Sofia
 
Reply Sun 25 May, 2003 05:50 pm
Newsmakers talked openly on Sunday morning news shows about the US possibly working to destabilize Iran, due to Iran's purported support of al-Quaida. Is it necessary to move through the ME, attempting to 'clear out the nest' of terrorists...or should the US focus it's energies on the task at hand in Iraq? The balance of the MSNBC article.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 16,020 • Replies: 98
No top replies

 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2003 08:13 am
I believe it is time to stop this constant diplomacy<or what passes for diplomacy> via TV and the news media. Someone should put a muzzle on the mouths of our legislators and let those who are responsible for diplomacy function as they should. Their words only tend to exacerbate the problems not ameliorate them.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2003 10:18 am
It seems unlikely that Iran is directly connected to Al-Qaeda for a very simple reason: Iran is a Shiite country, and Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization encompassing Sunnites and Wahhabites. It is necessary to mention that Sunnites and Shiites like each other a bit less than Catholics and Protestants do in Ulster (massacres of Shiites performed by Saddam provide evidence for this). Al Qaeda and Iranian government compete for domination in the global Islamic movement, and they seem unlikely to be allies.
But this does not mean that Iran is not involved in sponsoring terror. But it does this through another channels: either by means of the Lebanese Hizballah, or directly employs its intelligence service (for example, Iranian spies were involved in explosion of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in early '90s).
Another point: after the Iraqi regime that posed potential threat to Iran disappeared, there is no justification for Iranian nuclear R&D. Israel has no inentions to attack Iran (these countries do not even have a common border, and abilities of IDF to move soldiers far away from its borders are much lower than these of the U.S./British Armies). No other neighboring country plans any aggression either. Therefore, Iranian works on nuclear armament pursue purely aggressive objectives, and Iran is to be forced into ceasing them permamnetly and forever (Iranian claims that they develop nuclear powerplants are ridiculous, this country possesses sufficient oil resources and does not need nuclear power to produce electricity).
It does not mean, however, that it is necessary to start a war against Iran right now. It would be better to start with the clandestine negotiations without any media coverage. U.S. can (and IMO, should) pose the following conditions for abstaining of any military action against Iran:
    .
  • Immediate and unconditional ceasing all the nuclear R&D without renewing these any time in future
  • Sufficient lowering of profile of Iranian involvement in the regional conflicts; immediate and unconditional breaking any ties with Iran-oriented terrorist organizations
  • Non-interference into Iraqi affairs; no support should be rendered to the Iraqi Shiite leaders in their attempts to establish the Islamic republic there.

The negotiations, I repeat, should be clandestine, to permit the Iranian leadership to commit everything the U.S. will demand without publicly losing their face; any Muslim regime would prefer to disappear as a result of the foreign intervention than to openly submit to demands of the "infidels".
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2003 01:30 pm
I agree with Au re: US legislators should muzzle public talk about destabilizing other govt's. We have enough loose cannons in our gov, IMO, ratcheting up the rhetoric.

Additionally, steissd's comments about behind the scenes diplomatic discussions seem sound to me.

I wonder what 'strong signals' Pat Roberts alluded to in the text of the article... Have we lifted the sanctions against Iran we put in place in the late seventies/early eighties? What leverage might we have besides veiled threats of military action?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
Well....are we destabilizing Iran?

MSNBC article.

Iranian protesters demand change one parliamentarian, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Reuters. "Our society now is like a room full of gas ready to ignite with a small spark."

The protest followed increasingly tough rhetoric aimed at Tehran from the United States, which accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons and sponsoring terrorism. U.S. hawks have called for actions aimed at destabilizing Tehran's clerical rulers.
But diplomats cautioned that Iran's student movement was fractured and disorganized and said the protests could quickly fizzle. "The usual response from the authorities is to crack down hard and that's normally enough to send all but the most die-hard protesters home," an Asian diplomat said.
Many in Iran have lost faith in moderate President Mohammad Khatami and his lack of progress in reforming the 24-year-old Islamic Republic in the face of strong opposition from conservatives in powerful positions.

