Said this is going to be an open response by them. Its going to be against our military establishment. Its going to be carried in the open as he pointed out and its going to go after our interests. It sounds like the first round at least of what he promised in retaliation. Thats exactly right, chris. You see rocket attacks against the airbase where the u. S. Has a presence there and a rocket attack against the irbil airbase. There are also reports about iranian fighter jets in the skies, potentially u. S. Fighter jets as well. This is potentially round one where iran is trying to exact revenge for the killing of soleimani against primarily military targets. Its not going to stop there, chris, because they have other tools as well. They could go after u. S. Officials, cyber attacks. Our own cultural figures. They could do anything. They could, but i think here you see the leadership of iran clearly retaliating against United States against military targets for the killing of general soleimani. I think theyre going to wait to see what happens. Theyre going to gauge the american response and decide whether or not they want to proceed from there. We have senator jack read joining us. What do you see happening right now having followed this for the last five days . Well, its a shocking development, but its no surprise. The iranian government articulated very clearly as you pointed out, chris, that they were going to take a military action against a military target. The critical issue at the moment is assessing the damage, the casualties. I hope there are no casualties, obviously. Then the next step is to prevent a spiral that will take both of us, both iran and the United States, into a much more open and extended conflict. That requires either the third party or some type of back channel but the first point is to assess the damage and also to protect our american personnel that are in iraq. Do you think this is in our control or do you believe that the Iranian Forces led by the ayatollah through the revolutionary guard in this action right now as we speak against the american installation in iraq is stoppable or is this the first round . Can we still stop what the next rounds going to be . I think its likely a first round and, again, i think were in this very, very dangerous and treacherous territory where events could be controlling our Decision Makers rather than Decision Makers controlling events. We could be in a situation where the Administration Takes a retaliatory action. That prompts even more reaction from the iranians. Again, what we have to have, i dont foresee this at the moment, some type of understanding, some type of situation where we dont let this spiral out of control. Thats a very, very dire possibility. Would you like to see the president of the United States slow this thing down and call for this to slow at this point if he can, this escalation process which began five days ago . Well, its probably something that is best done not by public pronouncements by either the ayatollah or the president but getting a serious discussion between elements in both governments that can effectively coordinate some type of understanding or at least pause so that we can see if other means other than offensive or defensive military operations take place. Again, its reminiscent of so many episodes. Within the cuban missile crisis there was the understanding that kennedy and khrushchev were losing control of the situation and intermediaries stepped in and began a dialogue that led fortunately to a peaceful conclusion. So weve got to look for that. Agai you cant emphasize it enough. We have to protect our troops. We have to hope and make an assessment that there are no casualties. That might provide more of a justification for moderation but this is a very, very difficult situation. Thank you so much, jack reed. Well bring in rand paul of kentucky. Senator paul, let me ask you about this. This has sort of a Barbara Tuckman guns of august aspect where one step leads to another without purpose. Is that what youre seeing . We assassinated, if you will, their top general, one of the leaders of their country last thursday, and now theyre attacking back as the ayatollah said they would with full action against our military in full daylight. Who blows the whistle on this game . Well, you know, im very worried about this. I hope and pray that none of our soldiers are injured or killed. This has also been predictable. I think this maximum Pressure Campaign where we give no off ramp and theres no ability or attempt to engage, i think its been a failure. Secretary pompeo has been saying we will force them into accepting our will, but we got out of the iran agreement which broke the trust that we had developed with them. We then put an embargo on them and now weve killed one of their leading generals. I think this is predictable. I hate it and there is no easy answer now. I think that they will not have a full on war with us so i think this goes on intermittently. This is the opening salvo, but i think it will go on for some time now. I think they will try to avoid a direct war because we can defeat any other nation and we would defeat them in a matter of weeks but it would be another catastrophe and another mess times ten of what happened during the iraq war and i hope we dont go that route. I hope saner minds will pull back and say, enoughs enough. Lets have 1078 means of conversation or engagement but its difficult because the iranians are very, very upset with the killing of their general and i dont see them being open to any type of eng e engagement at this point. Senator, you made the point well because just in the last minutes we have learned that 59 people were