forty percent of lester's corn for. ethanol and while the us seems to be hungry for war the rest of the world is just plain hungry but empty bellies don't make as much money as empty gas tanks we'll show you how the ethanol industry is fueling a world food crisis. it's thursday january twelfth seven pm in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching r t. well it sounds like something straight out of a thriller someone secretly attaches a bomb to an iranian scientist car the explosion killing him now the scientists of wasn't just any scientist knows. was the director of iran's uranium enrichment facility so those skeptical of iran's nuclear program believe he's a key figure in creating a nuclear bomb for the country and it's not the first time this has happened it's

happened to three other ronnie and scientists killed almost the same way all under mysterious circumstances so it's hard to believe it's all a coincidence and this goes down as tension as between iran and the u.s. and israel over iran's nuclear enrichment program the u.s. has threatened to impose sanctions on iran and is encouraging its allies to do the same but now turkey is pushing back turkey who imports oil and gas from iran is refusing to take action against iran beyond the un mandated saying sions meanwhile iran is firing back there and to block the strait of hormuz a critical waterway where about twenty percent of the world's oil passes through so what could possibly be behind this latest attack want to get some answers i spoke to jamal of de. the united states has actually come out very forcefully and said we are not behind this secretary clinton yesterday categorically denied that the us had any involvement in this and i think that that's very telling this assassination

comes just weeks before planned to go she asians between iran and the u.s. the p five plus one and so. while there's a lot of informed speculation nobody knows quite who was behind this but i think that what the consensus is that whoever was behind this is less interested in setting back you grans nuclear program and more interested in setting back possible ratcheting down of tensions between iran and the united states and you know this is something that the g.o.p. candidates would celebrate presumably especially at let's take a listen to some of the rhetoric coming from them it's a very telling let's take a listen. well there have been scientists. in russia and in iran there have been computer viruses there have been problems at their facility i hope that the united states has been involved with maximum covert operations. to block the iranian

program. taking out their scientist including breaking up their systems all of it covertly all of it deny. all of it covertly all of it. i mean when you hear this coming out of the g.o.p. candidates i mean this is exactly what's going on. i love to see president newt gingrich deny taking covert actions after going on stage and saying he would indorse that this is. the fact the matter is that the hardliners on all sides who don't want to see any kind of negotiated resolution who don't want to see iran brought some way into the fold and want to see this tension escalate want to keep iran sort of outside of the security status quo in the middle east are supportive of these actions and that's why you have speculation that perhaps israel was behind this perhaps. a terrorist organization that is dedicated to overthrowing the iranian government and preventing a reproach mom between the u.s. and iran are behind this or you've been happy who think that perhaps hardliners in

the iranian government were behind this because they're more interested in preventing any kind of talks and being able to create a security environment within iran where they can crack down on on dissidents and use the threat of an external you know a war with the united states or external threats to actually consolidate their control so in every instance all the speculation falls on those who want to see a continued escalation of hostilities so you're saying the line of ation may not be necessarily to halt a nuclear program but just to further strain the relationship between the west and iran i believe that this attack is more about sabotaging talks sabotaging. negotiations that is about sabotaging iran's nuclear program because i mean it's interesting. targeting scientists if you take out a nuclear scientist i mean how effective would that really be and whole thing a program if there was one you know this might have an incremental effect it might

set iran back a little bit but we also know that iran is going to double down and actually probably be more inclined to accelerate its nuclear program if it believes that it's under threat. the entire rationale for potentially pursuing a nuclear weapon would be. the need for a nuclear deterrent and if you ron believes that the united states' policy is one of regime change or one of the hostilities into a war they're going to be more inclined to pursue a nuclear weapon and we have to remember that you know leon panetta the defense secretary went on went on face the nation just this past weekend and said iran does not have a nuclear weapons program they've not yet made the decision to take their nuclear program which currently is for civilian purposes and to convert that into a nuclear weapons program if you want to convince iran to make that move continue down the path we're on now despite as you just said the defense secretary the nie

that iran is trying to make a nuclear weapon we do hear remarks like this let's take a listen on fox news recently john bolton the former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. said this. half measures like assassinations or sanctions are only going to are only going to produce the crisis more quickly the better way to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons is to attack its nuclear weapons program directly. so he's suggesting that we attack directly he's saying that what we're seeing so far is not enough i mean what do you make of rhetoric like that basically pushing just to go out to go to war on this all out push for war i'll give john bolton this he at least is not guilty of intellectual dishonesty that those who are advocating for these so-called half measures that really are a means of ratcheting up to war he's not he's not mincing his words he's saying

