Articles

Allies of the Neo-cons

Reading Daniel M. Zucker’s Getting It Right in Iraq published in Global Politician, I was taken aback to learn why a Zionist Rabbi so vehemently supports a terrorist group like Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO). No doubt, Mr. Zucker is a disciple of Leo Strauss theory of “constructive chaos”. Strauss, whose media branch is better known under the name of “neo-conservatives”, theorized that “the real power cannot be exerted from if one remains in the status quo, but only, quite the contrary, in the act of destroying all forms of resistance. It is by plunging the masses into chaos that the elites can aspire to ensure the stability of their position”.* The theory of “constructive chaos” is the same “remodeling of the Greater Middle East,” to use the expression of George W. Bush.

To preliminaries to prepare for reshaping of the Greater Middle East has already begun, namely, establishing a western style democracy in the concerned countries of the region. Whether or not the dream might come true is another question. It is through the theory of “constructive chaos” that the desired democracy can be established. Having failed in establishing a western style democracy in Iraq, Mr. Zucker as an advocator of chaos and disorder broaches a new suggestion:

If we really want to bring a democratic revolution to Iraq, which is something that will become increasingly difficult – given Teheran’s rising influence in Baghdad-we will have to work with all those different groups that oppose a Shiite religious state. Some of our potential allies are those Sunni insurgents that we are fighting now.

In his opinion, the dissident and terrorist groups, wearing the mask of pro-democracy, have to be unleashed as the most favored instruments to carry out the mission of shedding the needed blood to build up the Western approved democracy in Iran as well:

There is one other thing that we should be doing, given the overwhelming evidence of Iranian interference and influence in Iraqi politics. It is time to empower the Iranian resistance to aid the long-suffering Iranian people to rise up in revolt to overthrow the tyrannical Teheran theocracy. Specifically, this means removing the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

It was abundantly clear for Iranian from the very beginning that what MKO really meant by the American and Zionist dictated “third option”. Mr. Zucker’s suggestion of reactivating Mojahedin as a means of furthering the shared interests leaves no doubt that MKO is the US-Zionists’ chosen potential dissident ally to implement threats against Iran:

If the egalitarian NCRI and MeK can once again become active in the field, Iran could soon become a secular democracy, exactly of the type that we’ve been trying to establish in Iraq. Now wouldn’t that be novel-allowing a Middle-East nation to set new regional standards in the development and establishment of secular democracy.

They made a miscalculation about Iraq; the elected government was in absolute contrast to what they expected and advocated. Iranian people would never consent to a secular democracy as the Iraqi people didn’t.

*. The Neo Conservatives and the Policies of Constructive Chaos

mojahedin.ws – Sattar Orangi, August 15 2006

August 20, 2006 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Israel’s New Guideline for MKO

There’s no doubt that by supporting New Middle East plan, US Neocons try to secure the aggressive goals of Zionist regime: establishing Jewish state from Nile to Euphrates. Such a goal won’t be achieved without the destruction of a number of countries and massacre of Muslims.

Israel’s Zionist officials and their Neocon supporters have declared Iran to be the main obstacle for their goals and therefore they want to destroy Iran.

Weakening and isolating Iran is one of the plans they are following. One of their major plans to reduce the power of Iran in the region, destroying Iran, was a failure.

Following the scandalous withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon in 2000, US and Israeli officials planned for an "orange revolution", which was also thwarted by the gathering of 1.5 million people in favor of Hizballah.

Then, Syria came under heavy pressure from Zionist warmongers. They believe that the destruction of Syria will change the equation of Lebanon in favor of Israelis and that Hizballah will lose its main supporter. Therefore, they resorted to the UN Security Council and diplomatic pressures to force Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. Along these pressures, there was a plot for coup in Syria, which was blown up. Still, Israel tries to drag Syria into an international or regional struggle in order to destroy this country.

Understanding this strategy of warmongers and looking for a war against Iran, notorious gang of Rajavi shouted the slogan of "expanding democracy, from Iraq to Syria"!

Israel believes Syria is a factor that can direct the US towards a fight against Iran and that this element should be eliminated. On this issue, terrorist MKO agrees with Israel and therefore openly takes position against Syria. The comments of Mohaddessin last year on the role of Syria in the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri were supposed to stoke the fire of plots against Syria.

Now that Israel and its supporters have failed in their month-long aggression against Lebanon, they try to increase pressures on Syria; these pressures can be applied through diplomatic means, among other things.

While the treacherous gang of Rajavi prefers to stay silent on the moves of countries like Canada, Turkey, Netherlands, Germany, Norway and … (which extradite runaway criminals and illegal refugees to Iran on a daily basis), extradition of Abdullah Mansouri (who plotted terrorist bombings in Ahwaz, killing innocent Arab innocent people of Khuzestan) has made them upset, and they ask for more international pressure on Syria.*

Now, it has become clear that Rajavi’s gang follows anti-human policies of Zionists in order to survive, with efforts to instigate the US to attack Iran at top.

However, due to the new developments (resulting from the brave resistance of the Lebanese), Israel and the gang of Rajavi are the main losers of this battle whose crimes in Iraq and Lebanon are going to be stopped soon.

