from bad to worse the civil unrest in syria is propelling the middle east into crisis mode and deepening the divide in terms of an international response will bring you the latest information coming out of the region and question the accuracy of the news americans are getting about the middle east from iraq to syria. plus the u.s. tightens its grip on the so-called rogue nation threatening iran with yet another round of sanctions including the sanctions really effect and is this all just empty rhetoric we'll pose the 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 aimed at helping one company in particular is changing the american food chain for the worse. it's wednesday july eighteenth eight pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching our t.v. . well as the civil war group syria doesn't look like there is an end in sight this after top syrian officials are killed they include the defense minister deputy defense minister security advisor and assad's brother in law now it's unclear whether it was a suicide bomber or a remote explosive device that was used in the 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 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 now that's a big difference from democrats and independents a much smaller number believe in that miss truth and 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's a lot the u.s. is doing behind the scenes that apartment has authorized fifteen million dollars a non-lethal aid to opposition groups the u.s. is reviewing options for sending cia officers to the region to aid the opposition a point reportedly cia officers are operating in southern turkey and also the u.s. is considering providing satellite imagery aerial surveillance and intelligence on syrian troops troop movements 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 pile stockpile to donate that's thanks to the u.s. and the billions of dollars taxpayer spent 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 that's to mounds 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 cost exceeded two point four billion dollars according to an analysis of pentagon annual reports by the congressional research service so as the west brainstorms what to do in syria it turns out many americans don't want to be involved forty two percent would not support intervention in syria only nine percent strongly support it thirty three percent just don't know. so at this point is a diplomatic solution possible earlier cole bokken fell director of advocacy at the

project on middle east democracy broke down the specifics. well the main debate at the security council now is when you when renewing the anon mission if there's going to be penalties and sanctions behind of course this point i think the west is looking for teeth behind that one includes economic sanctions possible arms embargo and so on and that's what they're really pushing for their russian counterparts and no this is really different from what the proposal from china and russia they are refusing to get to come on board with the last proposal talk about the difference between their proposal and why russia and china are refusing to back this sure will essentially the russians chinese for proles and this is an extension of what we've had in the past few weeks in syria it's extending the mandate of the current mission but if there's not compliance regime not 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's not compliance that there's going to be very tough penalties including sanctions and other actions that several high profile deaths just happened within the assad regime but 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 fascinations 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 it makes it much more difficult for the syrian security forces to wage attacks against the opposition and it may provide a window of 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 and it 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 whole. 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 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 fearing 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 are 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 that kind of the kind of like a more covert intervention i think at this point that's that's the kind of options

they're looking into i think the major push here was when when the assad regime started moving its chemical weapons that 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 as the president presented with and russian russia's foreign minister has warned that the west that 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 increased arms and equipment and so on the regime would respond by being 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. war type scenario now as things intensify over there in syria the red cross has officially declared that there is this civil war there and i want to bring the implications of this now what that would do is allow parties to use appropriate force to achieve their arms it forms a basis for war crime prosecutions and that would mean that international humanitarian law apply throughout the country so talk a little bit more about that i mean just you know being formally declared being in a state of a 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 well i think the main thing that is the 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 hold off on on pursuing assad and his regime through the i.c.c. so that we could give him an access so that we could negotiate a political solution to this with this sort of classification from the i.c.r.c. 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 now that russia and china are now facing a lot of pressure from the west to kind of cave 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 sesame sions this morning that sends a very clear signal that the regime was 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 night. didn't want to mention the u.s. just sending the pentagon has announced they are sending this aircraft carrier to the region and it's the u.s.s. john c. stennis i think that we have a photo of it there it is we're looking at it now so that's not making its way over there i mean what message could that be sending that that word we have this making its way over there right now i mean i mean what message is that sending over to syria 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 d. mining operations or threats to close the strait but also in relation to syria sort of sending a signal you know not to get involved in any and 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. so amid all this do you think at this point that

a diplomatic solution is even possible so i think it is i think essentially at this point events on the ground are sort of overtaking the political conversation at the u.n. and in washington and that things may be moving much quicker 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 to hasten that 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. well the u.s. hitting iran with more sanctions that treasury department has announced new sanctions against eleven companies they say are operating as

