Surveillance: Iran Has Capable Cruise Missiles, Stavridis Says

The U. S. Defense Department writing in a statement, at the direction of the President, the U. S. Military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Cassem Sulimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Coud's Force, a US designated foreign terrorist organization around supreme leader swiftly responding, writing the following a severe retaliation awaits murderers who have the blood of Sulimani and that

of other martyrs on their wicked hands from last night's incident. We are pleased to join us by Nick Wadhams, Bloomberg State Department reporter. He joins us on the phone. Nick, my first question is decisive action from this administration action? The President George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not take Why is this administration chosen to do so? Well?

I'm President Donald Trump has always said that he would do what was necessary and respond with the greatest force possible and the most report force required to protect what he sees as US interests. The big question that's being asked right now sort of in the national security community, is whether he's thought out the consequences. So there's no doubt among the United States officials. The Customs Suermaney was

a bad guy. He had UM according to the State Department, was involved or responsible for the deaths of some six U S troops in Iraq um And so the question now is what is the off ramp? Like Pompeo tweeted this morning, the UM, the U S is still interested in de escalation, but no one really knows where we go. Nick Wadams, is so important that we lead with you in this hour because of your experience not only with Secretary State Pompeo, but also with Secretary Tillerson. This is

an original administration with original responses. How different is this moment with a unique Trump administration and this Pentagon versus a more traditional administration and a Pentagon. Well, it's a great question, because this is how they've shown they do everything when it comes to foreign policy. I mean, remember a couple of years ago it just seemed unfathomable that President Trump would meet the leader of North Korea and

then suddenly there they were shaking hands in Singapore. This is a This is a president who puts a lot of stock in his own ability to achieve deals. And uh, yeah, but Nick, he's not going to do the art of Nicki's not I don't mean to interrupt, Nick, but you're the pro with this. How do you do an art of the deal with a nation, a people who's, from what I can tell, war hero has just been murdered. I mean, that's how they perceive it in Kerman to bridge in Tehran, Isn't it right? And that is the

central flaw of the argument and the big question going forward. Uh. The US claims that this was a defensive action and that uh, it's still interested in de escalation. But obviously, as you guys mentioned, the response from Iran right now is there is absolutely no interest. And that's been the problem bedeviling Donald Trump for the last two years. He got out of the Iron nuclear deal, and then he said he wanted a deal without preconditions. That Run so

far has had absolutely no willingness to play ball. So it looks like the president's strategy so far toward I RUN is not working. Well, let's talk about the strategy in the broader region. Two events over the last twelve months that stand out for me the attack on Saudi oil facilities back in September the United States, the Trump administration chose to do nothing. Then we had the Trump administration pulling out of Syria, Russia moved in the United

States chose to do essentially nothing. Nick, what was the red line that has been crossed in the last week that has made the United States push forward with decisive action? Well, the administration has always said that attacks on US troops, uh, would be something that was the red line, that that would provoke what Secretary Pompeo called a decisive response. Uh. You saw that a few days ago when the US

killed two militia members. UM. And then obviously today we're seeing the true limits of what the administration means by a decisive response. UM. You know, the big question also is whether they felt provoked into this action because of the criticism that the administration faced over the fact that it really hadn't done something. And of course President Trump's defenders will say, well, look, we're not the one We're

not the ones who are instigating here. This is a response to sustained aggression by the Iranian forces and something that they deserved and frankly had come. Nick aadums, thank you so much, greatly appreciated with the news. With true expertise on are the U. S. State Department, Johanna Kristell bring in our next guess. Emrita send Edward Morrisset's City Group publishes moments ago and he says this news of

a rock ship push oil price is higher. He says obviously through seventy barrel, but very importantly at Morris, with his knowledge of oil and also Saudi and the geopolitics of the Middle East, suggests later in two thousand twenty, there would be mitigating factors to drive oil lower. We turn to the old market. Now we do that with Embrita send chief oil analysts, Energy aspects. I'm really fantastic to have you with us. Tremendously difficult to put a