killed in the steeps of iran. Theres blood there. Theres blood perhaps tonight in iraq. We have blood on our hands from killing soleimani. Whos going to show the first whos going to be the first country to blink as we said during the cuban missile crisis . Do we expect the ayatollah to blink or will trump blink . Our Founding Fathers had an answer for this. Our Founding Fathers said no president should have this power. No single individual should ever have this power so im looking very carefully at senator cains resolution on war powers because i do believe that the congress should be the ones making decisions on whether or not we declare a war. I think killing a Major General for another country is an act of war and so i think that there is a possibility if congress were to come together, republican and democrat, and say this is a power too ominous for one person to have. Unfortunately, its partisan. Not Many Democrats wanted to rein in the killing and targeted killing of obama and not many republicans did either. Now were at a point where democrats are a little bit more open to restraining a republican president but i dont know that we still have the votes. Were going to look at it. Weve tried in the past with regard to saudi arabia, and hopefully if more more voices are included in this debate, maybe well be able to stop the escalation. How do you get the president of the United States to sign such a document . Youd only get it accomplished with a veto prudent majority. Were not there. It doesnt mean the votes not worth having. Weve been having this debate for a long time and really since world war ii we havent declared war. It was a big mistake that we allowed the vietnam war to happen without the authority of congress. This is a debate thats ongoing. Most republicans and Many Democrats have acquiesced to the fact, well, the president can do whatever he wants. I dont accede to that. I think absolutely the constitution says that we should be in charge when we go to war and some will argue, oh, congress is too feckless, theyll never go to war. After 9 11 we were nearly unanimous in people who attacked us and pearl harbor. We havent been so unanimous with the iraq war. That was a mistake. We ought to have a debate and we ought to have someone come and say to us why is a war with iran in our National Security interests and why does a resolution from 2002, look, obrien, the National Security officer okay. That is ridiculous on the face of things and ought to be laughed out of the room. Thank you so much, senator. Weve got breaking news. Senator rand paul, thank you for joining us from the senate. First, as i said, joining me from the pentagon, nbcs courtney cube. Whats going on now . Reporter weve got some breaking news here. Pentagon u. S. Military is acknowledging iran launched more than a dozen Ballistic Missiles in iraq. This is what we were waiting for here. Against al assad airbase in western iraq. A dozen more than a dozen Ballistic Missiles and theyre saying they were launched against excuse me, from iran targeting to Iraqi Military bases hosting u. S. Military, not just at al assad and also in irbil. That was when we were trying to find out reports of explosions in irbil. Now we know they were Ballistic Missiles fired from iran. Iran had been saying that in fact this was the case. Its not surprising that if they were in fact if they were launching something out of iran to target u. S. Installations, u. S. Military inside of iraq, they would have to be Ballistic Missiles given the distance. This is a much more serious attack in the fact that a missile versus a rocket does a lot more damage so the fact that they were not the kind of more crude rocket attacks that weve seen against the u. S. And iraqis inside of iraq in recent days and weeks really rachets this up a notch there, chris. Thank you, courtney at the Defense Department of defense. Lets go to Richard Engel in iraq. Thank you for joining us. It looks like when you use missiles, Ballistic Missiles, youre looking to hurt people, to punish. This is not a harassment move by tehran. Reporter this is irans response or part of irans response. It is signaling primarily to its own people that its not just going to sit back and take it. Every couple of minutes for the last hour or so iran has been putting out on social media through its official channels patriotic slogans, hashtags. Soleimani. Decisiveresponse. They want the world to know iran did this. They put out video of what are apparently Ballistic Missiles. You could see three of them. You could hear of roar of what sounded like a jet engine. We are here in irbil and two hours ago we heard certainly one, perhaps two explosions. Now courtney was saying it appears that was the incoming rounds coming from iran fired at a base here in addition to the base much farther from here in the desert region of enbar province. The fact that iran is firing Ballistic Missiles from its territory at two airbases and bragging about it, posting about it every 15 minutes trying to create a hashtag. Last time i checked the video it posted had been seen over 100,000 times just in the last maybe hour since its been up gives the sense that iran wants the world, wants its own people to know that it is doing something after millions of people took to the streets in iran and about 50, 56 according to iranian news agencies, died in a stampede during the funeral. So iran felt it wanted to respond and now its telling the world that it has. Do you have a sense that comes across in your reporting now that theres a restrained being shown here by tehran, by the ayatollah. They dont want it to go too far and dont want it to go too far. Do they think it will draw another proportionate