Here’s the real reason Comirnaty is not available
It’s all about liability. It will magically become available when the vaccine for children is fully approved, not before.
By Steve Kirsch | November 3, 2021
The reason Comirnaty isn’t available is because those shots would expose the company to liability since the fully-licensed product doesn’t have the liability waiver of the EUA product.
But once the Pfizer vaccine is fully approved in kids, then Pfizer gets liability waiver on all age groups due to a “feature” in federal law for child vaccines (NCVIA). At that time, they are done. They can market the COVID vaccine products under full approval for all age groups and face no liability when it kills or disables you.
This is why they are focused on the kids. This is why there is a reformulation at a 1/3 dose and they changed the buffer and the storage conditions (low temperatures not required). All of these will weaken the protection, but result in a safer vaccine (since it is ineffective).
But for the clinical trials on the 5-11 year olds, they did not use the formulation they approved in the meeting. This is known as bait and switch. So they used a more effective vaccine to show efficacy (in the trials they completed), then they get the FDA to approve the drug but with a change in formulation, then the product with the new buffer will go out to the public with the lower efficacy, but better safety. This is because they don’t want to jeopardize any adverse events happening until they are fully approved. So they basically use formula 1 for safety, get approval for formula 2 (safer, less effective), then roll out formula 2 under EUA.
They also arrange with the FDA and CDC to make sure no early treatment drugs get approved or recommended. This is why there is no movement on fluvoxamine, ivermectin, etc. since that would blow the EUA. Fluvoxamine is the best drug ever for COVID with a mortality reduction of 12X when taken early. It’s the best drug to date for COVID, but the CDC and NIH are deliberately burying it until the vaccines are fully approved. Then they’ll say, “ok, we have all the data.”
So at the end, Pfizer gets a fully approved vaccine with full liability protection. At that time, then the NIH can recognize other treatments.
This is how it is wired to go. Let’s be honest about it.
This is why nobody wants to debate our team about what is going on.
Cops probe school board head over eerie ‘dossier’ on parents
RT | November 14, 2021
Scottsdale, Arizona Police are investigating a school board president after he was found to have access to a digital dossier which included social security numbers and divorce records of parents who held opposing views.
Jann-Michael Greenburg, the president of the Scottsdale Unified School District board, made headlines this week after he was allegedly found to have access to an eerie dossier on school parents who had criticized the board and protested mask mandates.
Social security numbers, divorce records, financial data, Facebook comments, and photos of children were just some of the items allegedly contained in the dossier, which appeared to target parents who opposed mask mandates and Critical Race Theory (CRT) being taught in schools.
On Saturday, the Scottsdale Police Department said it was “aware of the allegations” against Greenburg and is investigating.
“We are conducting an investigation into the matter and will report our findings once it is complete.”
The dossier – which was allegedly created by Greenburg’s father, Mark Greenburg – was uncovered after the school board president accidentally shared a Google Drive link with a mother who he accused of being “anti-Semitic,” after she criticized left-wing billionaire George Soros.
Though the dossier has since been pulled offline, it reportedly contained files on several parents and referred to them as “wackos,” “psychos,” and “anti-mask lunatics.”
On Wednesday, the Scottsdale Unified School District wrote a letter to parents distancing itself from the dossier, which it dismissed as “unrelated” to the district’s work.
Though the district cited Greenburg’s father as the creator of the dossier, Greenburg himself allegedly had editing access, and one of the parents, Amanda Wray, noted that he “had the drive open on his computer” in a screenshot that he emailed.
Greenburg’s social media accounts and website were taken down amid the controversy.
NIH Conflicted Internally Over Vaccine Mandates
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 14, 2021
Preliminary talk leading up to a live-streamed roundtable the National Institutes of Health has planned for December 1, 2021, indicates that the science isn’t settled within the agency itself when it comes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
According to The Wall Street Journal, a request for an ethics review by one of the NIH senior infectious disease researchers triggered the scheduling of four seminars on the issue, beginning with the December one.
“There’s a lot of debate within the NIH about whether [a vaccine mandate] is appropriate,” David Wendler, the senior NIH bioethicist who is in charge of planning the session, told The Wall Street Journal. “It’s an important, hot topic.”
