New decade. Well take you live to times square where preparations are under way. We begin with breaking news in iraq where hundreds of protesters angry about u. S. Air strikes that killed 25 people over the weekend have stormed the u. S. Embassy in baghdad. The demonstrations turned violent with protesters hurling stones and setting fires which you can see there. While Security Forces and embassy guards fought back with stun grenades and tear gas. A group of demonstrators shouting death to america have broken down the gate leading into the u. S. Compound. President trump responded on twitter, writing, iran killed an american contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded and always will. Now iran is orchestrating an attack on the u. S. Embassy in iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition we expect iraq to use its forces to protect the embassy, and so notified. Nbcs hans nichols is in florida traveling with the president , and ali arouzy. Ali, whats the latest . Geoff, the ambassador apparently was on leave for holiday when this attack happened, it makes sense, its the holiday season. But were told hes now on the way back to the embassy. Were hearing the staff is on lockdown at the embassy. They are in a secure part of the embassy. There is no plans to evacuate them at this moment in time, even though theres still some several dozen hard core protesters still warming the area around the embassy. Its important to point out this is a huge, fortified, sprawling embassy, and the Embassy Staff that are in there are probably deep inside the compound and they are very well protected. Were also getting reports that the u. S. Is planning to increase security around the embassy in baghdad. Approximately 100 marines will be deployed and additional security is being provided by apache helicopters from an air weapons team. So this is a very, very serious situation. But as it stands, the staff in there dont seem to be in any imminent danger and the ambassador is apparently flying back to the embassy. Im not sure how hes going to be getting there, possibly with these apache helicopters. But that is a sign that the u. S. Is trying to put out that the situation for their staff at least is under control. But this is a very, very volatile situation. Im still looking at the pictures, there are fires raging all over the area. There are still angry mobs around there. Theyve set up tents around the compound. They obviously want to stay this out for as long as they can. Geoff . And hans, over to you, whats the word from the white house, from President Trump, beyond the tweet we mentioned at the top of the show . The president has left his golf club. He said he had some meetings there on the middle east as well as trade, very successful meetings. And hes now back at maralago. You basically have three diplomatic challenges taking place. Number one, you have the president speaking directly to tehran, with a strong warning. Then you have this idea of a reminder of the responsibility of the iraqi government. Hes speaking directly to baghdad saying, you have an opportunity here, you have a responsibility to protect u. S. Forces that, remember, were in your country at your invitation to help defeat isis. Finally, one of his tweets this morning is a direct appeal to the iraqi people to throw off the yoke of iranian influence. Remember, iran has so much influence throughout the middle east, especially in iraq with the Shiite Paramilitary groups, thats really causing all the problem. Remember, during the campaign against isis, there was if not coordination, there was an assessment that both the u. S. And the iranianbacked groups could Work Together to defeat isis. Now that isis is no longer a threat, there appears to be some friction between these groups and the u. S. Forces that are mostly in the north of the country, up toward the custokurn regional area. There could be some sort of action or retaliation. That doesnt necessarily mean militarily. We know the president likes this idea of proportionality, we saw when the unmanned drone was downed in june over the summer and the president called back attacks, called back strikes because there could have been loss of life, geoff. My thanks to both of you. Joining me is john ganz, former chief speechwriter for the pentagon. Admiral james stavridis, former nato admiral. His book is sailing true north. Also with us is douglas sullivan, former director of iraq for the National Security council. Admiral stavridis, lets talk about safety. I imagine Embassy Safety is of paramount concern especially following the deadly 2012 raid on the u. S. Compound in benghazi. The defense secretary in the last hour put out a statement saying that we have taken appropriate force protection actions to ensure the safety of american citizens. So give us a sense of what that means in real terms. Sure. Lets start with the fact that obviously embassies with smoke come out of them rattle old ghosts for the United States, going all the way back to tehran and the iranian hostage crisis. You mentioned benghazi. The u. S. Military has progressively, decade by decade, improved its ability to respond rapidly. When you hear 100 marines coming in, those are very highly trained socalled fast teams that are deployed by the combatant commander, here its Frank Mckinsey, whose headquarters is back in florida. Hes reinforcing with marines and of course, luckily we have 5,000 troops relatively close to baghdad who are doing the counterinsurgency work that you mentioned a moment ago. So there are plenty of forces on the ground here. But the key without question is getting iraq to step up and protect that embassy. And of course the strategic overlay here is the internal tensions in iraq between sunni, shia, and kurds. The iraqis feel caught in the middle between the iranians on one side and the u. S. On the other. Iraq will