expect this to be a sustained attack and we'll see what the targets are in the coming minutes. >> martha: iran is flush with cash that they didn't have in the prior administration. they got $6 billion in this hostage deal freed up. a lot of debate whether or not they have their hand on that money, bret. in the few second we have left, your thought on how their game has changed. >> yeah, i think there's a real question about if the sanctions are being enforced or not. steve mnuchin telling me they are not. that's why iran is flush with cash. >> martha: thanks, bret. we'll see you tonight on "special report." we have lots of coverage throughout the afternoon as this retaliatory attack after the loss of three sold years underway in syria and likely iraq. we'll see you back here monday. >> neil: thanks very much. we are indeed confirming what you have been reporting, that at

least a half a dozen targets now largely in eastern syria have been picked by u.s. forces right now where the focus seems to be on getting those that were behind the attacks on those u.s. soldiers, killing three of them and injuring better than 40 last sunday. that was then. the attack is on now. we're told it's a widespread attack zone. but there's some wondering about the sites that were included in this. that these proxy sites, again those sponsored by iran, are the oned targeted. so far no such moves in i ran itself as though some expected. let's get the latest from jennifer griffin, what she's hearing at the pentagon. jennifer? i apologize. we have dan hoffman with us first from moscow. what you know of this right now, what can you tell us and what do you think? >> yeah, you know, syrian media

reports that six targets were struck as many as six or seven may have been killed. take that with a grain of salt. this is the initial forray by the united states. they're hitting terrorist targets, iranian proxy terrorists in syria. what we'll be looking for in the coming minutes and hours is a battle damage assessment. whom the u.s. targeted, whether there were any terrorists that were killed, any installations that were destroyed and then we'll be tasking the intelligence community for reflections in iran and to see how iran is responding to these strikes and how the proxy terrorists are responding. the goal is to re-establish escalation dominance, deterrence, so these sorts of attacks no longer take place. that bar is incredibly high right now. remember, after u.s. contractor was killed in baghdad in late 2019, the trump administration

targeted qassim soleimani, the head of the irgc at baghdad international airport. and for a time, that did re-establish escalation dominance for the united states. >> neil: dan, i'm thinking back to the cia days in moscow. we not gotten any response or news out of russia and what vladimir putin makes of this or what china makes of this. what are your thoughts? >> i'm sure that russia is tracking this very, very closely. i would not doubt that the united states at all levels, for department of defense, intelligence community, cia, the state department is in touch with our adversaries, not just our allies. i'm sure the united states has reached out to the chinese and the russians now that the strikes have begun. part of that is for deconfliction as well. a lot of russian troops have been supporting al-asad in

syria. >> neil: we're hearing separately before we got word of these follow up attacks that u.s. intelligence officials said that tehran does not have full control of these proxy groups, the very groups we're targeting right now. we'll get into that and more with jennifer griffin after the pentagon. jennifer, what can you tell us? >> neil, i have a point of clarification in some of my reporting just moments ago. as you know in some of these situations, the first reports can be wrong. and there were explosions on the ground in syria within the last half hour. we began reporting on those. there were -- we were expecting the air strikes and strikes by the u.s. military to target these very same sites in syria as well as iraq beginning at about this time frame. we've been expecting that to happen. sources told us that the u.s. air strikes had begun. but it looks like some of those initial explosions on the ground

in syria, it's not clear that those were caused by the u.s. military. so we're trying to get clarification at this point. we do believe that the campaign to respond to the death of those u.s. americans is anticipated to begin in the coming hours and days as we have been reporting and anticipating. but those initial explosions on the ground in syria, the first reports of them, they were not caused by u.s. war planes or u.s. missiles. that's a revision from what sources told me about 30 minutes ago. so we're still watching and there are as mike tobin has been reporting, there are explosions. there does appear to be damage at some of these very sites that the u.s. military has been watching and which were likely targets of the u.s. military given the decision by the president to carry out a

campaign against the iranian proxies that are believed to be responsible for the death of the americans. but those initial explosions i've being told now were not caused by u.s. air strikes. >> neil: so who was responsible? >> that is the golden question. i think we won't know these initial minutes and hours when there's there's something like this happening when you have multiple militaries involved, multiple armed forces involved, multiple proxy groups on the ground. you know, it would be speculation at this point to say what caused those explosions. i'm being told by u.s. military officials that it was not u.s. air strikes that caused those strikes in the last 30 minutes. it's fair to say that the u.s. campaign to retaliate for the killing of american soldiers at that base in jordan has been expected, it's been telegraphed.