price on geopolitical risk. We go back to September where drones were used to attack Saudi Aramco facility. September four, Oil closed exactly where it was the Friday before the attacks. By the end of the month, many people looking at this situation and wondering at what point does this move begin to fade and ready to How different is this situation that we wake up to this Friday morning. Yeah,

and I think that's exactly the question to ask. But the difference is, um, the red line was breached, which is attack on the US personal and US facilities, and I think that's why there was an attack, right whereas with the attack in Saudi Arabia it was made very clear that the US is not going to get involved. Um And I think that's where the differences. But also remember we haven't seen that kind of a movie. Was like a ten dollar move under the Southy. This has

been more of a three to four percent move. The markets already tied. The The issue in many ways is that this is going to get It's going to get paid out over a long period of time. Iran isn't reckless, They're not going to come back tomorrow, and it's not gonna be retaliation just yet, right it is going to get played out over time, and the risk is of victarian violence in Iraq, and then it becomes a question of do you start getting uh production affected in the region.

You've already seen foreign workers being evacuated. I in US, foreign workers are being evacuated. What does it mean for long term production in the country. UM, you know, say, let's who we disagree on whether the market is tight or not. Would you really be short oil over here? No? I think that's where Uh. That's kind of the very

the clear difference. Also because this is coming out of time when the Saudis have clearly said that they will be supporting the floor at sixty and so they've card production even more so, it's it's quite a different backdrop and taking you've touched on Iran's response. They say they will respond, let's talk about it in greater detail. The pressure within a RAND to respond will be sky higher. As Tom points out, this particular general incredibly popular in

the country. The question is how. The question is where do you see them frustrating oil infrastructure, delivery channels the straight of Homer's do you see that happening in the coming months. I think they'll absolutely keep all their options open. But if the red line, which again in some ways you know the the Iranians had been poking to see where the redline was for the US. It wasn't the drone strike, it wasn't really a huge attack on one of its allies, but it was very much on direct

US personnel. If they know that's the red line, they probably are not going to go for anything similar there again, right, But yes, attacks on other countries oil and gas facilities or on the straits of foremost on shipping, which we've already seen by the way, over the course of the last year, absolutely very possible. But again I keep coming back to Iraq. I think there's going to be a lot of pressure UH on Iraq and particularly kind of

to push out the pro US forces from Iraq. I think, unfortunately, Iraq could just become the battleground and the Gubolito. We've heard that from others. Emridson, thank you so much for your cute analysis this morning, and she was brilliant earlier on the distinction of the heavy crude of Iran and how that folds it the Asian consumption of oil. Secretary Pompeio speaking to Fox News saying it Running and Leadership understands the president will take action. The US needed to

take action to restore a deterrence. The president says the Solemnani strike decision was necessary. This according to Secretary Pompeio just moments ago on Fox News that second headline, Tom, the United States needed to take action to restore a deterrence. You raise your group and in the last twenty four hours saying the following, Running and leaders can no longer assume that Trump is a paper tiger who will not

take decisive and risky military action. This is key, many excuses, many reasons across the President's desk in the last twelve months to confront Iran. He hasn't taken the opportunity. Many people out there today may suggest he had a little choice. I guess. On the phone. Mark Champion Bloomberg, senior reporter for international affairs in London, joined us on the phone right now. Mark talked to me about that the need to restore a deterrence the president, who was increasingly being

viewed as a paper tiger. Your thoughts on that issue, Yes, I think it is the critical issue because you know, here are the alternatives. One is that what happened recently in Iran. And remember that it was Iranian bank militias in Iraq that attacked the US base and killed US contractor. And then it was militia's again Iranian bank that attacked the US embassy um in response to U s retaliation which had killed some of their members. So that was

the background. So the question here is either what the US was trying to do and that those events provided the trigger for it was to restore belief that it was willing to take military action in addition to the maximum pressure economic UM policy that it has had in trying to pressure the Iranian economy, or one or both sides actually want a war UM. And you know, I think that's correct. The analysis correct is that they don't

