAN HOLLEN: Good to be with you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: So there's obviously a lot of moving parts to this. We have a correspondent in Tehran we're going to get to shortly. Iran's U.N. ambassador has just weighed in, telling CNN that the killing of General Soleimani was an act of war against his country.

In Iran's capital, protesters burned American and Israeli flags, chanting anti-American slogans, some carrying portrait of the dead general. Their government vowed revenge.

Fred Pleitgen is part of the only Western television crew on the ground in Tehran. He joins us right now.

So, Fred, the Iranian leadership are vowing retaliation. I assume they haven't given any clue what that may look like.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: No, they certainly haven't at this point in time but certainly have made clear, Anderson, that there is going to be retaliation and it's going to be painful for the United States. And the supreme leader of Iran, he came out earlier today and, of course, he praised Qasem Soleimani and he called him a hero of the Iranian nation. He said that Qasem Soleimani had always want to die a martyr for the Iranian nation.

But I think one of the other things that he said was absolutely key. He said, look, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard-Quds Force, that Qassem Soleimani was the head of, is not going to miss a beat. He said these -- there are other generals there.

He's already named a successor to Qasem Soleimani and that organization is going to be just as dangerous as it was before. And so, therefore, the Iranians are saying, look, the United States really needs to watch out.

And so, what exactly the Iranians are going to do?

There's two things -- Anderson, I've been to this country 15 or 16 times now. There's two things the Iranians have always told me. They've said, look, the United States needs to understand that next to every American military base in this region, there's some sort of force close to Iran or controlled by Iran. And so those, of course, now are very much under threat.

The other thing that the Iranians have been talking about a lot over the past couple of years has been the development of their ballistic missile program.

So those are two things they've been saying, obviously they've not been showing their hand yet, but there's -- what they have been say something that there is going to be a response and that response is going to be painful and it's going to be on Iran's time, not America's time, Anderson.

COOPER: Soleimani, I mean, in terms of striking at the heart of the Iranian regime, this is as close as really anybody could get. Soleimani isn't just some general. He is a general who has been involved in every basically foreign adventure and foreign conflict and foreign interference that Iran has been conducting.

PLEITGEN: Yes. You're absolutely right. I think it's hard to overstate just how important a figure Qasem Soleimani was, not just in the military sphere but also really in the public sphere here in Iran, increasingly over the past couple of years. He was someone who was definitely one of the most popular figures here in Iran for a very long time, one of the most respected, I would almost say more than popular here in Iran.

He was certainly someone who as you say was a part of pretty much every conflict over the past almost 20 years. He was obviously in the Iran/Iraq war. He was in the Iraq war fighting against the United States there since 2003. He was in Lebanon, then fighting against ISIS, drumming up a lot of support in Iraq against ISIS as well.

So he is certainly someone who has been a part of a lot of these conflicts and there was almost a sort of myth around Qasem Soleimani. He was someone who was always very elusive as well who, all of a sudden, would turn up on the battlefield and drum up a militia and would make that militia stronger.

So, you're absolutely right, Anderson, this is someone who was an extremely important figure and, by the way, also someone where there were rumors here in Iran that maybe in the future, he might actually go into politics. There were people who were already talking about in the future, he could become the president of Iran if it was something that he chose to do.

So, this is certainly not just the killing of a top general that took place, but really one of Iran's top figures that took place there in that drone strike that the U.S. conducted.

[20:15:06]

And that's also one of the reasons why you're seeing such a big public reaction and such big public mourning as well, Anderson.

COOPER: Yes, I mean, there's also a lot of people who fear -- have feared Soleimani, not just respected him or admired him.

PLEITGEN: Yes.

COOPER: They feared him, the Revolutionary Guard, obviously, has attacked -- gone after any opposition inside Iran itself and Soleimani's obviously a part of that.

PLEITGEN: Yes.

COOPER: But publicly obviously, people are limited in what they would say to a foreign correspondent. But publicly, what's -- what have been the public signs of -- that the regime is allowing in terms of demonstrations in favor of Soleimani or mourning him?