really what the agenda is which is an all out war with iran. i think that that would be disastrous but i credit him for actually acknowledge in that that is what the agenda is being honest about it is not that leading to this covertly let's try to keep it a secret is just them putting it all out there and saying well what what the intention is he's been advocating for bombing iran for years now and those of us who are calling for diplomacy and saying that these sanctions are really just a trajectory to war similar to the trajectory we were on with iraq are in the opposite camp but at least it's clear where where the two camps are when john bolton comes out and says this is about going to war with iran now all this is happening while another coincidence takes place right now in the water. near iran are two u.s. aircraft carriers and supposedly a third one is on the way coincidence or is there something else going on is this more than just a military exercise i don't know about the details of why those carriers were

pulled in there the united states has denied that it has anything to do with the threat from iran of blocking the strait of hormuz. but i do find it hard to believe that when you have defense of fish. going on t.v. and saying we will not permit for the strait to be blocked off. that these actions don't necessarily coincide with some attempts to prevent that from happening should it escalate to that point i don't personally believe that iran would take that step but the threat has been leveled and the united states is working to assert credibly that they won't allow that to happen especially as we see oil prices sort of skyrocketing now because of these tensions so now a lot of people say that there is this cold war happening and we are seeing this escalating tension i what point do we see an all out war between the u.s. and israel and iran well there are several sort of inflection points i think that if israel did decide to to potentially israel could decide to strike iran iran

has made a move in the past week to. put some of its enrichment activities into this bunker in the fordo facility and that has been described israel as giving iran nuclear immunity it's a facility that would be very difficult to strike militarily particularly for israel to strike in to take out with their capabilities so the likelihood of an israeli strike has actually i think increased because of that and it's a matter of how long before that immunity for iran's nuclear program sets in. i would also you know i would say given what has happened with this is the nation given that the united states has come out so forcefully against it and denounced it if this was israel that was behind the assassination it lends some real doubt about how much the united states can constrain israeli actions against iran and so it creates some real worries that a strike that is not supported by the defense establishment in the united states and a lot of the civilian establishment could go forward very interesting jamal thank

you once again for coming on the show that was policy director for the national iranian american council. well the new york times in hot water again this time for misquoting a report that details our runs nuclear program the times reported as fact that there is proof that iran is developing nuclear weapons here is a quote. from the newspaper that's stirring controversy or reads quote the threats from iran and both at the west and israel combined with a recent assessment by the international atomic energy agency that iran's nuclear program has a military objective is becoming an important issue in the american presidential campaign now the problem with that is that the i.a.e.a. were e.a. report does not make that accusation nowhere does it confirm that iran's nuclear program has a military objective so what is behind this journalism blunder and is there more behind this so-called mistake what else they answer that i spoke to robert naiman

policy director for just foreign policy here is his take. thank you well i think it's very telling and it's clearly not just simply a mistake if you were just simply a mistake then the new york times would have corrected your article given a clear correction you know another context the new york times every makes mistakes right newspapers make mistakes but other context the new york times reports to be quite until it is about correcting mistakes in this context what they did was remove the paragraph from the article if you go you go to the website now that paragraph not in the article anymore but there's no editors no in every day any correction and then we explain to anyone oh you know we had this before we don't have it now and here's why and then i think is even more telling than the fact that that paragraph. occurred in the first place we are in the united states in the

context of a concerted campaign to her raise distinctions between what is known about iran's nuclear program and what some people allege about iran's nuclear program. so for example you know we have. defense secretary panetta went on to be our defense secretary was on face the nation on sunday and he said there were what are they trying to build to develop a nuclear weapon no and the very next night p.b.s. news hour edited out that statement by panetta and then used his remarks to try and argue the opposite as fairness and accuracy in reporting noted we didn't alert p.b.s. on it and received any response so this part of the pattern in the u.s. media and certainly part of a pattern in the presidential campaign with republican presidential candidates not

all of them number one paul but. rick santorum for example. when i meet the press and said well how would i be different from president obama well i would tell the iranians you have to open up your nuclear facilities to inspection or i'm going to bomb iran is nuclear fuel facilities are already under u.n. inspection n.b.c. should have corrected but they did so this is part of a pattern we see over and over in the media and well as you just detailed this pattern of bad journalism behavior talk about the danger of reporting as fact that iran is developing a nuclear weapon when at this point it's not a fact it's an accusation so there is a difference between the two. it's an extremely important distinction. because in the united states it is there's a widespread view particularly among the elites that in the u.s. government state is openly that if you were going to decide to develop