One specialist who plans to argue against mandates is Dr. Matthew Memoli, who works with clinical studies in the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Memoli is not vaccinated for COVID-19. Memoli said his children have received their regular childhood vaccines — he simply thinks “the way we are using the [COVID] vaccines is wrong” and that the COVID-19 vaccine mandates are “extraordinarily problematic.”
His views are concerning for people like Timothy Schacker, vice dean for research and infectious-disease physician at the University of Minnesota Medical School. Schacker believes that bypassing the vaccine and trusting natural infection to be enough to prevent a COVID case is “a terrible idea.”
Coincidentally, the person who signed off for the seminar is Christine Grady, wife of the NIAID’s director, Dr. Anthony Fauci. Wendler reports to her.
How much does vaccine efficacy drop over 6 months? The VA and CDC duke it out
Whose data are better? Whose study was peer-reviewed? Who got published in Science magazine?
By Meryl Nass, MD | November 13, 2021
CDC is always finding ways to massage their data or use estimates instead of real numbers to “prove” the veracity of whatever narrative it is currently pushing. But I think CDC did not reckon with the VA system fighting back with the truth.
Here is the conclusion of CDC’s study of (selected) VA data regarding COVID vaccine efficacy over six months:
During February 1–August 6, 2021, vaccine effectiveness among U.S. veterans hospitalized at five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers was 87%. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines remain highly effective, including during periods of widespread circulation of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. Vaccine effectiveness in preventing COVID-19–related hospitalization was 80% among adults aged ≥65 years compared with 95% among adults aged 18–64 years.
VA scientists pushed ahead and studied the entire VA database of 780,000 vaccinated beneficiaries from February to October, and published it in the US’ premier science journal, Science.
Their conclusions, drawn with only a few more weeks of data than CDC had, but using a more complete dataset that had not been cherrypicked, were shockingly different than what CDC’s braintrust had reported.
Here is how the VA authors characterized CDC’s overall COVID data collection:
The debate over boosters in the U.S. (24) has laid bare the limitations of its public health infrastructure: national data on vaccine breakthrough are inadequate. The CDC transitioned in May 2021 from monitoring all breakthrough infections to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause, including causes not related to COVID-19 (25). Some data on vaccinations, infections, and deaths are collected through a patchwork of local health departments (10), but these data are frequently out of date and difficult to aggregate at the national level. Here, we address this gap and examine SARS-CoV-2 infection and deaths by vaccination status in 780,225 Veterans during the period February 1, 2021 to October 1, 2021, encompassing the emergence and dominance of the Delta variant in the U.S.
And their results?
“26,114 positive PCR tests occurred in 498,148 fully vaccinated Veterans–over 5% of vaccinated veterans got COVID despite their vaccinations.”
There are probably considerably more than 5% of vaccinated veterans who came down with COVID: those who chose to be tested closer to home than in a VA facility were not included.
In March, VE-I (vaccine efficacy against infection) was 86.4% for Janssen; 89.2% for Moderna; and 86.9% for Pfizer-BioNTech.
But six months later…
By September, VE-I had declined to 13.1% for Janssen; 58.0% for Moderna; and 43.3% for Pfizer-BioNTech.
This is consistent with Israel’s report in August that Pfizer vaccine efficacy had dropped to 39%. Israel vaccinated its population more speedily than the US and all other countries.
The VA found that protection against death was better than protection against infection, but also waned over time. And the VA authors then cited ten other studies who data were consistent with what the VA found:
Other U.S. studies (29–31), many conducted in large healthcare systems, similarly show declining VE-I as the Delta variant rose to dominance, with notable declines in older adults. For example, two studies conducted in Kaiser Permanente Southern California show VE-I decreased from 95% at 14-60 days to 79% at 151-180 days after vaccination for ages 18-64 years (29), and from 80% at 1 month to 43% at 5 months after vaccination for ages ≥65 years (31). Declines in protection against infection with Delta have been observed in Israel (16), the UK (20, 21), and Qatar (32, 33)…
It is not yet known whether breakthrough infections increase risk of long COVID (otherwise known as post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 or PASC), a constellation of debilitating and lingering symptoms following infection.
It seems we ought to know whether the vaccinated COVID patients are at higher risk, lower risk or the same risk of long COVID by now. But CDC isn’t telling.
