Pentagon deploying an additional 3,000 troops to the Middle East amid rising tension with Iran
U.S. troops on alert to protect U.S. embassy following strike on Iranian General; Retired Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula weighs in.
This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," January 3, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
[begin video clip]
Donald Trump: Soleimani made the death of innocent people his sick passion, contributing to terrorist plots as far away as New Delhi and London. Today, we remember and honor the victims of Soleimani's many atrocities and we take comfort in knowing that his reign of terror is over.
[end video clip]
Neil Cavuto: And that is because Soleimani, killed in an airstrike coordinated by United States forces that also took out six others, but now leave in question what happens next in the Middle East. Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto and you're watching, "Your World." My thanks, first, to my friend and colleague, Charles Payne, for subbing while I was out. Now to the big story that is gripping the world over. What happens now with Iran promising retribution? And the United States apparently preparing for that possibility, sending more than 3,000 troops to the region. And that is just for starters. Let's go to Kevin Corke, traveling with the president in West Palm Beach, Florida. A reminder, shortly after Kevin, we'll be talking to Senator Rand Paul about this and why he thinks this upping the ante could be a mistake. First, to Kevin. Hey, Kev.
Kevin Corke: Hey, Neil. Happy New Year to you. The president said he wanted to make this unambiguous to terrorists: if you attempt to harm Americans, we will find you, we will eliminate you, and we will do everything in our power to protect not just American service members, but also our citizens and our allies. Let me take you to Twitter. He laid out why it was important to conduct this operation to eliminate one of the world's most heinous terrorists, according to the White House and, also, according to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He said this: "General Qasem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time and was plotting to kill many more but got caught. He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people, including the recent large number of protesters killed in Iran, itself. While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country. They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders would let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago." And taken out, indeed. He was killed by that U.S. drone strike. Wide reaction, Neil, as you can imagine, to the elimination of the man that U.S. officials say was planning to attack American interests. And it goes both ways. You've seen the Americans obviously sort of closing ranks with the exception -- notable exception -- of some Democrats. Here's Mohammad Javad Zarif's tweet. He said, "The U.S.'s active international terrorism, targeting and assassinating General Soleimani, the most effective force fighting Daesh --" that's ISIS -- "-- Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda, et cetera, is extremely dangerous and a foolish escalation. The U.S. bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism." Very interesting comments there by Javid Zarif. There have been widespread demonstrations, many in honor of the fallen general. But there have also been some celebrations, Neil, believe or not, in Iraq. We got a tweet from the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. In fact, he tweeted this video here. And he said they are dancing in the streets there. A very interesting time for all of us. We'll keep an eye on what else the president has to say, as he makes his way over to Miami for an event tonight, Neil. But for now, back to you.
Neil Cavuto: All right. Thank you, my friend, very, very much. Kevin Corke with the president in West Palm Beach. In the meantime, let's go to State Department now, where we're getting news again of these additional troops being sent to the region. Rich Edson with more from there. Rich.
Rich Edson: Good afternoon, Neil. And a U.S. official says that this attack that killed Qasem Soleimani prevented hundreds of Americans, potentially, from being killed in imminent attacks across the Middle East. The specifics of that are still unclear. Another U.S. official says that this was not an assassination, that the United States has an inherent right to defend itself. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, he's in Washington, here at the State Department, spent much of the day on the phone. The department says he's spoken with leaders in Iraq, Russia, China, Germany, the U.K., France, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE about the U.S. decision to kill Qasem Soleimani.
[begin video clip]
Mike Pompeo: The risk of doing nothing was enormous: enormous in the short-term, in terms of the imminent attack that Qasem Soleimani was plotting, but also highly risky. Doing nothing in this region shows weakness; it emboldens Iran.
[end video clip]
Rich Edson: The Iraqi prime minister has criticized the strike. He says in a statement -- quote -- "Carrying out operations to assassinate Iraqi figures, and figures from another country on Iraqi soil, is a flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty and a dangerous escalation. The assassinations violate the conditions governing the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq." He says Iraq's parliament's going to try to hold an emergency session to take appropriate legislative measures. Now, Iran's response to all of this, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweeted -- quote -- "The path of resistance to U.S. excesses will continue. The great nation of Iran will take revenge for this heinous crime."