a nuclear weapon that is a cause as believe that is a cause of war no of course there is nothing international law that says that the united states or israel or any other country has a right to bomb iran or anybody else. if they drive to develop nuclear weapons knowing then bt there's nothing in the un charter you're a terrorist as you're not supposed to go bombing of gaza countries but regardless of that fact political reality in the united states that leads see this as a cause cause as bell so that's why the distinction is so important further and more if your goal is to deter iran from developing a nuclear weapon iran isn't in fact doing that then that distinction is important to you because if you raise the distinction you're saying well it's too late they've already gone all the way there's no power the military competition and there's no incentive for iran to do anything besides develop

a nuclear weapon he had to pay all the consequences anyway then you're the message you're saying send your money as well you might as well do anything because we're going to punish you as if you were doing anything regardless of which to now robert does a blunder maybe more forgivable if it was an isolated case but the times has made or has the times made a similar mistake before. yes well first of all the context you know everybody who cares about these issues is deeply aware of is the world up to war with iraq where the new york times particularly for junior miller although not only her regularly ear ect is that a milf piece for the bush administration to leak allegations about iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program and present them as facts so then the bush administration say that even the new york times is reporting blah

blah well there was information that the planted in new york times and of course the ultimate responsibility belongs to the editors of the new york times who allowed that information to be put out is if it were fact that played a key role in the bush administration building the political case for war and getting americans to we estimate lastly robert just want to ask what role does the media play and drumming up support for war in the middle east. well it's here it has a here and particularly media like the new york times washington post and networks have a huge impact on public opinion and have a huge impact on politicians in washington game in establishing people's frame about what's known and what i mean if you're you know when people are doing the deportee of the iraq war. people say well everybody believes.

weapons of destruction well everybody didn't believe it but there was the there was sort of a consensus that was put out in the mainstream media in the united states so that's a no there's an attempt to create such consensus around your arms and everybody believes that iran is developing weapons that's why it's so it's essential that everybody cares about this should really ride herd on the u.s. media not to allow them to repeat the crime that happened before the u.s. invasion of your robert very interesting how the media has such a big role and shaping public perception thank you for coming on the show that was policy director for just foreign policy robert naiman. also had an r t hungry for power the us ethanol industry is eating up the world's corn supply fuelling the global crisis coming up we'll show you why you shouldn't be putting much stock into this energy source. what drives the world the fear mongering

used by politicians who makes decisions to break through that sort of it being made who can you trust no one who is in view with a global missionary see where we had a state controlled capitalism is called sasha's when nobody dares to ask we do our t. question more. new website with twenty four seven wives streaming newscasts what to do you want. ongoing financial hard unlimited free high quality videos for download. and stories you never find on mainstream news. there's so. little. on our. internet only military making you do the work to bring justice or accountability.

i have every right to know what my government's doing you want to know why i pay taxes. i would characterize obama as a charismatic version of american exceptionalism. let's not forget that we had an apartheid. i think. one well. we never got that says they're safe get ready because freedom.

also new numbers out say that may be very telling about the world we live in the united nations food and agriculture organization found that food prices hit a record high of last year according to the f a o the monthly food index price averaged two hundred twenty eight points in two thousand and eleven the record before that was two hundred points that was back in two thousand and eight high food prices one of the major reasons behind the uprisings in the middle east and north africa last year and as christian friends our discovered part of those high prices could be a result of something homegrown in america corn based ethanol. it is a process that comes. with the price for the american way not just from farm to. but from farm to fuel and this is where it all starts where the thieves are

planted and the corn grows it is the most simple part of a process that has become anything but simple the production and youth of ethanol one largely considered an environmental one has become very political being blamed for everything from the power of the state of iowa to world hunger fifteen percent right now of the food increases in this country that you've seen in the last year are directly associated with this policy that policy a subsidy paid by the u.s. government to encourage the production and use of corn ethanol it lasted thirty three years and cost more than twenty billion dollars oklahoma senator tom coburn led the charge to do away with the subsidy and won but the government mandate requiring oil companies to use ethanol is still in place so just about anywhere you go ten percent of what you put into your car is ethanol. even if your car is

a race car. nascar's partnership with ethanol a sign that the pressure on the corn supply will continue forty percent of last year's corn crop. went to ethanol that leaves the other sixty percent to go toward food for people and animals and with the price per bushel more than doubling in the last five years it's no wonder food prices are going up when demand goes up or the farmers plant more corn. then they can't. research scholar tim searching or says that leads to the shortage and increased prices of other crops and it's not just this country in other countries where people rely on corn meal as one of the only meal for their family. price hike has been devastated

