This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 7, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: This is a Fox News alert.

According to U.S. military sources, Iran's response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani has begun tonight.

Multiple rockets apparently hit an Iraqi Airbase in that country where American troops are located. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is taking responsibility for that attack.

Good evening. Welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." We of course, closely monitoring what's happening in the Middle East and particularly in Iraq tonight. We're hearing that the President may address the nation this evening.

Fox's Trey Yingst is actually in Baghdad right now and joins us from there for an update. Trey, what is happening that you can see in Baghdad, Iraq tonight?

TREY YINGST, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, good evening. Things in Baghdad are quite calm. Most of the missiles, according to reports landed at an Iraqi military base in Western Iraq that houses U.S. troops, some missiles also targeting a base in Erbil, where there are American forces stationed.

What is different about tonight than previous rocket attacks that we've seen towards places like the Green Zone in Baghdad earlier this week is that tonight, these were missiles fired from Iranian territory into Iraq.

According to Iranian state television, the Ayatollah himself was actually the one ordering the strikes. And moving forward, the big question now is, how does the administration respond?

According to the White House, we are hearing that he is meeting with his National Security team. There are still damage assessments underway at the Al-Asad Airbase in Western Iraq to see whether or not there are any American casualties.

Reports indicate that there are Iraqi casualties and remember, the Iraqis with the Americans have been fighting the Islamic State. There's more than 5,000 American troops here.

Just a little bit on how we got to where we are at today. We saw just last month the death of an American contractor and four U.S. service members who were injured at an Iraqi base that houses American troops here in Iraq.

In response, President Trump struck the group Kata'ib Hezbollah, which is an Iranian backed Iraqi Shia militia inside the borders of Iraq.

Then in response, we saw the militia just off to my left in Baghdad's Green Zone, ordering the storming of the U.S. Embassy and then early Friday, President Trump ordering that drone strike to take out Qasem Soleimani, Iran's top military leader outside of Baghdad International Airport.

Everyone has been speculating about what the Iranians will do. They have called for the blood of Americans. We heard that confirmation today from Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani and the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Moving forward, we are not sure whether or not this attack is over, or whether it has just begun -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Trey Yingst from Baghdad for us tonight. Obviously, all of us are praying here in the United States for American soldiers and Marines and bases around the world, particularly in the Middle East.

We're getting word though from government sources here in Washington that there are apparently no casualties from that attack tonight in Iraq.

Apparently, that's what we're hearing.

Gil Barndollar is a former Marine Corps Captain and a Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities. We're happy to have him on set tonight. Gil, thanks so much for coming on. Where does this put us would you say? This latest salvo from Iran?

GIL BARNDOLLAR, SENIOR FELLOW, DEFENSE PRIORITIES: Well, this is the entirely predictable outcome of what happened last week. Right? We killed Qasem Soleimani. And we can do some, some hollow moralizing about him and about who he was and about blood in his hands.

But we killed the second most powerful person in Iran, one of the most popular people in their country. How do we think they were going to react?

You know.

CARLSON: Do you think that would happen tonight -- and again, we're only repeating what we're hearing right now, because it's unfolding in real time. But apparently, no Americans have been injured in this attack. Is it plausible that this could be enough that the Iranian government could say to itself and to the world, we responded to the killing and that's it?

BARNDOLLAR: Yes, look, I really hope so. I mean, you know, I've got friends in uniform and not in uniform both in the Persian Gulf right now and a lot more are heading on the way there, if things get any worse.

And so, you know, God-willing, there are no casualties tonight, but it's possible. I mean, there's so little trust on both sides between us and the Iranians, but there are people who could serve as go-betweens, interlocutors, the Omanis, the Qataris, people out of the region, the Japanese.

There are ways to off ramp here, especially if no Americans were killed.

But otherwise, where do we go? You know.

CARLSON: Is it in the interest of the United States, do you think to not respond to this? Will we respond to this attack? What should we do? What are we likely to do?

BARNDOLLAR: Well, we can go on a few different directions, right? We can go tit-for-tat on this and continue to climb up the ladder, the escalatory ladder you hear so much about these days.

We can respond disproportionately, and throw ourselves unequivocally into a full-blown war with Iran. But what are we going to do there? Are we going to fight a regime change war with Iran? Which is orders of magnitude bigger than anything we've done certain since Vietnam.

You know that country -- talk to people who have done military planning on that, that country has mountains on three sides and ocean on the other.

Are we really going to invade a country of 80 million people and depose that regime?

I don't think we're going to do that. I don't think we think we're going to do that. So where does that leave us? I think there are roads off ramp, but I think it's extremely difficult with how far down this road we've gone, unfortunately.

CARLSON: You think the off ramp is difficult. It's difficult to pull away at this point, you're saying?

BARNDOLLAR: There are so many voices on both sides and there's so little trust, you know. I would say right now the hardliners in both camps are ascendant, certainly here in Washington, we look at who seems to have the presidency here in which way we're going.

None of this had to happen, you know. You can go as far back, go back to December and you go back to Soleimani's death, you can go back to 1979 if you want, but we don't have to be in this position. And the only people benefiting are the real challenges, the real threats to America, you know, China and places like that.

CARLSON: We know that there are an awful lot of ideologues in Washington, the Bill Kristol and Max Boot contingency who have been pushing for this kind of event for a long, long time.

But what about uniformed military leadership at the Pentagon? Where are they, if you can generalize?

BARNDOLLAR: The risk of generalizing. I mean, I think maybe some of them unfortunately fall into the trap of thinking we can push around a bully and get our way short of a major war.

But the Iranian regime is as unpopular as it is, as sclerotic, and you know, decrepit as it is, is not going to just collapse with a little bit of a push. You know, this isn't -- we're not going to incite a revolution in the streets overnight. That's it. We're kidding ourselves if we think that.

CARLSON: Yes, we've been hoping for that. And I think, you know, most people would welcome that. Most Americans would, but I don't think most would welcome a full-blown war.

Gil Barndollar, thanks so much for joining us tonight. Appreciate it.

We're joined now by Fox correspondent, John Roberts who covers the White House for us. John, what are you hearing from the administration tonight?