a front on behalf of the iranian government now the u.s. is bound 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 are they actually accomplish jamaal of the policy director for the national iranian american council joined me earlier to explain what these new sanctions mean take a look. the fact the matter is there's really not a whole lot left to sanction so the new sanctions they add some new names to the list of entities that are already sentient 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's sort of a warning shot 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 sanctions 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 in 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 or freeze or twenty percent which is the most provocative element of its nuclear program in exchange for the u.s. leveraging some of its sanctions and really what happened was we talked we know the u.s. said we think the sanctions are working so well we're actually. doubled 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 to to capitalize on that unhappiness and it's interesting that you bring up regime change because some members of washington are finding other ways to justify that want to bring up that this this quote from the treasury it states the identifications highlight iran's attempt to evade saying chance 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 nations 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 attending intended effects and end up affecting you know the everyday citizens any of rock and i had read today that they're affecting food prices food prices there in iran are skyrocketing because of these sanctions can 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 it also is the iranian government the government's mismanagement of the economy they've done a pretty good job of making these sanctions have as big an impact it's 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 just imagine that we did a story not too long ago about apple refusing to say. i pads and other devices to iranian americans sell those those those sanctions are reaching an american. 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 iraq 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 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 and 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 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 sanctions or possible military action we're really talking about pushing iran decision makers into making this decision that we don't want them to make which. to actually develop a nuclear weapon and saying it's provoking them to go i had and develop that nuclear program it's really it's creating it's it's almost guaranteeing that which

we hope to present prevent which is iran developing a nuclear weapon there's still time we can still use diplomacy but the more we escalate the more the decision makers in iran are pushed to actually pursue this this path of weaponization and it's extremely dangerous and we've got to find a way to switch switch paths so a new saying that sanctions sanctions when it comes to iran they just keep coming i mean how can we expect iran to react to this increased pressure well i think unfortunately you know iran is not well equipped to deescalate the situation in iran when they are saying or if there is an assassination inside of iran or if there is a. virus that put into iran's computers the stuxnet virus things like this iran responds in kind that's actually that's a decision that they made a while ago that instead of seeking compromise if they were provoked they're going

to provoke back and so already we see that they don't have a lot of options to respond other than these extremely dangerous. provocative military maneuvers or threats to the mind the strait of hormuz through which a lot of the world's energy supplies move through or they've even threatened to you know increase the level at which they enrich uranium to closer to a weapons grade getting them closer to the threshold and they're using the excuse we're going to build these nuclear powered submarines or nuclear powered ships these are all actions that are derived from from us actions and actions of you know the israelis who are also conducting these you know bombings inside of iran and then the other thing that iran has done and you know we don't have the facts the evidence yet but there seems to be. there was an attack in bulgaria today the israelis are point the finger ready to go on i frankly wouldn't be surprised if

you're wrong was behind those attacks and this is a tit for tat the minute we find a way to deescalate then we can actually start to prevent iran from taking these actions but as long as we continue down this road they're going to continue to do the exact same thing that we're doing against the right a lot of elements at play here jamal thank you so much for coming to the studio three a that that was jamal of the he's the policy director of 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 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 ruining crops now and speculators say this could drive food prices through the roof the while the media outlets and food experts focus on the side effects of this drought there is a bigger threat to our food supply it looks like the controversial agricultural

giant monsanto could be above the law the monsanto rider as it's called was snuck into the twenty thirteen agriculture outgrow cultural appropriations bill and what it does 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 monsanto a new and from federal law and give them a free pass to spread their seeds now the bill is is up for a vote likely to be up for a vote any day now in congress so what are the implications if it passes to discuss what's behind the monsanto writer and more i was joined by ronnie cummins 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 and 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 kitchen zen school cafeterias now already there is at least the one lawmaker speaking out against that monsanto rider as it's called again as i presented it peter de fazio out men who have 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 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. anger cultural 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 bio diversity because 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 they've agricultural corporations have and congress i mean with that in mind that being the case is that likely about there's going to be enough back on you now to representative peter de fazio amendment. well the the probably the best thing we have going for us is not only that hundreds of thousands of people are contacting their elected representatives and telling them don't passes monsanto rider 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 soar you out now already let's talk about the implications if this bill were to pass at best provisioned baby a month on our right our i mean what would that 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 farmland 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 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 want to 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 was running home and executive director of the organic consumers association that's going to do for now but if you missed part of this or any of the show from today you are in luck of our interviews on line and fall just go to our youtube channel if you tube dot com slash our team america and watch them as many times as your heart desires you can also check out our web site that address is our dot com slash u.s.a. and while you're there don't forget to leave us our comments feedback and story suggestions and to find out what i'm doing you can also follow my twitter at let's have a great night. r t is the state run english speaking russian channel it's kind of like al-jazeera.