It is remarkable that the VA was allowed to publish these honest data. Perhaps all those vaccine mandates for federal employees had something to do with it?
CDC Redefined Vaccine to Support Deficient Fake Vaccines Sold by Drug Companies
By Joel S. Hirschhorn | November 14, 2021
The CDC once was a federal agency that nearly everyone respected. That no longer is the case. Now there are many reasons why the CDC should be widely disrespected. Its latest debacle is how it changed the definition of vaccine.
Just imagine this: The entire push for COVID “vaccines” was based on a lie – they did not meet the official CDC definition of a vaccine. By doing this, the government could coerce the entire population to get the shot. Calling them “vaccines” was the biggest lie from Fauci and the key to drug companies making many billions of dollars.
Why would the government’s key public health agency change the definition of what a vaccine is in the midst of a pandemic? After millions of Americans have taken the shot? And millions more are being beaten into taking it for the first time and others to get booster shots.
Words matter
Here is the key point. It became widely recognized by medical experts and informed citizens that COVID vaccines clearly did not fit the official CDC vaccine definition. The CDC thought the answer was not to fix what was deficient with the COVID vaccines or stop their use by most people as so many medical experts advised. Their response was to change the vaccine definition to fit the so-called vaccines.
This was done so that vaccine mandates could keep getting pushed by the government. Of course, the COVID “vaccines” should be referred to as gene therapy products, even better than calling them experimental vaccines.
To see how corrupt this action by the CDC was, it is necessary to examine the details of the vaccine definition debacle.
Prior to September 1, 2021 here is how CDC defined vaccine:
A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
This definition had been used for years and it makes sense. No expert or sensible citizen would find fault with it. But did it honestly apply to the COVID vaccines?
Then this is what the CDC concocted:
A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Here is what the CDC also said:
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
Think about that last sentence: You can be exposed to COVID without being infected; but we know that is not true for fully vaccinated people who still get infected.
This is the key language in the original definition:
“stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
How rational to invoke the purpose of a vaccine to stimulate an immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease that protects the recipient from that disease. Exactly what everyone for years thought was the correct way to think about a vaccine. People want permanent protection from the COVID infection disease.
But now the CDC has taken out the language referring to getting immunity for a specific disease and getting protection from that disease.
Now, COVID vaccines do not have to directly produce immunity. No, now they only have to stimulate the body’s immune system.
You don’t get immunity because COVID vaccines do not directly produce immunity. They do not directly kill the COVID virus. Vaccinated people can still have high viral loads and also transmit the virus to others. While some individuals may get some health benefits from COVID shots, they do not necessarily protect the entire population. This is why mandates to get everyone the shots really do not make sense from a public health perspective, that Dr. Paul Alexander has well substantiated.
Apparently, the only logical way to understand what the CDC has done is to accept the truth belatedly seen by the CDC that COVID vaccines do not, in fact, produce effective immunity for COVID infection and do not provide effective protection, once vaccinated, from that infection.
Much of the public surely does not yet know what the CDC has acknowledged for the COVID vaccines. Odds are that everyone who depends on mainstream media for good information about the pandemic has not been informed about what the CDC has done and its implications.
The new vaccine definition, if publicly known, would reduce public confidence in current COVID vaccines. You don’t have to be a medical expert to see how the new definition has been created to accommodate COVID shots.
In fact, these definition changes reflect what is now known about the limitations of the COVID vaccines.
Fully vaccinated people can still get COVID disease, referred to as breakthrough infections that, contrary to what the government says, can be very serious, often requiring hospitalization and sometimes causing death, as was the case for Colin Powell. Such serious effects have been well discussed by Dr. Günter Kampf. Other times, breakthrough infections greatly disrupt lives, as recently described by Madrigal, a strong proponent of COVID shots.
Moreover, the COVID vaccines are now widely known from considerable clinical evidence to lose their effectiveness typically in about six months. And even worse, they do not provide hardly any protection against variants like the delta variant. Same disease but from a different virus in terms of its complex genetic makeup. So, befitting the new CDC definition the COVID shots really do not have long lasting effective immunity to the specific COVID infection caused by all variants.
