1
   

Reform and revolution in Iran

 
 
nimh
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 03:38 pm
I don't think there's a topic yet that is about political developments in Iran, in general ... I've only seen threads on the earthquake in Bam and the US assistance there, and on suspicions of Iranian WMD.

Yet momentous change has been going on there in recent years, and right now, developments seem to be quickly heading for make-or-break time.

Time to bring the discussion out from the Roundtable onto the general boards. ->

nimh wrote:
Looks like its getting to be crunch time in Iran ...

First, the Council of Guardians, the clerical body whose authority supercedes that of the elected Parliament, has 3,500 candidates struck of the election lists for February. These include many current members of parliament, and almost all the radical reformers among them.

Parliamentarians are up in arms, but President Khatami asks them for patience while he negotiates with the Council and its superior, Ayatollah Khamenei.

Negotiations, however, break down at the point where the Council approves 1,100 candidates, after all, most of them lesser known people, while 2,400 candidates remain barred. Among them over 80 of the current members of parliament, in which the reformers now have 190 out of 290 seats.

Last Saturday, 117 of those reformist MPs handed in their resignation to the Parliament's Chair, Mehdi Karroubi, in a public display of protest.

What strikes me most is the language they used. These are not exact quotes, since I'm retranslating them from Dutch into English. But you've got to wonder at how brave they are:

Mehdi Karroubi himself, lambasted the Council of Guardians for "having no respect for democratic values and no confidence in the voice of the people", and ensued to openly question their piety: "Is one loyal to Islam if one prays every day, but tramples on the rights of the people?" He said even that the conservatives are aiming to establish "an Islam comparable to that of the Taliban".

The reformist Minister of Domestic Affairs said that there was now "no chance for free elections".

Mohammed Reza Khatami, the younger brother of the President said that "the Council of Guardians has killed off all possibilities. There is no hope for a solution. We will not take part in these fake elections. Even if all those who have been rejected are approved after all today, there will be no time for a campaign. Elections on February 20 are unlawful and under the current structures of power that means the end of the reform movement."

MRK's party, the Islamic Iranian Participation Front, today announced it will boycott the elections.

President Khatami declared that he is considering suspending the elections because they would be undemocratic, though he failed to appear at an emergency session of his cabinet because he suffered from "back ache".

What will happen next? Will it be the endgame, finally?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,242 • Replies: 37
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 09:33 pm
nimh, Here's my .02c worth on the topic. The old guard will continue to control the politics of Iran. The rumblings by the reformers will have very little influence on the politics for democracy unitl the old guard dies away. They still control Iran by tyrany, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 05:33 am
Very interesting - here is The Economist's view:

TWENTY-FIVE years ago this week, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran from exile to lead the Islamic revolution that threw out the country?s pro-American monarchy and created the modern world?s first theocratic state. Iran?s celebrations of the anniversary have been overshadowed by a power struggle between religious conservatives and pro-democracy reformers. This struggle could lead to Iran?s elected but largely impotent president and parliament finally wresting themselves from the clerics? iron grip. Or it could end in the religious conservatives sweeping aside Iran?s pretence at democracy and reasserting full control over the state.

On Monday February 2nd, Iran?s largest pro-reform party, the Participation Front, said it would boycott parliamentary elections, due on February 20th. This is in protest at the disbarring of thousands of reformist candidates by the Council of Guardians?a hardline group of clerics and Islamic jurists which has the power to overrule the parliament. The boycott was announced a day after around a third of the reformist-dominated parliament resigned. In a stormy session, parliamentarians?many of whom have been staging a sit-in for the past three weeks?denounced the theocracy?s attempt to nobble the elections. ?They want to cover the ugly body of dictatorship with the beautiful dress of democracy,? said one.