"The slogans people chanted showed they don't believe in the system at all and they are challenging the whole system, including Khatami," the parliamentary deputy said.
"I heard the students had gathered from television," said Parvin, a 46-year-old housewife who gave only her first name. "I came here to send a message to (Secretary of State) Colin Powell that we want change."
Powell told CNN on Sunday that Washington was working to persuade Iranians to force change from within to make Iran what he called a less troublesome member of the world community.
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi dismissed the remarks. "Powell should know U.S. interference would boost resolve and solidarity among Iranians," newspapers Wednesday quoted Kharrazi as saying.

The rest of the article.
0 Replies
 
Crunch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
Quote:
"IT WOULD BE in the interest of the world, and most particularly of the Iranian people, to have a regime change in Iran," Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a Democratic presidential hopeful, told "Fox News Sunday."


Why cant the guy just admit he's a Republican, already.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2003 05:22 pm
He should come out of the closet! :wink:
I like Joe. Mostly.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2003 04:15 pm
Crunch wrote:
Quote:
"IT WOULD BE in the interest of the world, and most particularly of the Iranian people, to have a regime change in Iran," Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a Democratic presidential hopeful, told "Fox News Sunday."


Why cant the guy just admit he's a Republican, already.


Since when is a desire for regime change in Iran connected to the Republican cause?

As I've stated before, I am, in my country, member of the Green Left. Like most every of my fellow party members, I would rejoice at regime change in Iran. It would most definitely be in the interest of the Iranian people.

What the truck of people like me with some of the most radically interventionist Republicans would be, is that we dont think a US military intervention is the most productive way of achieving such regime change.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2003 04:33 pm
As it stands, it seems to look like American destabilisation wont actually be necessary. Perhaps the Iranians will be able to do it by themselves. The result would be all the better.

There's been a status quo in the stand-off between reformist PM Khatami and his counterpart Ayatollah Khamenei for years now. One is legitimized by multi-candidate elections, the other by his religious authority. Its immensely encouraging to see that the democratic card now invokes so much more loyalty among the Iranians than the religious card. Khatami has enjoyed overwhelming popular support, and as a result he has been able to stand up to the conservatives time and again in defence of critical newspapers and dissident thinkers. It would have done more harm than good, in such a context, to come bludgering in with some kind of military intervention against "the evil Iranian regime" - or even with an outright isolation strategy.

Compare the situation to Gorbachev's Soviet-Union, when his reformists balanced out the force of the remaining conservatives, gaining the chance to push through one reform after another - without ever getting to be able (or willing) to start questioning the basis of the system itself. Thats the same kind of status quo you see in Iran.

What would one hope for now? That after the "Iranian Gorbachev" Khatami, we will see an "Iranian Yeltsin" - somebody bold and foolhardy enough to see that reform is not enough, that the entire system has to change - to be started from scratch. Somebody, also, good enough a politician to acquire the political clout to force through such a more radical break. Or that Khatami himself will morph from the Persian counterpart of Gorby into someone more like Boris.

The students are in the street right now, protesting; and being in return beaten up by hardline militias. They've lost patience with Khatami. The overall population of the capital seems to be supporting the students. This seems a situation fit to lead to revolution - to indigenously achieved regime change, if you will.

Theres two ways this can go, in the long run, if I can just keep up the comparison to the communist regimes for a mo longer.

Either the conservative regime stuts will erode under the protests, under the ever more courageous criticisms, the boldly explicit show of popular disagreement with the system itself. In the end, quite possibly after some last, pretty violent, attempts at clampdown, they will crumble and the system will collapse, making way for the new. Khatami will, much like Gorbachev, have to choose for the camp of change outright, or lose all credibility among his people. Gorbachev couldnt choose and lost his, and was succeeded by Yeltsin. If this is the scenario, lets hope Khatami will choose and take his people into a new system, like 'converted' apparatchiks like Lithuania's Brazauzkas did theirs; or that an Iranian Yeltsin will indeed emerge. (An improved version, preferably <grins>).

