boilerplate language for propaganda purposes or we're back to square one. it does mean that this deal is not going to be sailing through as easily as we thought, and they won't be seeing the release of these hostages any time soon. >> that's some bad news. matt bradley, thank you very much. that's going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. ♪ ♪ hi, everyone. it is 4:00 here in washington, d.c. we are keeping a close eye on the middle east. the region bracing for a response from the united states to an attack on a base in jordan that killed three service members. if there is any news, we will be sure to bring it to you right away. we turn now in developments of the case of the ex-president. his trial on charges of plotting a coup against the government has been postponed. and we have suspected that trump

arguing in the courts that he is immune from prosecution means that it's all but impossible to start a trial on march 4th, just over a month from now. but that news could clear the way for another one of trump's criminal cases. the ex-president could be in the courtroom in manhattan just eight weeks from now. the manhattan d.a. charging him with 34 felony counts for trying to cover up a sex scandal this the weeks before the 2016 election. that trial is currently scheduled for march 25th, and in less than two weeks, a hear willing be held to decide if that date holds. according to reporting from "the new york times," alvin bragg and his team of prosecutors have been quietly plugging away. last month, it was reported -- >> and news breaking just yesterday in a related case that could give bragg a boost.

once again, from "the new york times." >> he once said understand weeseleberg knows where all the financial bodies are burr yesterday, and while it does not involve him flipping on his boss, there could be other benefits. here is how "the new york times" put it --

>> and that is where we start today, with msnbc legal analyst andrew weissmann, and reverend al sharpton, president of the national action network and host of "politics nation" right here on msnbc. lisa, let's start with you. talk us through this potential plea agreement. any idea why exactly weisselberg would be pleading guilty to perjury? >> so i have some idea, but certainly it hasn't been definitively established, what weisselberg would be pleading guilty to. let's establish what case it is that he allegedly perjured himself in. it's not the case in which he testified last year, where the trump organization itself was charged with criminal tax violations. it's this ongoing case before the judge that new york attorney

general civil fraud trial which weisselberg was not only a witness, he is a defendant. he was not a witness for the trump team, and in that testimony, he said that he really didn't know very much about the valuation and even the assignment of square footage to trump's apartment at trump tower. you'll remember that infamously, trump tried to value that apartment based on it having 33,000 square feet, and in actual at, it has almost 11,000 square feet. that tripling of the square footage was a key variable in enabling former president trump and those around him to bump up the value of that apartment substantially. and mr. weisselberg is alleged to have been intimately involved in that. however, on the stand he said he wasn't involved in that valuation. nor did he really communicate with outsiders asking about that. that includes reporters from "forbes" magazine, including one, dan alexander, who had not

only communicated directly with weisselberg, but was sitting in the gallery of the courtroom when mr. weisselberg was on the stand. sure enough, he said weisselberg lied on the stand and we have receipts. here are some of the things that we know he said to us. almost immediately thereafter, weisselberg's testimony was further called off. he was supposed to return to the stand a day later after an interruption from another witness, and then when he was supposed to come back, he didn't. and many people expect that's because he was caught purgering himself. so that's what we think is going on. i also want to clarify, though, that while these negotiations are reportedly underway, according to "the new york times" and others, we don't have reason to believe that they have been conclusively finalized. that is, there is no plea agreement yet, rather our best understanding based on other's reporting, is that there are only discussions. >> andrew, help me understand how this plays out, what you make of this. would a plea take an important

chess piece off the board in this case? >> yeah, no question that this would be a very bad development for donald trump in two ways. directly and in a third way, sort of indirectly. so the direct ways is as lisa said, this is a very bad development in terms of the civil fraud case that is pending where we're waiting a decision by the judge. i strongly suspect that the reason for the delay in that decision coming out is because the judge is waiting to see what happens with respect to weisselberg who was, after all, a witness in his trial. in civil court. so we're waiting to see what happens there. so that is sort of -- makes it very hard for donald trump to use that system as something to

exculpate him if he is going to say weeseleberg lied just several weeks before the judge. second, in the manhattan criminal case, to the extent that weisselberg was a potential witness for donald trump to refute any part of the case, he still might be called by donald trump, but his credibility has taken an enormous hit. he will say not only did i plead guilty to this very lengthy tax fraud, where the trump organization, as lesiona mentioned, was convicted, but he pled guilty to that. even after that, he committed a crime by taking the stand and lying under oath. so his credibility is shot. and the third way, which i'm very familiar with, it's very important for prosecutors when they can show that somebody is lying, either in an interview or lied under oath, to bring those

cases to vindicate the system. why? that's the bread and butter how cases are made and sends a deterrent message to other witnesses that if you hop on the stand and lie, there are consequences. so there is this sort of intangible way, and in many ways may be the most important that it really prevents people from taking the stand and just willy-nilly thinking they can get away from saying anything the defendant wants to hear. >> you did such a good job setting the tables for us. to remind folks, alvin bragg didn't appear to need him to bring charges against trump. did he go around him to bring the hush money case? >> you know, he did go around him in some ways, in the sense that he didn't need his testimony. however, if you look at that indictment against former president trump, that manhattan

d.a.'s office brought last april, it breaks down into two dark events. there's an indictment, and then a corresponding statement of fact, which is the narrative we're used to seeing in a federal indictment we might refer to as a speaking indictment. weisselberg is all over those facts. he is, according to lawyer a, who we understand to be michael cohen, sort of the master mind of the reimbursement scheme. when cohen reemburs that scheme with trump, he said i discussed this with the cfo. throughout that indictment, you see that the cfo agreed to these charges, that he even signed some of the checks because at one point, after trump becomes president, the trustees of the donald j. trump revokable trump are no longer trump himself, they are don, jr., and allen weisselberg. the two of them sign a reimbursement check to michael

cohen. so do they need weisselberg to make their case? no. but his name and his participation is an indemic part of this case. so to the extent that they can convince as part of a plea agreement weisselberg to attest to his complicity in this, that will make this case much stronger and insulate them from the criticism as the attorney general was criticized for being so reliant on michael cohen who himself has some trouble with the truth, and admittedly so. and that makes him a difficult witness. so to the extend that the d.a. can sort of broaden their case, broaden the fact witnesses of people who were in the room with donald trump as part of this hush money scheme to include weisselberg, that's all the better for alvin bragg and his team. >> rev, part of the reason i wanted to have you on is you have interviewed bragg a few times. your sense of how bragg is approaching this case, knowing it is historic, knowing it is

unprecedented, knowing it could be the case of his career. >> i think that people underestimate alvin bragg in terms of his work ethic, and in terms of his being a very deliberate person, and i did not think that if he went forward with any case, he would not make sure that his prosecutors and investigators have done everything possible and then some, to make sure that he wasn't bringing something just to be bringing it. he's not a headline hunter. he's not a guy that wants to be a household name. he is a lawyer that happened to have a -- to be the district attorney in manhattan. so i think if i were being prosecuted by alvin bragg, i would be very concerned. if you remember, he was criticized for not bringing cases quickly enough. then he did bring the cases, which means that he was

convinced that he had a solid case. if weisselberg comes and begins to cooperate with the fraud case, that has already been determined in the state attorney general's favor, we just don't know the penalties, but certainly weisselberg can add to whatever the judge is considering there. that only strengthens the hand of whatever the outcome of the damages are in the fraud case with the attorney general, and it strengthens bragg's case if, in fact, weisselberg is brought into court. so i think that donald trump is seeing the wagons circle around he and his attorneys. >> there's been an evolution in how this case has been presented. i want you to listen to what bragg said about the case from a radio interview back in december.

>> the reason it becomes interesting, andrew, which it fits much more neatly in the entire bouquet of challenges being brought to donald trump. >> i have two points on that. one, i think that reframing is one i would say that's a reframing for the press in terms of the press is sort of late to understanding what alvin bragg

and his prosecutors have been saying all along. if you look at the actual indictment, and the of facts that went along with it, this was also the case about keeping information from the public in advance of an election with the complicity of the national enquirer. those are the charges. and so that's why the case was brought. yes, it was done, the information that was kept was the hush money payments to a porn star so that doesn't come out. but this was about fraud in an election, and so i think this is much more -- something for us and people in the news to sort of say, we have to be talking about it, at least in the way that the d.a. has been presenting it all along. in other words, i don't think they changed it in any way. the second thing is i think it's probably premature for people to think that weisselberg is going to flip, in other words, that what we should be thinking from all of this is he is going to

cooperate. that has been something people have thought for, you know, since last year when he pled guilty and he still has not flipped. and in fact, he has 2 million reasons why he wouldn't flip, because there's this -- he was given a huge severance payment that is contingent on not voluntarily helping the government, a sort of shocking agreement. but i think it really helps the government here to get this and to make it clear that he cannot be a witness for donald trump in any credible way. >> thank you all. we have breaking news out of the middle east. the u.s. has launched air strikes in retaliation for an attack on a u.s. base in jordan that killed three soldiers. let's bring in our global affairs reporter for nbc news, at the pentagon. dan? >> reporter: yes, defense officials are telling us that the retaliatory air strikes have begun in iraq and syria against

iranian-backed militias. something that obviously the white house has been warning they would do. this operation has been pretty clearly now telegraphed for days since three u.s. soldiers were killed in jordan in that drone attack on sunday. and now this operation has begun, and keep in mind, administration officials have made it clear that this is not a one-off, that this will extend beyond today, over days. it will be a campaign, and it will involve multiple strikes and other operations. but right now, we can say that the retaliatory strikes have begun in iraq and syria against those iranian-backed militias that have launched more than 160 attacks on u.s. forces since october 7th, since that war started between israel and hamas. >> dan, do we have any further details on the targets in iraq and syria? >> they are not releasing those details yet.

but judging by -- keep in mind, we have had previous air strikes in the past, more limited air strikes against those militias, and they tend to go after weapons depots. they go after different sites used by the militias, including command and control sites. anywhere where they believe they can degrade the capability of these militias, which, of course, as we know are finance trained and armed by iran and have been a thorn in the side of the u.s. forces there for years. but of course, there is no indication at the moment that the u.s. is taking any action inside iranian territory. so these strikes are taking place in iraq and syria, where those militia groups are based and where they operate. of course, there's a challenge here. once the u.s. warned that it would respond to that drone attack, that has given the militias time to evacuate and to hide and conceal their weapons and their capabilities.

>> dan, as you described as officials have described, this is likely to be a tiered approach. your sense of what that might look like? >> reporter: i think we're going to see a much larger scale of air strikes than we have seen until now. until now, they were quite limited, quite calibrated over the past few months. this is going to be much larger scale involving a lot more aircraft, a lot more missiles, dozens of targets, i would guess at judging by what they've been indicating in advance. and then keep in mind, too, at some point i think it's fair to assume there will be strikes at sea, excuse me, against the houthis in yemen who have been attacking those commercial ships in the red sea in the gulf of aden. we have no indication there are any operations targeting the houthis in yemen at the moment, but i think it's fair to assume that will come as part of this multitiered campaign, as they're describing it. >> joining us now, retired

four-star general and msnbc military analyst barry mccaffrey. general mccaffrey, what are you looking for as this story develops? >> well, i think since the strike on tower 22, with three killed in action, more than 50 now wounded in action, u.s. intelligence has been blanketing the region, trying to see where the threats are. they are moving, they're all trying to disguise themselves. they've turned off all their radios. the houthis have turned off their radios in particular. but we've been watching them moving. so i won't think that we have lost much in terms of delaying multiple delays. if anything, we have added to it, because it gets them up and running. as dan very accurately reported, this is going to be a multiweek response, hopefully decentralize. it will involve both u.s. navy

and air force power. there may well be classified aspects to it. in other words, delta force going into syria or other places and snatching some of these leaders. never mind cyber warfare and economic actions. so as secretary austin stated, we've got to degrade capabilities, and not just do a one-off campaign. >> to your point about what defense secretary austin said yesterday, he said specifically it's time to take away even more capability than we've taken in the past. give us a sense of scope, what might that look like? >> well, it's -- the toughest target is still the houthis. the red sea, enormous economic consequences. it's affecting world trade. it's driving up prices. the egyptians remain mute with their suez canal losing revenue. so what you do about the houthis

is hard to program. you know, you've got about a third of the country, it's a shia militia organization, closely allied with iran. it's got some significant weapons, both ballistic and drone missiles and can definitely strike in this very constrained waterway international shipping. that one is a real challenge. i think the terrorist organizations in both syria and iraq will have to be over time. we'll just have to watch for them every time they move, they'll get struck. but even there, we have an unusual problem. iraq opposes any u.s. military action inside iraq. we're there, 2500 troops, part of an international coalition to counter isis at the nature at the request of the iraqi government. you know, secretary blinken, who has made every effort to try and keep this conflict from escalating, is now facing

renewed challenges. the good news, we're not going into iran with strikes yet. >> general mccaffrey, can you give us a sense of how you define success with a mission like this? >> well, that's the $64 million question for sure. i think to some extent you have to respond. i've been really distraught listening to people say, well, now they've killed some u.s. soldiers, now we've got to act. we've had 160 something odd strikes on u.s. forces. you simply cannot take away the inherent right of self-defense and immediate action and decentralize responses if you're going to keep military forces deployed in such a dangerous environment. hopefully, that -- those days are behind us, and we'll now have a more active protection of the forces themselves. but the important question you raise is, what is the strategic

purpose for these deployments? and we're going to have to rethink that, because bombing militia units, shia militia units in iraq is not a long-term solution to anything. >> give us a sense of what those conversations look like when you're talking about strategic purpose, that is something that is constantly evaluated and re-evaluated. you have been in the room when those conversations happen. how many times will they happen in the next few days, what are the data points they'll be looking for? >> well, the national security council meets at various levels of officialdom, from the three-star pentagon level, whole of government, state department, treasury, department of homeland security, all of them are involved. this is going on day and night, seven days a week, trying to manage really the top current

defense challenge to the united states. by the time it gets to the nfc, there are no good options. everything you are considering has unpalatable implications. what happens after we take this action? that's why i think wisely they're publicly signaling we're not going to go after iran, yet. iran is the center piece orchestrating, funding, training, equipping, and to some extent, directing what is a regional war against u.s. and israeli interests, and part of the domination of the sunni muslim population. so it's not going to go away with this current air campaign. we're in a long-term conflict, a dangerous situation that we have to face up to. >> general mccaffrey, there is always in these situations a question of proportionality. how does the biden administration decide what is a

proportional response? how do they make that determination? >> well, i hope they're deciding on a disproportional response. that's the problem. if you've got one lousy drone, maybe a 300 kilogram warhead on it that slams into a sleeping area and causes 50 something odd u.s. casualties, that drone probably cost $20,000 to manufacture. the people who fired it, it may have been a dozen people. none of them with graduate degrees from the army war college. so you really have to go after decision makers, you have to have the whole of government responses. in other words, it's got to be cyberwarfare, classified covert action, as well as military power and economic restraint. we have to up the game. i hope we're going to see u.s. air force heavy bombers going after fixed installations, not a

targeted, 500 pound j-dam but a 100 munitions striking a target to try and stun these people and have them change their ways. >> dan, what more have we learned about these targets? >> reporter: well, we have not had any announcement detailing exactly what they have targeted. but i think it's fair to assume we're going to see over a period of time now, this is not going to end today, there will be dozens of these strikes involving aircraft off of naval ships, off of bases in the region. missiles in the u.s. arsenal, and there are numerous sites, bases, and storage depots that these militias use in eastern syria and iraq. some of which have been hit before, but i think there's several dilemmas now for the administration, which they're trying to calibrate in all of this. while this is going on, there is

an intense diplomatic discussion underway at the same time between the israelis and through enter locketers through the qataris with hamas, trying to nail down the release of the remaining hostages, trying to figure out a way towards another cease-fire, and a path forward that would bring down the temperature generally in the region, and possibly help prevent more of these attacks from the militias and the houthis, because the more the war in israel -- between israel and hamas rages, the more these attacks there will be from the militias and the houthis. so what's interesting, all week you had the administration saying very clearly that they were going to respond and they were going to be -- there was going to be military action. but they also always added the caveat that they did not seek a wider regional conflict, they did not seek a war directly with iran. it's unclear now, it's an open question, these strikes, this

campaign will help actually deter iran, which is backing and financing all these groups. that's an open question. there are some skeptical opinions that this won't work. but the administration feels that they have to toe the line here, navigate a very difficult dilemma here to try to deter iran without blowing everything up. but i think the next step here will be more details about exactly what they've hit. i think we'll see a lot of ordnance. this will be a much larger scale than what we have seen since october. the next step might be at sea, what we see them doing against the houthis and yemen that have caused such headaches for commercial shipping in the red sea. the houthis rely on the iranians for some of their intelligence and targeting information, to help them hit those commercial ships. there is suspicion that there are iranian ships at sea that help the houthis.

there's a question there, would the u.s. hit those ships? unlikely, but we don't know, and we'll have to see. >> let's bring in former cia director, and now msnbc senior national security analyst, john brennan. give us a sense of the type of considerations that goes into the planning of this type of counterattack. >> well, what you want to do is make sure that you have the offensive assets in place to carry out these strikes, and it's going to be a combination of air strikes and cruise missile strikes. secondly, you want to make sure you have all the intelligence available so that you can target those groups that have been conducting these attacks against u.s. forces. so over the past week in particular, after the death of these three americans, there has been an intensive effort to collect as much intelligence as possible. but this intelligence nests within the larger intelligence that has been gathered over the

last number of months, if not years, about these groups. you wait until you can carry out these attacks as effectively and successfully against the targets. so what we're seeing right now is the beginning of what i think is going to be a very forceful demonstration of u.s. military might, directed against these groups to degrade their capabilities to carry out attacks against u.s. forces, as well as to send a clear signal to iran that their support for these groups is not going to go unaddressed. that's why biden and his national security team have decided this will be a sustained attack, and because there has been this chronic aspect of their attacks against us, there needs to be a continued effort to try to degrade, suppress these groups from carrying out these attacks. i do think it will be inside iraq and syria, and i anticipate we'll see some attacks against

houthi positions inside of yemen. >> you referenced military might, that is certainly what we are seeing now. should we assume that there are other fronts on which the biden administration is pushing, is moving, even if those are not public facing cyber ops, intelligence operations, what might those look like? >> so i don't think we're going to carry out the military attacks against iran proper, but i can see the administration doing things against iran to include additional financial sanctions to punish iran for what they continue to do. and also some cyberoperations to degrade iran's ability to communicate with these groups. so a lot of those cyber efforts i think are going to be not public at all, but i'm sure that the u.s. military, u.s. intelligence community and others are looking at how to degrade the ability of iran to continue to orchestrate this constellation of proxy groups in the region, that have been able to carry out these attacks. but clearly, there has been a

rubicon that has been passed now with death and injury of u.s. service members and the administration has decided to go on the offensive, not just in terms of defending against attacks, but going on the offensive to, again, degrade their capabilities to carry out these attacks in the future. >> let's talk specifically about the role that the cia is poised to play. "on the intelligence side, the cia should ramp up efforts to create, fund, and operationalize our own proxies against iran. there's a growing resistance to iran internally, not surprising given their history of economic mismanagement and poor governance, and we should do all we can help it, including increasing helping opposition groups and let them know how they can best degrade their rotten ththeocracy." what do you see as the role of the cia? >> the cia can carry out certain types of operations to influence

developments abroad. so i will defer to the administration to decide on what they can do, but i think there are ways that pressure can be put upon the iranian regime. the iranian regime is not wholly loved by the iranian people, and there are a variety of opposition groups operating inside and outside of iran that are much opposed to the theocracy that is led right now by the ayatollah and president reesi. so we'll see whether these actions against iran and iranian efforts to, again, u.s. efforts to degrade what iran is doing in the region, might trigger some additional agitation or activity on the part of these opposition groups. again, it's up to the administration, as well as to other actors in the region to see whether or not they want to try to enhance the ability of these groups to do some types of things that will try to witle away at the support that the iranian regime enjoys inside

iran. >> i want to bring in nbc news senior white house correspondent kelly o'donnell. striking that the president today, at the dignified transfer, while all of this transpiring in the background. we have known for some time that this was coming. what are you hearing from the white house? >> reporter: that intersection of the grim reality for the families who are based in georgia, who lost threat sergeants who are part of a reservist unit that died in jordan. putting that against now action and retaliatory strikes that have begun. that timing is certainly poetic in many respects, but it was unclear to us when it would commence, but we had been told that there are a number of factors assessing the targets. also, weather conditions and other things. but we knew that the president made a decision that he was going to tack action, ramping up what had been already some activity in the region, going

against the houtis that had been trying to block commerce and shipping and so forth. a lot of that tied to israeli interests. this is a distinctly separate operation, although it's in the same neighborhood, and many of the targets have a common iranian influence. so this campaign that is underway now, we expect it will have different phases. we don't know its duration, but it will be multitiered, and that could include targets that would be on land, in various countries. we do not anticipate inside iran, could be on the water, where there are shipping interests, and it could be in the cyber realm. so from the white house so far, we have not had an official on the record confirmation of this activity, and we wouldn't expect it at this early point. we know that the president had already set in motion the expectation for this, and after the department of defense had some time to assess where things are going, then at that point,

we would expect to begin hearing official comment from perhaps the secretary of defense or from the president himself. we'll see how that unfolds. the president is still in delaware. he was at dover, as we discussed, and is now at his wilmington residence. that place does have all the secure communications at his home, so he's able to be in touch as needed with the department of defense or any of the key analysts with intelligence or other parts of the operation. it is not necessarily the case that the president needs to be directly involved at this juncture, because once the authority is given, a lot of that is carried out at different military levels. it does not necessarily require that he approve each step along the way once he's given that authority. but this is, in a much bigger sense, about the president's foreign policy, which is quite complicated right now, trying to deal with the israel-hamas war, trying to get hostages out, get

humanitarian into gaza, including six or so american hostages among that group that were captured on october 7th. that one very volatile situation. this is related but different. and certainly the president has made clear he does not want to inspire wider war. he does not want to see this go further. but at the same time, wanted to send a message that deadly, lethal action against american soldiers and against american interests will require him to take action. that's what we're seeing play out right now. >> i wonder, kelly, what your reporting tells you about joe biden's thinking, specifically on the timing. why now? >> reporter: certainly, sit case of the initial events took place last sunday, where the deaths occurred. it has been a part of an ongoing set of facts where there have been increasing attacks on u.s. ships and strikes in areas where american personnel have been based. this was the first time it was

deadly. then there has to be an assessment done by the department of defense to gather information, options and so forth, if you will. and then it becomes a matter of what are the optimal conditions and i'm not in a position to speak to that just yet, but it would be things like the weather conditions. it would be the assessment oh of what movements may be happening with enemy targets on the ground. they're surveilling that, they have intelligence about that. so then they try to figure out the best timing. the duration of this campaign is another question. we don't think this is just going to be an event tonight and then that's it. we expect, based on what officials have said, that this will be an ongoing campaign. we don't know yet when the end point will be. i think that will unfold in the days to come, since this is an early stage, but those are the initial assessments we have. >> nbc's kelly o'donnell live for us at the white house. i want to bring in nbc news chief international correspondent kier simmons in

iraq. >> reporter: we know that there was some -- we have this news, you know, i guess about 30 minutes ago that there was some kind of -- something happened in eastern syria near the border with iraq. we know there are camps for iranian backed militia, training camps. that is part of what is on this strip. there is also an iranian base there, a substantial one, that is known for example, to have reinforced tunnels, that, you know, that might be the kind of thing that might be a target for the u.s. it's along the border from where those three american service members were killed. quite a long way along the border. and through these past days, we have been trying to establish where that drone attack may have

come from, and haven't been able to get any information about that from u.s. sources or others. so you would imagine that if u.s. intelligence is aware of where it came from, then it is going to be something they're going to want to target. but we are just getting a statement from centcom. i'm going to read that, because i think it will be important. so just reading this now. u.s. central command forces conducted air strikes in iraq and syria against iraq's revolutionary guard corps, qods force, and affiliated militia groups. so that's that iranian -- it is iranian force that is widely dug in, if you like, across syria and here in iraq. and affiliated militia groups, so that means those iranian backed militia. u.s. forces struck 85 targets,

to include long-range bombers flown from the united states. the air strikes employed more than 125 precision munitions, facility instruck include intelligence centers, rockets and missiles, and unmanned air vehicle storages, which is i think that would be drones, and logistics, and their irgc sponsors who facilitated attacks against the u.s. and coalition forces. so just interpreting that statement, that is quite a widespread number of targets, which underscores, doesn't it, just how established iran is in this region. it has become more and more established in recent years. all the way towards damascus and close to the israeli border, and what the u.s. is announcing here, 85 targets is that they have considered the killing of

these three u.s. service members as reason to target a wide range of iranian-backed facilities. these command and control centers, the intelligence centers, the rockets and missiles, the drones, where drones are being kept it looks like they're suggesting unmanned air vehicle storages, and logistics. we do know something about where much of that is. there will be sites potentially around damascus airport, around aleppo airport. the statement doesn't go into detail, as well as potentially in eastern syria. and then, of course, there are also those iranian proxy groups here in iraq. one of the questions will be how many of these targets are inside syria, and how many are here in iraq? because while we lay out the size and scale of this action

tonight, it's worth keeping in mind just what an enormous challenge this is for the biden administration. just to give you an example, here in iraq, if you go in too strong, politically you drive the iraqi government towards iran, and empower the voices that say that the u.s. forces should leave iraq. that is the aim of the iranian government, what iran and proxies are trying to achieve. so it's difficult to get the balance right. clearly, the biden administration would have thought long and hard how to send a message to tehran that doesn't overstep. >> that's the exact tight rope that the administration is walking. kier simmons, stay with us. i want to go back live to dan. dan, as you look at this statement, anything that jumps out to you? >> reporter: first of all, the scale. this is way beyond what the u.s. has done over the past few months. there's been these very limited strikes against these militia

groups. mainly in syria since october. but now we're talking more than 85 targets were hit just in this first stage of this campaign. so that gives you a sense of this very large scale operation involving aircraft from all over the region, including long-range bombers flying from the united states. so that involves much larger ordinance. this is a very serious operation. the other thing that really jumped out is it talked about this -- these strikes were targeting iran's revolutionary guard. and the affiliated militia groups. so they're not hesitating to say that they are going after iranian revolutionary guard troops in syria, in iraq, that are, of course, entrenched and training and advising these me lisha groups that have -- militia groups that have been

attacking u.s. military troops. and how many strikes were carried out inside iraq? that is a politically sensitive question there. it has been an aim for iran for a long time now, years, to try to push the u.s. out of iraq entirely. >> i want to bring back into the conversation general mccaffrey. let's walk through this statement together. 85 targets. 125 precision munitions, those include long-range bombers flown from the united states. just the sheer scale of this, what does that tell you? >> well, it's very serious, comprehensive effort. the u.s. heavy bomber capability, b-52s, b-1 and b-2 bombers have the potential to fly round trip from the united states and strike targets anywhere on the globe, with a really ferocious payload. so i think if the iranians are

looking at this unfolding response, they should get concerned. they're going to lose a lot of their qods force operatives who are all over the middle east. i'm sure they're still active in lebanon, even though the israelis went after them there. so it's a serious blow. it can't stop now. it needs to have a distributed, prolonged effort, and they need to decentralize control of this down to centcom and not have an nfc meeting on each target and each munition. with it, maybe we'll see some significant degrading of their capabilities and a political acceptance to back off this regional campaign against the u.s. >> general, i want you to pick up on something that dan was bringing to our attention, which is who and which groups were targeted here.

iran's islamic revolutionary guards or qods force militia groups, they are irgc sponsors who facilitate attacks against the u.s. and coalition forces. help us understand those groups in context. >> i couldn't begin to help you understand the scorecard of the various militia groups. some of which are -- most of which in iraq as an example, and indeed in syria, are shia militia units, as are the houthis down in yemen. bult it's a bewildering array of groups that are funded in lebanon in particular. by the way, lebanon, we shouldn't take our eyes off it. that is the principal threat to the widening of the war in the middle east. 100,000 hezbollah fighters, equipped and armed by iran. there's a growing consensus of opinion among intelligence experts that it's likely to go to all-out war if israel on the

northern front also -- the only thing that's clearly understood by all is the iranians are behind this. so you're going to go after the decision makers. it's basically an irgc operatives throughout the region. and the next step, of course, is you have to go after iran itself. i think that's the step that biden and his team are rightfully trying to signal, you better back off now or you're the next target. >> how much time does that give them? what does that look like? >> hard question. you know, the natural security council and the room below the white house are going to be meeting multiple times of the day, three, four-star level, trying to sort this out, watching for the response, trying to do bomb damage assessment, what did we accomplish by the last strikes? i was sort of surprised that only 125 munitions, i think we

parch that out, that may be perhaps 125 missile munitions. but they're not going to let go of this until they get a definitive response and intelligence is able to provide them feedback that's saying now we can ease off of it. >> general mccaffrey, prior to these attacks earlier this week, there was reporting that u.s. officials believed that there are signs that iranian leadership was nervous about the actions of some of these proxy groups. doesn't necessarily mean that they pulled back on the proxy attacks. is there, though, the possibility that they begin to tinker at the margins? >> well, i think they're facing a very serious threat. the iranians don't want war with the united states, for sure. if we turn the u.s. air force and navy loose on the iranian economy, which already has huge problems, if we mine their ports, if we went to the irgc base in the persian gulf, if we

went after their nuclear weapons development capability, my assumption is, they're 90 days from having a viable nuclear weapon. they would lose a lot. so they don't want a u.s. retaliation against iran. i think that's the next step. so they're going to take all this into account, in a very serious manner. but they don't probably have total control over any of these elements. so, again, i think what we need to see is preemptive, self-defense capability decentralized down to u.s. forces. we also got to rethink why we're in iraq. you know, clearly the iranians want us out it would be better if we could maintain active presence in country, but at some point, this is no longer viable. we say it's to counter isis. the iraqis publicly are not supporting the coalition

presence in iraq. we need to re think that one. >> i want to go back to keir simmons for us in iraq. keir, what are you going to be watching for on the ground there in the next few days? >> well, i think just picking up on your conversation there, and a great point, i think one of the issues, one of the questions is, which of these targets are in syria and which are in iraq. iraq is a much more delicate balance for the reasons you were talking about. because iraq is both a partner of the u.s. and a partner of iran and the danger is that if you over target if you like, might not be the right way to describe it, if you overstep, you could put it that way, here in iraq, you put the iraqi government towards the iranians and encourage the voices of those who say that the u.s. should leave iraq and that is, of course, exactly the strategy of iran. that is -- that is one of the issues that the biden

administration will have been trying to weigh out when it calculates and made these plans for this mission tonight. but there is another aspect of this too to underscore, that is, i think the breadth and size of this campaign tonight actually underscores just how widespread iranian influence is in the region, both particularly in syria, where it has -- it used the revolution in syria then it more recently used the somewhat withdraw by the russians to fight in ukraine to take more ground in syria and then even the earthquake to take more so the iranian are dug in syria and that is seen by israel as an enormous threat. the danger of opening another front for israel. all this will come to sharp focus by the fact of how

extensive the campaign appears top. what it also underscores how challenging this is for the u.s. and for the biden administration. barry mccaffrey was pointing towards the debate about the numbers of u.s. service member who are here, whether they are sitting targets, what exactly their role is, and whether if they did leave, though, that would leave even more of the territory open to iran. that is a conversation that hasn't been had, and perhaps after this action because it will illuminate many places iran is in this region, perhaps that conversation will spur that kind of conversation. where we are now we don't know exactly where. we know, you know, the kind of targeting that has been carried out. we don't know what targets are. perhaps around damascus airport and aleppo airport, and in eastern syria, perhaps iranian-backed little mish

militias. why do we know these might be the targets? they've been targeted before by the israelis and u.s. if you're trying to shift iran's strategy to push america out of this region that is a difficult thing to do, that particularly israel has been trying to do and to some extent the u.s. over many years. >> nbc's keir simmons in iraq, thank you so much. i want to bring back into our conversation former cia director john brennan, director brennan, pick up on where keir left off iran's widespread influence in iraq and syria how that complicates things for the united states and the biden administration. >> one of the things in that centcom statement was clear was the purposeful targeting of the

iranian revolutionary guard, the qods force, embedded with these militia and proxy groups without syria and iraq and other areas. so it's clear that these strikes are designed to take down a lot of those al quds force members which are iranians. we are striking at the heart of their ability to continue to work with these proxy militias. iran has been a challenge to the united states in the middle east over the past 40 years. ask it continues to provide support to these militia groups in these ungoverned areas, eastern syria and western auto iraq have the governments have no control over. iran has cultivated ties with legal groups, mostly shia but sunni as well. they have done it yemen and with

hezbollah. they see it as an opportunity to flex their muscles in the region and something against u.s. and the interest of countries in the region as far as having some security stability in the region. will this deter the iranian? i don't think it will. the intention of the strikes is to seriously degrade the ability of the qods force to work with these proxy force and degrade the possibility of these little lish has. >> if it's about degrading capabilities help me understand what the success, how success is defined in a mission like this. >> taking out large weapons depots the command and control centers and taking out the various training camps, others, taking out the operatives, trainers, again, all the capabilities of these groups, having them go to ground, having them hunker down because they're afraid there's going to be follow-on attacks this is going

to degrade their ability to carry out these attacks that, obviously, the drone that killed those three service members and wounded over 50, this was a drone launched from somewhere in this area. these are mobile units but operate in encampments that will move but they can be targeted. sometimes they have tunnels in the region and other places. the amount of ordinance and the munitions being dropped are going to have a severely serious impact on their ability to continue to carry out these strikes. i think it's going to have to be monitored over time. to me success is the inability of these groups to launch lethal attacks against u.s. forces but this is something that's going to have to continue. this is a chronic problem in the region. the middle east is a messy place with a lot of sub-national groups able to operate on their own with their own agendas. because of the support that comes from places like iran that allows them to continue to carry

on this fight against u.s. interests in the region. >> perhaps that point director brennan, how much control does iran have over these proxy groups? >> it varies. there's some groups that really do respond very positively to iranian direction because they want the support. a lot of them also have independent agendas. the houthis in yemen. some of these groups inside of iraq in particular like kataeb, which does follow the iranian guidance and some of the groups inside of syria i'm sure iran is able to orchestrate their actions. other groups will take iranian support, funding, munitions as they see fit and continue to do on their own. i think what the united states is trying to do is send a signal to iran what you've been doing in the middle east is not okay. we're going to take actions to again, disrupt what you're doing

and if you continue to do it, you're going to see more of this. i could see that united states could be escalating some of these strikes if, in fact, iran decides to continue to up the ante. >> you all of that set against a backdrop of a needle to threat, calibrating any strikes that you deter iran as we have been talking about without triggering a wider war has to be the conversation happening in refer room in the white house right now. >> striking that balance without triggering some type of broader conflict in the middle east. >> it's clear iran does not want a war with the united states but it does have capability it could launch against the gulf arab states which we don't want. the middle east is a multidimensional chessboard. you have a lot of pieces if you move in one area it will effect the positioning on another area. we see israel and gaza, there

are delicate negotiations going on to affect the cease-fire and release of the hostages. what might iran try to do to disrupt the progress on those negotiations. so the united states is trying to manage all of these issues, what's happening in israel and gaza and very, very delicate balance that it has to strike. thankfully we have people with a lot of experience, secretary blinken, director burns, jake sullivan and others have been deeply steeped in these issues over time and working closely with our allies and partners in the region to make sure that they do this in a way that's not going to make the situation, but try to address and mitigate the dangers that exist on an ongoing basis in the middle east. >> director brennan. rur staying with us. hello. it's 5:00 in washington, d.c.

we are continuing our coverage out of the middle east. united states has launched retaliatory strikes against iranian-backed militias in iran and syria. according to a statement from centcom u.s. forces struck more than 85 targets with numerous aircraft and they employed more than 125 precision munitions, striking facilities that included command and control operations intelligence centers, rockets, unmanned stoernlgs. today's strikes the beginning of a multitier response to the drone attack that killed three service members in jordan. earlier today the president attended the dignified transfer of the bodies at dover, delaware. as nbc news describes the military action is a significant escalation in washington's bid to deter the growing threat from iran-backed groups across the middle east. a step fraught with risk abroad and at home as president biden seeks to prevent the israel-hamas war from spiralling into a wider conflict while working to secure his

re-election. let's bring in dan de luce at the pentagon. >> we're hearing more information now and details about this operation. the defense officials are confirming b1 bombers were involved in these air strikes. that central command said there were long range bombers flying from the united states and these include the b1 bombers that carried very large munitions and can inflict serious damage we are told there are about a half dozen facilities hit in iraq and syria that are linked directly, the u.s. believes, to the attacks that have been taking place against u.s. forces including the lethal attack on sunday that left three u.s. troops dead and wounded dozens

of others, and more than 160 attacks by these iranian-backed militia against the u.s. in syria. the u.s. is saying they've traced back some of the facilities helping enable those attacks by the militia and the u.s. has gone after those with a real intensity as you say, more than 85 targets hit, more than 100 munitions, and including these b1 bombers that pack a serious punch. we don't have details about casualties or how many min militia members may have been killed. in the central command statement that came out over the past hour confirming the operation had begun, this was targeted against iranian's revolutionary guard corps forces there on the ground in iraq and syria, advising and

supporting these militia groups. a very significant operation has started and it's just the beginning and we're still getting details. >> it is the beginning of the beginning. your sense of what the next few weeks might look like? >> well, certainly there will be more of this tomorrow and the day after. officials made it clear over the past few days that this was not going to be a very limited, one day affair. this would be over days and possibly weeks. and they were referring to it as a campaign. not just a series of air strikes. we're going to see probably the geographic area covered expand, but right now we're talking about iraq and syria. we may see something in yemen at some point. and again, also, there are aspects of this we may not know about for a while. and maybe never. so we don't know if special operation forces will be

involved on the ground to target these militia groups. we don't know if there will be cyber operations. that was something administration officials hinted at privately to nbc news and others. so there's still a lot to unfold here, but we still don't know how many strikes took place inside iraq. now a key question that carries political significance inside iraq because of the sensitivity there and that could create headaches for the u.s., potentially iran response is another question and we'll have to see how the militia groups responding that have gone into hiding will they try to stage an attack. >> dan de luce for us at the pentagon. more as we have it. bring into our conversation on set, nbc's chief foreign affairs correspondent and anchor here at msnbc, andrea mitchell. why not attacks inside iran?

>> such a good question. this is a balancing act. so many other priorities right now, principally trying to end the gaza war and get the hostages out. is that's going to be a tough negotiation even as this was under way the secretary of state announced he is going to egypt, qatar, which harbors hamas and the intermediary with hamas and then this weekend this will be his fifth shuttle diplomacy negotiating to try to end the war, get aid into gaza and relieve the humanitarian crisis there and get the hostages out. a lot of competing pressures. clearly the -- lawmakers can pull back and say no to their proxies. it is iran. you ask why not iran? iran said we don't want a wider

war and the u.s. has repeatedly said they don't want to go to war with iran. other allies, the arab nations we're dealing with say we don't want a war with iran. this will be stepped up now that these are iranian proxies, and command and control of the iranian islamic revolutionary guard, the qods force in iraq in syria principally and there will be assets that are iranian targets as well. we think there's going to be cyber activity if there isn't already. this is going to be as secretary austin said, multitiered not one off. this is not shock and awe for those of us who remember the attack against saddam hussein in march that we were watching the fireworks over baghdad. this is not that. this is a precision focused, deliberate attack against carefully chosen targets and there's been a lot of kritsz

sism why wait so long. we lost our soldiers on sunday, all those days ago, and as secretary austin said, we will do it at a time and place of our choosing. secretary blinken said the same. and they have a lot of other factors. on any military strike they have to consider weather, satellite coverage, what they are seeing, not seeing on the ground. trying to reduce civilian casualties which always -- so-called collateral damage, that creates death that the u.s. tries to avoid but also a practical effect. the propaganda value if they accidentally target something that kills a lot of, you know, people in iraq and syria. it's, obviously, going to further inflame the region. they're walking a tight rope but they had to do something that would be signaling against iran. the criticism you will hear from the president's critics on the hill and elsewhere, that why not

go after iran, go after their territory. iran is very different from iraq. iran is a huge population, a lot of civilian casualties, have -- are in the precipes of having a nuclear weapon which they weren't all those years ago in 2018 when president trump withdrew from the, you know, from the iran nuclear deal. now they are, you know, maybe a week away from at least having the capability to build a weapon, not deliver but build a weapon and they have some of the most sophisticated missile technology in the world. >> when you talk to your sources at the white house, at state, at the pentagon, what do they tell you about the interplay between what they are currently contending with, with iran, and these very tenuous negotiations that are happening between israel and hamas? >> they directly are connected. you can't go after iran without potentially affecting what's

happening with any negotiations that might bear fruit regarding the hostages. they're not expecting this to produce an argument, you know, immediately, but they have a framework, a text, everyone agreed to last weekend in paris and by everyone, i mean israel agreed to it, qatar agreed it to, egypt agreed to it. there were disagreements before this between qatar and egypt. the u.s. agreed to it. so no matter what prime minister netanyahu says to satisfy his most far right members of his coalition, his top intelligence chiefs from three different services, the army, shinbet, all signed that agreement in paris, as did qatar and egypt and they are the ones negotiating with hamas. >> the white house issued a statement. i am reading it live. this past sunday three american soldiers were killed in jordan by a drone launched by militant groups backed by iran's islamic revolutionary guards corps. i attended the dignified return

of these brave americans at dover air force base and spoken with each of their families. this afternoon, u.s. military forces struck targets at facilities in iraq and syria that the irgs an affiliate militia used to attack u.s. forces. our response began today. it will continue at times and places of our choosing. the united states does not seek conflict in the middle east or any where else in the world, but let all of those who might seek to do us harm know this, if you harm an american, we will respond. that is certainly the message that the biden administration hoping is delivered. >> one of the problems is to be proportional. that's a challenge for the military, for any president. we've seen in the past both republican and democratic commanders in chief miss the point by not responding forcefully enough or by respond too long forcefully. i mean, we saw the response against saddam hussein who was

arguably not involved in 9/11, but took the brunt of it. we also saw the -- so that was president george w. bush. we saw the response in 1998 for the embassy bombings against al qaeda. this was from president clinton. and they targeted, you know, targets in sudan and it was not forceful enough. it didn't get to al qaeda. and, you know, two years later we had the "uss cole" blowing up in yemen and then 9/11 a year after that. deterrence and going after the culprits has to be forceful enough so they don't do it again. and we missed the mark with al qaeda. we missed the mark with saddam hussein. different parties, different presidents, and this president is now in an election year and his challenge is to show that he's forceful enough but doesn't blow up a hostage deal and make the region erupt in a full-scale

war. >> i want to bring into the conversation our colleague kelly o'donnell who is live for us at the white house. we've just read this statement from the president. any chance we hear from the president this evening? >> i think it's unlikely simply because at this juncture, the statement makes the president's sentiments, his intentions, and really the wider message plainly known, and while there is active military operation under way, that is typically not when we see the president on camera. more likely he would speak at a future point when he can give more of an assessment and ha kind of thing. that's my judgment from having covered the white house for a long time. i don't think this is the moment when he would do that. it also happens to be the case he is at his home in wilmington, delaware, a contingent of the press pool that travels with him where he goes and there are ways that could be accomplished, but he is not here at the white house right now. the statement does communicate

what we have anticipated and what really the white house wants to be the message for those who are following this closely. for both friend and foe and the american public to understand how the u.s. military is responding after the deaths of three service members and also the injuries to about two dozen others an the ongoing threat. the president is trying to make clear what andrea was talking about, that proportionality, being able to use the vastness of american military might and secretary austin had talked about the extensive capabilities of these iran influenced militant groups, but that the u.s. has many more capabilities. so how to use that to make an impact, but not go too far, to not have it spill into a broader retaliation. all of those things, that calibration is sensitive, very difficult, and also at a time like this when the operations are unfolding and assessing what has taken place the president

saying, in a printed form, what is on his mine and now can kind of watch and assess and have the influence of talking with his top officials, getting on the ground reports perhaps phone calls with foreign leader partners, that kind of thing, would typically fill this space until the next iteration. >> kelly o'donnell at the white house. admiral stavridis. i want to go over this centcom statement with you. 85 targets, 125 precision munitions. what does that all tell you? >> that the administration correctly is going big, and this is a part of a campaign, alicia, that is just beginning to unfold. this will go on days, if not a week or two. when you bring out the big guns, if you will, the long range

bombers coming from the united states, b-52, b-1, b-2, you are committing in a big way to an ongoing campaign. that's the right thing to do. i must say, symbolically, rolling this immediately after the beautiful and dignified return of our three servicemen and women were killed feels right to me and is appropriate in every sense. you're showing that video right now, and i know they are watching and they are applauding this response because it is the right thing to do because in the long run, that's what will deter further terrorist acts like the one that took their own lives. >> you wrote, no one wants a war in the middle east, but iran must be made to see that we are not afraid of one either.