PLEITGEN: Yes, I mean, demonstrations have definitely been taking place. There was a pretty big demonstration that took place in front of the Swiss embassy here in Tehran today. The Swiss, obviously, are the ones that are essentially representing the U.S.'s interests here in Iran and also communicating with the Iranian government as well.

So you have seen some protests taking place. You see huge mourning take place, for instance, in Kerman, that's the hometown of Qasem Soleimani and we expect to see more of that as well. But I think that point that you made is absolutely correct. It is obviously also a figure of Qasem Soleimani who was not only revered, but also very much feared especially over the past couple of months, not just outside Iran but inside Iran as well, Anderson.

COOPER: Fred Pleitgen, appreciate it. Thanks very much.

We're going to check in with Fred in our second hour tonight. Coming up next, an update on the U.S. troops now heading into the

region and what their mission will be. That and our national security team on what comes next and, frankly, how bad Iran could make things in the region, what their options are in terms of a strike at the U.S. or allies, also around the world.

Later, there's breaking news on impeachment. Late word that House Democrats could be getting ready to hand over articles of impeachment to the Senate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:20:59]

COOPER: As we continue to listen for any late word on this new reported air strike north of Baghdad, which we do not know -- we have not been able to independently confirm that, American ground forces are heading into the region, elements of the 82nd Airborne. It's quite a change for a president who until recently was focused mainly on what he said was pulling troops out of the region.

CNN's Alex Marquardt has the latest now on the new development -- the new deployment and joins us with that.

So, what exactly do we know about how many troops and where are they going to be deployed?

ALEXANDER MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, what was announced today is the third wave of U.S. troops to be sent to the region just this week. This latest tranche, if you will, some 3,000 U.S. Army soldiers from the 82nd Airborne as you know, they come from the Immediate Response Force Brigade. They are going to Kuwait, not to Iraq and in response the Pentagon says to the increased threat levels against U.S. targets in the region.

This was expected to be announced today in the wake of the attacks earlier this week against the U.S. embassy. So we did have a sense that they were going to be going over there. This, of course, before the attack against Qasem Soleimani but the White House was, of course, thinking about that at the time.

Anderson, we also have to think about the 5,000 U.S. troops who are already in Iraq. Of course, they've been there for a long period of time training forces and fighting against ISIS. There is now a chance they may be kicked out. There are a lot of Iraqi politicians and officials who are really ticked off about this attack against Qasem Soleimani and want to see American -- those American forces kicked out. The Iraqi prime minister saying that this was a flagrant violation of the U.S./Iraq security agreement.

COOPER: And we heard from the chairman of the joint chiefs as well, and he spoke today about the strike. Can you just fill in kind of exactly what he said?

MARQUARDT: Yes, ever since the strike, one of the bigger questions is why now? Qasem Soleimani has been known for so long. He has been in the crosshairs of the U.S. military before. There's been plenty of reason to take him out before because of what he has done against U.S. forces killing and maiming thousands of them.

So, Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke to reporters today, including CNN's Barbara Starr. He said that it was -- this response, the strike against Soleimani was very much because there were imminent attacks that were being planned by Soleimani.

He was asked if there's a risk against U.S. forces, he said damn right, there is a risk. We would be culpably negligent if no action was taken. And sort of responding to this criticism that there wasn't much foresight given to what can happen now that Soleimani has been killed. He did say those consequences were taken into consideration, but the risk of inaction, Miley said, exceeded the risk of that action against Soleimani.

COOPER: Alex Marquardt, appreciate it.

I want to get perspective from our chief international correspondent Clarissa Ward, also CNN political analyst Josh Rogin, and retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. Currently, he's a CNN military analyst.

Clarissa, obviously -- I mean, the big question here is what comes next and if this is going to ultimately lead to some sort of broader conflict in the region. You spend a lot of time there. I'm wondering how you think things may go or how fragile you think things are right now.