Or it goes all wrong, and the model scenario turns out to be more like Tienanmen Square than Moscow. The radical student protests will be used as an excuse for a decisively violent clampdown and a return to the strict police state of yore, and Khatami will be either intimidated into retreating into totalitarianism with the Ayatollah or be cleared out of the way.

What does one do, from the outside, apart from cheering at the TV images of the rebelling students?

It seems a scandal to just leave them to be battered down, if anything like the second scenario takes place. Warsaw Insurrection and all that.

On the other hand, moving in with troops to rescue the protesters might only turn the popular mood against them. If American troops had marched into the Soviet Union in 1990 to rescue the rebellious Lithuanians, the backlash would have been enormous.

There's also the option of physically staying out of the conflict, but edging the protestors on from the outside, appealing to them on radio and TV to continue their protests, to not give up. That, too, however, has troubling historical precedents. Thats how, in 1956, we urged the Hungarians on into a rebellion that would ultimately bring in Soviet troops and a decade of bloody retaliation, when we knew full well from the start that we wouldnt actually go in to help them if the **** would hit the fan.

Difficult, difficult.

Lets return to cheering on the students while we think, though ;-).
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2003 04:37 pm
nimh--Good point. I have only a vague notion that most Dems were very negative about the prospect of the US getting involved in any way in Iran. I'll look around to see if I was correct, or wrongly assumed.
(edit--Crossed nimh's thoughtful treatment of current events above. Am cheering the students. We are getting credit already for the destabilization by Khatami. Don't know if he's correct or not. Anyway, a great post, nimh.)
Meanwhile, I found a very neat spot for recent goings on in Iran. The page contains an article about Iran's courtship by the EU.

Lots of recent articles about the unrest and other stuff in Iran.

Here's one.

Tough crackdown on Iran anti-regime protests, US blasted for interference
Sun Jun 15, 7:23 AM ET

TEHRAN (AFP) - Thousands of Iranians took to the streets of central Tehran for more anti-regime protests, but the overwhelming presence of vigilantes and police meant the fifth consecutive night of demonstrations was largely a muted affair.

Feeling the pressure from all sides, Tehran also hit out at Washington after the White House said it was "alarmed" by the crackdown. The foreign ministry said such comments constituted a "flagrant example of interference in Iran's internal affairs".

Overnight Saturday, only limited and sporadic clashes were reported around Tehran university's campus, the focal point of vitriolic student-led protests that have targeted the very top of the Islamic republic.

Large numbers of cars were seen driving in areas around the campus in the early hours of Sunday, but the would-be demonstrators were matched in numbers by police and bussed-in members of the hardline Basij militia -- among the toughest defenders of the nearly 25-year-old clerical regime.

Club and chain-wielding members of the extremist Ansar Hezbollah group were also on patrol. Such was the overpowering presence of security forces and militiamen that few drivers dared even to honk their horns in support of the student-led protest movement.

On previous nights, a number of drivers adding to the cacophony of defiance had had their windscreens smashed in or had been dragged from their vehicles and beaten up.

But overnight Saturday, no slogans were heard being shouted either, and the demonstration -- more of a frustrating traffic jam -- was largely calm, in contrast to previous nights which saw spiraling tensions, fierce clashes and slogans directed at Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

However, there were reports of renewed clashes in the southern city of Shiraz, with the student news agency ISNA saying demonstrators there again shouted virulent slogans that resulted in a number of them being arrested.

There were conflicting reports that a protestor had been killed there during Friday night's clashes.

Demonstrations have also been reported in the southeastern city of Ahvaz and historic Isfahan in the centre.

Over the past five nights in Tehran, scores of people have been injured or arrested, while bank windows, cars and motorcycles have also been smashed up.