attack by President Trump . Reporter well, they did iranian officials consistently have talked about targeting military targets. They said that their goal, and this has been a unified message from iranian officials and from leaders who support iran, from hezbollah to iranian backed militias here in iraq, that they think the appropriate response would be to target military installations, that it would be an appropriate proportionate response and that the goal is to drive americans out of iraq and the region if possible. They think this will trigger a response. If you read the iranian news reports, theyre issuing threats. There will be more threats if the United States responds to what is happening right now. So they do know that this could be provocative but they do also seem to be trying to keep it military to military. Their general was hit, now they are firing on military bases. Thank you so much, Richard Engel whos in iraq covering this from close range. Thank you so much, richard. Lets bring in National Security advisor ben rhodes. This is in your face. It was in your face when we assassinated their general last thursday. This is in our face right now. It doesnt look like these countries are worried, worried about escalation. In fact, they want to do it in the face of the enemy to let everybody know theyre escalating. Thats right, chris. Im struck by how brazen it is. You think about the history between the United States and iran. Weve never before encountered something where you literally have a conventional military strike from within iran on u. S. Troops directly less than a week after the killing of Qassem Soleimani. So this is iran saying theyre not going to be cowed by a strike like that. They have other ways they can respond and there are proxies in Different Countries and they could take actions that iran doesnt have to necrily claim that would also be in revenge for soleimani. I dont think we should see this as the end of their response. The challenge that we face, chris, we face in this entire escalatory cycle since trumps withdrawal from the u. S. Nuclear deal, were expecting trump and Ayatollah Khamenei to deescalate. Theyre not leaders whose first instincts is deescalation. Theyve gotten on an escalatory cycle here. What youd need is careful diplomacy, back channel diplomacy. There are other countries like oman or france that has had frequent diplomatic conversations with iran. It is up to one of those leaders to take that deescalatory path and were in a situation where neither one of those leaders seems particularly inclined to do so. Im thinking in comparison to the shooting war situation were looking at now with the Ballistic Missiles coming from tehran directly into our base in iraq and im comparing that in my mind to jimmy carter when our hostages were taken in 1979 when this all began, in 1979 when this open conflict with iran began. He sent a secret message to the ayatollahs if any of our captured people, our prisoners, our diplomats are killed, were going to war. He said, if theyre not, were not going to take warlike steps against your country. Youre right, theres a difference in the way this is being run. One side hits the other side. Nobody says, lets slow this thing down. Thats right, chris. Look, we have been in very close contact with the iranians for many years inside of iraq. At the height of the iraq war you did have obviously attacks on u. S. Personnel that led back to iran but iran always worked through proxies and the shia militia that had relationships in iraq. Its an entirely different step to take this act of war and fire at additional troops. That leads you to believe that the Qassem Soleimani was a break from the proxy wars weve been in. Instead of it being a proxy war, we took out one of their generals so they were going to take out u. S. Military targets. I dont think this is sadly the end of the story. Hold on there, ben rhodes. As always, we value your testimony here. Let me go back to senator jack reed on armed services. Is there any way to put up the flag, not a yellow flag, maybe a checkered flag or something on our side, the president could do it, say, okay, youve gotten us back, we got you, lets cool it . Well, i think the first thing is the assessment of what actually happened on the ground. If there are significant casualties, i think it would be very difficult to just simply say, lets stop. However, we do have to get off the escalatory spiral as ben indicated. Thats going to require as i suggested, he also suggested, either a Third Party Intervention or serious back channel discussions. If we dont do that, then this escalatory spiral will go out of control and well be in a situation where we are in a full blown day after day struggle with the iranians, not by proxy, but directly. That could be catastrophic to both countries. How do we react to a missile strike without hitting their missile launchers . Senator. Well, there are a number of ways to do this. One goes to are we trying to signal we wont accept attacks on our troops but we want to find a way to get off the escalatory spiral. One thing weve done in the 1980s was weve taken out some of their off shore platforms. Weve done that by telling them to get off before we destroyed them. So there are targets that are accessible that we could hit without significant casualties which would send a very strong message. Thats one possibility. Again, i dont know if these were fixed or mobile missiles. It would be hard to track them down. Theyre probably in hiding. There are a series of targets. We could choose to take targets that are less contentious and some that wouldnt involve problems on either side. Carter said if you kill any of our hostages or