i would not be surprised if our reporting would be up dated in the near future. i did want to clarify the initial explosions that we reported on in syria, which even some well-placed military sources believed that they were u.s. air strikes. i'm fold that they were not u.s. air strikes. >> neil: we had significant strikes and looking at iranian control facilities in iraq and syria. that wasn't widespread thinking. is that no longer the thinking or any strikes at all are on? >> no. i think it is fair to say that that is still a fair assumption. i think it is a -- i think that it is -- it will come as no surprise to anyone that any of those iranian-backed proxies that have taken -- have carried out any of the 166 attacks on u.s. troops since mid october at bases in iraq and syria, they're

fair game and they are -- they are likely targets and i think it is, again -- would come as no surprise that the u.s. military is gearing up for a campaign that we heard secretary austin yesterday from the podium here in the pentagon say would be multi-tiered. would last for days. and that it would -- it would send a message to these iranian proxy groups to stop targeting u.s. forces. forces that have been sent to iraq and syria as part of the anti-isis campaign. >> all of this with the background, this dignified of three u.s. soldiers that were killed in those attacks. there was a consensus building that this would be the day that the president and the pentagon would agree.

we also were told whatever would happen would be in stages, tiered, over several days. is that still the thinking? >> that is still the thinking, neil. we've heard that on the record publicly from senior u.s. defense officials, secretary of defense austin as well as the president has indicated that he had taken a decision earlier this week. i think that, again, all eyes right now on those iranian proxy bases in syria and iraq and we're already seeing activity on the ground. there's reports of explosions. those explosions have been at some of the sites that one might expect the u.s. to be looking at. again, when it comes to military actions and when it comes to the middle east and there's many, many factors and that's what

makes this campaign so very complicated, that you're not dealing with two -- there are multiple, multiple factors here. there's multiple groups that are armed, that are on the ground. there's multiple countries within syria that are operating. you have the israelis that operate there, they have been carrying out air strikes in recent days, in damascus, tar getting revolutionary members. the u.s. not acting unilaterally and will act unilaterally to respond to the deaths of the american soldiers, but it's a complicated battle space. you have the russian military there, the syrian military there. this is a very, very complicated battle space. that is where sometimes in the fog of war information gets crossed and sometimes really good sources can be wrong. i'm afraid in this case we don't know what caused those explosions on the ground in syria just moments ago.

>> neil: to your point, we don't know in an attack is on now. we'll have clarificaclarificati. i want to go to rich edson at the white house. rich, we understand right now that there was a growing consensus being on this was the day to launch something in response to those attacks last week. of course, this being the day we had that dignified transfer of three u.s. soldiers that were killed. so there was a consensus building around that. what is the white house saying now? >> there was some analysis and the dignified transfer of power has taken place. the administration is saying there's going to be a multi-tiered, more robust response than they've had in the past. the president began his day in delaware. he went to the dignified transfer at dover air force base. he's back home.

the white house has given what it calls a lid. you won't hear or see the president again publicly today. we have reached out to the white house just to ask what we can expect on any type of timing. we have not heard back on this. the administration is under great pressure from congress for robust response. whether it's iran backed malitias or iran itself. lindsey graham saying the attacks had begun, he said the lapse of time has lessed the impact of deterrence. you'll have failed to make the point without hitting oil targets. water -- we're hearing the u.s. attack has not started. now republicans are calling for much more of a response to iran, especially when you consider the history from this administration. the administration started by

trying to get back in the iran nuclear deal. it was the most effective way of putting iran's nuclear program back in the box. iran oil revenues had grown. they have for some time been taking american hostages. there was that hostage swap between the u.s. and iran and the u.s. agreeing to unfreeze some $6 billion in iranian assets, which the u.s. said it was not going to allow iran to access that money because of their support of hamas after the attacks in early october. this is a very long history and two very different interpretations in how the u.s. should deal with iran comparing the trump administration to the biden administration. really questions of how specifically the u.s., the white house and the administration should be responding. now the three americans have been killed on the day that they returned to american soil, neil. >> neil: rich, what is remarkable about this, the timing and the significance of today no withstanding.

the fact of the matter is here, there was ample time for those that might be targets to sort of get the hell out of the way, right? we were also seeing that they were refortifying defense positions around jordan and those that might be anywhere near that area for those that might be launching an attack or those that might be on the receiving end of that attack. so that is the conundrum. you're trying to go after those proxies responsible for these attacks and yet giving them enough of a heads up where they could just move. >> right. exactly. that's the point that senator graham had been making as well. you also have to couple that with the fact that there have been more than 160 attacks on american positions in iraq and in syria. now in jordan since that october 7th attack from hamas terrorist

attack on israel. the administration has really been trying to thread a needle here by presenting itself in its strikes that it has had in iraq and syria and the iran backed malitias. their goal is to ensure that you're trying to hit them back and do so so it's a deterrent fact door and you're not escalate ago war. there's a concern that the war that is ongoing in gaza could spread to the north, to hezbollah and lebanon. then what you're now seeing in the gulf of aden and the red sea. the houthis that are in yemen backed by iran. it's another group that is backed by iran. they have been attacking the u.s. they have been attacking commercial shipping. the u.s. has fired back. so, you know, the administration is really trying to find a way here to say, look, we've deployed a carrier strike group, another carrier strike group.