Khamenei has accused arch-enemy the United States of orchestrating the unrest. Many protestors seeking to join the fray were answering calls from US-based Iranian opposition-run Persian language satellite television channels -- notably the Los Angeles-based pro-monarchist NITV.

State television and radio also accused foreign media of distorting their coverage of unrest in line with an "imperialist and Zionist" plot against the Islamic republic. Foreign media in Tehran have received a written recommendation from the authorities to keep away from the scene of the protests.

The crackdown has also included the arrests of leading members of Iran's liberal opposition, critical of certain facets of the Islamic regime. Some hardline vigilantes were also reportedly detained in the security sweep, in which authorities have been keen to keep student protestors and the Islamist militias apart.

During the protests, the first to rock Iran for six months and the most violent since July 1999 when at least one student died, virulent slogans have been shouted against Iran's leaders, including Khamenei, calling for them to step down. Criticising the supreme leader is a serious offence in Iran.... (more at linked site.)
************************************
"You better stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look, what's going down...."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2003 06:04 pm
Sofia wrote:
nimh--Good point. I have only a vague notion that most Dems were very negative about the prospect of the US getting involved in any way in Iran. I'll look around to see if I was correct, or wrongly assumed.


There's a difference between desiring a regime change (and supporting those inside who might be able to achieve it), and wanting to go in with one's own army or secret agents to enforce one ...

(Sorry for doubling that point if it was already clear, after all)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2003 07:51 pm
Hey Sofia, thanks, through the link you gave on Iran I found another one - one of the articles linked to on that Iran page was from the http://www.eurasianet.org site - and that site is very good and very interesting indeed! I think I'll go visit it often, it's been a while since I last saw so much interesting news and views on Central Asia and Transcaucasia!
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2003 08:22 pm
Iran is a matter of concern for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, has been their strong effort to develop nuclear weapons. Saddam's existence on Iran's western border arguably justified a program intended to deter the use of terror weapons by an enemy whose willingness to use terror weapons was well-known. With the end of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, that justification no longer exists. There is no credible threat to Iran from its immediate neighbors, though the American presence in Iraq must surely make the Mullah's nervous. Iran has acquired nuclear potential from Europe and the former USSR "for the generation of electrical power only". Iran has enough oil reserves to give the lie to that assertion, and in any case the refinement of spent uranium rods into Plutonium can have no other purpose beyond fueling one or more nuclear weapons. We should be concerned over the Iranian nuclear program, but it is far from clear what the best course of action might be at this time. I think we should probably closely monitor the situation.

A second concern is that Iran has, or may become the new safe haven for radical Islamic terrorists. I don't doubt that some Al Queda reside inside Iran. On the other hand, Iran is much less likely to actively support foreign terrorism than many other regimes in that part of the world. Syria and Yemen are both, in my opinion, more dangerous potential bases for terrorist activity than Iran.

We very much need to promote regional stability, and if Iran were to descend into chaos that would be against our best interests. The Mullahs talked a good game when they were working to subvert and destroy the Shaw. Once the Shaw and the Americans were gone, the Mullahs had to produce the Islamic paradise on earth they preached. Whoops. The Shaw's regime was extremely repressive, but he also introduced modernization that made life much easier for a middle-class to develop. We might be the Great Satan to the conservative religious leaders, but the people still crave Western goods, entertainment, and luxury. The strict religious policing of live inside Iran haven't been entirely popular. The desire for less control over the people's daily lives and the media has been growing over the last half-dozen years. In fact, the support for a gradual loosening of control over the people's lives has been going on for many years. Iran needs to belong to the world community, and slowly the rulers are making the small adjustments to their extreme religious views to make that possible. They want loans, and aid to restore the quality of life that the people desire.