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHANNEL WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker, good evening to you. Well, there's a possibility -- and it is only a possibility at this point -- but there's a possibility that the President may go on camera at some point this evening to address the nation about what is taking place in Iraq and what has taken place over the last couple of hours.

They are still trying to figure out exactly what the situation is on the ground there in Iraq, and whether it warrants a full address to the nation, or maybe it just warrants some sort of statement from the President.

I'm getting some early indications from people in government that there does not appear that there are any American casualties here, that this missile attack did possibly not do as much damage as one would think that a missile attack of this scope would.

The only bases that were targeted in the region were two Iraqi bases, which also has U.S. forces, but no other bases that are actually American bases in the region were under attack.

But the President did promise this afternoon when he was in the Oval Office with the Prime Minister of Greece, and we were there in the Oval Office that the United States is prepared to respond to any act of aggression by Iran's military.

The President would have a number of different contingencies that will be presented to him by the Pentagon, and he can choose which way to go or no way to go depending on what the situation on the ground is there, and it will take some time for the Pentagon to have an accurate assessment -- bomb damage assessment -- as they call it. And that may not come until first light.

Obviously, the forces would want to stay hunkered down now, just in case there was a second wave coming from Iran. But we heard earlier today that there were a lot of discussions and meetings in the Situation Room, and that the administration fully expected that something of some magnitude was going to happen tonight, whether it had come from Iranian-backed militias in Iraq was one idea.

The idea that it would come from Iran was certainly something that was considered. But I think a lot of people didn't think that that was within the realm of possibility that Iran would actually launch an attack from its own soil.

So that will factor into any kind of response from the United States as well. So Tucker, we will stay on a close watch here. We are at the pool.

So if the President decides that he wants to make an address, we have to know about it. And we'll let you know just as soon as we hear something -- Tucker.

CARLSON: John Roberts from the White House, so it's hard to know exactly what has happened. I just got a text from someone I consider trustworthy and well connected. And again, who knows, because this is developing. But this is from Baghdad right now.

And I'm quoting, "The next steps in this phase of this geopolitical struggle will definitely be on the airwaves soon." Hard to know. But it suggests that, you know, a lot is at stake and people are thinking about this in big terms.

Bret Baier, he essentially runs politics here at Fox, always happy to have him on our show. He joins us on set tonight. Where are we in this?

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL 'SPECIAL REPORT' ANCHOR: Yes, I am talking to sources inside Iraq, inside the U.S. government. Here's what we know.

We know that two bases had been struck by the Iranians with missiles from Iran, which in and of itself is a huge escalation. Many people thought that the attacks would be coming from proxies inside Iraq. These are fired from Iran, but the choice of those two bases is interesting.

One was Al-Asad, which is in the Sunni stronghold of Al Anbar Province.

The other one is Erbil, which is the Kurdish capital. They don't have as many U.S. forces as Balad, which is a major base that's actually closer to Iran.

Is this a signal? Is this a message? Is it because the Sunnis and the Kurds were supporting the U.S. and against the Shia in the Iraqi Parliament who --

CARLSON: Wait, can I just -- so what you're saying is, if you are Iran and you wanted to inflict maximum damage on American troops in Iraq, you would have hit a different base?

BAIER: Yes. And it would have been easier. Balad is our major base and it's closer to Iran. I'm reading through the tea leaves.

CARLSON: No, it makes sense.

BAIER: I am saying that we'll see what the damage assessment is. But if as reported that no U.S. casualties, we don't know if the Iraqis took casualties at either one of these bases.

I think what you're seeing here, from your source on the ground in Baghdad, it could be you know, more About the Iranian Shia militias that support Iran that maybe active inside Baghdad, which we saw during the Iraq War.

CARLSON: For sure. It was a defining factor. So how is this -- and again, this is moving even as we speak -- but to the extent we can tell now, how is this affecting the presidential race currently in progress?

How is that breaking down?

BAIER: I think we have yet to see. I think that this is the biggest test for President Trump as a leader. It is by far his biggest test. As you know, he campaigned on getting out of the Middle East, of bringing troops home.

This is his moment to decide how far to push this and what the response is and what that response will be will dictate how the rest of the world reacts.

As far as the politics, it changed the Democratic race significantly.

You've seen Bernie Sanders go far hard on this Iran issue. Joe Biden is trying to ride the rails, but he has his own issues about what the Obama administration did with Iran and the red line and the paying of money to Iranian officials.

CARLSON: For sure. So it's not -- I guess, what I'm asking is --

BAIER: It is not cut and dry.

CARLSON: It's not. It's not. It's hard as someone watching this who is not covering politics full time anymore, as you are, to see how it doesn't seem like the Democrats are all the way on one side and Republicans are all the way in the other. It's more confusing than that.

BAIER: A hundred percent. And the fact that we are now in an election year, that we are three and a half weeks away from the Iowa caucuses. This is a major event that will have big repercussions, but most importantly, the next steps on the ground in Iraq, in Iran, and whether those targets inside Iran, maybe that shot those missiles will be in the sides of U.S. war plans. We don't know.

CARLSON: So is it clear that the White House -- I hate to use the phrase talking points -- but position like if you were to sit down with the President or one of his advisers and say, you know, what's our plan going forward? Is it clear what the answer would be? Or is that the purpose do you think of the President addressing the nation tonight?

BAIER: That's the purpose, if and when he does it that will be a clear, here is where we are. This is what I'm thinking. Notice, we didn't hear anything from the Gang of Eight or anybody up on Capitol Hill after they were briefed by officials.

The whole House and Senate expected to be briefed tomorrow on the Intelligence that led to the taking out of Soleimani, based on what they said was an imminent attack that was coming.

I think there's heavy skepticism up on Capitol Hill and in different corners, and maybe that's what the President is going to address.

CARLSON: He is going to address why we did it.

BAIER: Yes. And maybe next steps. I mean, this is the moment where the country is going to want to know, where are we going from here? The damage assessment by now they have a decent sense of what it looks like on the ground.

CARLSON: So I know you're not in the editorializing business. But tell me if you can confirm this instinct. My sense is of the President, he not interested in some kind of protracted war with Iran, certainly not a ground war. That he is not -- you know, his instincts are restraint. Is that what you're sensing or hearing?