we have robust presence here. we will hit you back. we don't want this war going out of control. republicans said they have not hit that deterrent factor yet. remains to be seen. neil? >> neil: iran the last few days seemed to be going out of its way to say, you know, this isn't us. we're not responsible for this. separate reports that show though iran may financially support such groups going to the houthi rebels and this group now that they seem to target for the attack on the u.s. soldiers here, but that it seems to be saying, you know, we can't control these guys. is that true? >> you know that is the sense too. you talk to u.s. officials, sometimes it's unclear to how much specific control. what the u.s. sees is substantial support for these groups. they're not getting this funding out of nowhere. they get it from iran. the u.s. doesn't make that distinction. what we heard from iran, if we're attacked, we will always

respond. we don't seek a war with the united states. so they too are trying to thread their own needle. >> neil: all right. thanks so much, rich. i want to go back to you later, my friend. we're learning right now, jennifer griffin can confirm, that these strikes have indeed begun in syria and iraq. this is coming from two u.s. defense officials that have been speaking to her and fox. mike tobin in tel aviv. what he's seeing and hearing around learning. mike? >> neil what we're getting mostly is from regional media. syrian media is reporting that some eight different posts have seen explosions. eight different targets have had explosions resulting in six deaths. you have from al-jazeera in the region saying 12 targets have been hit. the area that we know have been hit so far is the east area.

cities to the east of syria, near the iraqi border. they're about 30 miles from each other. so minimal information coming out from where we have had these particular strikes. but just a report that some eight targets or eight posts have been hit resulting in what we know right now to be eight deaths or eight casualties. we know that three of them again according to syrian media were of the auxiliary forces to the syrian arab army. it gets complex and confusing. we look at the different forces. the syrian arab arm my is the dominant force in syria. they are indeed supported by iran. so we have three casualties, three deaths according to syrian media from this syrian arab army. they have been martyred. these are the auxiliary forces of the syrian arab army. we're watching the details.

one thing we can tell you, the proxy forces, knowing some kind of strike was coming from the u.s. today were not intimidated. at least not the houthis. there was a missile, a surface to surface missile that was fired in the direction of israel. it was intercepted by the aerial defense system. the houthis claimed responsibility for missile attacks plural districted towards israel. so you still have a very chaotic region. the houthis were not intimidated. we have word that the u.s. strikes have started in syria with eight targets hit. neil? >> neil: thanks, my friend. syrian state media is passing along some updates on this as well talking about u.s. aggression on a number of sites. they do not detail the casualties. they call it u.s. aggression.

making it clear that these strikes have begun to jennifer griffin now at the pentagon. jennifer? >> neil, it's been a bit confusing over here this afternoon at the pentagon. i want to clarify. we can now report that u.s. strikes in both syria and iraq at spots in locations in both of those countries have begun. that is official from two u.s. defense officials. earlier when we were talking about some of those initial explosions in syria, there's still some confusion about which military carried out those initial strikes. we can say that what we have been expecting all afternoon and for days now, frankly, is that the u.s. campaign led by u.s. central command, which will involve air assets and sea assets as well as space assets, this is going to be a multi-tiered campaign. it's going to last days.

it's going to strike multiple targets. i'm told upwards of a dozen to two dozen targets in syria and iraq targeting those iranian proxy forces, the bases where they store the rockets, the drones, the command and control and that is what they're going to be focusing on. we reported earlier today that the u.s. had b-1-b lancer bombers that were deployed from bases in the u.k. those b-1-b bombers, the air force's -- carries the largest pay load. they will be involved. you can expect that the -- there be tomahawks involved. you have submarine, the u.s.s. florida in the region. they have 150 tomahawks on board as well as the u.s.s.