I think that the administration's policy of keeping up the pressure on the regime, but not too hard, is a good thing. To give too much encouragement to the opposition could easily backfire. If a revolution developed, could we provide the sort of support necessary to insure its success? Who would take over governing the country, and would they be any better than the current crop? Anything we can do to encourage the continuation of liberalizing the Iranian government should be pursued, but quietly. Our best course would be for us to stabilize Iraq, and get out. One bit of nation building at a time. If we can demonstrate that a secular Islamic State in the region can exist and prosper, half the battle is won.

There is a legal problem as well with Iran. In Iraq and the DPRK legal justification wasn't too difficult. In both those instances a state of war existed under the authorization of the UN. Fighting was suspended conditionally in both cases. When Iraq and the DPRK repeatedly violated the conditions of the cease-fire, renewal the fighting was/is justified. In the case of Iran, no such sanctioned war exists. Either we would have to get the UN to pass the appropriate resolutions, or we would be faced with the alternatives of commencing aggressive war or having to step back from our tough stance. Not good choices.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 03:58 pm
BM
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 06:58 pm
BM? I don't understand.

My computer today returned to the land of the living. It will take me a while to catch-up on conversations. Bear with me, I'm still very focused on getting paintings completed, and shown.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2003 10:49 pm
Maybe JM will expand his brief response.

Meanwhile, I'm so glad to see you back, Asherman. Very Happy We've missed your comments!
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2003 06:32 pm
In response to Asherman's post of Mon Jul 21, 2003 7:58 pm and Sophia's of Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:49 pm: BM is common vernacular meaning Book Mark. So posting allows that I receive notification as to posts to this thread without actually taking the time for an actual posting. However, had I chosen a term with the abbreviations of BS my explanation might have been more suspect and smacked of dissembling.

Yeah, good to have you back Asherman! Yep, ya gotta pay the bills.

I am concerned that nations with a need for hard cash such as Russia* and DPRK have little reluctance in supplying any and almost all resources for the development of nuclear programs to such nations as Iran. Some say it is in Iran's national interest for them to acquire nuclear power/weapons and it's not fair that nations such as France and Israel possess these and others nations do not. Sorry, I'm not going to buy that.

When in doubt about a situation the worse case scenario should be used to guide us. We must be honest with ourselves as a nation and admit that once these smaller third world nations obtain the "Bomb" the entire world becomes a much more dangerous place. (Forget nuclear power needed for electricity, as others have pointed out that is rubbish rationale that absolutely no one believes.)

Are we to trust these flag bearing tribal leaders who's whole education has steeped them in an essentially medieval ideology based upon the sayings and deeds of a person that Saddam Hussein had continually tried to emulate and now and in the past have sworn to destroy not only our way of life but our very lives?** To this I would echo the immortal words of Dogbert "I wouldn't trust them with string!"

Perhaps the U.S. should look after its own national interest and not worry about fairness. Nations that have not only voiced a desire for our destruction but demonstrated actual support towards those who would commit these deeds should not be allowed to posses such weapons...period. Forget, also, the excuse that they need WMD for protection against invasion or attack. Don't these people read? Saddam possessed WMD, did that help him? Why did the U.S. go into Iraq? Did not the Israelis destroy somebody's Nuclear reactor a little while back? Seems having such a facility is akin to wearing a heat lamp on your back while trying to out run a SAM.

As regards the political turmoil in Iran, military intervention in Iran would not be the same undertaking as in the latest in Iraq for mostly the same reason that invasion in Iraq was not similar to pushing Saddam out of Kuwait... we would be invading their country. This would just play into the present Iranian Administration's hand and supply them with a unifying common enemy. In addition, other factors speak against such adventures including Iran's size and topography.

Others and I have mentioned the pursuit of better HUMINT and employment of Special Forces. The former, if we decide to again so empower such CIA initiatives, will probably take at least a generation to put into place. The latter has more risk politically but may be of use in small doses.

nimh's use of the Gorbachev (or actually the ultra-conservatives at the time)/ Yeltsin analogy is certainly useful, but I think we all hope along with him that Iran turns out much better. It might be "easier" in Iran to obtain both the political and economic freedom we as Americans see as desirable. Unlike Russia, at the time, a large percentage of the population in Iran are young, educated, and have been exposed to Modernization and a little Westernization In addition, many Iranians aged 45-60 have been educated in the West and want to be differentiated from Arabs and wish to be known as Persian.