diplomats, the 50 or some being held in tehran, then were going to war. Were not going to war otherwise. Arent there people, senator reed, out there like john bolton who are rooting for this to escalate, to lead to regime change to get rid of the ayatollahs . There are people who have made those arguments. The maximum Pressure Campaign which the administration has been pursuing was a formula for regime change. There is no sort of midway position where if you do x and y, then well sit down and talk. It was you give up this, you give up that, et cetera. As senator paul pointed out, and i concur, the maximum Pressure Campaign has not resulted in the collapse of iran. Theyve accelerated their response to us. Theyve picked up the pace, which has i think produced on our side the incentive to go after shia militia in iraq and soleimani. This started with the departure from the jcpoa and the maximum Pressure Campaign. Its about regime change or capitulation by the regime to the United States. That was not going to happen. Now were in a situation with a level of violence that has accelerated to the point where were seeing attacks by openly by Iranian Forces against our forces. If that continues, it only gets much, much, much worse. So if we are retaliating, that might be appropriate, but we still have to think about how do we get off this escalation spiral. Thank you so much for joining us, senator jack reed of rhode island. Lets bring in christopher hill, former u. S. Ambassador to iraq. Thank you for joining us. Here we are in the middle of a shooting war, it began last week last thursday with our targeted killing of general soleimani. Now theyre reacting to that. In fact, with the backdrop of 59 People Killed in a stampede during this very emotional, passionate funeral procession over there today, the ayatollah is out for blood. The question is where does this stop. Ambassad ambassador . First of all, its clear the iranians dont believe in the fact that revenge out of the coal. Theyre out of the oven. What i worry about is where is this going to leave the u. S. Troops in iraq . I mean, already you had a lot of noise from the various iraqi politicians saying, weve got to get out. Weve got to stop bringing our problems to their country and that was a signal theyre not very happy watt iranians either. I think this is going to have a tendency of saying, americans, weve loved you here but time to leave. So i would watch that space. In the meantime, i agree with all of the things that the senators have said, weve got to stop this escalation. I would stay away from economic targets. The iranians have already shown they can really hit the button before weve had breakfast in the morning. We should stay away from oil stuff but i think we probably will want to do something more than symbolic reach. It kind of depends where we are casualties so we dont have too much Damage Assessment from al assad right now. I hope we can kind of have the wisdom, if you kind of slow this down. Mabrey in some mediators like omaha and places that have wanted to see this calm down. Our president is not into that. I would think he would want to mediate things himself. Lets talk about this progression now thats accelerated with our attack directly from tehran with the Ballistic Missiles. The orders, it would seem by the ayatollah himself. We went into iraq. Those that supported that, they thought they would get rid of a bad guy, bad actor, operator on the stage, stay dad hussain. We removed one buffer. Now were talking about who lost iraq as you just said. Could the iranian ayatollah now be saying with these attacks going on as we speak, we can not only seek revenge, hot revenge on the americans, we could get them out of iraq, two birds with one stone . I think thats very much on their minds. Obviously the iraqis have the prime minister. Hes just holding down the fort. There are no prospects of having a strong prime minister. Prime minister qurd is not in a position. Theyre in a weak position. Theyre going to see what can be done to create the circumstance to get us out of iraq. I think thats very bad news because of all of the talk of iran and its capabilities with terrorism. We do have to keep in mind that isis kind of wrote the book on terrorism in the region and we dont want a situation where they have free rein with a weakened iraqi government. Thats right. Our groups were in iraq guysing isis and now they have to be done with this Ballistic Missile attack on our base. Lets bring in nbc news chief White House Correspondent hallie jackson. Ha hallie, does the president understand where we stand in this titfortat real war game with iran . Reporter that has been the question, chris, that has been asked since the soleimani strike last week. Let me bring you up to speed. We know that the president is being briefed and monitored about what is unfolding, chris, as we speak right now over in iraq. I can tell you that based on my reporting, the Vice President has made phone calls to several key members. Im told that both were briefed on the attack by iran. Now at this point the pentagon is confirming clearly this is a more active night than expected here at the white house. Top advisers are presumably with the president here as this is going down. The question now is a titfortat. How will the president retaliate . He has a poernl connection unlike any other site that they could have picked. This is the first place he ever visited in a combat zone. Christmas 2018 he made a surprise visit to this exact base. He knows it. This is a president who oftentimes will viscerally connect to certain things, right . We know he likes imagery, understands, processes information through sort of imagery. Having been there