eisenhower. you have the air component with f-35s, f-18s, f-16s. this is a complex multilayered attack. it is designed to send a very, very strong and serious message i'm told to tehran as well as to the proxy forces on the ground, neil. >> neil: maybe i'm slow at the take. that's an understatement. but i know these attacks have begun and the targets are in iraq and syria. there was an initial battery of strikes. i'm wondering if that wasn't us or that was just wrong. who was it? >> there were strikes and there were explosions on the ground. because of the timing, because we had been expecting and some of the u.s. defense officials that are some of our best sources knew when the u.s. campaign was going to begin and

it was coincidence that it happened at about the same time, just minutes apart, those initial explosions, we will at some point know what caused it, who caused it. but we can now say that u.s. strikes have begun in syria and iraq and the targets are multiple i'm told. they'll focus on proxy groups, the same proxy groups that have been threatening u.s. troops and u.s. bases 166 times since mid october killing those three americans, injuring 41 americans in the attack on sunday, the drone that instruction on the border between syria and jordan. as we mentioned, neil, this is a very complicated battle space with multiple militaries, with air forces, whether it's israel, jordan, russia, syria, now the u.s. it is a complicated battle

space. that is wisent -- why centcom has a plan to thread the needle without expanding this to a regional war. >> neil: you mentioned centcom having a plan. that's why they don't make an announcement? whatever we're doing to them, these strikes, it's not the end of it. there will be more. it's going to be tiered as they have been reported and spread out over days? >> you heard defense secretary austin say yesterday, this wouldn't be a one and done. he said the enemy and he was referring to the iranian proxies would not be deterred with a single air strike. that is why we have been expecting and it's been again, as i have said, the worst kept secret in washington, that this campaign was being put together, was going to be executed. it was a matter of time most believed the conventional wisdom it would take place after the dignified transfer were complete. there's a lot of factors involved in this kind of thing.

there's weather and the skies were clear tonight. the u.s. air force and the navy and all of the combined forces in the middle east and they are great at this hour, they are carrying out these strikes too re-establish deterrence and to respond to the killing of those americans. >> neil: jennifer, thank you very much. we appreciate that. just to let you know, the u.s. has launched attacks in iraq and syria. all of this going in the last 20 minutes or so. these are the first such retaliatory strikes for the killing of the american soldiers last week. better than 40 u.s. service men and women were injured in those attacks as well. this is the same day, a couple hours ago, that we had this dignified transfer of the three u.s. soldiers who were killed in those attacks. now again, this is a dicey moment for the united states. we are upping the ante in a

region where joe biden has tried to keep things contained, if not for the killing of these three brave young men and women, that this would not be happening right now or to the degree it's happening right now. the biden administration is also made clear that it would take this action, but it would telegraphed to the point that some areas were clearing out. in other words, the bad guys were getting out of dodge thinking that they might be among the targeted sites. i don't know among those sites targeted whether those were the sites that were hit today. let get the read on this from a fellow that knows a thing or two about terror and strikes, kirk lippold, the former u.s.s. commander. it's scant information to go on. i apologize. we're trying to make sure of what we do know and the attacks are on. we don't know how widespread or their severity.

just that they're on. what do you think of it? >> well, first thing i would say, neil, thanks for having me on the show, especially in this developing news environment. when you look at it, we refer to something called operational security. what the biden administration so clearly telegraphing this to iran and the proxy groups, it's given them an opportunity to move their people, all the ira iranian republican guard corps mens. it's given them an opportunity to move their weapons, to move their command and control and shift it, to move personnel out of the way. in effect while trying to contain this so that it does not expand at a larger regional, we're conducting strikes that ultimately will prove not only ineffective but in fact give our enemy some idea of how we intend to conduct operations in the future. that is a more dangerous present

to have set. >> neil: so in doing so and we got word that sites that feared or those in those sites feared that they might be targeted, they had plenty of time to get out, to hide, to go somewhere do we factor that in to cure planned attacks then? how do we juggle that? >> when you look at how these attacks would be conducted, the united states hopefully took the time with the planning going on in the operational division of the joint chiefs of staff along with the commanders to ensure the staffs work together and the strikes are effective on the proxies attacking us but why not make it a twofer? what are they doing to enhance hamas and their ability to continue to conduct sustained operations post october 7 in israel. what do we have for a longer term threat for our forces in iraq, in syria, in lebanon, in

jordan? so with we can determine what is the future threat as well and how can we degrade it. or what can our actions do that will cause our enemy to begin to move, to be able to disclose what their future plans may be in which case then we can adjust our targeting very quickly. that will give us that opportunity then to help eliminate future threats as well. it's a very robust environment. we're targeting now but we're also keeping an eye on what our enemy is doing in response to it so we can adjust the targeting to make sure that we eliminate as many threat as possible for our security and israel's as well. >> neil: commander, tehran as you know has been denying any district involvement. they tried to distance itself from its own proxies. i can crassly paraphrase that to say, sometimes they just go rogue and do things. that's probably not the intention of those records.