U.S. officials continue to monitor events across the Middle East. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was supposed to be traveling to Ukraine and Central Asia around now. Instead, he's staying here in Washington to monitor events in Baghdad. Back to you, Neil.
Neil Cavuto: All right, Rich, thank you very, very much. Bernie Sanders, a big critic of the move on the part of the president today, but so was Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, saying he's concerned that this will lead to an escalation in this conflict. He joins us now by phone. Senator, you are saying that U.S. soldiers deserve better than an undeclared war with Iran. Do you think that's what we're looking at here?
Rand Paul: I think the problem is, is that there is an open question whether or not attacks from Iran are more or less likely. You can say that Soleimani was plotting to attack the U.S., may well be true, but with his death, do you think it's more or less likely that Iran and their militias and their proxies will attack the U.S.? I would argue that it's much more likely. And I think as you have an escalation, if they were to kill U.S. soldiers, there will be another response from us, which will be a further escalation. I think without a declaration of war, without Congress and the American people behind it, what you get is a messy mission. You get a mission of escalating intermittent violence, but it really has no purpose or plan. And the country doesn't -- hasn't been told to be united. The president said he didn't want perpetual war in the Middle East. But he's adding more and more troops. If you don't want perpetual war, you don't keep sending more targets over there.
Neil Cavuto: That does sound a lot like Senator Bernie Sanders, also a presidential candidate. Tulsi Gabbard, Senator, and said that the president has violated the Constitution by declaring an act of war against Iran. Do you agree with that?
Rand Paul: Well, here's the question: If you can say that assassination, which is an act of violence, is not an act of war, what happens when Iran, you know, unfortunately, responds and kills some of our soldiers? Will that be an act of war and will a state of war exist? You know, in the past, when presidents have sent missives to the Congress saying that war exist, they don't ask to declare war. They usually typically write a letter to Congress saying a state of war exists. So, I think that that may be what happened. You know, if there is -- if the response to this is an excessive and unfortunate attack on U.S. soldiers, I think a state of war will exist. And so, I don't think you can do an assassination with it like this and not think or at least believe that one of the unintended consequences will be war with Iran. So, that's why we in the Constitution didn't allow one person to make these decisions -- assassination or however you get involved in war. Any of these things were to be done only with the will of Congress as the will of people. And so, this was something we adhered to fairly strictly for a 150 or more years. And then the last 50 to 100 years, we haven't done so well.
Neil Cavuto: You know, your colleague, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, sir, had said that Soleimani was indeed plotting a coup in Iraq, but this was not an assassination; that he was in Iraq in violation of the U.N. Security Council travel ban; and that his plot was to kill American soldiers. So, we had to take him out what do you say?
Rand Paul: You know, I think that there is evidence that IEDs were planted during the Iraq war that did kill Americans and that they came from Iran. Does Soleimani bear responsibility for that? I would say that there is evidence of that. His planning of attacks, now, they've been talking about this for years. He's the one that orchestrates and does direct the different militias and all the different proxy works throughout the Middle East. But I don't doubt that. But the question is, will they be more or less of these attacks? So, what happens with his death is we're sending thousands of more troops, which are thousands of more targets for them to shoot at, and I think that it's hard to imagine that the Iranians are going to shrink now and say, "Oh, you killed our leading general who's been a leader in our country for 20 years. Well, we're going to do nothing." I also think with the death of Soleimani you have the death of diplomacy. I don't think there's any chance that Iran will speak to us again on diplomacy. This is a long way away from where we were after the Iraq -- the nuclear deal was signed under President Obama. I wasn't a fan of the details of the deal, but I was a fan of diplomacy the same way I've been a fan of the president talking to the government North Korea even tough we haven't been successful yet. I do think that all talk is gone now. You can't kill a general of a major a major general of another country and expect that they're going to sit down at the table and discuss with you. There's just no scenario that I see that happening now.
Neil Cavuto: But even since the signing of that deal, senator, I mean, Soleimani was instrumental in attacks on American soldiers -- post even the signing. So, what would we have saved if we didn't take him out? What is really changed? Is it your view that this just heightens the possibility of another attack, an escalation of soldiers in the region? What's your biggest fear now?