want a war. Neither side wants a war, but the US wanted to draw a line where many of its allies in the region, Saudi and so on for some time have been saying the US was not drawing a line. Mark You've got such expertise on the depth of these ancient debates frame or triangulate the United States Iranian battle going back the nine for some of US, with the Shiai Sunni battle which goes back centuries and centuries, which

is more important to Tehran. Uh, you know, one would it's it's a it's a tough question to pose in that sense. UM. You know, the obviously there is these are two parallel narratives. You're absolutely right, UM. And the you know, the Iranian relationship to the US UM is very has been very dominant ever since nineteen seventy nine. UM. And uh, you know, it is no coincidence that the US has been a close ally of Iran's, the Iranian regime's main sunny rivals in the region. So the two

things become very intertwined. UM. And it's kind of hard to pick them apart. You know, just to take an example right now here, you have the Iranian regime UM trying to decide how it will respond to the US

in a US action. But among the options that it has there are, you know, not just lobbying a ballistic missile at one of the American bases in the region, which is something that the you know, the the Iranian officials have said they can do, UM, but much more likely is that they use some of their militias in order to attack the interests of the US and it's allies in the region, the militias that have been working with them in Syria, in Yemen, in Afghanistan, and which

Hassim Sonimney was absolutely instrumental in both putting together and using what Markus you point out. At the epicenter of the effort to push a sphere of influence in the region for the Shia it's from Iran was Kasan Sulimani. That doesn't end with his death, though, does it, Mark And I just wonder what the next steps the Iranians will take to maintain that sphere of influence in the region. Many people will remember just a week ago we had naval exercises in the Gulf of a Mom between Russia,

China and Iran. What happens with some of these key allies of Iran, Yes, um, So, on the one hand, you're you're absolutely right, because son of Money dies, that does not mean that everything that he's built suddenly goes away. It doesn't, and those remain the primary tools that are available to the Iranian regime as they decided on what to do. And then the secondary which is also an absolutely key question. You know that you know a couple of people have already said, you know, this is a

bit reminiscent. This assassination of such an iconic figure in Iran is a bit reminiscent of what happened in nineteen fourteen with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the Austrian Prince, and that of course began, um the World War One. But the difference is the question there is, so what do the other great powers do? Um? And that goes directly to your question, what about Russia and China um? And you know, obviously we don't we don't know exactly

the answer. But my very strong uh, you know, guests would be or that this is not the same as nineteen fourteen. Neither the US nor Iran actually wants a war, and neither China nor Russia would be willing to go to war with the US in you know, on Iran's behalf, so completely different. Is usually must expand the conversation with Mark Champion, and I'm sure we'll do that in the coming hours. Thinking is a bloomberg opinion of in Londard Senior Middle East corresponded. What we'd like to do is

spend the entire half hour rather with James Travidez. He's the dean, former dean, I should say of the Fletcher School at Tufts University. I can say he's former Supreme Commander for NATO, but John Farrell, that doesn't matter because what he really is is a former combat veteran on destroyers and on fleets as well. A Mustavides thank you so much for joining us. I want you to speak to the people listening to our show coast to coast

who have family in the military. These people are out on platforms, they're in the Army, the Navy, the Marines at all. At what risk is our military this morning? Well, as usual, Tom, there's good news and bad news here. I'll start with the obvious bad news, which is that we have assassinated a leading Iranian political figure and there will be repercussion. So Iran is going to lash out and that will put our troops at risk and to some degree, their family. Here's the good news, Tom, our

military is ready for this. Iran does not have the element of surprise here. At every base around the world. Security is increasing. We're moving missile defense systems in place. We're ready, but it is going to be a very challenging time ahead. So my my word for all of our military families, especially and certainly our troops were deployed and they know this is be ready because Iran will respond.