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think this is absolutely an inflection point, Anderson. I think there is a huge amount of anxiety in the region at the moment. Even among people who are jubilant at seeing the death of Qasem Soleimani as to how exactly Iran will respond, because there is a broad consensus Iran has to respond given the gravity of this killing, given what a towering figure Soleimani was not just in Iran but across many different countries.

And so, the question becomes, what does that look like? Where does it take place?

Look at all the different countries where Iran's proxies extend their tentacles to, whether it's Yemen, whether it's Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan.

[20:25:09]

You're talking about many different prospects, the Persian Gulf, shipping channels, the Straits of Hormuz. They have a plethora of different options at their disposal, different ways that they can launch an attack. And I think the question that people are asking now is, when that inevitably comes, whatever form or shape it takes, how is this White House planning to respond to it? What is the broader strategy here going forward?

It's less that people are critical of killing someone like Soleimani and more that there's deep-seated anxiety that this is reckless if there isn't a more coherent strategy that is guiding this policy as it moves forward through what will undoubtedly, Anderson, be very choppy waters.

COOPER: Josh, I know you've been talking to sources about what may have actually led to this strike. What have you learned?

JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, basically what they said is that after the attack on the U.S. embassy, there were streams of intelligence that Iran-backed forces were planning three types of attack, another on the embassy, missile strikes on American forces in Iraqi bases, and kidnapping of American citizens which helps explain why the State Department told all Americans to leave. Based on that intelligence, according to my sources, the strike was authorized and then taken at the first opportunity.

Now, the problem is as Clarissa mentioned, what next, the administration doesn't have any answer. I went to a State Department briefing today, background briefing and the officials basically said the ball is in Iran's court and we are trying to de-escalate. Actually, one official said, this was an act of de-escalation.

Well, if this was an act of de-escalation, I shudder to think what an act of escalation might look like. And if the stated goal was to deter Iranian aggression, well, when they're threatening to attack us publicly, it's clear they're not yet deterred.

COOPER: General Hertling, I mean, you certainly spent a lot of time in the region, fighting in the region in Iraq. General McChrystal said this was the appropriate move by the U.S. to take out Soleimani. Also said there is a potential for, quote, stair step escalation of attacks.

I'm wondering, do you think this was the right move militarily and strategically.

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: It was an opportunity, Anderson, I don't want to comment on whether it was right or wrong because that's a binary choice.

This guy was not a non-state actor like a lot of terrorists we have struck. He was in fact part of the government institution of Iran. So, it's a different set of categories, it's a different type of strike and in -- I think what has happened in the past, do we strike this guy and end the kinds of mass murders and terrorism that he has been conducting.

And truthfully, I fought against some of the forces he trained. Soldiers I led in Iraq actually faced some of the equipment that came in from Iran and was catastrophic in terms of their ability to destroy equipment and penetrate flesh.

So, this guy is certainly not someone that I'm -- that I admire as an enemy but he was a hell of a general. Should we -- go back to your question, strike someone like this? Should we kill them if given the opportunity? I really can't answer that question without knowing the risk

mitigations of what is going to be the bigger picture. I think that's what caused past presidents to hesitate whether to strike him, of what will occur if he is struck, and I think we're now struggling with that a little bit, and I'm not sure the administration has completely taken that on. What are going to be the second and third order effects.

But that's all part of the calculus whenever you conduct a strike against a high-value target like Soleimani was.

COOPER: Yes.

HERTLING: He was an evil guy. A mass murderer, war criminal and a terrorist. So, there's a lot of people dancing in the street, Kurds, Shia, Sunni and Americans, but I got to tell you, there is going to be some repercussions for this.

COOPER: All right. Everyone, stick around. We're going to take a quick break. We have some more about these attacks, also including why President Trump's own words about re-election and an attack on Iran are now back in the news. What he said about Obama and attacking Iran and the election and now what he did.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:30:00]

COOPER: President Trump defended the attack that killed Iran's top military and intelligence leader today, saying the Iranian general was planning, "a very major attack," the President's words and may be true and we can't confirm that.

