Iran Vows Revenge For Soleimani Killing
LEMON: It's day break in Iran. And the funeral for the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani is about to get under way. That after huge crowds of people jammed the streets of Iran's the capitol to mourn him and the others killed last week in a U.S. air strike. The Iranian government is vowing to take revenge saying it will attack U.S. military sites. I want to bring in George Packer, who has an article in The Atlantic about Soleimani's killing. George, thank you so much. I appreciate you joining us here.</s>GEORGE PACKER, STAFF REPORTER, THE ATLANTIC: My pleasure.</s>LEMON: This was a fascinating article. I'm going to read some of it. But the headline here is Killing Soleimani was worse than a crime, it was a blunder. You say it was possibly catastrophic? Why is that?</s>PACKER: Because we don't know what's going to happen next. Anyone who goes on TV and says this is what will happen next is lying. Because it's all up to the Iranians now. The ball is in their court. And they have habit of calibrating responses to things like that. Because they don't want an all-out war with the United States. So, I don't imagine there's going to be a kind of retaliation that forces Trump to go to the higher level. But we don't know what they are going to do. We push them into a corner. And there's going to be more violence. And it will go out of control.</s>LEMON: I want to read this. We have a short condense version of what you say, but I think it's important just to read this part, the whole thing. You said, the main question about the strike isn't moral or legal, it is strategic. That's what you say. Soleimani was supremely powerful leader in the state's apparatus with his own cult personality. But he was not a terror kingpin. His death doesn't decapitate anything. He had the blood of 10's of thousands of people overwhelmingly fellow Muslims on his hands, but he was only the agent of a government policy that proceeded him and will continue without him. His deeds are (inaudible) the point. So, is the display of American resolve the only reason to kill Soleimani is to enter a new war that the United States can win. I mean, you go on to say killing Soleimani will only lead to more violence perhaps much more. How do you square that? How is it going to lead to more violence?</s>PACKER: Because Iran has to answer. This man is so important. He was -- first of all a kind of cult hero in Iran and he was the key to their regional strategy. He was the guy carrying out for two decades a strategy of expanding Iran and influence. Creating a kind of a wider perimeter and security. So there would never again be an Iran-Iraq war.</s>LEMON: There's a rebuttal to that, he was a bad guy (inaudible).</s>PACKER: He was a terrible guy. He deserved it. He had it coming. But does that mean as a government, as a super-power, we do something stupid in order to provoke a response which will come. Which we can't predict and which we are not in a good position to counter. Because we don't have any allies with us. The Congress wasn't consulted. The American people are very skeptical about this. We don't see any intelligence defending this. There is nothing there that a government -- that the Trump administration can say we need to come together as Americans in a cause. We are not together as a cause.</s>LEMON: OK. Why are you saying that this was not about deterrence? If it's not about deterrence then why would the president order this strike?</s>PACKER: I don't know why he ordered it. Because someone put this options in front of him at Mar-a-Lago and said yes or no. And he was in the mood to say yes. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.</s>LEMON: We talked about this president's content earlier with his obsession, I should say, with the former President Barack Obama. You write about that. He has contempt for his predecessor. Does this have anything to do with that?</s>PACKER: Yes. A lot. A lot, because he has undone every policy of President Obama that he could. And maybe none more significant than the Iranian nuclear deal that was negotiated in 2014-15 and finally signed by us, the Iranians and our allies in Europe. And the Russians and the Chinese. It was a global deal that would limit Iranian nuclear production. So, that for at least 10 or 15 years, Iran could not break out and have a nuclear weapon. Trump never liked it. As soon as he could he got out of it. And once that happened in 2018, we were on an (inaudible) bull path to where we are now. Because what did he have in place of diplomacy? He didn't want to go to war with Iran. So, he had sanctions and he imposed this choking sanctions which destroyed the Iran economy. And to them was a threat to their security, because they couldn't sell their oil. So, they began ratcheting up military action and it finally escalated to the killing of Soleimani and that's where we are.</s>LEMON: I know it deserves a longer answer, but the short as you can. If you can do it in ten seconds. Soleimani was in gun sights before, in an American gun sight before, and they decided strategically not to kill him. Because?</s>PACKER: Right. Because it would lead to a potential war with Iran. And that's where we are tonight.</s>LEMON: Thank you.</s>PACKER: Thank you.</s>LEMON: I appreciate your time. It's 2020 and that means the Iowa caucus are less than a month away. And the latest poll shows a three way tie state of the race. Next.