the iranian president had said we will not start any war, but if anyone wants to bully us, they will receive a strong response. at the same time, he's clearly talking about and no doubt anxious about this planned u.s. response. so puts him in a bit of a pickle. >> neil, as far as i'm concerned, it doesn't put him in a pickle at all. a i ran has given every one of these proxy training groups, training, weapons and operational ability to conduct the kinds of attacks they're doing. >> neil: we know that. we've said that. i guess what i'm saying, he can talk all he wants about what his country does and doesn't do, how much sway it has over its proxies. the fact of the matter is, we tie this to him, to iran. that doesn't change. >> absolutely, neil. we should. let's face it.

as i have said before on your show, your enemy gets a vote on whether they're at war with you. iran is essentially been fighting a proxy war with the united states. in some ways directly since 1979. it has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of americans. americans in afghanistan, in iraq, around the world. the problem you have is no administration to date, republican and democrat, have been willing to sow the root problem and that is iran. while a lot of people say we don't want to get involved in another middle east war, we also have to look at how many service members or americans are going to have to die before we are willing to adjust that root cause and begin to put the forces in place to be able to address it. iran can say whatever they want. the bottom line is they are responsible for the actions of their groups that they have empowered and enabled. in some ways if you look on the other side of the world, keep an

eye on north korea. china uses them in the same way as iran uses iranian proxies. we need to make sure that we're able to respond. so we hold iran accountable because these groups would not exist and could not conduct these operations without the direct support that is coming from iran. >> neil: then the behavior has to change. the response to these kind of counter attacks. we don't know about the attacks and how many have been cited, commander. we do know the initial strikes include manned an unmanned aircraft. hitting command and control head quarters in that region extending in to iraq and syria. ammu ammunition historic and other facilities we're told. what is interesting, when word first got out that we were going to respond to these jordan attacks that killed those soldiers, it would be sweeping

and the message was from those potentially in harm's way to get out of harm's way as i've been raising with a number of people. but what -- it seems very clear at this early going as i look at the updates, other groups including this hezbollah splinter group and all have claiming they had nothing to do with it and wouldn't be targeting u.s. forces in general. if attacks resume on our part to go after their attacks, they will resume, won't that? >> absolutely. every one of these proxy groups are now going to view a threat from america as an attack on them and they're going to attempt to respond, which ultimately they would not be able to do that if it were not for the support given to them by iran. and at some point we're going to have to address it directly and we're going to have to find a way to hold iran accountable. when you look at the number of things that we can do, first and foremost, let's work with our

european allies and snap back sanctions and plus more put in to place to crush the economy of iran. then we start doing maritime interdiction operations. what goes in or out of iran gets inspected. if it's illegal, it gets sanctioned and taken. we don't allow it to go in. then we begin to conduct operations as we're doing right now against all of these proxy groups, but ultimately we tell iran, we're going to keep ratcheting it up. if you want to pick this fight, if you want to make it larger, if you want to expand this conflict and you have a choice, we will be able to take you down. iran right now is in a tenuous position. while they have a lot of money that has been given the last ten years, they by the same token could get cut off again and we really need to consider that. there's nonbomb making things that we can do too iran that will hold them accountable. we need to put those in place

immediately. >> neil: commander, thanks very much. we are learning a few more details here. whatever we know of the sites in iraq and syria that have been targeted and again we're getting wildly different numbers, one site says up to a dozen, others say six to 8. i throw that out there as hard to quantify here. except to say multiple attacks in multiple areas. this strike as far as i can tell does not include any targets in iran itself. that was said to be the sort of third rail and what our response would be. that would elicit a greater risk, even a threat of a world war. lieutenant colonel bob maginnis is here with us. what do you make of what i just said? is a far these sites, we don't know all the details but we know that iran at this point is not among the countries targeted.

it's obvious. it's financial backing for these various groups is the reason why we're going after their assets and proxies but not them directly. what do you make of that? >> yeah, i tend to agree with the commander. i'm not sure you heard iran directly. they're not going to stop. all we're doing is turning sand in to glass. we're bombing empty holes. the kuts force was out there monday morning. the rest of them went in to the hills. i've been on that terrain. it's tough terrain but it's easy to exit one area and go to another. if you want to leave an empty building or if you want to put in explosions inside and cause a ruse, you can do that. that's what we're dealing with. these people are very sophisticated. they understand how to conduct a counter insurgency or insurgency. they've been doing this a long

time. they know our weaknesses. the idea that we're going to strike week after killing three of our own at tower 22 using jet aircraft, drones or whatever they're using is really not going to send the type of message that i think is necessary at the commander said earlier. they crossed a red line as far as i'm concerned. this is like 1983 and the beirut bombing. we should have really gone after them and quickly. not waited a week. i agree. the dignified return of those young heros is important to recognize, but at the same time, we've got a lot of young people in the middle east that are very vulnerable right now. hundreds in syria and hundreds if not thousands elsewhere. they're being shot at as well. what do we need? another 100 to be killed before we take decisive action? i agree we need to get our