have some tough choices, to step up and protect that embassy. Lets hope they do so. I saw you shaking your head when the admiral was talking about internal tensions in iraq. Given your deep knowledge of the region, unpack that for us. I think the admiral is mistaken on this one count, i agree with Everything Else he said. This is not a sunni shia kurd battle. Whats going on is intersectarian. This is a fight between the shia population in iraq, theyve been doing these public demonstrations since early october demanding more accountabili accountability, less corruption and an end to iranian influence. This is internal to the shia population. Now, the demonstrators, i would say socalled demonstrators who stormed the embassy, they bear no resemblance to the demonstrators downtown at tarir square protesting against the government. You look at those democrats, theyre young, theres a lot of women, theyre carrying iraqi flags. This group is older, theyre military trained and carrying militia flags. These are two entirely different courses. Do you get the sense that the Trump Administration fully grasps everything you just said . Do you have in mind this notion that the Trump White House has fully prepared for all the unintended consequences that could come from getting involved in a region like this . There are certainly people inside the administration who get it. Lets make it really clear. Iran is at fault here, the iran is the ones who have started this, its their people assaulting the embassy. And the government of iraq bears some responsibility to, they failed to protect the k1 base, they failed to protect the embassy. But were americans, we can only talk about the american response, and its not entirely clear to me that weve fully thought through all the steps going down here. Why did we have to strike in iraq . There are plenty of these militias in syria, we could have done four to five times as much in syria to make the point really clear but left iraq out of this and not had to deal with iraq sovereignty issues inside the country. John ganz, President Trump says iran will be held fully responsible, im reading from his tweet here. However do you think the Trump Administration is willing to take their responsibilities to all this . I think this is another part of a cycle of tit for tat reaction counter reactions, its been going on with iran since the beginning of the Trump Administration, things get to the brink and then they calm down. Adding to what doug said, i think what were worried about, what i worry about watching this, is that the president has really made a sort of a part of his good morning credo a war with experts in government, people who have spent their time focusing on matters like iraq. The government has been dealing with iraq since 1990, and the gulf war. We have developed a lot of expertise, doug is a good example of that. Had a y what you find is the president has made these experts in government the enemy, part of what he calls the deep state, and hes slowly disengaged with this apparatus of government that allows consequences to be debated and discussed. He continues to, rather than consult those experts, ignore their best ideas. He proceeds to sort of run government in the way he appears to have made this decision. Admiral stavridis, i know thats something you care a lot about. Indeed. Certainly ill leave the political side of the deep state discussion to doug and john. Here is the good news. We have created cadres of deep, deep expertise in the u. S. Military, take general Frank Mckinsey who i mentioned earlier, who is in charge of this whole region. He served multiple tours in iraq. He knows the region deeply. He has a great deal of personal connectivity. I think thats a real positive for it. I want to underline another point, picking up on both doug and john, the ambassador who is on his way back, matt tewlor who we all know is a true expert in the region, a deep arabist, former ambassador to yemen where he dealt with this sunni shia tension, he will be a huge asset on the ground when he gets there. Back to doug, when i mentioned sunny shia kurds, what i did not mean is their tensions are what caused this incident. What i meant was its going to be difficult for the iraqi government, as divided as it is, to make the kind of unified response that were looking for, and im sure you would agree. Absolutely. What has to happen for the situation to deescalate, do you think . Someone has to make a dehe is can deescalatory move. No one was killed in the Embassy Breach so we dont have a causus belli there. We need something that gets this back into the political or perhaps economic realm and gets away from people having to shoot each other which always has the potential to get rapidly out of control. Do you think were seeing the emergens of a trump doctrine as to when he will authorize use of force, or am i getting ahead of myself here . I hear laughter. You are so far ahead of yourself. The reason i make that point, something that hans nichols said, the president pulled back after they shot down a u. S. Unmanned drone but in this instance he obviously did authorize the use of force. No, its a good point. As i look at this, there is a trump doctrine that has minimized the use of force, to try to act unilaterally because its simpler and less complicated, and hope the pieces kind of fit together. I will give the president credit for using military force, for example, against syria after the use of chemical weapons. That was an appropriate, good use. I entirely agree with doug, why we didnt limit these strikes to syria i dont understand. And finally, ill say, its all about our allies. If were going to construct a real strategy to deal with iran going forward, weve got to work with our allies, partners, and friends not only in the region but the europeans, the nato side of this thing, could be very helpful