in the middle east this hour. an explicit warning this morning from president trump to russia, not to interfew against u.s. action against syria. the president writing on twitter, russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at syria. get ready, russia, because they will be coming. nice and new and smart. weer partners with a gas-killing animal who kills his people and enjoys it. we are studying that situation extremely closely. we are meeting with our military and everybody else, and we ll be making some major decisions over the next 24 to 48 hours. by our math, that deadline has now passed. more details now from our correspondents and analysts who are spread out across the globe. nbc news chief global correspondent bill neely in beirut.
the u.s. secretary of state, as bombers were in the air call leaders of a., b. and c. that s not happening. and the secretary of state, another number of key positions diplomatic side to remain unfilled. time to think about this question, i ll come back to you. viewers not following the story as closely as all of us. why are we fighting in syria? what s the national interest in that country? think about that. i want to come to you quickly here, hans. a few moments ago during the course of our conversation, reportedly now secretary mattis is headed to the white house. is that correct? what more do we know about that? reporter: i don t have that confirmed. they do tend to go to the white house for national security meetings. there are two kinds of national security meetings. principles meeting chaired by the national security adviser, in this case, john bolton. if the president chaired it, that s an official national security meeting and official. wei do not have that confirmed at nb
and russia saying that they re prepared to engage, these are great risks in the short term, but as i say, there are long-term risks as well to the united states, to the view of the united states in the middle east. what is it doing? does it want in or out? which donald trump is it? the donald trump that wants 2000 troops pull the out, the u.s. to leave? or the donald trump that wants dozens of missiles to be fired in? those are the long-term risks and the long-term questions, craig. all right. fantastic conversation. thank you all so much. quickly, and hans, i feel i have to ask baitsed on what bill said there. what is the stated strategic interests of the united states of america in syria? reporter: twofold. number one, defeat and eradicate, this president said, annihilate isis. you have over 2,000 troops in syria now for this. remember last time they did this, took pinprick strikes had to change the force protection
ridiculed those who telegraphed military action against a foreign country, specifically syria. he did it in a number of tweets a couple years ago. now the president is doing precisely what he once ridiculed. any idea what might have changed the president s mind this time around? could it be that this president is deliberately telegraphing our next move militarily? reporter: well, seemed he was responding to comments from the russians. the russians had gone out ahead saying, if you attack, we will attack back. i think the russians have been clear about defending russian assets and citizens, not necessarily defending assad. and seemed that trump was shouting back at them saying, oh, yeah? i m ready to go with my missiles and smart missiles, speaking out loud, whatever he was briefed. his original tweets, from the last time he talked about this on the campaign, criticize the obama administration for telegraphing there were going to have the u.s. coalition prepared to invade mosul to cle
don t have it confirmed. kevin, virginia democrat senator kane issued a statement a short time ago. without congressional authorization, any military action president trump takes in syria, that is not in self-defense, is illegal. spending the morning talking to russia on twitter should be presented a serious strategy to congress. while at it, release the secret legal memo reportedly justifies the air strikes on syria last year which clearly had not deterred assad and the president is using this precedent for unilateral military action. is this valid? does the president have the right to take military action without congressional authorization in syria once again? you want to talk war powers as a resolution, look, the presidentsfrik strike anywhere in the world. any action against assad in