. ethanol farmers and plant workers argue that the claims are exaggerated since leftovers are actually used to make high protein animal feed everything else from the fire or from the protein. and the corn oil is left over that is what overrated the animal feed and still it doesn't change the fact that one sixth of the world's corn supply is burned in american cars that is enough corn to feed three hundred fifty million people for an entire year. raising the question of fairness in the increasing competition between fuel and food. in iowa christine for south r.t. and to dig deeper into this i spoke to contributing editor at harper's magazine frederick kauffman. and he is also the author of this book a short history of the american stomach with one sixth of the world's food supply being burned in american cars he explained to me how ethanol is fueling a global food crisis take

a listen. well it's more than simply the laws of supply and demand in the sense that when there is demand for ethanol the fields move into production for gas tanks not mouths really all the commodity traders i spoke to last year told me that because of this subsidy and because of this mandate the price for global grain his skyrocketed because of speculation in these markets in other words we're putting tremendous speculative pressure on the global futures prices of grain along with the simple laws of supply and demand and so this is part of what is snowballed into these doubling prices that has really caused the world so much suffering now the hype surrounding at the knowledge that it was supposed to be this there is a green alternative to fossil fuels but how environmentally friendly it is that that all really. it's a disaster it's a it's

a really it's ridiculous on almost every level in the sense that using corn to create gasoline as we do in this country actually takes more energy to make that gas more fossil fuel energy then comes out of it and on a global level like for instance down in brazil they use sugar cane they're getting their ethanol from sugar well they say well this actually is much more efficient well it may be more efficient but what does this lead to it leads to unbelievable clearing of the rain forest and huge emissions of c o two into the atmosphere and of course it's an environmental disaster and what we see in africa we see everybody rushing to another kind of biofuel crop called jatropha and so what's happening there we have political chaos when all of a sudden all this land is taken and people are displaced and the global ghetto just increases wow so you're saying that the process of using these bio fuels actually uses far more fossil fuels while we're trying to use more biofuels and yeah it's an

absurdity the american way of doing this is completely absurd and it makes absolutely no sense on just the purely pure level of the energy you know al gore he once advocated biofuels but even he has taken a step back and made it that it's a mistake so if it's known that these problems with that exists why keep using it. well there is money in it a lot of people lot of the blenders and the refiners are making money and also as al gore also pointed out his decision in favor of biofuel might have had something to do with voters in iowa and voters in the midwest who are really doing well not only with what has been this billions of dollars of subsidies but also with the mandates that there has to be a specific amount of ethanol from corn in the gas in this country and of course there are tariffs up not letting in that ethanol from other countries here and so

in some ways politically and financially it's a win and unfortunately it is unfortunate another interesting point am as we saw in that and the at the story there it's american tax dollars that are funding this that are funding this biofuel business and allows it to thrive i mean how is that able to happen well this is been this is been a real outrage and of course the policy comes from from the bush administration but obama has has not put an end to it until recently and it's just been so outrageous that this whole notion of the bio fuel subsidy that what we've been seeing are these bizarrely strange bedfellows which is you have the conservation is and the environment's environmentalist and the energy people actually holding hands and singing kumbaya with the c.e.o.'s of tyson and domino's pizza because all of them are saying this is absurd this is ridiculous it's driving up the cost of our basic

ingredients it's not allowing risk management for global grain and it's been a disaster and so now that those subsidies have been taken away united states citizens are still paying for it we're just paying for it in a different way at the gas tank well you know this seems to be yet another example of some of the outrage we've seen recently of corporate influence in the government what will it take to reverse this trend to eliminate the use of biofuels. well like i say it's a growing trend it's not just america it's all over the world the chinese are using to solve all the crushes of oils that come from vegetables are being deployed and so really at this point i think what is really needed is a new technology and what we see is very promising technology although still an early stage with the of all things algae from the from the sea and so maybe this is going to give us some way some other avenue other than this ridiculous course that

we've been on really for the past decade or so frederick thank you so much for coming on the show that was contributing editor at harper's magazine project. well that's going to do it for this hour we'll see you right back here at eight o'clock . wealthy british scientists are. going to. market. why don't what's really happening to the global economy with mike stronger for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our.