Elsewhere on the CDC website is a glossary of many terms; here is what is especially relevant to the debate about COVID vaccines:
Attenuated vaccine: A vaccine in which a live microbe is weakened (attenuated) through chemical or physical processes in order to produce an immune response without causing the severe effects of the disease. Attenuated vaccines currently licensed in the United States include measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, rotavirus, yellow fever, smallpox, and some formulations of influenza, and typhoid vaccines.
Most people would read this and find that it fits with what they think of as vaccines that have been routinely taken by most people, especially children. Clearly, COVID vaccines do not fit this definition. But seeing this established view of vaccines helps explain why so many people resist and reject the COVID shots. They are so fundamentally different than long accepted and used vaccines.
Natural immunity
One of the biggest pandemic scandals is that the government refuses to give full credit to natural immunity that people get from once being infected by the COVID virus. It should be officially recognized as equivalent to “vaccine” immunity.
The following CDC glossary definition is especially relevant:
Active immunity: The production of antibodies against a specific disease by the immune system. Active immunity can be acquired in two ways, either by contracting the disease or through vaccination. Active immunity is usually permanent, meaning an individual is protected from the disease for the duration of their lives.
This CDC definition of active immunity recognizes that you can get it by contracting the disease versus through vaccination. In other words, it recognizes what today is commonly called natural immunity achieved by once being infected by the COVID virus. And that such immunity is likely permanent and better than vaccine immunity, as recent clinical studies substantiate. But it also infers that active immunity obtained through vaccination is also permanent, which clearly is not the case for COVID shots, as evidenced by breakthrough infections.
Also note that it has recently been revealed that the CDC has not been able to provide any proof of at least one instance of an unvaccinated, naturally immune individual transmitting the COVID-19 virus to another individual.
And a new study found that almost 60 percent of the people with antibodies had no idea they had even had COVID at all. But they would have natural immunity. Quite consistent with the reality that most people suffer no significant health impacts from being infected with the COVID virus, regardless of all the fear mongering by Fauci and others.
Conclusions
To sum up, a close look at what the CDC has done lately reinforces the thinking of millions of people who have reservations and concerns about getting COVID genetic therapy shots that pose myriad adverse impacts and sometimes death.
There is a rational, science basis for thinking that the limited benefits of those shots do not adequately offset their risks. This is true for the vast majority of healthy people, especially children, who have extremely low risk from COVID infection for serious illness, hospitalization or death.
Mandates that do not recognize natural immunity are merely a sham tactic to make money for drug companies.
How interesting it would be, in the context of informed consent, if people were shown the original and new CDC vaccine definitions as a means to stimulate productive discussion with medical providers of COVID shots.
Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles, podcasts and radio shows on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.
Biden Regime War on Humanity with Mass Destruction in Mind

By Stephen Lendman | November 14, 2021
If only what’s ongoing would end on awakening from a bad dream.
Horrors unleashed by Biden regime and complicit dark forces are horrifyingly real.
There’s no end of them in prospect without a second US revolution to accomplish what the first one failed to address when everything changed but stayed the same under new management.
If genocidist Bill Gates had dictatorial powers he likely craves, refuseniks unwilling to self-inflict harm through kill shots — and oppose masks that don’t protect and risk respiratory harm — would be criminalized.
Calling for punishing them, he wants truth and full disclosure about all things flu/covid banned by digital censorship, along with medical surveillance, simulated bioterrorism attacks he likely wants rehearsed ahead of launching the real things for greater mass-extermination than already.
Separately, the American Medical Association (AMA) promoter of medical tyranny in support of mandatory kill shots filed an amicus brief on Thursday with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the draconian Biden regime mandate from hell.
The brief falsely called seasonal flu — deceptively called covid — a major public health threat, a bald-faced Big Lie.
It backs mandatory kill shots for everyone.
It lied claiming they’ll contain infections and transmission of the viral illness.
It lied saying kill shots will protect the jabbed and unjabbed alike.
It lied claiming they’re essential to protect US workers.
It lied saying they’re safe and effective.
It lied claiming that the vast majority of individuals with flu/covid are unjabbed.
The amicus brief was infested with beginning to end bald-faced Big Lies by an agency hostile to its stated mission of protecting health.
Along with US/Western dark forces, their anti-public health handmaidens, Pharma profiteer-pushers of toxic kill shots and MSM co-conspirators, the AMA is a mortal enemy of protecting and preserving what’s too precious to lose.