allies aboard, but at the same time, this hemorrhage, this cancer that iran is perpetrating across the region is not going away as israel well-knows. >> neil: there is quite the evil club if you think about it, bob. we were targeting the group known as the islamic resistance in iraq. that is part of the so-called axis of resistance. they're tied at the hip as being anti-israel and they're pretty kind of anti-u.s. they include pretty nefarious characters syria, lebanon, yemen, hamas and the gaza strip and on and on we go. that's a fairly widespread group of evil players. we're targeting sites where one, several, maybe all for all i know live and work and plan such attacks. isn't that kind of like a needle in a hay stack thing? >> it is.

i think we've been in a regional war for a good long time as we recognized when we went in mistakingly i think in to iraq originally in 2003. now, we really unleashed a hornets nest throughout the region. of course, israel has issues with hamas. but also with hezbollah. obviously with the missiles shot out of yemen and the houthis and elsewhere. they don't care. they think they have an upper hand here. so, you know, tehran can sit back, the ayatollah, he can pull the strings of his puppets around the region. if we're only going to go after sand dunes and empty buildings, then they can do this forever. i'm afraid that's what's going to happen. like senator graham said, if you don't go after something that is important like soleimani or one of the leaders or one of their own infrastructure, maybe an oil derrick or something, you're not

going to turn them off. like the commander said, we need to perhaps do a blockade. perhaps do something more than just simple sanctions and a couple of bombs in the desert. >> neil: defense secretary lloyd austin when he spoke to re reporters, he said iran has a lot of capability. he says i have a lot more. i'm wondering in making those remarks and just accepting it at face value, this is a preview of coming attractions or this is as big and blustery as it gets? >> he's probably a little bit of both. clearly with the southern border open, we don't know who is coming in to this country. we've had assassination attempts inside the united states in the past. that is before we had an open border. so i think that's part of it. clearly you've had iranian influence in venezuela, central america in the past.

it's likely still there, especially with the chinese help. of course, you have instability around the world, neil. you know, we're hearing now about provocations about the russians talking about putting nuclear weapons in our own hemisphere, south venezuela or whatever. the chinese are sitting back watching us desperately trying to contain iran and of course watching what we're doing in eastern europe with the russians. so you look at the instability around the globe, i can understand iran feels good about what's going on. they're going to continue to intimidate us. they're going to intimidate their own allies or their own enemies in the region and i'm afraid they're going to be the

he hedgemon if we don't do something decisive in the future. >> neil: don't we telegraph that confusion by telegraphing what we're going to do? it's a dumb way to do it, but what i mean is we've given five, six days since the dreadful jordan attacks on our soldiers. more than enough time for those in the region who wish us ill to hide, right? >> absolutely, neil. every operation i've been on, we don't tell people in advance what we're doing. i can't imagine the people at centcom, the planners say oh, well, we need to wait six days before we start to do something. otherwise, you know, they're going to be mad at us. this is juvenile. we need to strike back when we know. it's not as if we don't have a target rich environment. we have a target rich environment an hour after they killed our soldiers at tower 22. we should struck at that point

and not waited six days. but today, you know, like i said, we're turning sand in to glass and wasting our munitions that we don't have a lot of extra of because we're giving them to allies in the world. >> neil: the other day, sir, i spoke to the former navy seal, war hero, be lost an eye in attack, ben crenshaw and now a texas congressman that says this obsessing about not wanting to cause a world war or going in to iran or going after iran is unrealistic. iran knows that's our posture and our fear and we're responding to that. i wonder what you made of that. he says that -- i don't want to misrepresent what he said, but it's kind of like tying one hand behind your back. you're limited in your response. what do you think? >> yeah, it's tragic that we

send those messages. they saw it in afghanistan. they saw us trip up in ukraine. they've seen it consistently in what we've done post october 7 with israel. this is a weak administration. it projects itself across the world. i talked to people around the world, i'm not going to get too specific, but on a regular basis. i know their perceptions, their confidence in america. the america that i love isn't what it used to be. as a result, we're as a country far less secure than we were a couple years ago. it's because of policy decisions. it's because of hesitancy to provoke what they call a regional war. you know, we would have prevented a lot of longer wars had we been resilient and really inciteful in the past. yet, they can smell blood in the water a mile away. in this scenario, they really

