from bad to worse the civil unrest in syria is propelling the middle east into crisis mode and deepening the divide in terms of international response will bring you the latest information coming out of the region and question the accuracy of the news americans are getting about from the middle east we're talking from iraq to syria. plus the u.s. tightens its grip on the so-called rogue nation threatening you wrong with yet another round of sanctions who do the same sions really affects and is it just empty rhetoric or pose that question to the policy director of the national iranian american council. and states across the u.s. are declaring a state of emergency during the worst drought since the one nine hundred fifty s.

but that's not the only thing affecting your food supply these days we'll tell you how a new bill and at helping one company in particular is changing the american food chain for the worse. it's wednesday july eighteenth seven pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching our. well as the civil war grips syria doesn't look like there's an end in sight this after a top syrian officials are killed they include the defense minister deputy defense minister security advisor and assad's brother in law and it's unclear whether a suicide bomber or remote explosive device was used in that explosion and as violence rages on in the region we want to take a look at just how the conflict is being covered and how the media is shaping public perception of what's going on there especially after a new poll that shows that public perception of conflicts abroad is just plain

wrong take a look at this. sixty three percent of republicans polled still believe there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq and that's a big difference from democrats and independents a much smaller number believe in that mistruth now when it comes to syria top government leaders here insist that the u.s. is not intervening militarily but according to the new york times there is a lot the u.s. is doing behind the scenes the state department has authorized fifteen million dollars a non-lethal aid to the opposition groups the u.s. is reviewing options for sending cia officers to the region to aid the opposition reportedly cia officers are operating in southern turkey and the u.s. is also considering providing satellite imagery aerial surveillance and intelligence on syrian troops ment's to the opposition. so it's no secret that the opposition is being armed but who exactly is giving them away well it's unclear but

if they turn to their neighbors iraq has a huge stockpile to donate that's things to the u.s. in the billions of dollars taxpayers spend to bring weapons there and now that the u.s. is leaving they plan to leave behind a treasure trove of military equipment from the huffington post quote the giveaways include enormous elaborate military bases and vast amounts of military equipment that will be turned over to the iraqis mostly just to save the expense of bringing it home those bases didn't come cheap construction costs exceeded two point four billion dollars according to an analysis of pentagon annual reports by the congressional research service so what do we really know about what's happening in the country and is a diplomatic solution possible at this point earlier cole bokken feld director of advocacy at the project on middle east democracy broke down the specifics take a listen. all of them in debated the security council now is because when you when

renewing the mission if there's going to be penalties and sanctions behind it. this point i think that the west is looking for teeth behind that one includes economic sanctions a possible arms embargo and so on and that's what they're really pushing for their russian counterparts i know this is really different from what the proposal for china and russia they are refusing to get to come on board with the west proposal talk about the difference between the proposal and why russia and china are refusing to back this for well essentially the russian chinese proposal is an extension of what we've heard in the past few weeks in syria it's extending the mandate of the current mission but if there's not compliance. and having any sort of penalties to go along with it so that's the main difference that the west is really pushing for some teeth behind this that if there is not complying. that there is going to be very tough penalties including sanctions and other actions now

several high profile deaths just happened within the assad regime what are they what are the implications of that could that mean that an end to the conflict is any closer well i think today's high level says the nations are really important today i mean of course we haven't seen the sort of level of sophistication the attacks by the free syrian army the opposition that they haven't been able to reach these high level officials also in a purely strategic sense makes it much more difficult for the syrian security forces to wage attacks against the opposition and it may provide a window opening that they're able to take territory that they're able to wage more successful attacks within damascus itself and so on and could be a major turning point in this conflict. in terms of the last resolution of the resistance to this is there a fear that it could lead to should it pass could lead to military intervention in the region well i think that is the fear and that's the hold up from china russia

and some of the other countries that they don't want to see a sort of libyan precedent set by this that opens that sort of level up at the same time i think there's other concerns here in the u.s. that would hold back any sort of intervention as a number of steps as you mentioned intelligence and hearing other sorts of trainings things happening on the borders that fall short of that i think we're much more likely to see those kind of steps happen before you see any large scale intervention so. we brought up earlier that the u.s. is saying that we're not going to intervene militarily but there are these things that are kind of going on kind of more under the radar so it's not as direct but there is i mean we have cia members of the cia over just across the border so i mean and that case is a kind of a grown up a little more covert intervention well i think this point that's that's the kind of options they're looking into i think the major push here. when when the assad regime started moving its chemical weapons i really scared a lot of people particularly here in congress and they were really pushing our