BAIER: Policy-wise, what he campaigned on that's what he suggests. But what he says verbally about, you know, being tough against Iran, what he tweets out, sends a different message.

CARLSON: Yes.

BAIER: So whether his rhetoric matches up with what the policy decision is going to be tonight, I think is the key moment for this President as Commander-in-Chief.

CARLSON: And last question. Do you think we are going to hear from the President tonight?

BAIER: I would guess that we would, because it's that big of a moment, and listen, having covered the Pentagon for a long time, there's a lot of stuff happening behind the scenes. There's all kinds of targets that have already been chosen. The question is whether we are going to step to that next level and what are response will be?

CARLSON: And this being Washington and Washington being fundamentally bureaucratic, a lot of Pentagon employees including uniformed were sent home today.

BAIER: Which is surreal.

CARLSON: Early because of a snowstorm that never really materialized because once again, this is the Federal government.

BAIER: It is unbelievable. At one o'clock, it was a ghost town. There was nobody there. As this all was happening, the Public Relations Office apparently was closed down. It was like tumbleweeds going through the Pentagon.

CARLSON: It's not shocking to those of us who live here, but to the rest of the country, they must be watching with jaws open. Bret Baier, great to see you. Thank you so much for that.

BAIER: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Fox's Benjamin Hall is in the Middle East tonight. We're wondering what people are saying in the region. He is in Amman, Jordan for us. Benjamin, what is the response over there right now?

BENJAMIN HALL, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tucker, I can tell you that everyone certainly has been waiting for something for the last few days ever since Soleimani was killed on Friday morning, people have been expecting some kind of Iranian retaliation. We didn't know when it would come. We didn't know what form it would take.

And the Iranians have talked about almost every possible different kind of scenario. They talked about attacking the U.S. Mainland, attacking ships in the Gulf. They did talk about attacking U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria.

We've now seen that that has been their response. It is a major escalation because for the first, these are missiles fired from inside Iran.

Previously, Iran have only ever used their proxies that gave them a level of deniability.

President Trump made it very clear that from now on, any attacks carried out by proxies would be placed on the shoulders of Iran. So we see today, them taking this action, firing ballistic missiles out of Iran at these two U.S. bases.

One, at Al-Asad, that's about a hundred miles west of Baghdad, the other one in Erbil airport. And what everyone really is waiting for is that damage assessment, whether or not any U.S. servicemen were killed or wounded because that would be a red line.

Remember, President Trump early instigated the attack against Soleimani after a U.S. contractor was killed up in Kirkuk and then the U.S. Embassy was stormed.

But he had not acted when a U.S. drone was shot down or when the Saudi oil facilities were targeted, or when the ships in Hormuz were also attacked.

It was the loss of life of an American. So we have to wait to see that damage assessment. As you heard from Bret, just there, there is a sense that by now, Pentagon will have some idea of how serious this is.

But certainly Iran is well positioned to continue attacking these bases.

They have 2,000 such ballistic missiles, and the U.S. has made it very clear that they would retaliate if there was any U.S. death.

So we have to wait to see now what the consequences are. And of course, we have seen U.S. troops coming into the region. Ever since that strike on Qasem Soleimani, 3,000 U.S. troops came to Kuwait after 750 had come a couple of days earlier.

A hundred more to the U.S. Embassy here, B-52 bombers have come out here we have the USS Harry Truman also sailing in the Gulf, so the U.S. is well- positioned to retaliate if it has to.

We've also seen over the last few days, Secretary Pompeo talking to all regional allies, the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and just today the Iranians said that any country that allowed U.S. troops to use their country as a base would also be targeted, and they've said that any attack would be considered an attack by Israel as well. So Israel could be brought into this as well.

So it's a really tricky situation. We do know, we have known for a few days that America -- that Iran wanted to attack U.S. military sites. The Foreign Secretary made that clear. He also said they wanted to shed American blood. We don't know if that's been the case, but certainly it has happened.

This attack has happened on just after the funeral of Qasem Soleimani finished. Again, that's something people expected. That timing, three days of mourning in Iran, and then you see their response, their retaliation.

No one knows where it's going to go from here. We are trying to get as much detail as possible. We did get that initial report that message from the DoD, and I'll just read that to you again. They laid it out very clearly saying, "At approximately 5:30 p.m. on January the 7th, Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against U.S. military and coalition forces in Iraq. It is clear these missiles were launched from Iran and targeted at least two Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. military and coalition personnel."

So this is a major escalation. It's a major game changer. And remember, just recently, there was talk of U.S. soldiers leaving Iraq. Well, that certainly doesn't seem to be happening anytime in the near future -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Benjamin Hall for us in Jordan tonight. Certainly, one of our bravest reporters. Thanks, appreciate that.

Kelley Vlahos is the Executive Editor of the "American Conservative" magazine. She worked here at Fox for an awful long time. She joins us tonight. Kelley, thanks so much for coming on.

So just as -- since this is unfolding right before us -- is it possible that Iran lobs these missiles into the base, which is, I think infuriating to every American watching, no matter what your views on foreign policy are. And that that's the end of it, or does this inevitably lead to where it looks like it's leading, which is to a wider conflict?

KELLEY VLAHOS, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE: Well, I mean, if you just look at the last several days, it looks like a tit-for-tat has been occurring. So you see the attacks on the 27th by Hezbollah Kata'ib on the Iraqi base in which our soldiers were housed, a contractor perished.

We responded by attacking five different targets in Syria and Iraq. Then the response was protests in the embassy and our response to the protests at the embassy were killing their second most popular leader in Iran.

So I'm looking at these strikes tonight and what I'm thinking is that how are we going to retaliate? And how big is it going to be because I'm sure it's going to be much bigger than these ballistic missiles.

CARLSON: We could certainly see how it could go there. I mean, people who don't live in Washington may see this as a clean debate between conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats.

But those of us who live here know that -- I don't know -- pick someone Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. I mean, these are people who have been basically advocating for a kind of war against Iran for an awfully long time.

So the establishment of Washington is for this and I just think our viewers out there should know that, would you agree?