hit it right. they pulled their people out and now as i indicated earlier, all we're doing is turning sand in to glass. >> neil: colonel, so good talking to you. thank you for your service to this country. i do want to update you on a statement out of the u.s. central command. kind of confirming what we now know. i do want to quote here. central command had attacks in iraq and syria against the irgc and affiliated military groups. the u.s. military forces struck more than 85 targets with numerous aircrafts to include long range bombers flown from the united states. the air strikes deployed more than 125 munitions. the facilities were struck, rockets and missiles and unmanned air vehicles storages and logistics and supply chain

facilities, malitia groups and the irgc sponsors. the first time i have seen a number put to this, 85 targets. 85. jennifer griffin has more on this at the pentagon. jennifer? >> neil, i've just learned from a u.s. defense official that two b1b bombers flew from the united states to take part in these air strikes, which began at 4:00 p.m. eastern while you and write on the air speaking, those b1b bombers were targeting the sites in syria and iraq. we have that statement from u.s. central command. they said 85 targets were targeted. i'm told that is across seven to six locations in syria and iraq what is interesting about these strikes and when you pull in the b1b lancer bomber, they were

looking at underground bunkers, storage facilities where many of these ballistic missiles and drones have been kept. i'm told there were command and control centers, headquarters used by these iranian proxy groups at these bases in syria and iraq. it's notable. we have not seen before the b1b bombers to be used in syria and iraq. we expected tomahawks in the region. but this is a significant flexing of air power for those flights, those bombers coming from the united states. >> neil: jennifer, i raise this with you before. you told me the great anxiety over it, extending an attack against iranian proxies and with attacks on iran se.

that was never considered. is still never considered for fear that this leads to a world war. i mentioned ben crenshaw who says that is our problem. we so fear widen ago war that it widens regardless because we fear widening the war. what do you make of that? >> i wouldn't say with us never considered to strike inside iran. that certainly was one of the options that was put on the table. what i would say is that from based on conversations i've had that in these initial phases of this multi-tiered campaign, if you will, that u.s. central command has offered to the white house and has been signed off by the president, that iran and targets inside iran are not going to be a part of this current campaign. does that mean that it's off the table for good? not clear. it is clear that the pentagon and the white house and the u.s. would like iran to get the message without having to strike

inside iran or having to take out assets that they might care about, for instance, ships or spy ships that they have in the red sea that are helping the houthis target american warships. but this is a situation and the problem that you face when it comes to war and campaigns like this is that there's an escalatory ladder. the idea now is to strike hard, to strike at a number of targets that it is painful enough for the iranian revolutionary guard corps that they stop these attacks and iran gets the message without striking inside iran. >> neil: thanks, jennifer. we'll be going back to you, no doubt. general joseph vitel joins us. this is different than the coordinated response that we had with the britts in response to

these attacks on vessels in the houthi rebels along the red sea route. what do you make of this? >> well, it doesn't surprise me that the initial strikes here are by u.s. resources. i mean, we are actually doing this in response to attacks against our own forces and of course results in the deaths and injuries of is many of our soldiers last weekend. again, i think what we have to do, we have to wait and see what is happening. it doesn't surprise me that we're going after dozens and dozens of targets simultaneously. so trying to hit as many things as we can early on i think is important. i also -- the strikes in syria indicate to me that we're trying to go after the malitia groups that are operating from that area that may have been responsible for this and plus perhaps some of the iranian advisers and leaders and

facilities that were supportive of that. we have to wait a little bit, we have to be patient to see what the plan is, as it unfolds in the coming hours and coming days. >> neil: what we're learning from centcom, we know about the 85 targets, the targets that link iran's revolutionary guard corps and forces. i get that. what i'm curious, there's no details on casualties or anything like that. i know it's still early. if there were none or few and a matter of making it mobile some of these sites that would be targeting u.s. interests, what do you think of that? >> well, i think as we have highlighted i think before, it's really important that we send an unambiguous message here. >> neil: by doing that and maybe in the case of a lot of these sites, we don't know, sir, that they had enough of a heads-up to

get stuff out of there including themselves. >> yeah, we did signal that we were going to strike and certainly they recognize that they crossed the red line here when -- with the deaths of our soldiers. there's been a reaction on the ground by militants and i would imagine iranian actors that are involved in all of this. they have all tried to protect themselves in terms of this. you know, again, back to your original question here. if we're just hitting buildings and things like that, that's probably not as much of a value. that is probably not something that will resonate quite as much as if we didn't go after leaders and others that are actually responsible for making the decisions and other things for this. so again, i think we're going to have to be patient and see exactly what happens out of this and what happens next in terms of our strike campaign. >> neil: there are going to be

follow up actions that seems pretty clear from what we've heard, sir. what do you think those will be? what types of attacks, how wide will they go? >> well, again, we'll see. i think part of the -- part of what happens after these strikes is, you know, centcom and its forces will be assessing what happens on the ground. they'll look at the battle damage assessments and they went after targets and they weren't destroyed to the degree that they need to be restruck. we'll pick up a lot of information. the militant groups, i ran will be talking about this. we will try to collect on that and use that to inform the next round of strikes. so this is a very itrative target here. this have we have done for terrorist organizations for a