Khomeini?s successor as supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had asked the Guardians to reconsider the bans, but on Friday they announced that only a third of the disqualified candidates would have their bans lifted. This leaves more than 2,000 reformist candidates still disallowed, including 87 serving parliamentarians?among them the brother of Iran?s pro-reform president, Mohammad Khatami. On Saturday, the president?s officials called again for the elections to be postponed, despite the Guardians? rejection of an earlier request for a delay. President Khatami and his ministers have threatened to resign over the bans, though it is not clear whether they are prepared to carry this out: around 18 months ago, the president threatened to resign in a dispute with the Guardians but failed to do so when they refused to back down.

The power struggle has raged on since President Khatami was first elected in 1997. Though virtually all his efforts at liberalisation were thwarted, he was re-elected in 2001. Fellow reformers swept to victory in other polls, but they suffered similar rebuffs at the hands of the clerics. The parliament has passed some remarkably enlightened laws in recent years: to liberalise the press; to sign United Nations conventions outlawing torture and sex discrimination; to expand trial by jury; and to stop the police from storming the universities, which are a main base for pro-reform movements. But the Council of Guardians has spiked every one.

Nevertheless, it would be unfair to say that the liberalisers have achieved nothing. Since Mr Khatami?s election, Tehran has become a more humane, even permissive, place. Seven years ago, anyone taking a drive with a member of the opposite sex, or wearing make-up, was punished by jail or a lashing. These activities are still crimes, but the authorities turn a blind eye. On Mr Khatami's watch, Iran's human-rights record has become a bit less appalling.

The last time Iranians had a chance to vote, in local-council elections a year ago, they expressed their frustration at the continuing impasse by largely staying at home. But the low turnouts (only 10-15% in some cities) favoured the religious conservatives. Voter apathy would probably have handed them victory again in this month?s parliamentary elections, but it seems that the Guardians did not want to risk failure. Next year, when President Khatami?s mandate ends, the conservatives hope to replace him with one of their own. The Council of Guardians is expected to try to ensure this by, once again, banning reformist candidates.

In the meantime, having hitherto stymied the Khatami government?s attempts at a reconciliation with America, the conservatives now seem interested in striking a deal with the ?Great Satan?. It was Hassan Rohani?a leading hardliner close to Ayatollah Khamenei?who led Iran?s recent negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency over confessing to its nuclear dabblings and accepting tougher inspections by the agency. Since concluding a deal last October, Mr Rohani has been respectfully received in Brussels and Moscow. His globetrotting at the supreme leader?s behest is making Mr Khatami?s government look ever more irrelevant. Indeed, Mr Rohani is beginning to look like the foreign minister-in-waiting of a future government of pragmatic conservatives.

How will the conflict end? Ordinary Iranians are exasperated at both the theocracy, for failing to increase prosperity and personal freedom, and at the reformists, for failing to deliver on their grand promises of change. Much will depend on the mood among students?a powerful force in a country where two-thirds of the population is under 30 and the minimum voting age is 15. So far, campus protests have been muted. But students at Tehran University are reported to be planning a protest on Wednesday.

Several outcomes are possible in the short term: the reformists? quiet capitulation to the conservatives? relentless pressure; or a student-led counter-revolution, which is either repressed harshly by the hardliners, or which succeeds in overthrowing the theocracy; or, indeed, Ayatollah Khamenei may, at the last minute, defuse the crisis by ordering the Council of Guardians to overturn the bans on reformist candidates. But whatever happens now, it will not banish altogether the prospect of Iran?s next revolution. The pressure for change should, sooner or later, prove irresistible.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 08:33 am
MY GUESS: Evenutally Iran will throw off the yoke of religion -- and come into the modern world...

...and the conservatives of America will claim it happened as the result of George Bush's policies.
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 09:10 am
dlowan, I was going to mention the Economist's view also.
It seems like the reformers are losing ground and support. Khatami has been a lamer duck than Vicente Fox. The promised reforms in both Iran and Mexico cannot come through their normal political processes.
It may be make-or-break time but it's leaning heavily towards break.
Viva La Revolution!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 02:51 pm
Hmmmm - it is hard to know, methinks - some revolutions are won by long, slow pressure. They seem to last longer.