defense officials to come up with contingency plans come up with options short of full scale intervention and this is one of many solutions that the president presented with and russian russia's foreign minister has warned that the west that's supporting its arrival there whether it's covertly or through this through this resolution will only intensify the civil war there why does he make that argument well i mean it's a very real concern i think what we've seen so far is the assad regime hasn't used everything that they that they have in their capabilities against the opposition and if the free syrian army were to start receiving some increase in equipment and so on the regime would respond. in the kind of things that they're willing to do so i think in the short term yes you will see definitely an increase in violence and much more of a civil war type scenario now as things and had to file for there in syria the red

cross has officially declared that there is a civil war there and we want to bring the implications of this now what that would do is allow parties to use appropriate force to achieve their arms and forms a basis for war crimes prosecutions and that would mean that international humanitarian law apply throughout the country but talk a little bit more about that i mean just you know being formally declared being in a state of the civil war what exactly that means and how could that how that could pave the way for more for more intervention from from the outside i think the main thing that this does is very much push things in the direction of an i.c.c. indictment this is something that's really been in discussion for several months now and a lot of officials have suggested well we should hope. hold off on pursuing assad and his regime through the i.c.c.

so that we can give him an exit so that we can negotiate a political solution of this with this sort of quest ition from the i.c.r.c. it starts to build a case that can be used against him and his officials so i think we'll be going down the road much sooner than expected. russia and china now facing a lot of pressure from the west to kind of cave in and come on board and support the resolution that is backed by the west and as things get bloodier and as things intensify over there i mean do you think that russia and china could be convinced to back that resolution i think it's possible i don't know that they're willing to go that far just now but i think especially with the high level cessations this morning that sends a very clear signal that the regime centrally a sinking ship and that countries around the world are looking to change their strategies much sooner than expected so it creates an opportunity for the u.s. to make their case more effectively. and i didn't want to mention the u.s.

just sending the pentagon has announced they are sending this aircraft carrier to the region at the u.s.s. john c. stennis i think that we have a photo of it there as we're looking at it now so that's a lot making its way over there i mean what message could that be said during that where we have this making its way over there right now i mean i mean what message is that sending over to the area i think the message is most clearly directed at iran and the kind of rising tensions that we've seen you know announcements of these the mining operations threats to close the strait but also in relation to syria sort of sending a signal not to get involved in any any further or to be sending in any kind of increased support to the syrian regime and to put that physical presence there as a threat ragged and so amid all this do you think at this point that a diplomatic solution the. possible but i think it is i think essentially this point events on the ground are sort of overtaking the political conversation at the

u.n. and in washington and things may be moving much quicker and especially with the kind of dramatic turn of events today a sudden in some of his some parts of his regime may there be persuaded to leave or you'll see a kind of mass increase in defections i think you know it definitely lends to the idea that the regime is internally crumbling and that a diplomatic solution may be possible that he's in the process right call thank you so much for coming on the show we're going to be keeping a close eye on the way things play out over there in syria that was cold bach infeld he's the director of advocacy advocacy at the project in middle east democracy. the u.s. heading iran with more sanctions the treasury department has announced a new sanctions against eleven companies they say are operating as a front on the behalf of the american or iranian government now the u.s. is vowing to ratchet up pressure on iran it's all an attempt to put an end to iran's controversial nuclear program but what are the true implications of these

sanctions and what do they actually accomplish on jamal of the a policy director for the national iranian american council joined me earlier to explain what these sanctions mean take a look. the matter is there's really not a whole lot left to sanction the new sanctions they add some new names to the list of entities that are already sanctioned most of the names that are actually listed have already been saying because we have measures against all of the financial institutions inside of iran so really what this does is it sort of a warning shots to other financial institutes around the world to say look we're starting to crack down on every entity inside of iran so you need to pull out completely from any operations you may still have remaining in the country and so these. are in addition to ones that are already exists and the goal here is to break down iran's nuclear program. is there any indication that these existing

sanctions and fact achieve that well the sanctions they've been sold as a means to not just contain iran's nuclear progress but also so as a way to diplomatically and this crisis and to bring iran to the table that's what the administration says that's what the advocates of sanctions say but what we're finding is that when we actually came to the table with iran iran ians were ready to make a deal they actually put on the table were willing to and our freezer twenty percent which is the most provocative element of its nuclear program in exchange for the us leveraging some of its sanctions and really what happened was we talked we know the u.s. said we think these sanctions are working so well we're actually going to double down on them and so there was an opportunity for sort of an interim deal and we decided that the sanctions were too valuable to give up so now we have to ask ourselves are we committed to this track of sanctions for sanctions sake and if that's the case what is the real goal of the sanctions i think a lot of people in washington are starting to think that the goal is regime change

and the idea is we can impose enough punishment inside of the country on ordinary iranians that somehow they're going to be compelled to rise up against the regime. which you know your audience are not happy with the regime punishing them. through these sanctions is not the way to capitalize on that unhappiness it's interesting that you bring up regime change because some members of washington are finding other ways to justify their want to bring up this this quote from the treasury it states the identifications highlight iran's attempt to evade saying shines through the use of front companies as well as its attempts to conceal its tanker fleet by repainting reflag or disabling g.p.s. devices so i mean what do you make of that accusation iran using these companies as a as front company it's it's well it's true and that's really the situation we have