Rand Paul: I think that there will be an escalation, that there will be a war with Iran. I think that, as we look at this, it's very hard to see diplomacy going forward in any form or fashion. And really, there hadn't been direct fighting between the Iranian militias and us, for the most part. And it's a very messy situation over there, but people tend to want to ignore that, actually, the Iranian militias, for all their harm -- and they have attacked Americans during the Iraq war -- in the recent year or so, they've actually been concerned with the same concern we have and that's been ISIS, Sunni extremists. So --
Neil Cavuto: Well, have you talked to the president about this, senator? Any conversations post this attack?
Rand Paul: I haven't. I haven't talked to the president recently about it. But I think he's getting unfortunate counsel from people who've been advocating for regime change in Iraq for years. I mean, Lindsey Graham's been wanting to topple the government in Iran for years. They toppled the government in Iraq, and I think the president realizes that toppling the government in Iraq actually made Iran stronger. In fact, I think one of the ironic things here is that I think the Iraqi parliament will probably now vote for our forces to leave. And so, there is some irony to the fact that the hawkish fashion that wanted this to happen, they're the ones that want troops to stay forever in Iraq, they actually may be asked to leave because I think anti-American sentiment among the Shia population is on the rise now. And look, there's no point in --
[crosstalk]
Neil Cavuto: Do you think we should abandon the embassy?
Rand Paul: -- if they want --
Neil Cavuto: Do you think we should abandon the embassy altogether? Or it sounds like you are walking away.
Rand Paul: No. I think that there's no one here mourning for the death of Soleimani, including myself. I think that he is a person who has been involved in the death of Americans. I'm also not advocating that we leave the embassy. But I would say that having 5,000 troops over there is not having an embassy, that's having a significant military force that is a significant target. And I do fear that the Iranians are going to escalate this. And the president has shown prudence in the past, and I think, really --
Neil Cavuto: You're right.
Rand Paul: We're still keeping the option of diplomacy open. But I think the door has completely shut now on diplomacy because I do not see any avenue or any way that talks could begin again. And I have been one in favor of talks, but I think, unfortunately, diplomacy's dead now in the Middle East with Iran.
Neil Cavuto: Senator Rand Paul, thank you very much for taking the time. We appreciate it.
Rand Paul: Thank you.
Neil Cavuto: All right. If it does sound like history is being repeated itself, go back a little bit more than 14 years ago and the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Kevin Hermening was there at the time, the youngest hostage, all of 20 years old back then. What kind of similarities he sees right now, a warning from a former hostage after this.
[commercial break]
[begin video clip]
Bernie Sanders: The role of the United States, difficult though it may be, must be to work with the international community to end conflicts, to end the threat of war, not to promote war as President Trump is doing.
[end video clip]
Neil Cavuto: All right. The read from Bernie Sanders that this is going to lead to an escalate and have a conflict, and far from ending an endless war will actually keep it going on, well, endlessly. John Negroponte is a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, the United Nations under President George W. Bush, joins us right now. Ambassador, what do you think of what he's saying? What actually Rand Paul was saying, kind of like that, just a few minutes ago?
John Negroponte: Yeah. Well, I -- yeah. Well, thank you. I take issue with the idea that somehow acting in what is arguably an act of self-defense in taking out Soleimani who, after all, was the number one man. He was the most wanted, number one on the Most Wanted list, after all. I find difficulty accepting that is an act of war. I think it's an act of self-defense. So, I think it kind of turns the truth on its head here. Now, what might be the effects of this? Could it, hopefully, improve the chances -- well, first of all, could it reduce Iranian capabilities somehow? Could it cause demoralization throughout their paramilitary forces? He, after all, was in charge of all their paramilitary operations in the Middle East. That'd be one question. And the second is while maybe initially there'd be a period of shock where they wouldn't want to enter into talks, could this possibly make them more, I mean, make Iran more amenable to negotiations, both about their nuclear program and about their malign activities throughout the Middle East. So --
Neil Cavuto: Well, you do have to wonder, to your point, about -- so, I mean, if you're a successor who is named today, you're going to be looking over your shoulder and you're going to be thinking twice about that. But I cannot -- the politics aside on Democrats who are railing against some Republicans as if the opportunity, if it had presented itself to them to take out a guy who'd killed hundreds, some would say thousands of U.S. soldiers and interests over the years in the region and you don't do that, you'd be, you know, mercilessly attacked for missing an opportunity to do that [unintelligible].