VLAHOS: Well, and I would agree, because I heard Chuck Schumer today, and what he was talking about is, I have two questions, and my question is, what is our response going to be? And how are we prepared for an Iranian retaliation?

My questions would be, what were the authority for these attacks in the first place? And I'm not just talking about the attack on Soleimani. I'm talking about the attacks on the 29th in which we bombed two sovereign states, Syria and Iraq without any explanation or justification.

But it seems like they've moved on from that, and they just want to know what our retaliation -- what our preparations are for an Iranian attack.

Like, they are already at war.

CARLSON: Right. It's infuriating, because the posturing of people like Chuck Schumer couldn't be more false. And it's because of Schumer and Pelosi and people like them that we got into Iraq in the first place, that we murdered Gaddafi and turned Libya into an even worse country and that this is happening.

VLAHOS: Right. And there have been no real backstop on this run up to war in Iran. For all these years, including getting out of the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2018, I mean, they opposed it because they opposed Trump.

But really what they were saying to us, you know, sotto voce, was that that they were preparing for war anyway with Iran because they were bad guys.

It's just that we can't seem to delineate where their hate for Trump starts and the real interest in keeping us out of endless war starts or begins.

CARLSON: Well, they're completely in favor of endless war. I mean, they're left wing internationalist. So of course, by definition, their power derives from conflict. It always has.

It seems like we may have missed the opportunity to do something really good for America, which would be to bring our troops back home from Iraq, have we missed it?

VLAHOS: Right. I mean, if you look at it, today, we have more troops in the region, and possibly more dead Americans than we had even last week.

And so, we have 5,000 troops still in Iraq today, add 3,000 that are being deployed out there. So we are creating a situation where the endless war, you're calling back the endless wars that that Trump had promised seems to be dissipating before our very eyes moment by moment.

CARLSON: How can we -- I guess, this is a rhetorical question. Maybe, I'm the only one who cares. But the whole point we were told of deposing Saddam and spending more than a trillion dollars building this democracy was to prove that democracy works, that the Iraqis can carry it out. And that we respect it, like we're for democracy. That's why we did this, right?

And now a democratic country is saying, actually, we're sovereign, you leave and we're like, no, we're not going to leave.

VLAHOS: Right.

CARLSON: What does that tell us?

VLAHOS: I think you've got your answer from President Trump today, when he said, until they pay us back for our bases and for all of the investment we made in that country, we're not leaving.

Now, to me, that doesn't sound like democracy. I mean, if that -- if that is the end result of all the blood and all the treasure of our investment or our occupation, whatever you want to call it democratization of Iraq is, I think that's pretty pitiful.

CARLSON: So what we're going to do just to punish you is continue to send welfare payments to people who hate us.

VLAHOS: Yes.

CARLSON: That's our version of punishment. Okay, Kelley, thank you.

You've enraged me, but it's good to see you. Thank you.

Walid Phares is a Fox national security contributor. He joins us tonight.

Walid, thanks so much for coming up. So where does this go from here? I mean, to the extent that we know, where do you believe we're going to wind up?

WALID PHARES, FOX NEWS CHANNEL NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: I believe now our leadership, White House, Pentagon are assessing exactly what's happening and they are not going to decide before knowing if the Iranians are going to launch more waves everywhere in Iraq, maybe in Syria or not, and then they're going to decide what their response is going to be.

CARLSON: Which, so as Bret Baier pointed out and I thought it was a smart point. It would have been easier for them to hit Balad, the base at Balad, which had a lot more American personnel than the base they hit and it's closer to Iran. They didn't. Does that suggest to you that they meant this as a symbolic attack?

PHARES: It could have been. Let me put the background, Tucker. Inside Tehran, from what we know, there was a huge debate between two camps, two political opinions. One, the base of Al Quds and of the Revolutionary Guards, they wanted a retaliation, no matter what. They wanted to show missiles hitting us, in response.

Others more seasoned circles, said, are we going to lose all our interests in the Middle East in engaging in this big war with the United States, especially after the President's statements?

It looks like the --

CARLSON: And by that, you mean Lebanon and Syria.

PHARES: Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, I don't think it's within their zone. But I think that the radicals won the night tonight in Tehran. I'm not sure that they're going to continue to win. They offered what they can offer, but we will see if they can escalate or not.

CARLSON: Do you think the United States can stop at this and say they love these missiles and that's it, we're not --

PHARES: It will be hard to believe if they continue those waves. We are in middle of the event. I mean, we have still have three or four hours, if they do more, and it depends on the damage. If the damage is big or not.

It's really the call of the President and his National Security team. They will decide.

I mean, our military have all the panoply of responses. It's a political decision, strategic decision.

CARLSON: What do you think they're thinking? And again, we should say, for our viewers who may just be tuning in, that we're expecting the President to address the country at some point tonight. That's not certain, but we have heard that's being considered. So at that point, if that happens, we'll know.

But as of now, what do you believe the White House and the National Team around the President, what do you think they're thinking?

PHARES: I think they want to know, really, what are the intentions of the Iranians. In these types of conflicts, where it's not really a terror act, and this is 9/11 and we've gone. It is really, are they going to continue for 24 hours? 48 hours? Are they going to activate themselves in Syria also? Shell our position in Syria?

Everything is possible. You know, the Iranians had three scenarios from the easiest for them to the most difficult. The easiest would be to do Iraq because they had their militias, their friends, et cetera and they can stop it in Iraq. Our response is going to be most likely in Iraq and maybe on the fire centers that started in Iran.

The second one is across the Gulf attacking our Navy also. They know that the price will be huge. And the third impossible, I would say, technically, is crossing the red line and hitting at home. But they know that this would be a major, major blow to them if they would do it.

So I think they have decided for the least engagement scenario, which is in Iraq at this point in time.

CARLSON: So I mean, anyone over 40 remembers a time when Shiite terrorism was a fact of life around the world, airplanes hijacked, bombings, et cetera. I mean, we haven't seen that in an awfully long time for all the talk about Iran as this great threat. The terror that we've been faced with for the last 20 years has been almost exclusively Sunni, I think.

PHARES: The Jihadi Sunni, yes.