i can imagine the president is flashing back to those scenes when he was in iraq. Different soldiers, but the same place thats crently under attack by the iranians. The question is, what is he going to do . Is this a retaliation that some might demand. Hes put everything on the table. What we have seen over the last six hours or so is the president back away a little bit from going after iranian cultural sites which would be a violation of International Law. The president had doubled down on that suggestion even as recently as the weekend. In the oval office today just a matter of hours ago he seemed to suggest that he would not go that far. Clearly the message is from his secretary of defense and secretary of state got through to him publicly when they said they would not, first of all, follow an order to break International Law in so many words. Secretary pompeo didnt believe the president would give an illegal order like that. At this point this is also coming in. Its also developing. Thats where we are based on my reporting at the moment. The one concern i would have, theyve spent today trying to justify their assassination or targeted shooting of the general. Right. If they were so confident it was the right thing to do, they wouldnt be spending time explaining it. It looks like they knew why they did it. Somethings bad coming, why did they have to set this Chain Reaction in action. Thats whats happened now . Its not just the killing of one general, its the killing of all of the people in the streets of tehran and now perhaps the killing of u. S. Service people in an airbase in western iraq. This isnt going to stop. Now the question is why did it begin. Reporter there was no exp t expectati expectation, chris, based on the sources i talked to in the hours behind the soleimani strike, that iran would no longer he was taken out by order of President Trump. I am told preparations were in place the moments before, during, after. Immediately after the strike knowing that there would be retaliation from iran. The president was in south florida. We were covering him in west south beach. The president huddled with his aides, talking to them about what is the next step. It should not be a surprise to anybody much less anybody in the west wing that iran would have retaliated. Now we have a more clear picture of that as this is unfolding tonight. We also dont know if this is over yet or if theres more to come. Looks like one of those road rage scenes where both guys are out of their car face to face. The question is, whos going to get back in their car and drive away. Doesnt look like either side is going to do that tonight. Great reporting from top White House Correspondent hallie jackson. Nbcs cal perry is over in doe hare, qatar. What do you know about the titfortat that is ongoing. Weve got a shooting war. Reporter yeah, we know its happening as we speak. There was waves hitting the al assad airbase as hallie pointed out. They will be able to play video of President Trump visiting the troops there. This was clearly a signal to people in iran. The key they were fired from iran into iraq. The shia militias. These were Ballistic Missiles. At least a dozen of them fired from iran. They would have had to travel 200 miles. So what the eye rainies are doing is sending a message to the u. S. Military that they are willing to use these Ballistic Missiles. Clearly after the killing of general soleimani, the u. S. Military will stay on a heightened alert. The key is is this over . Is this the first wave of many waves . Lets talk about the weaponry here. Its asymmetric as always with us in the middle east. We use drones from a helicopter to kill soleimani. Theyre using Ballistic Missiles which are not exactly surgical. When they do that, anything and everything in front of them gets killed. Theyre not being careful of our Service People out there. Theyre out to kill people. They are. Theyre out to kill American Service members and theyre out to make a statement. The point you make is an excellent one. They could have used drones. The iranians have a fairly good drone program. They used drones in september to attack oil fields in saudi arabia. They could have done that in a place like united arab emirates, qatar. They are massive depending on the pay load. You can load anything in the top of the Ballistic Missiles. It appears what was loaded into them was high explosives. The way this attack was carried out, very conscious choice from the timing. Well, they buried general soleimani while they rallied him. Then almost virtually as soon as that funeral went over. There was a lot of talk that they would take their time. Certainly i think the fact that they have unleashed these Ballistic Missiles and a dozen of them that appear to have hit the target is hugely significant. Theyre also testing President Trump. President trump has now boxed himself in saying that he would respond. Thats exactly what the iranians did. Clearly they are at the very least trying to see how far the u. S. Is willing to take this. Cal, thank you for the great reporting. Back with jeremy bash and malcolm nanz and joshua gelzer. Let me go to malcolm. In the room i always ask in politics, this isnt about warfare but generally including warfare, whos in the loop . Whos in the room with our president . Whos in the room with the a yeah tow la khamenei. We killed that general. We assassinated. We killed him and assassinated this. Real hawks, almost relidge gougsly so. Are we counting on the fact that the people on the other side are less hawkish, less religious in this confrontation . Your thoughts . I certainly hope we dont think that is the case. The iranians are not suicidal people. They are trying not to