John Negroponte: -- that's right. You'd be answering a whole bunch of other questions.
Neil Cavuto: Right. Right.
John Negroponte: About why didn't you do it? Why didn't you take him? You mean you missed that opportunity?
Neil Cavuto: Right.
John Negroponte: Right.
Neil Cavuto: So, here's the question I have to ask you, that with these soldiers that are coming, I guess, largely to Kuwait for the time being, 3,000-plus, what will is it your understanding their role be? You know, a threatening presence? Is it that we're getting increasingly concerned about stability at our own U.S. Embassy in Baghdad? What?
John Negroponte: I read that, I read that as a preemptive move against the possibility of some further harm or attack against our embassy that, after all, the sort of, the events of 1978 and '79 and the --
Neil Cavuto: Right.
John Negroponte: -- hostage situation in Iran back then I think still weighs heavily on people's minds and this -- and the fact that it happened one year before a presidential election. I'm sure the administration doesn't want to allow even a scintilla of possibility that that kind of scenario could repeat itself. And you'll recall, we had very few military capabilities near Tehran; in fact, in the end we just sent a few helicopters to try and rescue these people and the mission failed. Well, if you have a brigade of airborne forces just in neighboring Kuwait, it seems to me it wouldn't be very difficult to rescue the embassy from any situation that might develop.
Neil Cavuto: Do you think Americans, Ambassador, are going to look at this, harkening back to 40 years ago in Tehran? A different set of circumstances to your point, I grant you, but they won't have the appetite for this. If we spent so many lives and bloodshed, you know, helping Iraq, trying to help Iraq, and now they're all but trying, not everyone, but trying to kick us out of Iraq, helped by Iran, that a lot of Americans are shaking their head and saying, "What the hell?"
John Negroponte: Yeah, but I mean, and I'm sure that's true, and I'm sure that's a fairly widespread sentiment. But at the same time, I don't think people want us to just leave the Middle East with our tail between our legs. There's instability and problems throughout that entire region. It's a critical region to the well-being and the prosperity of the rest of the world, even though we're less dependent on foreign imported oil. All our allies, Japan, South Korea, many others, dependent on imported oil for their well-being. It's a critically -- it remains a critical area of the world, and there's trouble spots in every single one of them. And, oh, by the way, Mr. Qasem Soleimani had a hand in stoking a lot of those fires.
Neil Cavuto: Very good point. Ambassador, always good getting a lay of the land here. Thank you very, very much.
John Negroponte: Thank you.
Neil Cavuto: All right. In the meantime, stocks were rocked a little bit by this, but not nearly as much as people thought they would be. In fact, this was the story pretty much the world over. Initially, the hit was severe, then not so severe. Why that might be after this.
[commercial break]
Neil Cavuto: You know, for a while today, we were down more than 400 points on the Dow, finishing with a loss a little bit more than half a percent. Think about that because that was the story globally. The initial reaction on this killing was just sell, sell, sell and then cooler minds prevailed. And we were back to, again, a respectable day. That does seem like a big hit, but in percentage terms, as was the case globally, not really much. Why is that? Market watchers Phil Flynn, Gary Kaltbaum. Gary, what do you think?
Gary Kaltbaum: I think just the market's been strong, Neil, and it gets very tough to kill a real bull market. Just remember, put it in perspective, Nasdaq up 35 percent last year and Nasdaq 100, yesterday, up 120, today, down a whopping three quarters a percent. So, I think we can go lower if events worsen, if oil prices spiked to 80 dollars, I suspect a pretty decently lower because you never know what comes from the outside. But I just think all pullbacks here are buyable until I see some serious distribution fall from the institutional crowd.
Neil Cavuto: You know what I remember, and harken back to the Iranian hostage crisis, we had a second oil crisis. Then, we had long gas lines. Not that the two dovetail, but obviously there was a freeze on oil supplies. Prices rocketed. Phil Flynn, do you see anything like that happening, this go around?