CARLSON: Yes, right. So which of course, Jihadi Sunni, so do you think it's possible we return to that kind of scenario that we had in the 80s, where Iran is sponsoring acts of terror against civilians in western countries?

PHARES: We don't know. It's also depending on our response on them, because terrorism to them is one of the arms that they have. They have shelling, they have terrorism and they also have their militias.

My point of view is that we saw less terrorism coming from the Iranian side, because they were winning on the ground. Hezbollah was taken over in Lebanon. They were winning in Iraq, they were winning in Syria, now that they may lose parts of those, then the possibility of them resorting to terrorism is quite there.

CARLSON: So the weaker they get, the more dangerous they become.

PHARES: Exactly. Absolutely.

CARLSON: This is a principle that is true throughout the human experience.

It's true at the level of countries and it is true the level of people, but we always forget it. Why is that?

PHARES: Look, what I think the Iranian regime is afraid of the most is not us because they know they could stop it with us. It's the revolutions brewing inside them --

CARLSON: Of course.

PHARES: Yes, you know, in Lebanon, in Iraq and in Iran there are those movements rising. I mean, probably another policy would have been for us to support these, but we cannot control the Iranian response.

CARLSON: And very quickly, I mean, we're in charge of Iraq. We deposed, in effect, the king and took control. Our State Department ran the country. Are you surprised to the degree to which it is now just an Iranian controlled space?

PHARES: It's the way we exited the Iraq, Tucker. The fact that we exited without having behind us a unified multi-ethnic, impacted by Iran and Iraq.

And so with time, basically, these militias took control of the ministries.

CARLSON: Non-ethnic, I mean, were we naive to think that that was possible?

PHARES: Well, if Iraq was founded as a Federal state, like Switzerland or Canada or even Cyprus in the past, that could have been possible, but what is happening right now is Iraq is divided at this point in time between the various sects and we saw it when the Sunni and the Kurds withdrew from the Parliament, but that is not the issue. The issue is what the Iranians have in mind for the past 12 hours.

CARLSON: No, you're right. You're absolutely right and we don't know.

Yes, Cypress in the past. Exactly. Walid, so great to see you. Thank you for that.

PHARES: Thank you.

CARLSON: A Fox News alert for you. As the clock turns 8:30 Eastern Time, 4:30 a.m. in Iraq, Iranian rockets bombard an airbase in that country, a base where American troops are stationed tonight. What sort of military capabilities does Iran have? Will they use them? What is next?

For those and other questions, we turn to former State Department Senior adviser, Christian Whiton who joins us live. Christian, thanks so much for coming on.

So it's impossible to know at this stage where this goes, but game it out for us in in terms of what do you think is the most likely?

CHRISTIAN WHITON, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT SENIOR ADVISER: Most likely, I think, you know, you're seeing the leading edge of Iranian offensive capabilities here. They have proxies that can cause a lot of problems around the Middle East, but they have a fairly weak military of half a million men, three percent of GDP.

It's a conscript army. They have a parallel force of a regular military, and then the Revolutionary Guard, which is a little like the Nazi SS, a political army that's in parallel.

Their ability to strike really is limited. You're seeing it here, you're seeing ballistic missiles that really did come into their own, frankly, with a lot of money from the Obama-Biden Iran Nuclear Deal that afforded them a lot of resources.

I think the response is going to be retaliating against the sites that originated this attack in Iranian basically ballistic missile sites, plus an extra step above that.

I would encourage actually, that the strike also include Iranian nuclear sites, but it's unclear exactly what the President will do, but very, very likely that there will be some form of retaliation.

CARLSON: From the United States?

WHITON: Yes.

CARLSON: Yes. So let's back up just one step to something that I think has been too little considered. So, Soleimani who has been described as the second most powerful and most popular person in Iran, certainly a big deal in the country, the subject of a "New Yorker" profile some years ago, was killed right outside Baghdad airport.

What the hell was he doing there? I mean, that does seem an indication of the degree to which Iraq has basically just become a province of Iran. How did that happen? Give us the short version. And why people were upset about it before this week?

WHITON: Well, he was there, because Iran has been pushing on an open door.

No one has really drawn a hard line against them. They've been getting away with attacks on American since they came to power in 1979, taking Americans hostage, so he felt that he used to travel to Baghdad with a large entourage to plan additional attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq or elsewhere in the region. We don't really know.

He was there on the heels of an attack on the U.S. Embassy and the killings of other Americans around, so it's not so much just incidental that they control or have great influence over part of Iraq, it's that they have -- really no one has drawn a firm line against their aggression over the decades.

CARLSON: Right. No, I think that's true. But I guess what I'm saying is for almost 17 years now, Iran's influence and control over Iraq have been growing, and we, under a bunch of different -- in three different administrations -- haven't done anything about it. So why is that? If we're that worried about Iran, why haven't we done anything about it?

WHITON: Yes, it's somewhat bewildering in the sense the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 was somewhat brilliant. It accomplished a major military goal with a limited use of force but the political occupation run by Paul Bremmer, originally, a State Department Foreign Service officer, was grotesquely incompetent because we didn't find weapons of mass destruction.

The mission then morphed into democracy building and nation building, which, incidentally, is something I think President Trump has no interest in doing inside Iran. And also, you know, the refusal in the Obama administration to even name Islamism or political Islamism or political Islam as a threat. That's why you had the apology tour.

That's why, you know, you had a State Department spokeswoman saying that we really just need a jobs program to take care of ISIS.

A failure to appreciate the Islamism that animates the Iranian regime and also on the other side of the equation, Sunni terrorists, I mean, they have a lot they dislike about each other those two sides of, of Islamism, but they can agree they want us dead before they'll sort out their own problems later on.

CARLSON: But their problems are central to Iraq's problems. In other words, we were told that the three groups, the three ethnic groups Sunni Kurd, and religious group Sunni, Shia and Kurd would come together united by their common patriotism that we could have a kind of Yugoslavia, but without a strongman holding it together. That's insane.

And like that was never going to work. And why didn't anyone know that it was never going to work and why did the rest of us sort of mod along like morons when they said that. No one said, wait a second. There's no precedent for that in human history. What are you talking about?