is we're playing whack a mole with the iranian regime. you know they're going to find ways to evade the sanctions we learned under the previous sanctions regime that looked a lot like the one we have against iran the ones against saddam in iraq that the regime always finds a way to evade the same sions and ordinary people are the ones who can't find a way to evade them and end up suffering and so when we have the treasury you know sort of playing these games with the iranians ok we as you say missions you figure out a way to evade them by flagging. foreign ships or fly your own ships under foreign flags or figuring out ways to smuggle in smuggle out oil things like that we can do that forever but what we're finding is that these tensions are starting to escalate out of control we're seeing this back and forth between the u.s. and iran. is going beyond just sanctions but is actually starting to take on these

military dimensions and i'm concerned that we're not to be able to continue to play this game of whack a mole indefinitely or we're going to end up in a confrontation as you had mentioned a lot of times these sanctions go beyond their attend intended effects and end up affecting you know the everyday citizens. any of iraq and i had read today that they're affecting food prices food prices there in iran are skyrocketing because of these sanctions and you talk more about that about how these sanctions end up affecting you know the everyday citizens what they've done is they have severely impacted the price of basic goods the price of food things like that and that's not just the same as it also is the iranian government the government's mismanagement of the economy they've done a pretty good job of making these statements have as big an impact as possible but what the sanctions have done i mean sanctions have been in place for thirty years against iran and what we really have any ron is a sanctions economy and so you don't have a strong middle class a strong private sector you have. industry and commercial activity dominated by the

i.r.g.c. the revolutionary guard corps the iranian government the state sponsored entities and so while with the escalation of sanctions food prices have gone through the roof. you know increasingly private business is forced out of out of the economy but you see the iranian government is doing fine and it's getting so bad that we're actually seeing that these sanctions are having an impact here in the united states they're just going to mention that we did a story not too long ago about apple refusing to. i pads and other devices to iranian american cell those those sanctions are reaching out in america and american citizens and you know on one hand there's an issue of discrimination you know the civil rights here in the united states we are claiming to these sanctions we have human rights sanctions we have all these sanctions we claim to be supporting basic human rights around the world and particularly in iran when they

say sions themselves are causing civil rights here in the united states to be violated more than that we have in which you know iranian americans want to ship medicine to family and family that is sick in the wrong. and they've been able to do this over the years but now there's certain medical products are not available in iran due in part to the same sions and people who were shipping them to iran previously are now being turned away at post offices and being told look you can't ship medical products to iran you can't ship medicine to a sick relative because of the sanctions i don't understand the point of that to me sounds like collective punishment yeah i mean it sounds like i think this is going a lot further than what they intended. do you would you say that i mean we're hearing a lot of this rhetoric you know and a lot of fear is about iran developing its nuclear program is there a danger that iran's technical capabilities are exaggerated or are blown out of

proportion well they're trying to build capabilities have been blown out of proportion by a lot of folks who are eager for more hawkish measures the fact of the matter is iran has a nuclear program and has not made a decision to actually weaponize that program now you know for me i believe that they want to get as close as possible to you know to a threshold where they could develop a weapon i don't think however they would actually cross that threshold unless provoked and so that's why when we talk about escalation by saying sions or possible military action we're really talking about pushing iran's decision makers into making this decision that we don't want them to make those jamaal of the a policy director for the national iranian american council. well it's no secret that this summer has been a scorcher across the u.s. one temperature record after another has been broken and states are searching for ways to beat the heat and the weather is actually causing a state of emergency in many places across the u.s.

take a look at this right now the american agriculture industry is suffering from the worst drought since the one nine hundred fifty s. it's your earning crop speculators are saying this could drive food prices through the roof but while the media outlets and food experts focus on the side effects of this drought there is a bigger threat to our food supply a so-called food blitz that's happening right under our noses it looks like the controversial agricultural giant monsanto could be above the law the monsanto rider as it's called the second seed of the two thousand and thirteen agricultural appropriations bill and what it does is require the secretary of agriculture to grant temporary permits to corporations that want to cultivate genetically engineered crops now this is alarming to critics that say it makes months on to immune from federal law and gives them a free pass to spread their g.m.o. seeds now the bill likely up for a vote in congress any day now so what are the implications if it passes to discuss

this i was joined by. ronnie cummins he's the executive director of the organic consumers association. well if you look at monsanto and the other biotech industry contributions to members of congress especially members of the house and senate measure cultural committees you can see that these are very powerful forces out there in congress these days seems to listen more to their big donors than they do to the public but if they were listening to the public they would hear that the public wants genetically engineered foods labeled and we want them properly safety tested before they're pushed out into the environment and pushed onto our plates in our kids in zen school cafeterias now all around me there is at least the one lawmaker speaking out against estimates on power rider as it's called the same as representative peter de fazio and who has an