Phil Flynn: I really don't. Not at this point. And thanks for the U.S. energy producers that are producing a record amount of oil. It's really changed the dynamic when we see these type of situations, Neil, like we've seen in the past, where it potentially could have driven us into a recession, shut down the U.S. economy. The U.S. energy producers, really the hero here when it comes to this particular instance, is that oil prices were up today, but not nearly as much as they were, say, in 1991 when the price of oil doubled in the buildup to the Persian Gulf War. But I will say this, Neil, it doesn't mean we're out of the woods yet when it comes to oil. The big thing for the market right now is what's going to happen next. Iran is vowing retaliation. And if that's the fact, we could see oil prices go back up because they've attacked oil facilities before in the past. They attacked Saudi Arabia. They've seized tankers. But at the same time, there's some hope that maybe this time it might be different because perhaps instead of retaliation, Iran may look at what happened in Iraq is a deterrent because the killing of this commander is showing the Iranians that Donald Trump is serious. And if you attack U.S. interests, you will pay.
Neil Cavuto: You know, Gary, we always talk about markets that are undone. I think you've told me in the past that they don't die of old age. Sometimes they're just murdered. And I'm wondering, and I'm paraphrasing here, but I mean, I'm wondering, Gary, in this case, whether this is one of these black swan developments that no one saw coming. Not that they didn't appreciate the instability in the Middle East or particularly Iran and obviously egging on Iraq. But that this could be that that undoes all this. What do you say?
Gary Kaltbaum: It's a development. But black swan is Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. So, I don't even think it's in the same vicinity at this juncture. Look, as we move forward, after we get all, through all this, and hopefully sooner rather than later, earnings and interest rates, my friends, and interest rates are low. easy money is flourishing around the globe, and I suspect earnings are accelerating a little bit. And so is the economy, not only here, but I'm seeing a little bit around the globe. And if that continues, I think we'll be in good stead. I think the only thing bad about the market right now is we were up three years of returns in one year in 2019. Not so sure you can continue that type of move.
Neil Cavuto: All right. Phil Flynn for oil. Are you confident enough that we don't go crazy here?
Phil Flynn: I think we're -- I'm confident that we won't go crazy. I might go a little crazy. I think the markets are fine here. But let's face it, right now, it depends on what Iran does next. We know that they like to attack oil and oil facilities. If that happens, we could be another spike. But the U.S. producer will save the day.
Neil Cavuto: Yeah, every time we've had these drop offs, people have regretted not taking advantage of them after the fact. We shall see, gentlemen. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. A lot of people are looking at these rising tensions with Iran that some say go back to how bad they were during the Iranian hostage crisis more than four decades ago. We have a hostage who went through that 444-day crisis and the point man for president, Jimmy Carter at the time who lived it.
[commercial break]
Neil Cavuto: So, just how safe is our embassy in Baghdad right now? They were asking the same questions more than four decades ago about our embassy in Tehran. What happened then, and what a former hostage says he hopes doesn't happen now, after this.
[commercial break]
Neil Cavuto: All right. The most tense relationship with the Iranians, obviously, given the dust-up with Iranian-backed protests at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad since Jimmy Carter was president and Iran was falling apart. The shah left, Ayatollah Khomeini came in, and the rest, of course, you remember. Former domestic policy adviser to chief confidant of President Jimmy Carter, Stuart Eizenstat, with us right now. Stuart, does a lot of this seem déjà vu to you? You hope not? What?
Stuart Eizenstat: Well, I write about this in my book, "President Carter: The White House Years." And I learned some important lessons both from the Iran crisis, but also from being ambassador to the European Union in Brussels. And that is, you depend, Neil, solely on the host government to defend an embassy.
Neil Cavuto: And they did not, in that case.
Stuart Eizenstat: You can harden it as much --
Neil Cavuto: They did not do that, right?
Stuart Eizenstat: -- as you can.
Neil Cavuto: Yeah.
Stuart Eizenstat: Well, they did, once, and this is forgotten. February 14, 1979, about nine months before what we now think of as a hostage crisis, there was an assault against our embassy in Tehran and they took our ambassador out. But in that case, the local Iranian police, on the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini and his government -- Prime Minister Bazargan, Foreign Minister Yazid -- repel them. And, three hours later, it was over. Then, the hostage crisis we all know about, the 444 humiliating days --
Neil Cavuto: Right.