Thing is, this goes for the conservatives, too...

Who holds the military? If the reformists do not - well....
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 03:48 pm
Heh, Frank, I'd bet you'll be right on both of those counts ...
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 04:07 pm
I'd bet on the conservatives at least for the short term (next 10 years). Reform is mostly an urban movement. The clerics control the rural areas, the oil money and the bogy man (Great Satan) is screwing up next door (Iraq). This can keep them in power, at least for a while.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 04:33 pm
What works against the conservatives tho is that Iranians are YOUNG. If you look at the population structure, the (im)balance is amazing. Half the population is under 30 or something (would have to look up the specifics). Forsure is that a large majority has no recollection of the "Islamic revolution". Thats why the "American Satan" trick isnt working much anymore.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 11:48 pm
Despite all of the upheaval in the higher political circles, I haven't seen any reports of mass displays of public disproval. No rioting, no huge demonstrations - nothing like what precipitated the revolution in 1979. Government control of the public remains intact. We have not hit "crunch time" just yet.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out though. It seems as if the Guardian Council is between a rock and a hard place. Will they sanction mass arrests of boycotting opposition politicians? Will they aquiesce to the opposition? Will they push ahead with half-assed elections anyway?

In any case, I doubt the opposition will be able to stir up enough support in the public for a revolution on the scale of 1979 - even if they wanted too, which they do not.

No matter what happens, I am sure Bush will exploit it to his advantage. If the situation does not improve, or deteriorates further, Bush will cite it as justification to take a hard line stance on Iran. If the opposition succeeds, Bush will claim it was predicated by his policies. Both assertions, of course, are retarded.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 08:42 am
nimh wrote:
What works against the conservatives tho is that Iranians are YOUNG. If you look at the population structure, the (im)balance is amazing. Half the population is under 30 or something (would have to look up the specifics).


Yes you are right! And do you know who gets credit for this imbalance?


Quote:
Forsure is that a large majority has no recollection of the "Islamic revolution". Thats why the "American Satan" trick isnt working much anymore.


Let's hope.

Unfortunately, the answer to my question up above has an element that may impact in the wrong direction on this part!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 03:49 pm
IronLionZion wrote:
Despite all of the upheaval in the higher political circles, I haven't seen any reports of mass displays of public disproval. No rioting, no huge demonstrations - nothing like what precipitated the revolution in 1979. Government control of the public remains intact. We have not hit "crunch time" just yet.


It could actually be that the "higher circles" of reformists have already long been overtaken by "the street". I mean, there's been many demonstrations and other "mass displays of public disproval", a few years ago. And people got beaten up for it, people got arrested. All that helped get all those reformists in power in the last elections, but what did they achieve?

In a way you cant blame them for their limited success because theyve been the victim of the legal structure, wherein their authority is superceded by the Council and Khatami's authority is superceded by Khamenei's. But I can imagine - and a spate of reports earlier this year noted the same - that the students and other impatient youngsters have already gotten disillusioned, and have already given up on those reformers.

I'm thinking again of the Soviet Union around, say, 1990, 1991 ... Perestrojka created much hope for a few years, but when the reformers under the wavering leadership of Gorbachev couldnt break through the stubborn hold of the conservatives, basically the reforms stagnated for a year or two - and people lost their faith in the reformers as well as the conservatives.

I mean, Gorbachev himself was down to 17% approval in the polls in early '91, and again and again he was reproached for either being too soft, or outright in league, with the orthodox communists. Could the same be happening to Khatami? He's been wavering the same way, expressing sympathy with the radicals but not daring to really defy or resist the conservatives - or who knows, perhaps simply still too steeped in loyalty to the system to be able to.