What is so important here, and I go back to the Sheffield and the Argentinean War, is there's all these big plans and all of this work of big budgets and a pentagon in that and in it can be you know, one exo can be one excess at missile uh which was the feeling done? And that's the nakedness, if you will, of the American public. How do we defend at the Persian Gulf gap? How do we defend on a geography where Iran could respond? We've got to take a three sixty view here, Tom. In other words,

there's no silver bullet. No one missile defense system is going to save you. No one intelligence capability is going to give you perfect knowledge. No one defensive system against an incoming torpedo in the water is going to be perfect. But if you put all of those elements together, you've got a very good chance of defending yourself. And this is both at sea and ashore and in the air. And again we're quite capable of this. I think we

can handle just about anything Iran throws out. Tom let me tell you one thing I worry about the most. It's cyber and cyber security. Here, I think our level of preparation is not as high relative to all the obvious kinetic military effects that Iran could launch against us. So for all who are involved in the cyber world today, heads up, they will use cyber against US. Admiral Jonathan here,

let's explore that just a couple of steps further. Some of the American press, in fact, the international press, may wish to paint Iran as some kind of reckless rogue state. They're incredibly calculating foreign policy is wealth thought out. And I'm just wondering if you can take us into the mind of the government with within Iran right now, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the thoughts, the process they'll be going

through to calculate their next step, their response. Indeed, let's look at what Iran's options are, and so in the Iranian equivalent of the Pentagon this evening, it is evening there they will be looking at attacking our troops in Afghanistan and Western Afghanistan. They will look at perhaps going after that embassy in Baghdad again, although I think it's unlikely because it's now well defended. Still look got strikes

against Israel. They will look at cyber attacks against the US mainland as well as our command and control overseas. And lastly, I think they'll look very seriously at the Persian Gulf at raritime options. Well, I'm gonna get the map out here, and this is something folks, I'm as weak on our goldar Montevalis helped me so much with a fabric of the large geography of Iran atmalstvenis your expert at this. There's Tehran in four or five miles south.

There's Kerman k e R m a n. We've seen that image this morning of the people of Kerman silently in the streets, standing in mourning. And then if you go three hundred miles directly south, you get to your Persian Golf. It's distant from Tehran, but it's not, is it? It is not? And of course the Iranian military has

very significant basis book inside the Persian Gulf. And then you go through the straight up cor moves into the North Indian Ocean tom as you can see on your map, and that is where the most significant of the Iranian naval bases are and by the way, Iran, China and Russia have just concluded a two week naval exercise in the Northern Indian Ocean, so the Iranian fleet is preparing to move to see. I think we will see a

potential response from them. What I know, Jonas again and here again James Tavitis with us, and we'll be with us through much of his half. Our amials Trevitas. When you say the Iranian fleet, what is that? It's um not remotely capable in the way that the U. S Fleet is. Tom, But I'll tell you three things that are pretty good at They have diesel submarines which are very quiet and capable of operating in the relatively shallow

waters of the Persian Gulf in the North Indian Ocean. Secondly, they have small craft that they can deploy high numbers in what are called swarm attacks. Uh. They have rocket fired missiles on them, and you can send twenty of them to attack a big navy destroyer and that can be a problem. Third finally, Tom, they have very capable cruise missiles which they can launch both from at sea and from their naval platforms. So they're certainly not the U. S. Navy.

They're not ten feet tall, but they can inflict real damage on a US warship. We ought to be very concerned about that. As the next few days unfolds, Adam, you mentioned the wall games taken place in the Gulf of a Mon in the last week between Russia, China and Iran. What do you expect the response of Russian Shota to be in the coming days. They will undoubtedly condemn this attack. They'll portray it as an assassination of

a political figure. They'll ignore the fact that Sulamani was not only the Machiavelli, the cardinal richelieu of violence in this Iranian hierarchy, but that he was also personally involved. He literally has blood on his hands. They'll ignore all that, and they'll portray this as a rogue US military operation. I will say, um, we are to recognize that Sulimani was deadly and evil and taking his peace off the

chessboard is tactically a good thing. What we have yet to do is lay out a strategy to deal with the after effects and the longer term issues here. Well, let's talk about that. The opportunity to take down General Slimani existed in the president of the presidency of George W. Bush, the presidency of Barack Obama as well. Those opportunities weren't taken. Admiral why not because of the sense that that would escalate a direct military confrontation between the US and Iran.