be extreme. Tonights attack is a very good example of that. They could have chosen many, many more extreme ways of retaliating against us. Getting proxies to carry out suicide truck bomb attacks. Bombarding that with hundreds of rockets. They choose to do it from iranian territory using short range Ballistic Missiles where the United States would know where they boosted from, where they were going, impact an area thats 25 square miles. Hopefully not injure or kill as many people. Perhaps they are being rational about this. The question is who is going to be the next rational player . Will we go after these highly mobile erector launchers . They are gone. They are nowhere near where they launched from tonight. I spent ten years in iraq. They generally tend to have wanted real blood. To have drawn real blood. Hopefully this will be a propaganda coup and hopefully cooler heads will prevail. What do you think about us. We dont know the casualty figures. We dont have any idea how bad its going to be in that base over in western iraq. We do know we knocked out their top general, we killed one of their heroes. That was done at the behest apparently of mike pence whos religious on this issue. They appear to be as passionate about going after iran. Why do we assume you say you already see restraint on the other part of iran here. Well, i dont think that the i dont think that our side is going to see this as restraint on the part of iran. Ive been in that region when theater level Ballistic Missiles have boosted into the air. You cannot imagine the level of tension that goes up inside these command posts because when they come down, we dont know whats going to be in them. In this case they were 1500 pound high explosive warheads. In the first gulf war we didnt know whether they were chemical, biological or other types of weapons. And in this case iran has used its conventional military capacity to do that. Now will we let this lie in iraq or will we escalate further and hit the iranian mainland and go after some of the launcher sights . Because we have a very good capability of understanding when they go to so they could get the best on their resume and so retaliatory stances wont happen. The president is sitting in the situation room and what are the options . To do nothing. Wait. Let them have the propaganda victory and deescalate. I think thats probably most likely the recommendation the president is getting. Lets let round one happen. Then theres the recommendation you might hear from the field. We cannot live and abide by the fact that missiles are raining down on our troops. We have to retaliate. We have to tactically how do you go after mobile launchers . You have to pinpoint their location and go after them. You can degrade their command. There are many ways to retaliate. Ive been in a room where a general once said, lets not waste the crisis. If iran attacks us, it was about the straits of hormuz. If iran does that, lets set their navy back 25 years. Lets go to josh gelzer. You know the president of the United States and how do you see this coming together . Well, it looks like this was classic confusion by the trump leadership with a tactical success without a strategic vision. Thats a tactical success. It perhaps entranced the president as a victory. Unless you have all out war victory depends on a plan. There is no indication that when donald trump entered into the soleimani strike he had even a vision let alone how to get there for that ultimate strategic outcome. Did we understand the passionate belief if not reverence for general soleimani when we killed him . To be blunt. I have every reason to think President Trump didnt. At most he reads a little bit, he listens a little bit. He takes the word of advisers and gets a gut feeling and goes with it. This is far too important to go with a gut feeling. It should be driven by intelligence and expertise. Thats not how this is working under President Trump. Hang in there. Well get back to you. Let me go to ben rhodes. Ben, youre a political guy and a man whos worked in government at this level with the National Security council. Chess is not a onemove game. We have to think ahead the way Henry Kissinger used to do. What would be the smart american move if this werent the president . If a normal president were president to be blunt about it again. But also if this is an opportunity for someone to exploit, people who want regime change, what must we fear here with people in the room with trump . We fear that trump has made these decions without any regard to consequences thus far. This was not a surprise. When Qassem Soleimani was assassinated, it was quite obvious what the response would be in iran given his stature. Here we are. If you were sitting in the white house today, look, you would want to deescalate this situation. You would want to make sure were protecting our diplomats in our facilities but you would immediately be talking to other countries that have Service Channels between the United States and iran in the past. Oman that hosted the secret talks that led to the iran nuclear agreement. Our french allies who remain in frequent contact with the iranians and try to find some pathway towards deescalation here that both avert the risk of a wider war and also may be aimed to deal with some of the issues between the United States and iran for the nuclear issue. President trump has not been inclined to take that. While it may seem theres a political imperative response here, we have to keep in mind one response will beget another response. In terms of a longterm war with iran is far greater than what we might gain in a response here. The overwhelming imperative should be to avoid another middle eastern