Stuart Eizenstat: -- which started November 4, '79. In that case, Khomeini did not help protect the embassy --
Neil Cavuto: So, what was the --
Stuart Eizenstat: -- indeed, he allowed it.
Neil Cavuto: -- difference. What changed? What --
Stuart Eizenstat: What changed --
Neil Cavuto: -- did not help in the second go-round? Stuart Eizenstat: There were two things that changed, Neil. The first was over the president's last holdout. He admitted the Shah of Iran for cancer treatment in the U.S.
Neil Cavuto: I remember, yeah.
Stuart Eizenstat: And, second, he got, he thought, assurances from the same people in the government that they would act as they did in February. But they said, "We'll only do our best." Because what changed was Khomeini saw this as an opportunity, Neil to consolidate his power against the more moderate forces that we were supporting and use them as political pawns. But, again, it's -- this is very relevant today. Because the question is, the State Department is saying, properly, "All non-essential U.S. citizens should leave Iraq." But the question of whether we withdraw all of our diplomats is another story. We scaled down our embassy from 1,100 to only 70. But we did keep that core there. The real question now is, "Can the administration get the kind of ironclad assurances from the Iraqi government that we did not get in November of '79?"
Neil Cavuto: But I wonder about that, Stuart, I mean, whether we can get those assurances now. Because I'm not saying all Iraqis are turning on us right now at that Baghdad compound. But they certainly look like they're making it as inhospitable as it possibly could be. And is that a danger, or worry, to you?
Stuart Eizenstat: It is a very great danger. Remember that only a week ago, when we did the first attack against the Iraqi-Iran militants --
Neil Cavuto: Right.
Stuart Eizenstat: -- the militias that had bombed our facilities, and killed an American contractor, and wounded four servicemen -- there was an initial effort by those same Iranian-backed Iraqi militias to attack our U.S. embassy in Baghdad. And they did. But, ultimately, they were repulsed. Now, with this Soleimani situation, the government in Iraq is going to be in much less of a position to defend our embassy. And this is the real question: was this thought through by the administration before the attack? Did we get assurances? Can we get assurances? And if we don't, then we have to really consider, seriously, withdrawing our diplomats. We do have --
Neil Cavuto: All right.
Stuart Eizenstat: -- 5,000 troops in Iraq. We didn't have that in Iran during the hostage crisis. But those troops can't be rushed in to defend the embassy without a total civil war, which certainly the administration doesn't want. So, this is a real inflection point.
Neil Cavuto: Okay.
Stuart Eizenstat: Can we get assurances? And if we can't, we seriously have to think about doing what Ronald Reagan did after the second Beirut attack in 1983. He withdrew all American military forces and almost all diplomats.
Neil Cavuto: We shall see. Stuart Eizenstat, thank you. You lived through that history. And a lot of people say we are on the verge of repeating here, hopefully with a better -- better ending --
Stuart Eizenstat: I surely --
Neil Cavuto: -- and a better --
Stuart Eizenstat: -- hope not.
Neil Cavuto: All right. Stuart, thank you very, very much. The president, right now, has not said this is an act of war, that he was taking out someone who was a threat to U.S. interests and our U.S. soldiers. Is that all there is? After this.
[commercial break]
[begin video clip]
Donald Trump: We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.
[end video clip]
Neil Cavuto: "We did not take action to start a war." The read now from retired Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula, who joins us right now. General, can we avoid that?
David Deptula: I believe so, Neil. I would tell you that the strike last night was a measured and an appropriate response by the Trump administration to actually a serious of demonstrated great restraint after 18 months' worth of aggressive actions in violation of international law by the Iranians. I mean, you and the audience are familiar with those: The seizing of tankers in the international water, attacks on other tankers, the shootdown of an unarmed American drone, and then attacks on a sovereign ally as a oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. So, what President Trump did was he set a red line, that being the loss of American lives or injuries, and when those, that line, was crossed he took appropriate action.