over time. So i think weve got work to do, thats where i would love to see a trump doctrine that focused more on alliances than we see thus far. John ganz, ill give you the final thought. Consistency probably hasnt been the sort of watchword of the trump Foreign Policy so far. But one issue i think makes this difference is the timing. Weve had this repeated pattern of escalation and deescalation. But we have a senate trial on impeachment heading up, and we have the 2020, which starts tomorrow, the Election Year in the United States, so those two things will complicate President Trumps Foreign Policy. And lets just be clear, those in tie rehran, those in baghdad those in moscow, those in beijing, know that those will make it more difficult for the president to consider Foreign Policy without having to consider political relations on the hill. Thanks to all of you. Coming up, can i get a witness . Democratic leader Chuck Schumer renews his push to hear from witnesses in the impeachment trial after details emerge about top cabinet officials trying to convince the president to release aid for ukraine. President trump is pouncing on recent comments from former Vice President joe biden on complying with a potential subpoena in a Senate Impeachment trial. The president tweeting this morning that joe biden wants, quote, no part of a senate trial and that democrats will do everything in their power to keep the president ial contender from testifying. Joining me now is msnbc political analyst and republican strategist susan del percio, and neera tanden. Ne neera, lets play out this thought experiment. Clearly he doesnt want to testify because he wants the attention to be on President Trump. The impeachment is about trump, its not about joe biden. But the other side of it is, why not . Why not go in there and testify and set in a place on fire, rhetorically, i mean, and afterwards cut it into a 30second ad . This is one of the questions the Biden Campaign and Vice President biden should really consider. I think and trump did today was actually a strategic mistake on trumps part because it gives biden the ability to say, ill testify right after you do. And the last thing that donald trump wants to do is testify. And the reason why he doesnt want to testify, as weve learned over the last few days, there is mountains of information that shows that he is guilty of a crime here, essentially, and hes guilty of the impeachment charges. So, you know, i do appreciate what the Vice President is basically saying which is that hes not the subject of this impeachment inquiry, that his role as a distraction and it is really just trumps game, but i think this gives democrats more options in front of them, not fewer. And i do think that joe biden would be able to very convincingly say, as hes done over the last several months, that donald trump proves his electability argument, because he essentially tried to cheat in the elections because hes so scared of joe biden, and he would have a big audience to say that. Susan del percio, to neeras point, you have that reporting from the New York Times out earlier this week that showed that President Trump himself was directly involved in this entire ukrainian gambit and that officials at the white house tried after the fact in essence to cover it up, to find a legal justification for withholding the aid. Do you think thats precisely what House Speaker nancy pelosi was expecting or was waiting on when she decided not to transmit the impeachment charges to the senate immediately, because it ramps up pressure on the republicans to give the democrats a, quote unquote, fair trial that theyre demanding . I dont know if she knew that would come out, but she wanted the American Public to process the idea that this is a trial so of course we want the senate to hear witnesses and see documents. The American Public will demand to hear from the administration. Well never hear donald trump testify but we should certainly hear the senior members of his cabinet testify as to what they knew and when they knew it. As to Donald Trumps actions, no one is surprised, all you have to do is listen to the testimony on the Intel Committee a few weeks ago and we knew that donald trump was intimately aware of it. But this is the way he operates. And at this point, i just i hope that the argument is making its way through to especially some moderate republicans who know better, who should demand that we hear from witnesses. And on that point, republican senator Susan Collins spoke to maine public radio this morning about this idea, but calling senate witnesses. Here is what she had to say. I am open to witnesses. I think its premature to decide who should be called until we see the evidence that is presented and get the answers to the questions that we senators can submit through the chief justice to both sides. I see you shaking your head incredulously. Whats up . You know, i think in a trial you have witnesses and you dont have witnesses after the jury asks the questions from the judge or whatever shes thinking. You just have the witnesses before the jury makes decisions. Mcconnell doesnt want that. He wants a trial thats fast and forgettable and he doesnt want witnesses on the floor because that prolongs the entire thing, and when you have live witnesses speaking extemporaneously, who knows what theyre going to say, and it injects this question of what happens to this trial. The reason he doesnt want witnesses is because the witnesses will prove guilt. Thats whats happening here. Its not just that its a long trial or the issue will go on or it will be politics. I think the republicans in the senate dont want to have witnesses because as weve learned, over the last 24, 48 hours, those witnesses like mike pompeo, john bolton, others, they will basically have to fess up that the president is guilty. You have essentially a Political Part