WHITON: Yes. So there was a great hope that some of us shared that the Arabs, frankly, were ready for democracy. In Iraq, you called that into question. You have three ethnic groups, you have multiple ethnic groups there. You have Kurds and Arabs.

It was reinforced in Arab Spring, some of us hope that we would use secular democracy come out of that.

CARLSON: For sure.

WHITON: And you got a bit of it in Tunisia, that's a pretty isolated element in Egypt that was necessary for a military government to step back and to put the Islamists out of power.

You know, I think the moral of the story is democracy is great. But you know, we're not supposed to compare cultures, but not every culture is ready for it.

CARLSON: No, I think that's right. And, and by the way, I didn't mean to attack people for hoping for things I really hope that it would come true, too, I hope for all kinds of things. It's just, you know, we need to be honest about what people are actually like, I think. Anyway, Christian, thanks so much for coming on tonight. Great to see you.

WHITON: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: So consistently over the past two years, one of the voices we have turned to, really the voice we turned to first on these questions is retired Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor.

He couldn't make it to our studio tonight, but he is joining us now by phone. And we want to get his assessment of what we've been watching tonight. These attacks, Doug, on the base in Iraq by Iran amount to what do you think? What does this mean?

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR (RET), U.S. ARMY (via phone): Well, I think it means that we're about to find out if we got the President we voted for.

But the question is, will he deescalate and withdraw our forces from Iraq as the Iraqi government has requested and the American people demand? Or is he now going to respond in a way that guarantees a larger war, with uncertain possibilities and outcomes, a war that undoubtedly will destroy his presidency.

So I think those are the three critical questions, and I also think what we're seeing is what happens when you surround yourself with people who never really supported you and that's the case for the President that have always been dedicated to intensifying conflict in the Middle East.

CARLSON: Right. And this conflict specifically, the conflict with Iran specifically has been the decades long focus of a very small group of people here in Washington.

John Bolton, the former National Security adviser, the disgraced National Security adviser, would be a leader in that group. So you're saying that the President has in effect been used by people who despise him in order to get to where we are tonight.

MACGREGOR: Obviously. I mean, after all, our principal enemy from 2001 forward, some would say much earlier, were the Sunni Islamists and yet over and over and over again, there has been a desperate attempt by a series of leaders in this country and more important, powerful influential voices inside the Trump administration, pushing the President into conflict with Iran.

And at this point, certainly we could go to war with Iran. Iran would suffer. The Russians would undoubtedly join the fray at some point. The Chinese with inexhaustible piles of cash will finance the Russians and ultimately go to work to help the Iranians.

Europeans will look at this as though we've lost our minds and they're probably right. The Japanese, the Koreans will stay out of it, refuse to have anything to do with us, and when the rest of the Middle East starts to be destroyed under hails of missiles, I imagine that our alleged strategic partners in the Arabian Peninsula will back away.

So this is -- this is a very dumb idea and remember that when you destroy Iran, you are essentially opening the floodgates to Mr. Erdogan and Turkey and the Sunni Islamists that we had been fighting.

If you liked ISIS destroy Iran, and you will get ISIS times a hundred.

CARLSON: Yes. And I have to say, I mean if we're being honest, to hear you describe correctly, Russia as an effective ally of China really is heartbreaking. It didn't have to be that way. The American left did that.

They drove Russia into the arms of China when this country could have struck an alliance of convenience with Russia against our actual enemy, China. No, we weren't allowed to do that. And that's one of the reasons we wind up where we are.

MACGREGOR: And I think it's vital that the President remember that 64 percent of veterans who actually fought in Iraq, all concluded a long time ago that it was not worth fighting.

CARLSON: Yes.

MACGREGOR: And that has to be understood because 59 percent of the American public agrees with it. You cannot fight effectively against anyone when the public support at home is nonexistent or weak.

CARLSON: We've proved that sadly a number of times in a number of different conflicts. Douglas Macgregor, thank you so much for your clarity tonight.

MACGREGOR: Sure, thank you.

CARLSON: We should say, this just in to Fox, we are hearing that there will be -- contrary to what we suggested before -- no address from the President of the United States to the nation tonight. It is 8:40 Eastern and we're hearing the President will not address the country tonight.

And there will be moreover, no on-camera statement from the administration on the events unfolding tonight in Iraq. Presumably that will happen tomorrow. But as of tonight, no.

We're going to go back to Trey Yingst who is in Baghdad for us tonight for an update on what's happening on the ground in Iraq -- Trey.

YINGST: Tucker, good evening. According to Iraqi officials, there have been casualties among their forces at the Al-Asad base in western Iraq.

Pentagon officials telling multiple outlets that no Americans were killed in these strikes, ballistic missiles fired from Iranian territory into Western Iraq.

From a distance behind me, you can hear a number of Apache helicopters that have been circling Baghdad's Green Zone. Interestingly enough, we have not seen any militia activity around Baghdad.

Earlier in the week a few rockets were fired into the Green Zone. And that has been a common occurrence here in Baghdad. But this is something tonight that it appeared the Iranians wanted to take clear credit for.

Iranian state television indicated that Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei was actually the one calling the strikes tonight. But again, the reports indicating no American casualties, some Iraqi casualties, and there is still a damage assessment as to how much American military equipment was hit.

Additionally, there were two missiles, at least, that struck targets near the consulate in Erbil, that is still being assessed as well as to what sort of damage those ballistic missiles did. All of this, though, a very different scenario from what we've seen from the Iranians in the past to threaten American forces at bases across Iraq.

Those American troops here helping the Iraqi Security Forces in the fight against ISIS in previous attacks, including the one just about a week and a half ago that killed an American contractor and injured four U.S. service members. Those were rockets that were fired from militia groups inside Iraqi territory.

President Trump did respond to those striking the Iranian-backed militia group Kata'ib Hezbollah, which then led to the embassy being sieged then the President last week, early Friday taking out Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian top military leader outside of Baghdad International Airport.