Gorbachevs failure to decisively deal with the conservatives in the end had him make way for the anti-politician, Yeltsin, who did away with the whole kaboozle in a way Gorbachev couldnt, didnt dare to or didnt want to - and was cheered on for it by `the street`. Apparently, ´the street´ already was much ´further´ than Gorbachevites were estimating. Could the same be true in Iran? Were Khatami´s reformers already locked in a rearguard fight? In that case - aside from all the risks - this new polarisation might actually allow them to ´catch up´.

Of course, as analogies go - Yeltsin only got his chance after the conservatives attempted their abortive coup d´etat ...

tho it might be interesting to note that one of the Iranian opposition politicians said that if the elections take place under these circumstances, it would be a coup d´etat.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 04:20 pm
nimh wrote:


It could actually be that the "higher circles" of reformists have already long been overtaken by "the street". I mean, there's been many demonstrations and other "mass displays of public disproval", a few years ago. And people got beaten up for it, people got arrested. All that helped get all those reformists in power in the last elections, but what did they achieve?

In a way you cant blame them for their limited success because theyve been the victim of the legal structure, wherein their authority is superceded by the Council and Khatami's authority is superceded by Khamenei's. But I can imagine - and a spate of reports earlier this year noted the same - that the students and other impatient youngsters have already gotten disillusioned, and have already given up on those reformers.

I'm thinking again of the Soviet Union around, say, 1990, 1991 ... Perestrojka created much hope for a few years, but when the reformers under the wavering leadership of Gorbachev couldnt break through the stubborn hold of the conservatives, basically the reforms stagnated for a year or two - and people lost their faith in the reformers as well as the conservatives.

I mean, Gorbachev himself was down to 17% approval in the polls in early '91, and again and again he was reproached for either being too soft, or outright in league, with the orthodox communists. Could the same be happening to Khatami? He's been wavering the same way, expressing sympathy with the radicals but not daring to really defy or resist the conservatives - or who knows, perhaps simply still too steeped in loyalty to the system to be able to.

Gorbachevs failure to decisively deal with the conservatives in the end had him make way for the anti-politician, Yeltsin, who did away with the whole kaboozle in a way Gorbachev couldnt, didnt dare to or didnt want to - and was cheered on for it by `the street`. Apparently, ´the street´ already was much ´further´ than Gorbachevites were estimating. Could the same be true in Iran? Were Khatami´s reformers already locked in a rearguard fight? In that case - aside from all the risks - this new polarisation might actually allow them to ´catch up´.

Of course, as analogies go - Yeltsin only got his chance after the conservatives attempted their abortive coup d´etat ...

tho it might be interesting to note that one of the Iranian opposition politicians said that if the elections take place under these circumstances, it would be a coup d´etat.


So, basically, you think that the lack of mass displays of public disproval is not that important. You contend that the younger generation of Iranians, who account for a majority of the population, are becoming disillusioned with both the reformers and the conservatives, and you think that this will result in an adroit shift towards reformism on an unprecedented scale.

I guess I could buy that basic premise, but I am uncertain as to exactly how that disillusionment would be able to instigate such a dramatic policy shift without there being some kind of street level revolution, akin to what we saw in 1979. As the situation stands right now, the public just doesn't seem poised for such a revolution.

The lack of public displays of support - for any cause whatsoever, whether ultra-reformist or conservative - seems very important to me. Even if you are right and both sides have lost the support of the public, how does that explain the lack of demonstrations? Don't you think, if the situation on the streets was approaching critical mass, that more people would want to express thier dissatisfaction?

Also, I am curious about your Russia/Iran analogy. I am afraid I don't know enough about the specifics of either political system. You pointed out that Gorbachevs lack of public support paved the way for the ultra-reformist Yeltsin. However, is the mechanism that allowed Yeltsin to take control present in Iran? Are you saying that Khatemi will cede power to a ultra-reformist al la Boris Yeltsin, who will have the power to stand up to Khamenei?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 06:24 am
IronLionZion wrote:
So, basically, you think that the lack of mass displays of public disproval is not that important.