It supports policies intended to destroy health with unparalleled genocide in mind.
Flu/covid is easily treated and cured.
Yet the AMA opposes known safe and effective protocols for protection against contraction of flu/covid, along with obliterating outbreaks when occur in a few days.
When taken as directed, jabs irreversibly harm health.
The AMA supports kill shots with that objective in mind.
The pandemic it cited doesn’t exist — except for jabbed individuals.
It wants the health of young kids destroyed by mandatory kill shots.
It also wants US public health wrecked by mandating them for all doctors, nurses and other healthcare staff.
Numerous young/highly conditioned professional athletes in the US/West and elsewhere either collapsed and died from kill shots or became seriously ill and disabled.
Despite numbers continuing to rise, US/Western MSM suppressed what should be headline news.
Most athletes who perished or became seriously ill were diagnosed with heart-related issues.
What’s been unheard of in athletes and other young people pre-2020 is now at epidemic levels worldwide.
Numbers of young kids likely to die or fall seriously ill when mass-jabbing is fully underway should chill parents and others to denounce the practice.
Kill shots are designed to cause maximum destruction of public health.
Shunning them is crucial to protecting it.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING – Dr. Scot Youngblood defends the science
Dr. Scot Youngblood spoke to the San Diego county Board of Supervisors on November 2, using the CDC and Pfizer data to show the vaccine provides no net benefit.
YouTube suspends senator over Covid-19 vaccine video
RT | November 13, 2021
Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson was temporarily suspended from YouTube for allegedly spreading “harmful misinformation” after he published a video discussing injuries related to Covid-19 vaccination.
Johnson accused YouTube of “censoring the truth” on Friday evening after his roundtable discussion video, which featured “stories from doctors, scientists and the vaccine injured,” was taken off the platform and led to his temporary suspension.
In the video, the Republican senator listed statistics relating to alleged vaccine side-effect victims, while his guests made comments questioning the effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines in preventing death.
“Why won’t they let the vaccine injured tell their stories and medical experts give a second opinion?” Johnson questioned in a statement. “Why can’t we discuss the harmful effects of mandates?
“Apparently, the Biden administration and federal health agencies must not be questioned,” he said.
In its own statement, YouTube cited policies on reducing “the risk of real-world harm” and “preventing the spread of harmful misinformation” as the reason behind Johnson’s suspension.
It is the second time that the senator has been suspended by the platform, and his account could be permanently removed if he receives further sanctions within the next 90 days.
Since May 2020, YouTube has enforced a lengthy ‘Covid-19 medical misinformation policy’, which prohibits users from questioning the effectiveness of vaccines or claiming that they can “cause death, infertility, miscarriage, autism, or contraction of other infectious diseases.”
In August, YouTube temporarily suspended Kentucky Senator Rand Paul for questioning the effectiveness of face masks, while in the same month, Sky News Australia was suspended for allegedly violating Covid-19 rules.
In January, YouTube even suspended the sitting president of the United States after it accused Donald Trump of violating policies which prohibit the incitement of violence.
Bashar Assad getting accepted by Arab leaders. US and Israel losing their chance
By Robert Inlakesh | RT | November 12, 2021
In a significant move towards normalising Syria’s government, UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed visited Damascus to discuss strengthening the ties between the two nations, sparking outrage from the US and Israel.
A surprise visit to the Syrian capital on Tuesday by Abu Dhabi’s foreign minister sparked condemnation from the United States, which seeks to encourage its Arab State allies to steer clear of President Assad. According to State Department spokesperson Ned Price, the US urges “states in the region to carefully consider the atrocities that this regime, that Bashar al-Assad himself has perpetrated on the Syrian people over the last decade, as well as the regime’s ongoing efforts to deny much of the country access to humanitarian aid and security.” That seems to have fallen on deaf ears over in Abu Dhabi.
However, despite the Biden administration having voiced its opposition to Assad’s government, behind the scenes, it may actually be working to create a temporary amendment to its 2019 “Caesar Act” sanctions, the mechanism it is speculated the US may implement to protect the likes of neighbouring Jordan. This would involve Amman liaising with the Syrian government to allow Egypt to send oil through to struggling Lebanon. Back in September, Jordanian, Egyptian and Lebanese representatives even met to discuss the logistics of managing such a transfer of oil, so as to provide Lebanon with the means to generate electricity.