It is ironic how given how publicly the President has attacked this very same US intelligence on Iran. Last year he contradicted the sworn testimony of several of his top intelligence people and said Iran was developing nuclear missiles, he said who stated otherwise was "extremely passive and naive when it comes to dangers of Iran."

It also as ironic as years ago before he became president, Mr. Trump repeatedly suggested that President Obama would gin up a war with Iran to win a re-election.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES: I believe that he will attack Iran sometime prior to the election because he thinks that's the only way he can get elected.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: And back with us, Clarissa Ward, Josh Rogin, and retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. Josh, I'm wondering what you make of those, you know, who suggested there's a lot of chatter about that today, the sort of wag the dog situation to try to distract from the, you know, president's political battles at home.

JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, covering the trump administration for three years I can say with a lot of confidence that they're not savvy enough to pull that off, OK?

[20:35:00]

There's not that much strategery going on here. We have a president who very clearly does not want a war with Iran, and we have a set of policies that are very clearly leading us up in escalation to that war. That's not design. That's just policy chaos that we've seen over all this time.

Wherever, President Trump is driven by two foreign policy instinct, right, to get us out of the Middle East and also to be really tough on Iran. And those two things are completely in contradiction with each other, and that's why you have what we see here today which is an incoherent policy that's leading us down a road that we can't see the end of, and that's the most dangerous thing of all.

COOPER: General Hertling, just from a military standpoint, in terms of planning something like this, there's obviously, you know, the decision to strike someone like Soleimani. There's the planning for that, but the planning for what happens afterward, there's so many potential moving part. There's so many potential proxy forces that Iran has influence over, how do you even go about planning for something like that, the ripple effects?

MARK HURTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes. One of the things, Anderson, I've been watching today has been what appears to be a lack of a coordinated effort with allies, with partners, especially the partners of Iraq as they're struggling through the formation of a Democratic republic and notification of the kinds of people that would help us in these situations and the planning for military sources to move and deploy.

It seems like there's been a lot of adhocism in this that things have come after the fact, that concerns me. But when you're talking about planning an operation, it's often war games where you take a red team approach. And what I mean by that, you say, okay, if we do this, what might happen? And then, you actually plan the branches in the sequels that might occur and you have a plan for each one of the events that may occur and you mitigate the risk associated with the kinds of attacks you're planning.

I don't see any of that happening. There has been incoherence in terms of even the messaging coming out from different members of the government. There seems to be a lack of planning just the deployment of military forces having the IRF go in after the attacks took place, and the fact that it seemed to be a response based on instantaneous intelligence that was derived over weeks or months as some of the military forces are saying.

So all of these things play a part in -- I'll back up what Josh says. There seems to be a lack of strategy in terms of exactly what it is we want to accomplish, not only with Iran but also the neighbors that are part of the area.

COOPER: Well, also, Clarissa, what's fascinating is sort of what happens in Iraq next. Because, I mean, obviously the political situation, the military situation in Iraq is unstable and extremely complex, and Soleimani is involved with all these Shia militias in Iraq, backing them, fighting with them against ISIS. But those Shia militias are still there and there's a lot of Iraqi politicians in parliament who are backed by Iran, who are -- who tilt toward Iran as opposed to the U.S.

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: One hundred percent, Anderson. And you just heard General Hertling talking about the importance of alliances, of strategizing with the US allies on the ground, particularly in a country like Iraq where the US is so vulnerable to an Iranian attack or Iranian proxy attack.

And yet, what we're seeing actually is a breaking down of the relationship between the US and the Iraqis because the Iraqis don't just view this attack on Soleimani, and by the way not just Soleimani, but another Iraqi Shia militia leader was also killed in that strike.

They don't just see this as a sort of infringement upon their sovereignty. They see it as an attack on Iraq because it puts Iraqi leaders, Anderson, in an impossible position. You can -- the Iranians can turn out the lights in Iraq tomorrow if they want to. That is how much power they have. Iraq cannot afford to have enmity with Iran.