Well, its important - all I said is that it does not need to equate with a lack of popular fervour for change, it can simply equate with a lack of perceived opportunity worth one's while. I think, in order to participate in a revolution, or even a plain old demonstration, you need to not only be strongly disagreeing with whatever's the status quo, but also to see an actual opportunity to change it - or to prevent some acute change for the worse. Demonstrations born out of pure hopelessness are rather rare - lack of perspective just leads to resignation. There needs to be a "hook".

Now, these last few years in Iran, every "hook" has led to big demonstrations, students' rallies, sitins and so on, including violent clampdowns. Well, you've read the reports I'm sure. Recently, too, it was shown that any occasion could lead to spontaneous, radical protests - see, for example, when Ebadi got the nobel prize - do read this stunning report (I translated it for A2K).

So, if this will go the way it looks like it could go - the elections take place without the 1,000 candidates, Khatami is too weak to postpone them, the excluded reformist parliamentarians and their parties call for a boycott (as Khatami's brother already did), the conservatives win the elections on a record-low turnout and take their seats as if nothing happened ... I'd say, look for some major public displays of disapproval ...

But, as far as the analogy with the Soviet Union goes, you are definitely right on one score, as I'd already pointed out. Gorbachev's wavering and ambiguous course the last two years of his reign had people tune out of his brand of system reform altogether. The change was drastic - just two, three years before, the public had been glued to the screen to see the Soviet parliament's newly honest seatings - by '90/'91, they didnt expect much from it anymore at all. Instead, they turned to the ultimate outsider, Yeltsin, who was building his own base in the parliament of the Russian Federation (then just one of 15 constituent republics of the USSR), and was calling for the dissolution of the entire system.

But - here's the rub in the analogy - Yeltsin in the end did only get his chance after the conservatives did their abortive coup attempt. Otherwise, the status quo might still have lasted a few more years, with half-hearted clampdowns on fringe republics' uprisings - who knows. So there was an "external" trigger for him to get his opportunity to rally the people (the Muscovites, anyway) and tear down the CPSU and the SU itself. Will the abortive elections become the trigger in Iran? Who knows ... it could be, considering the recent track record on protest, depending on how effective its clamped down on ...

It would beg one more question : does Iran have an authoratative radical leader outside national leadership circles, a Yeltsin, say, to Khatami's Gorbachev role? Does anyone know whether Khatami's radical younger brother has that kind of appeal/authority? Or anyone else?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 12:41 pm
Iran's President Criticizes Conservatives

Quote:
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- In a sharp attack against the vast powers of ruling conservatives, Iran's president on Wednesday called the restriction of political freedoms a ``threat to the nation'' that could be hard to contain. [..]

A major boycott -- urged by a wide-ranging coalition from activists to academics -- would likely return control of parliament to conservatives. The backlash, however, could lead to huge political rifts and greater street demonstrations calling for ruling clerics to relinquish some of their virtually unlimited controls.

Iran's largest reformist party, Islamic Iran Participation Front, has joined the boycott camp. The party is led by the president's younger brother, Mohammad Reza Khatami, who is deputy speaker of parliament and one of those barred from the election. [..]

In his speech, Khatami called for a ``third way'' avoiding Western-style models and a Taliban-like system led by ``those who don't consider the rights of the people ... and oppose freedom and democracy using religion.''

``Blocking the demands of the people and their right to vote ... causes frustration, especially among the young,'' he said.

The official election campaign period opens Thursday. Khatami has not made it clear whether he will support the boycott movement.

``For the prosperity of the nation, I don't know any path other than reforms,'' he said. ``Whether I succeed or not and whether obstacles keep preventing me from fulfilling my promises or not, I know no other path and won't choose a path other than reforms.''
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 12:49 pm
We'll need to keep a close eye on these developments, but my opinion about cleric control being relinquished any time soon is not realisitc when they control by tyrany. That's the same reason for China; the government controls by tyrany.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 01:09 pm
Well, there's some differences between the two countries, though ... at least there was, the last few years: a democratically elected parliament, for one. 'F course, thats the one achievement thats now under fire again.