Neil Cavuto: You know what I also wonder about, General? Without getting into politics here, whether you're Democrat or Republican, does that mean that those who criticize taking this guy out, who was responsible for hundreds -- there are others that told me thousands -- of U.S. deaths, that you wouldn't, that you -- knowing that you had the opportunity, you knew where he was? That was like the criticism that Bill Clinton got for not taking out Osama bin Laden when he could --
David Deptula: Right.
Neil Cavuto: -- when he was president for fear of collateral damage. And so, he didn't, and we know, obviously, what happened and ensued years later. So, I always wonder, like, surely, you're not advocating holding off on doing that for fear that taking out a butcher would lead to more butchering?
David Deptula: Neil, let me be candid. I am absolutely appalled at the fear that many of the -- and I try to stay nonpartisan -- but the fear that many on the left have been advocating to potential Iranian response that is paralyzing the understanding that we need to defend, and it is the responsibility of the president to defend American lives and interests.
Neil Cavuto: Yeah.
David Deptula: So, the way we're going to deter Iran is not by projecting fear but by making sure that the Iranian leadership understands that we can crush them like a bug. And when they understand that, that's how deterrence to future aggression will occur.
Neil Cavuto: Yeah, well put. General, thank you very, very much. Just needed that perspective.
David Deptula: You bet. Have a great day.
Neil Cavuto: You, too. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden campaigning in Iowa today, both raking in a lot of cash; in fact, a lot of the Democratic candidates are. Does that mean that they get to convention time and there's no clear winner -- at least on the first ballot -- after this.
[commercial break]
Neil Cavuto: All right. By now you've heard how much some of the prominent Democratic candidates have raised a lot of money to keep them going a lot longer in this race than maybe many thought. So, I want to raise this issue -- it's a crazy, just a Neil Cavuto issue -- with Karl Rove, best-selling author, giant of all things political. Karl, my latest theory on this money that's being raised is it keeps more candidates in the race longer than people would have expected otherwise, thereby increasing the likelihood of a brokered convention. What do you say?
Karl Rove: There was a piece yesterday in The Wall Street Journal that agreed with you, Neil, and I thought I did a marvelous job with that particular column, myself. But yes --
Neil Cavuto: Darn it, I should have been here --
Karl Rove: -- absolutely, you're right.
Neil Cavuto: -- to read it.
Karl Rove: Exactly.
Neil Cavuto: I'm kidding, I'm kidding.
Karl Rove: Some of us were work --
Neil Cavuto: And how would that play? How would that play?
Karl Rove: -- some of us were working.
Neil Cavuto: I know you were. Well, so how --
Karl Rove: Yeah.
Neil Cavuto: -- how would it play out? Because in a first ballot, and no one gets it. Then a second ballot, the super delegates get involved and it gets a little messier. Play that out for me.
Karl Rove: Yeah. Well, first of all, you got to think -- let me, let's explain why I think you're right. Remember, there are four. There are four early contests. We start in Iowa, we go to New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina. And then on March 3rd we have Super Tuesday which is going to -- by the end of that day we will have elected -- we will see 48 percent of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention elected. There are at least four candidates who are in those first four contests who've got enough money to be in all four. And there are several others, like Amy Klobuchar, that have got enough at least to play in Iowa, so -- and then you get to March 3rd and there's going to be sort of a natural momentum. They're going to have some money, and we've got Mike Bloomberg spending a lot of money. So, we have five candidates who -- when we have 40 -- when we're electing 48 percent of the delegates have sufficient money to be competitive. And on the Democratic side, if you get 15 percent of the vote, then you get delegates. So, we're going to have -- in each one of these first four contests we're going to have three or four candidates who are probably going to get 15 percent or more in each state. And then on March 3rd, it's going to be cut up all across the board. There are probably going to be three candidates. There's going to be more than two; probably three, maybe four candidates who will get a slice of that. So, that means that it's mathematically more difficult when you've got the other 52 percent of the delegates. It's hard for somebody to get from having 24 percent of that first 48 percent to getting 50 percent of everything. So, yeah, I think there's a likelihood, a strong likelihood, that we do not have a candidate who appears in Milwaukee with a clear majority of the delegates before the first ballot. Now, there are two ways this play out. One is we have a first ballot. They go through the roll call of the states. There's an initial vote, and in some states, the party rules will allow the delegates to switch their votes, not a lot of them, but a few them. And we may see, at the end of the first ballot, some states say, "We've reconsidered. There's somebody who looks like they're close to victory we want to go with. You know, Neil Cavuto for president. So, that may happen, or we go to a second ballot. And you're right on the second ballot, 765 superdelegates who are not allowed to vote on the first ballot get to vote on the second. They're mostly party apparatchiks and establishment types.