The Iranians today striking that base in western Iraq that does house American troops firing from their own territory in Iran. The next step and what happens next all up to the administration as this tit-for-tat back and forth does continue here in the region -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Trey Yingst for us from Baghdad. Thanks so much. I want to read -- I don't normally read texts on the air, but I just got something from a very well-informed person in Washington, a well-known person in Washington, and he writes this and it's worth thinking about.

He writes, "I understand the argument that this isn't really going to lead to war. All of us want to believe that, but shift the burden. How is this not going to lead to war? We capped their top guy for an embassy protest.

Now, how are we going to respond to a missile attack on a base ordered personally by the Ayatollah? The chance of war with Iran is dramatically underrated by so-called smart people in Washington." One man's opinion.

We're joined now by Ned Ryun. He is the founder of American Majority.

Ned, thanks so much for coming on. What's your assessment of this?

NED RYUN, FOUNDER, AMERICAN MAJORITY: Absolutely. Well, I've got to tell you, Tucker, I'm of the opinion, I'm not even sure why we're still in Iraq.

I'm not even sure why we're still in Afghanistan. I think the American people are sick of all of this. We've been there for decades.

And quite frankly, I think I'm sick of us spending trillions of dollars and costing thousands of American lives do other people's businesses.

This is Israel and Saudi. Israel and Saudi Arabia should be taking the lead on this and dealing with the Iranian situation. If we're that concerned that they're going to become a nuclear power, Israel and Saudi should be taking the lead.

I think the U.S. role actually should be to keep Russia and China at arm's length and let Israel and the Saudis deal with Iran in a definitive way.

So I'm sick of us doing other people's business, Tucker. It has cost us a lot of money. It has cost us a lot of lives. At some point, we have to say enough is enough. We're going to stop doing other people's work and let them take the take the lead.

CARLSON: And let me just say, it's speculation, but I think they'd be happy to. It's my sense. I bet they would.

RYUN: Right. No, but think about that. But think about who has the most to lose in the immediate should Iran become a nuclear power? It's Israel.

It's the Saudis. Let them take the lead. This is one of the reasons why Donald Trump was elected and not the foreign wars specifically in the Middle East, for which I don't think we can actually make a compelling argument.

Stop with the nation building, again, democracy will not flourish in certain parts of the world it will not fit. And enough of this, trying to build a democracy in Afghanistan. Ask the Russians and the British how well that worked to try and win a land war in Afghanistan? So enough is enough, we're done.

CARLSON: Yes, I think one guy, a physician from the Treaty of Kabul limped in to push our -- yes, one man left. No, you're good point. Ned Ryun, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

RYUN: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: We're joined now by marine veteran and Fox News contributor, Johnny Joey Jones, who we spoke to at the beginning of all this just a few days ago. So since we last spoke, this has happened. How has it changed your view?

JOHNNY JOEY JONES, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it's funny to hear everyone say if we go to war, Tucker. We're at war. We've struck them, they've struck us. I don't know what else you could call war.

One of the bases, Al-Assad, I spent almost nine months there and the surrounding bases. The ISIS attack a few years ago, it was brutal was. It was at little Baghdadi, a town outside of it. And so it's an important place in Iraq for the war that we spent there because it's the largest most fortified base there.

And it's something that Iran would have a lot of intelligence on and they would know exactly where to hit on that base if they can get to it because it is so big.

CARLSON: Interesting. So do you think -- you said we're at war, and that's literally true, of course. But from here, I continue to believe the President doesn't want a full blown war with Iran. I just at this stage refuse to believe it. Some around him might, but I think most sober people don't want that. Are we going to get it, do you think?

JONES: I think that's the question. It's hard to speculate because it depends on really what we've planned for. In other words, was the Pentagon and the President ready for this type of attack tonight? And do they have a plan for what's next?

I think what's important now is that in my opinion, it should be an all or nothing response. We either pump the brakes, and go to some sort of talks, or some sort of de-escalation or we go to war. This back and forth like this isn't good for our troops. It isn't good for us and it kicks the can down the road like previous Presidents have done and it turns it into a 20- year war.

We could wipe Iran off the map probably. I don't think that's what we should do. But I would prefer that over a 20-year war where we lose tens of thousands of troops and we do it anyway.

CARLSON: Right. No, that's -- and I think you framed it correctly.

What's best for America? That's the question our government is asking every time.

JONES: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.

JONES: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, in Washington, Iran is the focus of every conversation.

You'll hear more about it on this show and this channel. But here's the thought experiment. What if we spend as much time on issues here in America as we spent on the Middle East, we might want to because our cities are crumbling.

Part two of our series "American Dystopia" airs right here after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: This is a Fox News alert. Reports continuing to stream in from Iraq where Iranian missiles hit several bases used by American troops. No matter what happens tonight and the next few days, there will be plenty of problems though here in America as well.

In the city of San Francisco, one of the prettiest places in continental United States, law and order has been effectively suspended.

Thanks to leftwing prosecutors, so-called quality of life crimes essentially no longer exist. People camp on the sidewalk, defecate in public, use drugs in broad daylight, all without penalty. That's bad enough.

But even crimes with clear cut victims are on the rise. In some cases, out of control.

For part two of our week-long "American Dystopian" series, we spoke with a local business owner in San Francisco, someone who is struggling to run a store where customers can steal with impunity. Here's the conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get the [bleep] out of here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: [Bleep] old as [bleep].

CARLSON (voice over): This is a day in the life of Gilles DeSaulnier

GILLES DESAULNIER, URBAN HARVEST MARKET OWNER: I've been here 42 here, before you were [bleep] born. [Bleep] off.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: [Bleep] you. Get your high-priced rip off store out of here.

CARLSON (voice over): He runs a grocery store in San Francisco's South of Market neighborhood.

QUESTION: How often do people come in and create problems in the store.

DESAULNIER: Every day. Every single day.

CARLSON (voice over): It's not an exaggeration. While the interview was underway, customers were filling their pockets with merchandise and just walking out of the store.

QUESTION: Is shoplifting an issue?

DESAULNIER: Oh, yes. They decriminalized petty theft in California. It happens every few minutes, literally in our store probably 15 to 20 times a day.

QUESTION: Twenty times a day?

DESAULNIER: Oh, yes.

CARLSON (voice over): The decriminalization of crime has been a disaster for this neighborhood.