I think Iran demands diplomacy and patience. Destabilization is helpful to a point in regards to keeping Iran internally occupied and out of Iraqi politics, but as has been mentioned, once political turmoil reaches a point of anarchy or civil war all bets are off and the situation becomes unpredictable. The mullahs could end up with all the marbles, publicly hang Khatami, and draw Iran further into Islamic befuddlement.

JM

*(Russia may have more interest here than hard currency, indeed France has at least been honest about its attempt at balancing U.S. power and, in addition, Russia may be pursuing this for the same reason a dog licks itself)

**(I will digress here to say that in my limited study of Islam I found it to be a Hodge-Podge of sayings and alleged deeds, most of which are documented to be fabrications along with the lineages ascribed to their origin. The "clerics" made it up as they went along-- even changing content to counter balance emerging tyrants because they would otherwise endanger their lives engaging in direct confrontation. This phenomenon is not limited to Islam but seen also in other religions, thus an observable good reason for divorcing such mysticism from the governance of states.)
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2003 06:17 pm
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=292136#292136

This directs you to a link re: Iran does house al-quaida members, and a related discussion.

Iran has admitted to having some al-Quaida members of high level, who participated in 911 and in the Riyad (sp) bombing.

This is evidence Bush and Co were correct in stating Iran had possession of these al-Quaida guys. Why aren't we hearing this as proof of some questioned Bush intel? And, is this a boost for Bush?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 12:01 am
A current article on the al-Quaida members being held in Iran.

From EurasiaNet.


According to diplomatic sources, the al Qaeda detainees still in Iranian custody include network spokesman Suleiman Abu Gaith, top strategist Saif al Adel and Osama bin Laden's son, Saad. Al Qaeda detainees are reportedly being held in northern Khorasan Province, and are being guarded by the members of the Quds Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

In recent weeks, a Foreign Ministry consultant disclosed, Iranian diplomats held numerous secret meetings with government representatives from other Middle Eastern nations, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to discuss the extradition of al Qaeda members still being held in Iran. The source went on to say that extradition deals had been agreed upon, but at the last moment Iran balked at implementation. Instead, Tehran announced that the al Qaeda members had disappeared. Political observers view the government claim of vanishing al Qaeda operatives as highly improbable, and suggest that Tehran instead opted to hold on to them, hoping they could be of use as bargaining chips in its quiet diplomatic parley with the United States. Some Iranian officials have also indicated that the al Qaeda members might be put on trial in Iran.
----------------
Interesting turn of events. We're being blackmailed. Again.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 12:58 pm
Sofia,

I have no problem with closing the MEK reps office in Washington as long as the CIA and FBI get copies of its Rolodex.

Does sound like Iran is trying to hold-up the U.S. regarding the al Qaeda detainees despite their alleged prestidigitation, spontaneous combustion, or whatever while in Iranian custody.

This may very well be just diplomatic wrangling,
however, the Iranians may be wise to first determine how these detainees are viewed by the U.S. administration--Bargaining Chips? or Rightful Possessions?-- then look to their neighbors' recent experiences involving American actions towards those it perceives as harboring terrorists. It would not be much of a stretch to envision this administration using terrorist abetting as an excuse to lob a couple of cruise missiles into a suspected terrorist enclave which just happens to be close to some nuclear breeder reactors.

This administration is not known for its sophisticated diplomatic efforts. Iran should take care to determine exactly how far they want to pursue this diplomatic test. Do they wish to provide a excellent opportunity for the Bush administration to demonstrate that it has nothing in common with that of the late 70's Carter administration?

JM
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Insights on Iran.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/09/2021 at 08:46:54