Neil Cavuto: All right the only difference between you and me is you have a lot more facts and statistics going for you but other than that --
Karl Rove: But you had a gut instinct. You had a gut instinct, and with you, that's enough.
Neil Cavuto: Karl, it's always a pleasure thank you, my friend. We are following the president right now at a big event where he might just be mentioning obviously what, you know, incident in the last 24 hours here. Stay with us.
[commercial break]
Neil Cavuto: All right, I want to take you to Miami Beach, Florida. Right now, the president is meeting at the mega church with Christian interests who are working with him and supporting an evangelical event that shows, you know, unwavering support for the president. I did promise you a few moments ago that we would have Kevin Hermaning, the former Iranian hostage, our youngest hostage at the time in the Iranian crisis back some 40 years ago. He's all 20 years old at the time and knows a thing or two about vulnerable embassies and what has to be avoided now in Baghdad in light of these latest developments. He will be joining me live tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. to talk about that experience. So, I apologize both to him and to you. We may be waiting to hear from him, but you will get a chance to hear from him tomorrow. In the meantime, the president at this evangelical event where he has, again, support that is unlike any president in recent history -- certainly with a variety of evangelical groups. The president will no doubt be angled to tie, or we expect him to touch, on these latest developments going on in Iran and the promise of sending at least 3,000 troops to the region after taking out General Soleimani, who was, of course, instrumental in the deaths of so many Americans, hundreds by some estimates, thousands of individuals of this group. A big, big Trump supporters indicating that they stand by him and this controversy, they don't necessarily agree with the musings of Rand Paul of fear and escalating war in the region the president is pushing it. Now the president of the United States with his evangelical supporters in Miami Beach.
Female Speaker: Victory after victory we declare that no weapon formed against him will be able to prosper and every demonic alter that has been erected against him will be torn down. We declare that he will rise high and he is seated in heavenly places, surround him with people of prayer, and let him walk out the will of God in Jesus name and everybody shout it.
Donald Trump: Thank you very much that was beautiful. That was beautiful. Most powerful people in the world. My book, but thank you, Paula. The beautiful prayer thank you, everyone. Thank you for this incredible crowd there are thousands of people outside trying to get in and if you're truly religious, you should give up your seat right now. Let them come. But I'm thrilled to be here in Miami, Florida, to officially launch one of the most important grassroots movements in American history. It’s first, evangelicals for Trump and you know how we did a few years ago hard to believe already we're talking about it's almost three years, but, you know, we did. The numbers were phenomenal, and the love is greater today I think than it has ever been. I'd like to begin my remarks today by extending our profound thanks and gratitude to the extraordinary men and women of the United States military. They're by far the best and greatest anywhere in the world there's nobody close. In recent weeks, American warriors executed a daring raid that killed the savage leader of ISIS Al-Baghdadi. It was a depraved butcher who will never again hurt another innocent person. Last night at my direction, the United States military executed a flawless strike that terminated the terrorist ringleader responsible for gravely wounding and murdering thousands and thousands of people and hundreds and hundreds at least of Americans. Qasem Soleimani has been killed and his bloody rampage is now forever gone. He was plotting attacks against Americans but now we've ensured that his atrocities have been stopped for good. They are stopped for good. I don't know if you know what was happening, but he was planning a very major attack and we got him. We are a peace-loving nation and my administration remains firmly committed to establishing peace and harmony among the nations in the world. We do not seek war. We do not seek nation building. We do not seek regime change. But as president, I will never hesitate to defend the safety of the American people, you. So, let this be a warning to terrorists if you value your own life, you will not threaten the lives of our citizens. Americans have many blessings, but perhaps the greatest among them is the blessing of being protected by the most exceptional and virtuous military on the face of God's Earth. This evening, we're delighted to be joined by many incredible faith leaders, including just a terrific band I've gotten to know and his wife, I don't know I think she might even be there.
Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox