World

With the dust settling in Iran after Donald Trump ordered an attack on the country's underground nuclear facilities, MSNBC military analyst retired Gen. Mark Hertling was asked Monday what the U.S. should expect in the way of retaliation.

"What are you looking at this morning in terms of the military component of this, how the operation went ... what are the things that you're worried about, including that uranium, that we don't know where it is?" asked "Morning Joe" contributor Katty Kay.

After praising the professionalism of the service members who carried out the surprise attack, Hertling said, "What will the Iranians do? What is the next thing we will do in terms of our counteractions? Those are all the things that the military considers and should be part of the planning."

'What I'm very concerned about is it doesn't seem like this has been a long-term plan by the administration," he quickly added. "Everyone is suggesting it's a one-and-done, that we didn't mean to start a war, this was not a war against Iran. It most definitely is by international law, because you're attacking another country with 125 aircraft and a bunch of Tomahawk missiles from submarines — that seems like an attack to me, and it seems like the start of a war"

"They [Iran] have many options," he elaborated. "There are some that say Iran depends on missiles, militias and terrorists, but they also have more in their kit bag, such as asymmetric attacks with cyber. That's my biggest concern, with sleeper cells, that's also a big concern with what they might do in the gulf to the 40,000 U.S. troops positioned in various locations around the gulf."

"What might they do with economic issues?" he suggested. "Turning ships around from the oil refineries? All of those things are options that Iran has. Not all of them are good options, but they can play them and I'm not sure that the U.S. government has talked about the what ifs. And what I mean by that is, in the planning cycle, you always say, what? What if this happens? What if they do this?"

You can watch below or at the link.

- YouTube youtu.be

Lindsey Graham was on the receiving end of a smack-down from one of his Senate colleagues on Sunday after going on "Meet the Press" and declaring Donald Trump had every right to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran on Saturday.

During an appearance on MSNBC, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) bluntly claimed the Republican from South Carolina needs a refresher course on the Constitution.

During his Sunday appearance, an upbeat Graham claimed Trump "was within his Article II authority” to begin bombing that cold lead to a war.

He added, "Congress can declare war or cut off funding,” Graham continued. “We can’t be the commander in chief. You can’t have 535 commander-in-chiefs. If you don’t like what the president does, in terms of war, you can cut off the funding. But declaring war is left of the Congress. We’ve declared war five times in the history of America. All of these other military operations were lawful.”

Asked to comment after watching the cli, Merkley suggested, "I'd encourage him to actually read the Constitution."

"Our founders were so concerned about the impact of war that they said, this is not a decision that can be left to a single individual," he lectured. "And that's why the Constitution vests that authority with Congress. The president absolutely failed to follow the Constitution and now we're in war without congressional authorization ––we should debate a war powers resolution."

You can watch below or at the link.

- YouTube youtu.be

Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not take kindly to a suggestion on "Face the Nation" that the Donald Trump administration jumped the gun by bombing reported nuclear facilities in Iran in a surprise attack on Saturday.

Dispatched to explain the administration's rationale for possibly putting the U.S. on the brink of another war in the Middle East, the former Florida senator ended up butting heads with host Margaret Brennan when she pressed him on what intel was used.

"Let me follow up on a phrase you just used, 'weaponization ambitions,'" she prompted her guest. "Are you saying there that the United States did not see intelligence that the Supreme Leader had ordered weaponization?"

"That's irrelevant," Rubio shot back. "I see that question being asked in the media all the -– that's an irrelevant question, they have everything they need to build the weapon--."

After speaking over each other, Brennan pressed, "That is the key point in U.S. intelligence assessments. You know that."

"No it's not," he snapped to which she replied, "Yes it was," before she continued over his protestations, "The political decision had not been made."

'No, no," he protested. "Well, I know that better than you know that, and I know that that's not the case. You're not –– you don't know what you're talking about--."

"But I'm asking you whether the order was given?" Brennan pressed.

"And the people who say that –– it doesn't matter when the order was given," Rubio insisted. "They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons. Why would you bury –– why would you bury things in a mountain, 300 feet under the ground? Why do they have 60 percent enriched uranium? You don't need 60% percent enriched uranium. The only countries in the world that have uranium at 60 percent are countries that have nuclear weapons, because it can quickly make it 90. They have all the elements they have. Why are they –– why do they have a space program? Is Iran going to go to the moon? No, they're trying to build an ICBM so they can one day put a warhead on it."

You can watch below or at the link.

- YouTube youtu.be