war that could take place in other countries with a country three times the size of iraq and let me see if i can see where the insurgency has been. On the other hand, i think the hard liners, mike pompeo, may see this as an opportunity. They may think it is usually easier to get this back. They may think a targeted number of strikes at a facility and places inside of iran could cause the regime to crumble. I reject that. This country fought a brutal, brutal war with iraq for nearly a decade and did not capitulate in that through the decades. Theyre accustomed to violence. While i think pompeo and others may want to rachet it up, time and time again regime change itself is not the end of the world either. So when i hear things saying things like we dont want to start a war, we know where it ended, lets focus on ending a war that we got into nearly two decades ago. Thank you, ben. Were watching the footage right now of the incoming Ballistic Missiles in iraq. We have the facts on the table. Last thursday the United States under the orders of our commander in chief, donald trump, assassinated a top general, in fact, one of the most revered figures in the country of iran. The ayatollah immediately threatened us. He said, were going to move against you with our fces in broad daylight. Were going to hit our military with your military. Right now to talk about it is kelly maximin. Thank you. Put it together right now. What happened last thursday to the killing of jenna soleimani. Where are we going from here . Yeah. I think what youre seeing right now is proportionality does not necessarily mean deescalation. I think these kinds of events have a way of spiraling out of control. Even though the iranians are responding in what appears to be a proportional and conventional way, it will trigger another u. S. Response and push us into a further escalatory cycle. I think for the president of the United States he has to ask himself where do i want to land this claim . Is it going to be a full blown war or is it going to be i have to apologize. Kelly. We have a big, hot thing i have to go right now. I want to bring in elliott rusi. Tehran bureau chief live from tehran. Ali . Reporter hi, chris. Yes, iran has launched attacks on hello, can you hear me, chris . Yes. I can hear you. Iran has launched attacks on the al anbar attacks. If theres anymore retaliation there will be more attacks on all of the regions in the nation. Weve just gotten report that a second wave of rocket launches. Ayatollah khamenei was in the control center coordinating these attacks. This is iran state media says 30 u. S. Soldiers have been killed in this attack. This is not confirmed, its just coming from iranian media. We have just stepped over the precipice here, chris. We have to wait to see what the response is from the United States. This is undoubtedly the most serious moment between iran and america in the last 40 years. Its very, very tense here. On the way to the bureau i had the radio on. Songs of marches to war were being played. Were just getting reports now that iran has deployed its entire air force. They are saying that if they are retaliated for these attacks, they will launch attacks in the emirates, dubai, anywhere else that it is complicit with the United States. Also, Ayatollah Khamenei just released a statement saying he sees no difference between the United States and israel in this conflict. This is drawing people from all sides into this what is potentially the beginning of a war, chris. I dont know how this is going to go in the coming hours, but its not looking good from the rhetoric that came out from President Trump earlier today saying that he will retaliate against any retaliation from iran. I think we can expect an attack on iran imminently. Let me ask you about putting those together and what you know over there. That is the assassinating of the revered general soleimani, the references by the president in the last week to going after cultural sites. He sort of pulled back on that, but the fact he threw that out there, wed go after their treasured persian sites and now im sensing a religious fervor for khamenei. Its getting to the mortality of each country. Both countries saying were throwing everything on the table here. Absolutely, chris. It seems like iran is all in right now. There have been very hard lined elements in this country that have been staunchly antiamerican since the revolution in 1979 and theyve been itching for a conflict. This seems to be the opening for that. Now initially we were expecting iran possibly to retaliate using its proxy forces in this region but theyve decided to use their conventional army, the irgc, to send a very clear message to say this is coming directly from iran. They dont want this mistaken as a sign of weakness. All bets seem to be off. Is President Trump going to attack cultural sites here . I mean, that would make ordinary iranians even more upset than they are now. I can tell you there is a great sense of anxiety in this country even though its just gone past 4 in the morning. Everybody is awake. Theyre trying to get their families out of major cities like tehran out into the country. They experienced an eight year bloody war with iraq where 500,000 iranians were killed. I know many, many people here still remember the air raid sirens going off, having to go and hide in bunkers in tehran. It looks like those scenarios may be unfolding again. Theyre not facing iraq, theyre facing the United States. The United States has a formidable military force. Irans air force and navy are no match for americas military might but they can wreak havoc in this area. If all is in great danger. The group that attacked the u. S. Embassy