what does it look like to walk that line? >> i think you're seeing it in real time with the administration that has carefully calibrated its moves here. they began taking very surgical, one for one responses. that did not affect decision making in tehran. then they moved to a broader package of targeting, particularly against the houthis in the red sea. again, did not move the needle. the big change here is two fold. one, volume. you're going to see higher level of impact points, targets, serviced as we say, from drones, from cruise missiles, from air launched cruise missiles and probably from bombs coming off our manned aircraft. that's a volume addition. and then secondly, i think this is really the important point,

you're going to see targets that go after iranian forces, not inside iran, as everyone has been correctly pointing out, but iranian revolutionary guard who are doing the training, equipping, logistics, directing, they're the onsite owners and operators of these proxies. they are now in the gun sites themselves. that's where they deserve to be. iran, wake up, hear the message. if for the reason they don't, we could have a more difficult conversation in a week or so, about targets in iran. let's hope we don't get there. that's a decision that will be made in tehran. i hope the mullahs are listening. >> and admiral ral starveridis it's andrea in washington, even

as this was taking place secretary antony blinken was calling the saudi minister to set up his fifth trip to the region trying to push for an end to the gaza war, to free the hostages, to a cease-fire, a rolling cease-fire if you will. dealing through egypt and qatar with hamas. very complicated and we're advised by very good sources to ignore the initial comments from either prime minister netanyahu or hamas because they have to appease the most radical constituent, but that this is very much ongoing. is it possible to walk the tight rope between keeping this going and try to do a deal which won't happen if iran vetoes it. it's their proxies. but to do that kind of a big deal, while going after the rev lution nary guard and iranian assets in this action? >> i think it is possible to do such a deal.

my hat is off to secretary antony blinken, a good friend. the only person i know with more frequent flyer miles would be you. but secretary blinken has been in the shuttle mode now for months, and i think it's having a positive impact at a very high level and keeping open not only what you described, the idea of a hostage deal, but ultimately the big prize here, would be coming together at least in a kind of a framed up way with the idea of a two-state solution. we're not there yet, but that conversation could come out of this alongside a true agreement between riyadh and jerusalem and saudi arabia and israel. i think it is a possibility. you're correct, this is the narrowest of channels to sail, if you'll permit me a nautical

metaphor, a tight passage. however, i think it is possible, and i'll conclude with this, because ultimately iran does not want a regional war here. of course, the biden administration does not want a regional war. israel has its hands full with hamas and potential danger of hezbollah. at the highest level i think there's a possibility of sailing this narrow passage and getting to a deal. let's hope secretary blinken can pull this one off. >> how is that complicated, though, admiral, if iran doesn't have total control over all of its proxies? >> great question. and this is a debate within our intelligence community. here's how i would answer it. in the very short term, sure, the proxies have ammunition and they have drones and they have troops, but in the medium and the longer term, they dry up on

the vine like grapes on a vine in a hot sun. if iran does not continue to resupply them. so again, all decisions examine out of tehran. you may see some spasmodic response from the militias but ultimately believe me, tehran is controlling the purse strings and that means controlling these militias. >> to put a fine point on the complexity we're dealing with here, we have troops on the jordan-syria border to prevent the resurgence of isis. i wonder how we are to understand how that threat has evolved? >> the islamic state is still a nascent threat. a way to think about it that i talk to people here in the united states about, is, you know, three, four years ago the islamic state was a forest fire. it was consuming the middle east. it had taken over huge chunks of

territory in syria and iraq. it had tanks within 100 miles of baghdad. that fire was extinguished, but like forest fires, there are still embers on the ground out there, and as a result of that, the continuing deployment of 2500 u.s. troops in iraq, probably 700 over in syria, very, very important against the islamic state, the nascent embers on the ground concern, and then secondly, having the u.s. engaged with partners around the region and showing that we're to the simply walking away from the region is important. don't forget, when i was supreme allied commander of nato i had 150,000 troops in afghanistan and we had u.s., 170,000 troops

in iraq. now we're down to 2500 troops total in iraq and in afghanistan. we've withdrawn 98% of our troops. pulling those last few out sends a signal to the region that we really don't want to be here. this is the wrong time to do that. i think it's important to keep our troops there. >> another quick question since you're the military brain here among all of us. and i know you're a naval guy but ask you a question tangentially involves air force. so, there's been a lot of criticism already, john bolton was on, you know, our air at various times, criticizing the delay from sunday to today in the response. and my experience would say, you got to wait for weather. you've got to wait for trying to limit collateral civilian damage and the right opportunity for whatever you're gregts surveillance. you want to get the b1s there

from the u.s. and not use regional air base if it's going to embarrass your allies. am i right about that? >> your military brain is doing just fine. we could probably use you in the pentagon, andrea. bottom line, we say in military operations, you want it bad, you'll get it bad. meaning, take the time, take a deep breath, plan it, execute it with a real sense of this is going to be done right. you listed a number of factors. i'll give you another one. it's simply allow your opponents to be in a state of concern. they don't know what's going on. that actually has military advantage. to me, this timing feels about right. as i said at the top of this conversation, it examines on top of the return of the honorable remains of our servicemen and

women at dover where so many have come through. it feels about right to me. so i'll take your military advice over john bolton's any day. >> admiral, thank you so much for making time for us. let's go back to national security affairs reporter dan de luce at the pentagon. i am told we have heard from the defense secretary. >> that's right. secretary austin has just released this statement again confirming that this operation has started. he said they're following attack on u.s. and coalition forces in jordan this past sunday that killed three u.s. service members at president biden's direction, u.s. military forces today conducted strikes on seven facilities which included more than 84 targets in iraq and syria. that's what we heard earlier from central command. and then he said this, this is the start of our response. the president has directed additional actions to hold the revolutionary guard and affiliated militias accountable

for their attacks on u.s. and coalition forces. again, indicating these strikes today are just the beginning of a longer campaign against these militias and the iran revolutionary guard advising and enabling them and these will unfold at times plansds and places of our choogzing. the president and i will not tolerate attacks on american forces and take all actions to defend the united states, our forces and interests. making it clear from the defense secretary now, this u.s. military operation has just started, it is the first step and we will see more, and he indicated that there were seven facilities hit in iraq and syria. that's the most precise detail

we've had on the record from the pentagon. >> seven facilities. dan de luce at the pentagon, dan, thank you so much. i want to bring into our conversation former deputy national security adviser to president obama, ben rhodes. you have cautioned us throughout the week this is an extraordinarily delicate situation, that the administration understood just how delicate it was, as you have watched this response unfold, what has stood out to you? >> a couple things. first of all, they did not take the step of trying inside iran, as has been pointed out. that would have been the most es cla store move and the move to elevate this i think what is already a regional war into something much bigger. they're trying to calibrate this where they're going after both the iranian revolutionary guard and the proxy groups in iraq and syria. these are places where the u.s.

has taken military action before against the irgc and some of these groups. however, i think the other thing that stands out is the scale of this attack, it feels like they're going, you know, about as big as you can without taking that step into iran. this feels like it's an effort to really try to get at the infrastructure of these groups across iraq and syria in a methodical way. to step back, you know, it's one thing to send a message hitting a couple target, supply note from the irgc to these groups and a site associated with them. this feels like they're really trying to take out this infrastructure in a pretty significant way, and again, i do think that understandably they want to try to deter attacks. this is not without risk because if there's a feeling among this network from hezbollah through these groups to iran there needs

to be a response, you already have the ongoing military operation in gaza, this could catch fire in a way that goes beyond what the u.s. wants. they're walking a delicate line here. >> can you give us a sense of how those risks are assessed and then reassessed in the coming days? >> i think that first of all i'm sure that there's been back channel messaging to the irans, for instance, and that will continue to try to deliver the message that we're not looking to get into a direct conflict with iran, but we're not going to tolerate this and there will be some evaluation in terms of what kind of messages the u.s. might be getting back, probably not directly from the iranians but through third parties. i think there will somebody very careful eyes on lebanon and what does hezbollah do? do they stay where they've been in this tit-for-tat with israel and the border and feel like they needed to do something to

show they're standing up for some of their like-minded allies across the region. are there reprisal attacks on u.s. forces in the region or not? so i think essentially the u.s. is going to be evaluating does it look like there's going to be a response from the people that we are going after in which they escalate in return or does it look like those groups don't want this fight and are sending messages and taking actions to suggest they don't want to escalate. i think all of that will be carefully evaluated as they determine how long this goes on and what scale this goes on. >> we're talking about capabilities as a method of deterrence. i wonder what you think success looks like in an operation such as this one? >> this is part of what is so challenging. these groups are not likely to kind of come out -- certainly not going to come out and surrender and say okay, you win. frankly, i don't know that you

ever achieve deterrence here with groups like this. these groups are been in some state of war for decades now. a lot of these groups had origins in iraq and attacked u.s. forces in iraq throughout that conflict. then a lot of these groups were fighting on the side of bashar al assad at syria. some of the groups are fighting with isis too. some of these groups like the houthis in yemen were fighting in war that the saudi led coalition was pursuing in yemen. they have a capacity to deal with a degree of violence and to essentially not give up their core mission of trying to influence events, and i'm, in trying to espouse their ideology. i think what success looks like is a murkier definition of the attacks on u.s. forces, slow down or stop, our troops are more secure than they were before this took place, and ultimately, the only true path

to real deescalation in this region has to come through gaza. that's been the precipitating factor in this more recently escalation across the region and i think a cease-fire there is the kind of thing that would more definitively calm things down, even though it wouldn't eliminate, obviously, the contest that's been going on for a very long time between iran and iran-backed groups and lots of places and their various adversaries. >> andrew, is that how the biden administration he cease it? do they see all roads running through gaza? >> they see all roads running through gaza to iran as the sponsor that is weaponizing, training, supplying, resupplying, all of these proxies. they don't think iran wants a wider war. as we've said, we don't want a wider war. neither does qatar or egypt or our other arab allies. you have secretary blinken leaving for this fifth shuttle diplomacy to the region. they are trying to keep their

eye on the bigger prize to end the gaza war and get the hostages out. it's a very tough challenge to balance all of these competing issues with somewhat rivalist arab competitors, with hamas having differently factions, the most militants inside gaza. both supplies and subsidized by doha, by israel with the most right wing coalition it's had, ben rhodes had to deal with them, president obama was defied by netanyahu before on iran and a lot of other subjects, as well as vice president biden and now president biden, but the eye on the prize is a saudi reconciliation with israel, a larger arab peace, economic benefits for the region.

this is a dream, perhaps, but it's not without possibilities if they could get this war over with, have the arabs rebuilding and helping to secure gaza. that's the dream that antony blinken has been trying to sell and most importantly get the hostages out. netanyahu is under these competing pressures to defeat hamas, which even his own generals think is completely possible, but get the leadership and try to get the hostages out. you can't get -- you can't save the hostages and also obliterate the tunnels. that's not going to be possible. his own jenles are saying that. as you further radicalize the palestinians the civilians in gaza, with this catastrophe of, you know, epic proportions now, you're radicalizing even our closest allies in jordan and elsewhere, the populations, and making the monarchies more fearful about losing their grip

on power and creating more and more support for hamas throughout the region and certainly in gaza. >> andrea mitchell, i am told you have to do what you do best and report. thank you so much for taking a little bit of time to be with us. >> thank you for having me on. we continue our coverage of breaking news. the u.s. launching retaliatory strikes against iran-backed targets in iraq and syria. back with us now retired four-star general and msnbc military analyst barry mccaffrey. general mccaffrey, we have been told that this is a tiered approach, this is the beginning of the beginning. what could the next few days and weeks look like? >> like the change variable is not just the magnitude of the initial strike, which is pretty impressive. they're committing b1 bombers, supersonic aircraft, that can fly from the u.s. round trip to strike targets. they can carry this immense payload of 84, 8500 pound bombs. the magnitude is one issue.

the second one is time. i think the terrorist groups, which have gone underground, we've been watching them i'm sure as they moved to covert sites where they thought they wouldn't be struck in retaliation, at some point they have to come out. i think it's a strong signal, not just of defiance of these terrorist groups, but really, aimed at the leadership in iran. i hope they have significantly destroyed irgc targets and personnel. that's the signal that will affect tehran, not two launches in the middle of the desert. >> here's the thing, the 85 target, 125 precision munitions, things we get numbers and statements on, but there's a lot happening behind the scenes, diplomatically. there's a lot happening behind the scenes as it relates to

intelligence. can you give us a fuller picture of what is happening right now? >> well, obviously, if you -- we've been discussing all day the big challenge is, israel's war against hamas. i would assert there is zero possibility that the israelis will withdraw from gaza, leave them in charge, leave a corrupt and competent palestinian authority semi in charge of the west bank. the two-state solution we all aspirationally like to talk about, is not remotely going to happen for the coming decade. who is going to be in charge of gaza when the war ends some the israelis will stay there with special operations targeted forces. who's going to govern? who is going to do reconstruction? where are egypt and saudi arabia and jordan stepping forward pan

arab effort? secretary blinken is really the point man on trying to create less of a mess out of this region. but i think the war in israel for survival is on the verge of suffering another ka lamb my, which is hezbollah, 100,000 fighters, north in lebanon, will they finally break their sort of cautious stance and start an all-out attack? some intelligence experts are saying that's the next shoe that will drop. very dangerous situation. biden has some very experienced, thoughtful people in his cabinet. let's hope they can get through this period without a major escalation of the conflict. >> ben? >> yeah. i think the thing that is so challenging that we kind of keep circling around here is that we don't hold all of the cards here. >> yep. >> you know, you have a

situation where the israeli government led by a prime minister in bibi netanyahu who has shown publicly and repeatedly in recent weeks he wants to defy the united states. the united states talks about a palestinian state, and he comes out and stays there will never be a palestinian state on my watch. the united states talks about wanting to get more aid into gaza and limit the scale of the military operation and then the messaging back from netanyahu is we're not going to do that. we're going to do this for as long as we think it needs to be done. at the same time, you have the situation where there are these variety of groups across the region from the houthis to hezbollah in lebanon to some of the militias in iraq and syria, they are all backed by iran, but the iranian themselves don't control the actions of all of these groups and my experience in government is absolutely there's a dependency of some of these groups in iran but i don't think, for instance, that houthis are checking with the iranians before they decide to take a shot at something in the red sea.

i'm not certain that all these groups in iraq and syria are doing that. the iranians don't even control necessarily what we refer to as their prox heys. so in a lot of ways part of what worries me about the circumstance is that nobody is in full control of events, and i'm. nobody is even in full control of escalation. and yet, the momentum is for more and more escalation. because the momentum is, you do something to me, i do something in return. that's why i really do think even as this action is under way, there has to be ways to find a space for diplomacy, to just deescalate things and create channels of communication and establish some ceiling on where this escalation is headed. all we've seen in the last several months since hamas, horrifically initiated this latest round of violence and escalation in the region, all we've seen is the momentum ticking up. again, you look for what's the next shoe to drop.

is it hezbollah getting more insfroflds lebanon? is it the iranians feeling like the groups have to do something in return. something like the iraqi government saying we're tired of being in this kind of cross hairs we want the american troops out and a diplomatic issue to deal with there. the biggest question, is it a direct military confrontation between the united states and iran? we have not been in a situation in recent history where there's been this level of direct engagement between the united states and this breathed of iranian proxy groups across the region at the same time that you have a bigger war taking place in gaza. again, that to me is the wildcard here. we're not in control of all aspects of this. all we're in control of is what we are doing with our military. we don't know necessarily who is in control of what our adversaries are doing and we don't know that we can control what our principal ally in the

region israel is going to do in gaza. that remains the source of unease. >> ben, even as you do a masterful job of laying out the complexities in the region there is the additional element here that this is happening against the backdrop of a presidential election. if you are inside the administration, that is factoring into every decision you make. how does that affect their strategy here, ben? >> well, it means there's going to be a lot of noise in washington. there always is a lot of noise. you'll have donald trump weighing in and saying, you know, nothing would be wrong if i was president. you'll have statements from congress and people demanding to do more, to do less. to me here's the important thing i take away from eight years in the white house. when it comes to things like security and war and peace, the best political outcome is the best outcome. you should not worry about politics. you should have blinders on. it doesn't matter, you know, if lindsey graham criticizes you for not bombing iran or if donald trump says that this wouldn't happen.