Iran has a huge amount of power in the form of influence, in the form finances, in the form of those Shia militias which you mentioned as well. And so now, Iraq finds itself on very unstable ground, unstable politically. Unstable in terms of how it can continue to defend the US presence in its country and that makes things all the more vulnerable and dangerous for US Civilians and military personnel who are based overseas in Iraq.

COOPER: Yes. Clarissa Ward, Josh Rogin and Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, appreciate it. Thank you.

Just ahead, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and former CI Officer Will Hurd joins me to discuss how we got to this moment and whether or not, he agrees with at least one lawmakers who today called the killing "assassination." We'll be right back.

[20:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: So, how do we get to this present moment in the crisis with Iran after the Trump administration withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal in May of 2018, tensions between the two countries began to rise.

First, there were more economic sanctions from the US, Iran then promised to no longer plea comply with the deal. Oil tankers were seized by Iran, an Iranian tanker was also seized. Each country has also shot down at least one drone. The crisis fight last Friday, that's when a U.S. civilian contractor was killed and others were wounded in Iraq, an attack by an Iranian- backed militia. On Sunday, U.S. retaliation included the bombing of three militia control sites in Iraq.

On Tuesday, supporters of the militia attacked the US Embassy in Baghdad. Yesterday, as we've been discussing Qassem Soleimani, the top military intelligence figure in Iran was killed in a US drone strike.

Joining me now is Congressman Will Hurd, a former CIA officer who is now a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Hurd, thanks for being with us.

I'm wondering, first of all, just over all, obviously, Soleimani was a killer, is responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not more, Americans, American forces and also probably hundreds of thousands of people in Syria and Iraq, and elsewhere. Was it strategically wise to do this?

[20:45:00]

REP. WILL HURD (R), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Yes, I think this was a good move. This is what happens to heads of terrorist organizations. You gave the late up of what the Iranian government has been doing. You've talked about what Qassem Soleimani has done in the past. When you have an opportunity like this, you take it.

And let's be frank, the Iranian government is not the victim here. They are the culprits. They are the ones, you know, somewhat -- whether at war or not. We've been at war with Iran for 50 years, and this is an example of if the Iranian government wants to truly have a de-escalation then guess what, stop killing Americans, stop killing our allies. Stop trying to influence the elections in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Afghanistan, in Yemen. Stop killing your own people who are trying to peacefully protest. Stop lying about your nuclear weapons.

These are all things that the Iranian government can do. And if they were to do that, then yes, let's start having a diplomatic conversation with them. And I wish this was something that many of my colleagues and some our allies in Europe would join us in protesting because we should focusing on the Iranian government's behavior and activity, because, you know, questioning and criticizing this decision can be viewed as support for the Iranian government and that is a message that we do not want going to the Iranian regime and the rest of their forces.

COOPER: Democratic Senator Chris Murphy earlier today labeled Soleimani's killing an assassination because Soleimani was not the head of a non-state terrorist group, was, in fact, a top official of a foreign government doing terroristic actions, killing American forces in Iraq and elsewhere as I've said. Does that matter -- should there be a distinction?

HURD: If you're doing terroristic actions then you're a terrorist. You can't hide behind a uniform in order to protect yourself and say you're not being a terrorist. This is something that the Iranian government has been doing for a long time. And the fact that people want to act like the Iranian government is the victim in this case is to me outrageous.

And yes, this is going to potentially get worse before it gets better but what is the alternative? Sit and do nothing? Let our embassy get attacked once more? Let our troops be attacked even further to allow the Iranian government to continue to oppress their own people. They killed 1,500 people who were unarmed peacefully protesting in their own country.

This is not a government that is a rational government that can sit down at a negotiating table and so we took someone who is the head of the most well-financed, organized terrorist organization in the world and took him off the battlefield. And I think today his replacement and the other generals around him are second-guessing some of the decisions that they're going to make because despite what the Iranian government said about these people want to be martyrs.

They don't want to be martyrs. They want to live a long life, and now they're thinking again about whether some of these actions that they're trying to take is wise for them.