On other scores there's plenty of differences, too, though: for example, in Iran, "dissident" newspapers keep cropping up and acquiring actual mass readership before eventually being closed down by the conservatives if they go one step too far - after which they are often simply re-published under a different name, etc. None of this is even remotely imaginible in China.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 01:51 pm
nimh, I'm not so sure there's too much difference between three-quarters tyrany and sixty-six percent tyrany. At least, China's move towards more capitalism brings with it more "freedoms" in certain ways, and a chance to improve one's life.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 02:08 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
nimh, I'm not so sure there's too much difference between three-quarters tyrany and sixty-six percent tyrany. At least, China's move towards more capitalism brings with it more "freedoms" in certain ways, and a chance to improve one's life.


You dont think theres a significant difference between having a democratically elected parliament, however limited its powers, and having only a fully-appointed one? Between having a range of different opinions voiced in semi-free media, and all media mouthing the exact same official positions? Between students being able to demonstrate and parliamentarians being able to protest with sit-ins, and anyone who comes out with a placard being arrested and sent to a camp? You're not serious, are you?

As for China's move towards "capitalism", I'd hazard a guess that Iran is no less capitalist than China ...

Mind you, I'm not "sticking up" for Iran here - but proportions are important, you know ...
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2004 04:43 pm
nimh wrote:
IronLionZion wrote:
So, basically, you think that the lack of mass displays of public disproval is not that important.


Well, its important - all I said is that it does not need to equate with a lack of popular fervour for change, it can simply equate with a lack of perceived opportunity worth one's while. I think, in order to participate in a revolution, or even a plain old demonstration, you need to not only be strongly disagreeing with whatever's the status quo, but also to see an actual opportunity to change it - or to prevent some acute change for the worse. Demonstrations born out of pure hopelessness are rather rare - lack of perspective just leads to resignation. There needs to be a "hook".

Now, these last few years in Iran, every "hook" has led to big demonstrations, students' rallies, sitins and so on, including violent clampdowns. Well, you've read the reports I'm sure. Recently, too, it was shown that any occasion could lead to spontaneous, radical protests - see, for example, when Ebadi got the nobel prize - do read this stunning report (I translated it for A2K).

So, if this will go the way it looks like it could go - the elections take place without the 1,000 candidates, Khatami is too weak to postpone them, the excluded reformist parliamentarians and their parties call for a boycott (as Khatami's brother already did), the conservatives win the elections on a record-low turnout and take their seats as if nothing happened ... I'd say, look for some major public displays of disapproval ...

But, as far as the analogy with the Soviet Union goes, you are definitely right on one score, as I'd already pointed out. Gorbachev's wavering and ambiguous course the last two years of his reign had people tune out of his brand of system reform altogether. The change was drastic - just two, three years before, the public had been glued to the screen to see the Soviet parliament's newly honest seatings - by '90/'91, they didnt expect much from it anymore at all. Instead, they turned to the ultimate outsider, Yeltsin, who was building his own base in the parliament of the Russian Federation (then just one of 15 constituent republics of the USSR), and was calling for the dissolution of the entire system.

But - here's the rub in the analogy - Yeltsin in the end did only get his chance after the conservatives did their abortive coup attempt. Otherwise, the status quo might still have lasted a few more years, with half-hearted clampdowns on fringe republics' uprisings - who knows. So there was an "external" trigger for him to get his opportunity to rally the people (the Muscovites, anyway) and tear down the CPSU and the SU itself. Will the abortive elections become the trigger in Iran? Who knows ... it could be, considering the recent track record on protest, depending on how effective its clamped down on ...

It would beg one more question : does Iran have an authoratative radical leader outside national leadership circles, a Yeltsin, say, to Khatami's Gorbachev role? Does anyone know whether Khatami's radical younger brother has that kind of appeal/authority? Or anyone else?


This makes alot of sense.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Reform and revolution in Iran
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2019 at 11:01:29