the best thing for joe biden politically is not to be a huge war in the middle east throughout the course of an election year. the a virtuous way, the best politics here is the best substantive outcome, getting to a deescalation that protects the core u.s. interest here, our service members in the region, but that doesn't feel like we're being pulled into something because we need to prove something to somebody. what americans care about they don't want there to be a big war in the middle east. i think we've learned that over the course of the last decade or more. that's what you have to keep your eye on. not all the noise. it's a little harder when there's a lot of noise, but you have to shut it up. >> general mccaffrey, ben gets it so right there, the noise, and yet the noise is sometimes difficult to shut out, general mccaffrey. >> yeah. i thought ben had a masterful take on this. i've heard that from leon panetta also. at the end of the day you have to have the serious people in

government of which there is a diminishing number. fortunately biden has a very experienced, thoughtful, cautious crew. at the end of the day you have to pick the national security process that best protects our interests and minimizes a chance of a firestorm kerosene fueled war in the middle east. that's easier said than done, but i agree, i think the politics of it will follow sensible decision making. >> i want to thank ben rhodes for being with us and bringing to our coverage military analyst, retired u.s. army kernel jack jacobs. thank you for being with us. the question of course, will these strikes actually have a deterrent effect on the militias that have launched the initial attacks? >> they will if they're persistent. you can't have one strike as a response. they've got to be large, as they

appear to be, and they have to persist. they can't stop today. they have to continue. we have good intelligence about where a lot of these targets are and we need to continue to hit them. there's -- there are a couple reasons for that. one is that it might deter the militias from continuing the attacks. more important, their capability has to be degraded. and the third thing is that they're advised by, trained by, and are accompanied by qods force personnel from the republican guards from iran and one of the things we want to accomplish with continuous attacks on these sites is to dissuade iran from continuing to support them and sending advisors and assistance to these militias. the concern that this might spread to iran is a proper

concern, but the likelihood is extremely low, especially since iran has already stated it does not want to get involved with the united states and it will find other ways -- it takes the long view, it will find other ways to influence the activities of its proxies in the region farther down the road. for the meantime however, we would be well advised to continue attacks on the targets we've already identified and don't stop until we're satisfied that they're denigrated. >> colonel jacobs, i want to read out from a call from admiral kirby the u.s. believes that all of these strikes were successful. three facilities in iraq were hit. four facilities in syria. all u.s. aircraft out of harm's way. what does that signal to you, colonel? >> it would sound like they're finished and they should not be

finished. the likelihood is that we already have identified a lot of targets with very, very good intelligence, and the likelihood is that -- and we should continue to hit these other targets as well. to the extent that we don't do that, i think we're demonstrating that we're very much more -- we're much more concerned about expanding the conflict in the middle east than we are about protecting our interests and we need to make sure that that doesn't happen. that our adversaries in the region, who are interested in our withdraw from the region, and the destruction of israel, that they understand that we will persist until these kinds of attacks, any attacks, on american interests and those of our allies, until they stop. >> colonel jacobs, you are staying with us, and we bring in chief international correspondent keir simmons. we are told three facilities in iraq were hit.

>> yeah, that's right. and so far you'll note that the u.s. isn't saying exactly where they were, not naming them. so what we're here on the ground in the region is trying to piece together what we're hearing and understand exactly what has been hit. we are -- we have heard reports and video that purports to be a target in an bar province here in iraq. ironically, people will remember anbar province is a place where the u.s. fought isis and now, of course, here we are with it fighting iranian-backed militia in the same place. that is a moment in history, i would say. but just in terms of what we are hearing, there is a report that one of those targets there is the group that is accused of sending that explosives laden drone into tower 22 that killed

those three u.s. service members, kataeb hezbollah. there's report that the mobilization forces a base there has been or a site there by them has been hit. they are an iranian-backed group militia you could say connected to the iraqi army. that kind of underscores the challenges of this targeting. we have just got a statement from the iraqi commander in chief of the armed forces. now you would expect the iraqis to be signaling unhappiness with these strikes targeting places inside iraq. he says the cam and the iraqi border areas are being subject to strikes by united states aircraft, as these strikes come at a time iraq is trying to ensure the

stabilization of the region. unforeseen consequences. now, we should just note, of course, that the iraqi government is a partner of the u.s., but it's also a partner of iran. so, people will look at that statement and, kind of, raise an eyebrow, to some extent, because of the, kind of, fact that iraq, you know, frankly looks in two directions. but then in terms of where we're -- what we're hearing about in syria, there's an organization called the southeastern observatory for human rights, which became famous during the syrian civil war. it is reporting -- and again, this isn't confirmed. this is what we're just relying on, these kinds of sources, to try to give us a picture. 13 members of iranian groups were killed in air strikes that were believed to have been carried out by u.s. forces in their countryside. that's in eastern syria. and then again in eastern syria, the air strikes destroyed 17 positions, sheltering iranian

positions in the capital of the iranian militia in syria. so, again, more signs that what the u.s. has been doing has been targeting these iranianbacked militia as well as the u.s. saying it is effectively targeting iran itself outside iran, targeting the iranian revolutionary guard. we're not hearing -- we're not seeing reports from the region at this stage of exactly where those sites are. but we do know that the iranian revolutionary guard is in many places. and sometimes there's a blurred line between the iranian-backed militia and the guard itself. but i suspect we'll hear more, as events play out through the night, since the u.s. saying there are 85 targets. clearly we're not hearing about all of them just from the local reports. but one thing -- and i've said this tonight a number of times.

but i think it's worth underscoring, as we have these conversations, and you've been talking about it, is that as we look at the span and you could say depth of this campaign tonight by the u.s., what it's also spotlighting is just how widespread the iranian influence and how dug in iran is in, particularly in syria, but also here in iraq. and that is one of the things that has israel -- has been very worried about over many years because it is in recent years that that has been the case. just hearing an aircraft overhead. no idea what that is. don't imagine that that's related. there is a u.s. base not far from here. i should just mention as well that there are some reports inside syria of a u.s. base being targeted. but, again -- so, that would be, you know, some signs of some kind of reprisal. but, again werks don't have confirmation of that.

>> and we are told in an off camera briefing by john kirby at the white house, a battle damage assessment will commence at sunrise and that these attacks will continue. keir simmons for us in iraq. keir, thank you so much. i want to go back to general barry mccaffrey. you know, general mccaffrey, i need not tell you that when people hear these attacks will continue, there is an element of fatigue, an element of concern. what would you say to americans who do not want to see the united states dragged into a broader regional conflict? >> well, biden administration got a huge challenge, political challenge, trying to persuade the american people, young people, black voters, people who are fatigued by u.s. global challenges, policing the sea waves, keeping peace in europe,

these are all valid political challenges to the biden administration. they're going to have to -- i think as ben rhodes stated, at the end of the day, you've got to sort out a good policy and move ahead with it, hopeful that the political realities will catch up and sustain what you're trying to do. you have to explain to the american people what you're doing. there is a good explanation as to why our national security interests continue to be engaged in the middle east. now, we talked about pivoting to asia, encountering the monolith of china, the threats to taiwan and the south china sea, japan and their support of north korea. all of these are valid, larger issues. but you can't walk away from the fight you're in. so, you know, again, i think the administration doing the right thing. they're being very careful about what they're doing militarily. i'm sure there's an active diplomatic, quiet presence going

on, dialogue between iranians and the u.s. but we're going have to stand up to this or throw in the towel and withdraw from the region, which just doesn't make any sense. >> colonel jack jacobs, we learned in that off-camera briefing by john kirby that the u.s. did inform the iraqi government before the attacks. is that standard protocol? >> yeah, it's often the case that we'll tell them whether or not we're actually going to attack. and in the past, from time to time, we've also said where we're going to attack. it's important that we do this, obviously, for a number of reasons, not the least significant of which is to give some -- believe it or not -- to give some comfort to the iranians that we're not going after them. but at the end of the day, one of the things we have to realize, strategically here, is that what's taking place in the region is in large measure a battle between iran on the one

hand and saudi arabia on the other for dominance in the region. this will continue, whether we're there or not. and to the extent we can have some positive impact on the result of -- to make sure that our interests and those of our allies are maintaining, we will continue to be in the region. it is, as general mccaffrey said, extremely dangerous. there's always the possibility that really bad things could happen. but taking a measured response and having an objective to ensure that our interests are safe is the right thing to do. and if it means that there has to be significantly more violence that doesn't engage iran, then that's probably exactly what we're going to do. >> help me understand, colonel jacobs, when we talk about this battleground assessment that will take place at sunrise, what is it they're going to be looking for? >> they're going to look for

actual physical damage. we can do it in a wide variety of ways. but mostly it's going to be visual, through satellites, drones, and aircraft. and the best time to do that is during the day. >> i want to bring in this new reporting we have. this is out of -- this is from an iraq security official who said that a u.s. air strike has targeted a weapons warehouse and three houses belonging to hezbollah in the anbar province in western iraq. we've been asking a lot of questions about where these attacks were targeted, what to make of that targeting. general mccaffrey, again, a weapons warehouse, three houses, all in western iraq. >> well, you know, the minutia of the battlefield in this kind of a struggle is not very persuasive. a weapons warehouse, were there three rockets there? are there eight terrorists

sitting around playing cards? who knows? i think we've got to back off it and say, what was the strategic operational intent of forces? are they going to achieve it? i think they will make a significant difference in the calculus of the iranians by striking, in particular, at irgc operatives. as jack correctly points out. by the way, let me add a larger perspective. one of the most distressing books i'm just now finishing is "the demise of the ottoman empire in world war i and followon." so, this poor region has been a mess of violence and hatred. a lot of it dominated principally by the shia, sunni struggle that's going on. as jack pointed out, saudi arabia, sunni, iran, trying to

create the crescent throughout the region. there won't be any east treaty that brings the end of these struggles. the focus for us is iran's orchestration of regional violence to become the dominant military and political power in the region. >> general byron mccaffrey, colonel jack jacobs, thank you both so much for your time and your expertise. thank you at home for being with us this afternoon, full of breaking news. katy tur picks up our coverage right now. >> good to be with you. i'm katy tur, in for ari melber on this breaking news. the united states is now responding to the deaths of three american soldiers in jordan. the pentagon conducting more than 85 air strikes on three sites in iraq and four sites in syria. the strikes targeted proxy militias and iranian quds forces outside of iran, hitting more than half a dozen facilities, including command and control operations, intelligence