DESAULNIER: And if you don't prosecute people, well, they just keep coming back. Because nothing is going to happen.

There's a needle from somebody who shot up.

QUESTION: When was the last time you came into work and had a day where nothing went wrong?

DESAULNIER: It's been many years.

CARLSON (voice over): Shoplifting is the least of DeSaulnier's concerns.

He has been attacked by the homeless twice in his own store. One woman bit him when he asked her to leave --

DESAULNIER: And she grabbed it and she bit into my arm. She dropped her weight and I freaked out.

CARLSON (voice over): In today's San Francisco, those who follow the law are helpless while criminals reign supreme. This surveillance footage shows a man breaking into the store and stealing credit card equipment.

DESAULNIER: Rang up $30,000.00 with refunds within an hour.

CARLSON (voice over): The store's rear door is rotting because homeless people urinate on it.

DESAULNIER: That's all from the acid in the urine.

QUESTION: How often do you see people doing drugs?

DESAULNIER: Oh, my god. Every few minutes.

CARLSON (voice over): Before we arrived, someone had attempted to steal some of the counterfeit money that DeSaulnier tapes to the wall behind the cash register.

QUESTION: I see a lot of water damage in the ceiling here. What's that?

DESAULNIER: Yes. This is low income housing and some of them have issues and sometimes they pass out and water penetrates the ceiling. It happens every month pretty much.

QUESTION: How much do you pay in taxes a year?

DESAULNIER: Thousands, hundreds of thousands. It's a lot.

QUESTION: Why are you still in San Francisco with experiences like that?

DESAULNIER: Well, because you make investments in businesses and your homes and you buy property and you can't just pick up and leave.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I live here.

DESAULNIER: You don't.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I live a block away. [Bleep] you.

CARLSON (voice over): Maybe he should. By the end of the interview, DeSaulnier was on the phone with the police department.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't want you here.

CARLSON (voice over): The man accosting us outside was blocking the store's entrance.

DESAULNIER: And then you have angry people across the street who can't afford it because they're living in poverty. Whose fault is that?

You know, I'm scared for my safety.

CARLSON (voice over): It was his second 911 call of the day.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON: San Francisco. It was a beautiful place once. Our "American Dystopia" series continuing all week. It's depressing, but you ought to see it because what they've done there they want to do to your neighborhood -- for real.

Tomorrow night, we'll talk to a private police officer who is being paid by property owners to keep order in their neighborhoods. A fascinating, fascinating segment.

Well in Washington, the top concern is picking a fight with Iran on the other side of the planet. That war might enrich defense contractors. Of course it will.

It might allow a few think tank parasites to feel like they matter.

It will benefit Iran's regional enemies like the religious fundamentalists who rule Saudi Arabia, but one thing is certain, it won't do much to help this country.

What would an American First foreign policy look like if we actually decided to have one? It's something worth thinking about, and Chris Buskirk has a lot. He is editor and publisher of "American Greatness," and he joins us tonight. Chris, thanks so much for coming on. So what would an America First foreign policy look like?

CHRIS BUSKIRK, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER, AMERICAN GREATNESS: You know, Tucker, that's the question I wish more people in Washington would ask. And when you do ask people, they always give you some sort of ethereal answer, oh, it's an isolationist, or it's neo-interventionist or its realist or one of these sort of over intellectualized theoretical answers.

But I think it's so much easier than that. Just ask the simple question.

And this is what policymakers need to be doing. Just ask one question, which is how does this policy benefit real Americans?

CARLSON: Right.

BUSKIRK: And when you start to look at it through that frame, and you stop trying to sort of implement an agenda or an ideology, then the policy implications of the decisions that are being taken in the White House and Congress and the State Department, I think take on a whole different cast.

And that means doing things that have really concrete answers, like, for instance, securing our southern border, worrying about what's going on between the border of the United States and Mexico more than you're worrying about the border between Syria and Iraq or the border between Iraq and Iran.

I mean, remember right now, one of the reasons that was given for the assassination of General Soleimani, I think justified was that he had been responsible for the killing of 500 five or 600 Americans.

But what about all of the deaths from the opioids that pour across our southern border? Opioids that come from Mexico and from China? Doesn't that warrant some type of a response, too?

And so when I think about what an American First foreign policy looks like, it means securing this country, its borders and the future -- and the future and the prosperity and the peace of its people within its borders.

CARLSON: So do you think that if people in Washington were hiring cheap Persian labor, or entering into lucrative deals with Iran, right, or if Iran was funding think tanks and academic departments of prestigious universities, do you think we would have a different Iran policy?

BUSKIRK: I think we'd have a very different Iran policy. This is where Iran has missed the boat is that they've adopted a policy of bellicosity towards the west, when all they really needed to do was spend $30 million or $40 million a year funding policy institutes in Washington and things would change for them very, very quickly.

CARLSON: That's exactly right. I mean, just endow something at the Brookings Institution, you know what I mean? Or like build a new wing at AEI and I think they'd be in good shape, wouldn't they?

BUSKIRK: It's cheaper and more effective.

CARLSON: Yes, exactly. David Frum would be, you know, leading the charge against this.

So in a sentence, tell me why something as obvious as what you just said is considered like ridiculous off the grid crazy in Washington, a foreign policy that puts Americans first. Why is that so controversial?

BUSKIRK: I think there's two reasons when one is -- and this is a super cynical, but one is just is your career Islam -- where -- you know how do people get their bread buttered so to speak?

You know how do defense contractors make money? How do politicians get power if they get power out of conflict? That's one and the other part -- the other part of it is, it is just bad ideology.

There are some people who just frankly believe these things that America exists as a neoliberal cop for the entire world and that is just wrong and is bad for America.

CARLSON: So we're getting live pictures. Thank you, Chris Buskirk.

Appreciate it.

And on that note, we're going to go out for the hour, hand over to Sean Hannity, but we want to do that on top of live pictures and you can see it from Kerman, Iran. The first pictures we're getting from inside the country that has just lobbed missiles into an Iraqi military base on which American servicemen were serving. But there you go, looking at live pictures out of Iran tonight.

That's it for us. Sean Hannity takes over.

Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.