that sparked off the crisis released a statement this morning saying we are waiting for irans army to launch a military strike against u. S. Forces and then well go immediately into action. Were expecting the proxies to strike back as well. This is what you call the fog of war. Were not sure whats going to happen from moment to moment as were going forward. I think iran also caught america off guard. Theyve been saying theyre going to attack. They were trying to keep it as sort of elusive as possible, if you will, and all of a sudden in the dead of night they have hit that base in iraq, which we have to see how the u. S. Retaliates. If the u. S. Retaliates, this is going to blow up beyond any imagination. Ali, youve given us a lot of clarity tonight, sir, in these remarkable circumstances. I want to bring in Mark Jacobson joins us by phone. Mark, the question is if iran is serious now in threatening, if we go back and retaliate for this attack, theyre going to do everything. Chris, this is how you stumble backwards into a war. I think historians will look back and see jcpoa, the killing of soleimani. Right now were at the narrow end of a funnel in terms of strategic options. I dont see how you respond without incurring further responses from the iranians. There is one thought ive had. Thats we may choose a series of strikes to suppress iranian air defenses, which would be a prerequisite. But it sends a really sound signal. You want to escalate, were hoping to get it back, sometimes you see some restraints from the white house. I worry we dont have the restraint. Trump is kneejerk. Yeah, theres options the president wouldnt use but they did. Thank you, Mark Jacobson. Let me go to ben rhodes. Ben, i look at history here. Its been mentioned tonight. Barbara tuckmans book, the art of world war ii. All unintentionally. Here we are with the ayatollah putting the word out if we go and attack them with how many casualties, we dont know yet. How did we get a situation when trump isnt going to act . He always acts. Ben . I think we lost ben rhodes. Let me go to jeremy. Yeah, i think the president has very few strategic options. If he doesnt retaliate, he in his own mind will look weak. If he does retaliate, he wants to escalate it. Hes boxed his way in that i do not foresee. Number one, theres an attack on a third site. There are reports of casualties at the al assad airbase, potentially iraqi casualties and there are also reports fighter jets have taken off from uae, el dafra and iranian are off. There is a military situation, precisely the situation i can lead to, conflict, if you sit with the president in a situation room right now and you put before him options will there be another one of these dangerous options like assassinate soleimani . My question is is the president going to have within reach the possibility to escalate this war . To jeremys point, he can widen the president s options, not shrink the president s options. What theyre putting together is a deescalatory response which could be a potential diplomatic opening. Something that gives the president something to hang on to that doesnt get us back into a titfortat. That will spiral out of control. Well, among those options, how far would they go in the dovish direction . To the point, the president has swung wildly back and forth between wanting to get the better deal with the iranians and obama. Thats motivated him from the beginning to wind up being pure tough. His inconsistency is consistent. Its the job of the National Security advisor to guide him to a place where he wants to end up and to give him a set of options that is going to create a circumstance where hes not boxed in purely to a military response. If you were there and you would you put an option before him that said no stupid wars. Would that be one of the boxes to check. He ran on that. He said he wouldnt do this, now were finding our way step by step, titfortat from an assassination of a beloved general. Next we have the situation where the ayatollah says hes going to do something. Use this to hit us. Not all of this is blind or fog of war. This is pretty obvious when you are doing your homework and you know what youre killing, hitting especially when the other side tells you. It isnt all difficult for a reasonable mind to operate in. Thats absolutely right. I think there should have been far more process before the decision was made. Its interesting it was being briefed this evening. My question is was the gang of 8 reached on what the iranians would do and what youre seeing are the implications. They did a very good job in explaining what could potentially happen. Thank you so much. You know, during the cuban missile crisis i go back to my brain because i grew up with that. Curtis lemay, the wild bomber of the air force. He hit the soviets, they wouldnt do nothing. Of course they would. Reasonable minds said lets stop this. Thats right. Will this be a propaganda victory and for their domestic areas or will this lead to a greater escalation . Will they say, no, we have to hit the mobile launchers. Whens the last time donald trump left some money on the table . Well, i think on june 20th he did. He didnt retaliation. He has swung wildly. Thank you all for joining me tonight all night tonight on msnbc. All in with chris hayes starts right now. Good evening from new york, im chris hayes. Nbc news is reporting al assad airbase in western iraq along with iraqi Service Members has been attacked by multiple missiles. Less than an hour ago the pentagon released the following statement, at approximately 5 30 p. M. Eastern iran launched more than a dozen Ballistic Missiles. It is clear they were launched from iran. Irbil is in iraqi kurdistan