So that begs the question why now, and my guests is that within the White House the calculus was made that at this moment they have overwhelming evidence that Sulimani was behind the rocket attacks that killed Contractor a couple of days ago, that he was behind the attacks on our embassy. He became a target of opportunity. His level of threat and level of violence has only increased since

the days of both Bush and Obama. I think those three things came together and the administration, as the words go in top Gun had a shot Maverick and they took it. So you can argue with whether or not that is pouring gasoline on a smoldering fire. I think it is. On the other hand, tactically we are ahead for taking out Sulimani. Comgically, we still have work to do.

I've been talking to Admirals tor Vetus about the military impacts of the killing of this general of Iran, and it has been absolutely brilliant, particularly admalster Vitus's comments on what the Iranian navy can do at the Gulf of Her Moves. Now let us turn to Washington, and I will say, deans to be this's formerly with a Fletcher School at Touch University. This is occurring within the most polarized Washington of our lifetimes. How does that change the

Washington debate that we are so polarized in our modern politics. Unfortunately, Tom, there's no good news here. Let's face it. We're about to see an impeachment trial, we have an election in eleven months. It's the most uh, as you say polarized, I would say highly charged environment I can remember in my lifetime, my adult lifetime. So the unfortunate part about it is that we used to have a philosophy that foreign policy makes sure that there's bipartisanship at the water's edge.

That's not what we're seeing today. And I think you're going to see both Republicans and Democrats on divergent paths as we look at what we need to do going

forward with Iran. And that's a mistake because we have to pull together as a team here, inter agency working together, and indeed the branches of government working together, and must Vida's one final question if I made this morning, is the State Department any semblance of the State Department you have studied through your career or is it essentially a state department run out of the White House. I would say in this administration, the moves of foreign policy are

not strategic. As you know, Tom, We think back to George Kennon and the Policy Planning staff, the creation of the strategy of containment that came out of the State Department into the inter agency. Today it's driven by the National Security Council staff. We have a relatively new National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien UH, and we have a Secretary of State in Mike Pompeo UH, who is a very good tactical thinker, but hasn't created the long term strategy

that would like to see. So yes, this is being driven largely by diplomacy of tweets. Think of it as shots of espresso into the system day after day, hour after hour, and that is not a good way to run foreign policy. I will do out today a full court press on the authorship of James David is this important new book chapter by chapter on the admirals of the Navy, including Mr Rickover, and I will of course

mention his wonderful the Leader's Bookshelf Apple James Dravidas. Rather with us this morning, Team Surveillance has done just such a wonderful job today to get perspective from military, from those of international relations, and indeed from finance on these in Baghdad and the silence we see in the streets of Carmont to Bruce in Tehran, in Iran, and of course the responses in Washington. We do that now in some that now with a Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt Uh

is with the Army. He is formally serving with the State Department as well, and we're thrilled he could join us. I should mention as unusual he is expert in finance with his c f A as well. General kimm It, I have to rip up the script, Uh this morning with you, and I want to take you from the staffing and strategy you are claimed for back to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and that is a United States Army Field Artillery school. How does our military with traditional events as you were

once a field artillery officer. How do we dovetail that military into the new military that needs to defend against unique Iranian strategies. Well, first of all, uh, this is not the same army that my father was in nineteen fifty four at Fort Sill when I was born. That was a very heavy, conventional army that relied on tanks, artillery, airplanes.