Publicly, it seems the UAE – which reopened its embassy in Damascus three years ago – is leading the push to have Syria reinstated into the Arab League and enhance cooperation between the two. But, for Abu Dhabi, the so-called ‘brotherly’ nature of their relationship comes with strings attached. From an Emirati perspective, the relationship between the Syrian government and the UAE is threefold: first, Abu Dhabi sees Syria as a potential partner in the fight against the Muslim Brotherhood; second, it sees an opportunity to work towards facilitating the cooperation between Egypt and Jordan on the potential oil transfer to Lebanon; and last, it seeks to bring Syria closer to the Arab reactionary regimes and distance it from Iran. Both Egypt and Jordan have also taken strides to normalise relations with Damascus: in October, Jordan’s King Abdullah II participated in a phone call with President Assad and, on Tuesday, Egypt’s foreign minister made it clear he was open to the idea of Syria re-entering the Arab League.
Prior to the war in 2011, the Syrian government had embraced neo-liberal economics, but in terms of its foreign policy, it has always maintained a nationalist agenda. When the war in Syria began, the UAE jumped on the bandwagon of conspiring against Assad and financed armed groups to overthrow him. In and of itself, this makes it clear that Abu Dhabi is not acting in the interests of regular Syrians. It is easy to foresee the Syrian government developing its relationship with the UAE in order to strengthen its position in the region and secure investments to rebuild its war-torn nation in the future.
From a realist point of view, however, the decision-makers in the Emirates see that Assad is not going anywhere. They are seeking to combat Islamist forces regionally, so why not try to influence a nationalist nation while working alongside it to weaken the Muslim Brotherhood and erase Iran’s footprint in the country?
Given Turkey may imminently open up another offensive into northeastern Syria to combat the Kurds in areas controlled by the US and Kurdish SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces), the Emirati foreign minister may well have wished to discuss this issue during his visit to Damascus. Turkey, which currently controls two pockets in Syria’s north through its Syrian National Army mercenary militia, is aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. To the UAE, Turkey and Qatar are its biggest regional rivals.
But Washington, which is surely well aware of the policy positions its Middle Eastern allies are taking on Syria, continues to not only economically restrain Damascus, but also occupies roughly a third of Syrian territory with its proxy forces. The US currently presides over 90% of that nation’s oil resources and is even looting its most fertile agricultural lands, which those Syrians who are suffering under an economic crisis are unable to access. The US not only blocks progress and has extirpated attempts to rebuild the country, but adopts a militaristic approach and views itself as maintaining the right to remain there, despite not having acquired any congressional approval to be operating in Syria.
The main role of the US occupation of Syrian lands, through its Kurdish proxy forces in northeastern Syria and its mercenary forces in the al-Tanf region of south Syria, is to combat Tehran. Until significant Iranian influence is cleared out of the land, they will not leave of their own free will.
Then we have Israel, which will also not leave the Syrian lands it illegally occupies unless it is forced out in a war between the two nations. In tandem with Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorists who have crawled out from their caves and suddenly received anti-tank munitions and a spike in their numbers, Israel has picked up its attacks against Syria. In fact, it has carried out at least five in Syria over the past month, killing soldiers and assassinating an ex-member of parliament. Israel is also seeking to quadruple its settler population in the Golan Heights, with Israeli PM Naftali Bennett having announced new construction plans just last month. It’s clear that Israel is seeking to provoke a reaction from Damascus and test how far it can cross the line before drawing defensive fire.
Instead of the Syrian Arab Army responding to US and Israeli aggression, independent groups that align with Iran have been at the forefront of combating Tel Aviv and Washington. The reality is that Syria is so embroiled in this hostile situation between different foreign powers attempting to extract different things from it that it is difficult to tell where the government is currently headed, and whether it will continue to follow a nationalist path or eventually adopt a more business-minded rather than ideologically driven approach. Ultimately, it seems the UAE will play a limited role in Syria for now, but only time will tell who gets the better of the other in this ever-expanding relationship.
Robert Inlakesh is a political analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker currently based in London, UK. He has reported from and lived in the occupied Palestinian territories and currently works with Quds News and Press TV. Director of ‘Steal of the Century: Trump’s Palestine-Israel Catastrophe’.