couple decades now. we'll learn from that and exploit it and make sure the next round is more effective and more devastating on them. and as some of what others have opined here, we may see an uptick in some of the targets here. you know, they talked about a tiered response. the first tier might be after the militant groups. the next tier might be after those that are enabling them. that could be the iranian targets that are in iraq or syria. >> neil: general, thank you very much. we appreciate it, sir. i want to go to bret baier. thanks for joining us. i was thinking with you coming her and you've been to the middle east and talked to some of the key players including prince soleimani, i'm wondering now and you're more attuned to this, no response from the arab would that i've seen. you heard hezbollah condemn the

attacks. not a widespread preresponse yet. that would include from russia to china. maybe all of this is being digested. what are you hearing? >> first of all, the middle east as you know responds to strength. there's no surprise, anybody wasn't surprised, that this was going to happen. with us going to happen at some time in a bigger response than we've seen to the attacks so far. remember, 166 attacks on u.s. forces. the one drone attack killing three u.s. service members whose bodies arrived at dover today as president biden met them. the response in the middle east will be muted because they expected it was coming. i do think that the number as you see, the video from dover as those transition dignified transition happened today, that the number of attacks, the number of targets rather, the weapons used to gjennifer's

point, the b-1 flying from the u.s. for the precision-guided munitions, and since you cover the markets as well as you do, the fact that it happened at 4:00 p.m. eastern time when the markets closed was notable. and i think that you're going to see more than just this in iraq and syria. there was a lot of criticism building up here in washington that the biden administration was laying the trap, if you would, for soldiers to be in harm's way and possibly see what they saw with these deaths. so i don't think this is the end of it. i think it's an interesting first step with the amount of targets and the amount of firepower they're using. >> neil: to my earlier question, i'm curious. the arab world isn't probably going to avertly condemn attacks on anything linked to iran.

so many in the arab world are not fans of tehran. but the fact that they haven't commented or said this is wise and justified action, not that we expect that, but utter silence. what do you think? >> you're right. i think that you're probably going to hear the silence. i ask the prime minister of qatar the other day in an interview, if and when the u.s. responds, retaliates for this attack, how will qatar respond. he said the u.s. has to do what the u.s. has to do. and is justified in doing so. so expect that. there's no love lost here between the iranian proxy groups. there's threats to all of these middle eastern countries from some of those groups as well. remember, that no one in the region goes by the thought that iran is not directly behind this. in fact, the hundreds of millions of dollars that goes to all of these groups, let alone hamas and hezbollah, i'm talking everyone. the houthis, this new group in

iraq. everything backed up by iranian money. so you know, any one that says that this is not directly tied and why can't make the -- connect the dots, there's dots and they're all connected. >> neil: iran is in this weird position, bret, we're they're saying, yeah, there are connections. we can't control them. not saying it that way. i get that. i'm not being flippant. could it be possible that these proxies do go rogue and do their own thing? i'm not believing -- freeing iran of any responsibility, financial or even worse, burr that they end up doing their own thing? >> yeah, could there be freelancering doing other things? sure. but you know, former national security adviser robert o'brien asked about this. he said all of these groups don't shoot a bb gun without the so-so of iran in some way, shape

or form. the irgc. the fact that the irgc is named in the centcom statement is a big moment. because they're making the connection directly. these groups, some of them have irgc commanders implanted in them in these various areas inside syria and iraq. it's notable there are no strikes in iran. you have senator lindsey graham and others calling for that. senator cornyn from texas. i doubt you'll see that. jennifer has been reporting that as well from her sources at the pentagon. i still talked to a lot of people there after my time there. i don't think you'll see a tax there. i don't think this is the end of what will be a serious response in number and intargets. it's not going to be ammo dumps in the middle of the desert. >> thanks, bret. you're right about the timing of this at 4:00 p.m. the market had been cutting its losses in half with the rumors

this was going on. also letting you know, antony blinken is ready to make his fifth trip to the re-june. he will be stopping in israel, qatar, saudi arabia. now you have this added controversy here about how far these attacks go and just who is being targeted. we will be devoting a large chunk of time on this and the impact on our saturday show at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. we'll have more details to go on as well as a sense financially what is the impact on this region. remember, we're wanting to financially hollow up some of these groups. there had been talk that by going to their financial epicenters beyond iran that that would be a sort of powerful 1-2 pun. . we got the 1 today. some people are waiting for the 2, the 3, the ♪ ♪ lo