COOPER: Are you for a regime change in, I mean, should regime change be the policy of the United States for Iran?

HURD: I think the U.S. government and the rest of the international community should be supporting the Iranian people and let the Iranian people decide. We've seen these protests flare up time and time again. We know the economic situation that Iran is facing right now, is possibly getting worse. And when they finally came to the negotiating table before the JCPOA, this is -- I do not think that the Iranian government is going to change their behavior because they -- because someone wants to negotiate with them.

And ultimately, I've always learned from my time in the CIA, be nice with nice guys and tough with tough guy, not the other way around. And, again, we should be protecting American lives at every opportunity we can. And if that means preemptive action we should.

But we should also be bringing our allies with us, especially in Europe. The Iraqi government right now is headed by a Iranian proxy in essence. He was doing such a bad job that the Iraqi people, excuse me, stood up and wanted to see change. That was ultimately a good thing. This is one reason why you see the Iranian government increasing their activity in Iraq.

But we do need our European allies to join us and show that there is a united front against this terrible regime.

COOPER: Congressman Hurd, I appreciate your time and your perspective. Thank you.

HURD: Always a pleasure. COOPER: Up next, we have more breaking news, the Washington Post reports House Democrats could soon be taking the next step on impeachment but the killing of Qassem Soleimani could certainly complicate that. We have details on that ahead.

[20:50:00]

COOPER: There's more breaking news tonight. The Washington Post reports that House Democrats could be about to take the next action on impeachment, but the escalating tension with Iran is a top concern for some of them.

Joining by phone is Josh Dawsey who is on the byline with the Washington Post and also a CNN Political Analyst.

So, Josh, talk about how Iran and what effect it maybe having on the Democratic impeachment strategy?

JOSH DAWSEY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the now current idea is to possibly put these forward next week. There's a concern among some Democrats that with all the concern over national security, all of the talk about, you know, potential entanglement with Iran, with the strikes last night, with the potential for retaliation, that Democrats want to move ahead and put these articles forward next week.

You saw some Republicans already, Anderson, come out and say, you know, Democrats are doing this while the President is in the middle of a, you know, big national security crisis.

[20:55:00]

And there's a sense amongst, and we saw a lot of the members of the Democratic Caucus that the status quo cannot hold, that they need to go and transmit these articles, and not stay in this holding pattern.

Obviously, next week, they'll come back from recess, the House and Senate both come back early next week. And we're expecting some, you know, decisions to be made quickly thereafter.

COOPER: You're also reporting that Congressional Republicans or some Congressional Republicans are enjoying what they think are bad optics for Democrats in all of this.

DAWSEY: They are. They've had several weeks where they've been able to, you know, really hammer Nancy Pelosi and some of the other Democratic leadership for holding the articles. They think that it was a definite win coming for the president in the Senate. The Democrats know that and they're able to say, you know, you're holding these up for no reason.

The President's out, you know, trying to get legislation done, trying to get USMCA done, you know, taking this step on Iran, and you should be moving these articles forward. What's also interesting is there have been a whole host of Republicans who have gone bound to Mar-a- Lago on the Christmas break. Lindsey Graham, the President talked to Mitch McConnell who are convincing him, you really don't need witnesses. We've seen the President tweeted publicly, you know, he wants Adam Schiff to testify, he wants Hunter Biden to testify, and a lot of these republicans are trying to warm him to the idea of having the trial with no witnesses.

Lindsey Graham told me on the phone yesterday that they're not going to be calling Hunter Biden, they are not going to be calling any of these witnesses. And then, the President seems to increasingly OK with letting the Senate do it their own wag.

So what else said and what the senators are going to be preparing for now, is a quick trial with likely no witnesses. The Democrat impeachment managers will present their case, the Republicans do the same, and it's a proceeding that does not last particularly long.

COOPER: Interesting. Josh Dawsey, appreciate it. Thanks very much.

Up next, more on what President Trump is saying about the US drone attack that killed a senior Iranian commander. Well, of course, since persist by the timing, that plus reports from inside Iraq and Iran as well. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)