amendment to kill that's part of the bell can you tell us more about his proposal. yes well the proposal would basically reduce the already inadequate. control that the federal courts have over the release of genetically engineered crops in the united states right now when the e.p.a. and us the a and m.p.a. don't do their job properly public interest groups have to take to the courts and sometimes we can get the courts to pay attention to the evidence and issue basically injunctions to stop the planting of these crops until they've been properly safety test it well this rider to the twenty thirteen. agricultural appropriations bill would alumina the possibility of using the federal courts to slow down these hazardous genetically engineered crops so this is only

a threat to public health and the environment and biodiversity of course it's a threat to the constitution we supposedly live in a society where the balance of power between the legislature and the executive branch and the courts and this would basically say that the courts no longer have any say once the government decides to get into bed with the corporations they can do whatever they want and you had mentioned earlier they have a huge amount of lobbying power that these agricultural corporations have and congress i mean with that in mind that being the case is that likely about there is going to be enough back in here now to representative peter de fazio amendment. well the the probably the best thing we have going for us is not only the hundreds of thousands of people are contacting their elected representatives and telling them don't pass this monsanto ride or don't destroy the balance of power guaranteed

to us in the constitution but the second thing is that the corrupt politicians in washington are fighting among themselves they can't seem to agree on the on the farm bill or the house appropriations and they're afraid to fight among themselves in the public eye right with the elections coming up so this might get delayed a bit further even after the august recess. if that happens hopefully. you know the american public will rise up more strongly and get across to these people that don't pull such a blatant pro monsanto pro biotech pro big business antic right before the elections or we might sir you out there are the let's talk about the implications if this bill were to pass at best provision baby muntadhar rider i mean what would

it mean for our local food supply. well it would mean that we have little or no power over the kind of crops that they planted out there they've already planted one hundred seventy million acres of genetically engineered crops around the united states proximately one third of all the cultivated farm lands and yet there are. dozens and scores of articles peer review articles building up to point out that when you feed these genetically engineered foods to animals you do serious damage to their to their system i mean there are studies out there that ninety percent of pregnant women have this genetically engineered b t in their bloodstream and in the placenta of their of their babies that are going to be born there's an outbreak of allergies and and diet related diseases that appear to be

connected to our ingestion since one thousand nine hundred four have an increasing amount of genetically engineered foods this is why millions of americans have turned to organic foods because since the government won't label genetically engineered foods the only way you can be sure you're not eating them is to purchase certified organic foods which millions of people are doing and that all sounds absolutely horrific ronnie i know your heart as millions against monsanto and i know that part of those that are fiercely among those that are fiercely opposed to montauk now are farmers i mean f. this bill were to pass how would that affect farmers here in the last. well most farmers in the united states are not growing genetically engineered crops they're either farming or gannet clear they're using seeds which have not been genetically engineered now the problem one of the problems with genetically engineered crops is

it's once you put them out into the open environment there. d.n.a. d.n.a. spreads to non genetically engineered crops so if you're a corn farmer selling organic corn. and your neighbor decides that they want to grow genetically engineered corn the. pollen from that genetically engineered corn is going to split and contaminate your. majority usa farmers. well let's look at this technology but in the meantime there's this thing called genetic pollution and i don't want any of this and it's happening and it's happening right now so this monsanto rider will simply make it easier for monsanto's clients to pollute your feels and ruin your business and pollute the gene stream because

once. these genetic mutations are out in the open environment they reproduce themselves they can destroy the genetic characteristics of previously existing varieties that have been out there for thousands of years all right around me thanks so much for coming on the show and weighing in on this very important topic affects all of us and what we put into our bodies that was ronnie commons he's the executive director of the organic consumers association. and that's going to do it for now from one of the stories we covered you can check out our you to page. america you can also head on over to our web site at our. there you'll find a bunch of stories we didn't have time to get to on the air today our wonderful web is working on a story about the disconnect between the truth and the fact that with report when it comes to the twenty political campaign on monday the new york times finally

broke its silence and openly admitted that the obama campaign grants interviews quote under one major condition. the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name but this practice of self-censorship has been so disappointing to journalists that now they're ready to give up close ties with policymakers in order to have more freedom to report the facts so what does this mean for political journalism in the us and is this the end of the draconian reporting rules are worried about all of it on our website r t v dot com slash usa and while you're there don't forget to leave us your comments speed back and story suggestions we do our jobs each day for you and we are always listening and to find out what i'm doing when i'm not bring you today's top stories you can follow me on twitter liz wall the capital account is up next i'll see you right back here at seven stay tuned.