We do have those same capabilities these days, and if we have a conflict with Iraq, we will certainly use some of those capabilities, but that's not the way that iron will fight us, and will fight us an unconventional manner, and that's something that our unconventional forces have become premier experts in the world on. You take a look at the special forces, which were virtually nothing in nineteen fifty four two now the capabilities that they can bring to

the battlefield. They're also going to fight us, not only unconventionally with troops. They'll also use drones, will also use missiles, will also use other kind of capabilities targeted assassinations. Um, we've been training for decades on these types of conflicts. Were not perfect at it, but we're pretty damn good at it within all this, and as Atmos Dravides told us a bit ago, there is a new warfare that James Dravidz talks about, which is cyber war. As well.

You're again a tune as an expert on this, explain exactly how Iran commits cyber war against the people of the United States. Well, first of all, let me clarify I am no longer in the army. I am right, yes, of course. And second I would say Jimmy Stebritez has exactly right. If you took a look at take a look at the types of war in the shadows that

is going on right now on the Internet. Probably the best example of that is when a combined effort went after the stuck snet capability, used the stuck s net to stop the Iranian capability, the centrifuge capability. That we have that capability, they have that capability. Of course, what they will try to do is attack some of our critical infrastructure. And the important thing is they may have an offensive capability. The important thing is how good is

our defensive capability. Um, They've got Tavern, we've got Silicon Valley, They've got a bunch of ir GC guys running around screaming depth to America. We have a bunch of millennials sitting in cubicles out in Silicon Valley, and I think we've got the better deal on that. I think we'll be able to extend against anything they try to throw at us. And the time that we've got left, we can go back to your father, who had a nodding acquaintance with the machinery of the Senate. A few years back,

it was a less polarized Senate. How does General Kimmitt, how do you perceive a deeply polarized Washington And is that a deterrence to the Pentagon. Well, it's not a deterrence to the Pentagon. It's certainly, in some ways an impediment to the Thank you better said we we would like to see a bipartisan Congress, even if bipartisan decisions

are not necessarily what the Pentagon believes in. But there's this fist fight that's going on up there where you've got one side of the aisle screaming at the other side of the aisl It doesn't do for the Pentagon what we needed to be doing, making bipartisan decisions for the best interests of the United States of America, and that's what we could use right now. Well, it's what we could use right now, and certainly what the Pentagon requests.

And some would say, whether a Republican or Democrat, that the Trump administration is original, Is it a factor that that's such a different administration method versus previous Republican and Democrat administrations. Um, there is. There are two sides of that coin. On one side of the coin, one would argue that the conventional way of doing diplomatic relations negotiations that we've seen for years and years and places such

as North Korea haven't worked. And as President Obama once said, when you've been doing the same thing for fifty years and it doesn't work, and try something new. This president is certainly trying something new, particularly in the areas of foreign policy. UM. He is taking a risk with this action that he took over the past twenty four hours. I certainly hope his advisers and the Pentagon are prepared

for the inevitable backlash that we're going to see. Whether it will lead to the end to the forty year conflict that we've had with Iran is yet to be seen. UM. But that's what we pay presidents to do. Well, I guess it's all Germaine. But what is so important here? And Mark kemmed again, you have the synthesis of this with in Washington is somewhat the cliche getting everyone on the same page. We have a state department that's certainly original.

I think Secretary of State Pompeio would even admit that the Pentagon is a pentagon. And then we god, as you mentioned, the fractured politics. Do you have any sense that these events of the last twenty four hours will get people on the same page. Oh, I don't think so,

if for no other reason than it's an election year. However, if it if it elevates to the point where we have some pretty bleak scenarios where we have outcomes such as large number of American troops killed, embassies being attacked, that may rally everyone to a common effort. But I think as long as we are seeing the conflict and the crisis at at a moderate level, I think you're going to see both sides of the out come out

with different press statements. Um none of them completely self serving, but none of them completely with the interests of the United States. In mind, General Kimmon, thank you so much, greatly appreciated. Mark Kimmont, of course retired Brigadier General of the United States Army, his service also at the State Department. We greatly appreciate it. We've talked to James Tavitaz this morning. We've talked to Mark Kimmon, of course, with our expertise

in the Pentagon and with a certain authority. Here is Margaret Brennan, you of course know her from facin Nation on CBS, and we'll talk a minute about this Sunday show, which I'm sure she's blowing up and destroying right now and rebuilding. But Margaret, I really thought of you about your tour of duty covering State for CBS. We heard Secretary Pompeo on Fox News today on CNN. I'm sure he'll do a walk through with CBS at some point.

How different is the State Department now versus the State Department of a few years ago or of two thousand and eleven on the killing of Osama in Laudon, Oh, Completely different? I mean, the silence was deafening last night. Many State Department officials, uh WEAD policymakers for the Middle East were in the dark about this um. And this is the kind of assassination of a leader that is sort of a step above taking out a Ben Lawden or bag Daddy in terms of actually challenging a state

and having a war footing. So this is incredible, and UH Secretary Pompeo this morning is making these oblique, kind of mysterious references to UH imminent threats to the U S. And we just don't have any explanation yet. Well, you go right to the heart of the matter. And I'm going to frame as Paul Sweeney as I did earlier.

I was with Nora Robini on the stage at the Milk and Institute, and the clearest memory of the taxicab right from l A X Margaret with an Ethiopian cab driver in tears over to the Beverly Hills whatever I mean, that was such an important moment for America, the killing of Osama bin Laden. And you're suggesting this is actually a larger event. Well, I do not mean in any way to lessen nine eleven by any stretch of the imagination.

But what really has the national security implications long term for the United States were the dominoes that fell after Bin Lauden. That was or after Bin Lads attack on the United States, rather than the assassination of him. It was the war in Iraq, it was the war in Afghanistan. It was the US actions that were triggered by the event itself, rather than a decade later, the targeting and killing of a terrorist leader. Cosum Sulamani was considered an

enemy of the United States. He has blood on his hands of at least six hundred US servicemen, thousands of Middle East uh nations on his hands. But he was also a red hand man to the Supreme leader of Iran. This is like targeting the Vice President CIA director in

the United States. This is an act of war Um, and this is a dramatic escalation, and a dramatic escalation after Iran has been rationing up tensions incredibly over the past two and a half years at the direction of Sulamani, after the US pulled out of that around nuclear deal UH the sanctions the Trump administration is piled on have not stopped Iran from meddling. It did not stop Sulamani.

Assassinating him takes out the leader. Does it kill the organization? No, Margaret, I know it's very very early hours for this story, just having broken overnight. But within the belt Way, are you getting any sense of kind of what the folks in Washington believe the next steps will be, expectations for some type of retaliation? I guess well, yes, I mean, there are obviously a lot of people going to horset

case scenarios there. And I do not want to be hyperbolic here, but we are seeing, you know, messages of increased security from mayors across the country about the U s homeland. We are seeing you a worst case scenarios being drawn up by US allies who are concerned that Iran may ditch what remains of that nuclear deal that it has with the world powers that President Trump pulled out of but still has been in place. Does this

make Iran decide to go forward? Right? There is a lot of um back of the envelope sort of risk assessment here, and that is why it is so incredible really that Trump administration hasn't explained what comes next, and they are saying this is to deescalate. Most allies and adversaries are saying this is escalatory, Margaret, Instead of asking who your guests are in fac the Nation, because I'm

sure you're working on a new show right now. What is your number one questions Sunday morning, whether it's a politician or someone from the military, etcetera. What's your number one face the Nation question Sunday? How does this end? Is America safer? I agree? Is America's safer? That's one of been one of our themes today. Margaret Brennan, thank you so much, of course, with fac Nation can see it on CBS Sunday morning. You can hear facin Nation

with Margaret Brennan. I'm Bloomberg Radio Sunday afternoon two pm in New York, Washington, d C. And now Bloomberg one or six one Boston New Report Facin Nation this Sunday at two. I'm Bloomberg Radio. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.