—————————————

NCRI’s statement on the extradition of Abdullah Mansouri

Irandidban – 2006/08/16

August 20, 2006 0 comment

MEK Camp Ashraf

Ashraf, A Refugee Camp or A City

The practical determination of whether a person is a refugee or not is most often left to certain government agencies within the host country. Resettlement is approved based on the conditions of the host country and after reconsiderations about the refugees manner of conduct if the country comes to notice the refugees are escalating the tension it tries to defuse.

It is not mandatory for any country to accept refugees that fail to recognize the accepted standards of the host, and it is a common practice in many Western countries to deport applicants sometimes after imprisonment or detention for certain security causes.

Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), settled in Iraq as guests and men of Saddam, was never required nor felt a need to apply to be housed as political refugees. At least, no evidence exist to verify the group’s claim. Besides, a refugee camp is a camp built up by governments or NGOs to meet basic human needs for a short time. Has Iraqi government built or controls Ashraf, where Mojahedin reside, or has the group ever referred to it as a refugee camp? They call it Ashraf City governed with their own overall control.

The presnt Iraqi government has the lagal right to reconsider about MKO’s resettlement even though the group might be right in its claim. Periodically, some expert in law is reported by MKO to have advocated the group’s right to political refugee. For instance, a Swiss lawyer, Marc Henzelin, is quoted by NCRI to have stated “PMOI members are all political refugees according to international instruments and it is not just up to the Iraqi government to deliver the status, but to recognize the status which is legally binding”. It seems he talks before he thinks.

The supervising international agencies like UNHCR cannot force a host country but may ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum with the option to return home voluntarily or to resettle in a third country. Neither has the Iraqi government been required nor have the members, as individuals to decide for their fate, been interviwed. It seems to be a serious business for responsible agencies to interfer since the Iraqi government does mean to expel MKO.

mojahedin.ws – 14/08/2006

August 16, 2006 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Would MKO eventually be removed from the list?

The Mojahedin-é Khalq Organisation (MKO), the Iranian terrorist proscribed opposition group, has escalated its over the years demanding move to be lifted from many lists of terrorist organisations in Western Countries. The State Department of the United States, the British Parliament, and the Council of the European Union are some of those who have officially listed MKO as a proscribed group.

After the invasion of Iraq and the collapse of Iraq’s deposed dictator Saddam Hussein on April 2003, the MKO leaders faced dramatic turmoil which led them to try to look for an alternative to the Iraqi despot as their sponsor. The likely choice of course was the USA who in their view had actually taken Saddam Hussein’s place. One major obstacle in this regard, as far as the MKO is concerned, is that the Organisation has been listed as a terrorist group. Therefore the leadership of Mojahedin-é Khalq structured its international policy on striving to be removed from the list of Foreign Terrorist Groups (FTG) in the USA.

The present acting leader of the Organisation Maryam Rajavi, after the mysterious non-appearance of her husband Mas’ud Rajavi since the invasion of Iraq, has presented a proposal called the “third option” before the West. According to her doctrine the Western Countries, particularly the United States, must first remove the Organisation from the list of Foreign Terrorist Groups (FTG) and then support them again in the same way that Saddam Hussein once did.

Supporting and arming the group by Saddam Hussein had of course no political impact on him since Iraq was officially at war with Iran, and both countries were trying to support and use the other party’s opposition against their enemy. But in the case of the United States, the Organisation would be removed from the list in the case if the USA would wish to arm them against the IRI, since this is the only employ the Organisation could have for them .

Recently there has been a rumour that the hardliners inside the Bush Administration are thinking of using MKO against the Islamic Regime. A political utilisation of the Organisation would be totally useless since there are many better options for the USA to be used in the propaganda war than MKO. The only use they might be worth of considering would be for sabotage and terrorist activities. Removing them from the list would certainly tighten the hands of Americans in using the Organisation in a functional way and they would be a useless card.

The other matter worth considering is that the USA is not expecting MKO to play a role in a widespread classic military confrontation against Iran. The Organisation could only engage itself in non-conventional and destructive operations since its consumption is in this framework only.

Conclusion:

Therefore the troika of the USA, Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), and MKO are establishing a very complicated mutual relationship in such way that every single move would have its direct consequences. MKO tries to draw the attention of the USA against the IRI, the USA is aiming to utilise the MKO against the IRI, and IRI of course is trying to disgrace and discredit MKO in the eyes of the USA.

There are two options against the West and particularly the USA regarding MKO:

First: removing them from the List,

Second: leaving them in the List.

Each option by its own would lead to two other options:

First: re-arming them in Iraq,

Second: leaving them unarmed in Iraq.

Therefore there are utterly four options all together:

First: out of list, armed in Iraq:

This certainly means proclaiming war against the IRI. If the USA decides to take Saddam Hussein’s sponsor roll for the MKO, they should also bear in mind that the deposed dictator of Iraq was officially at war state.

Second: out of list, kept unarmed in Iraq:

This means that MKO’s position has shifted from armed struggle against IRI, to a pacifistic struggle. And therefore the Organisation would stick to political and propaganda activities and hence they would be of no use to the West against the Islamic State. In this case two options could be considered too. One is to keep the Organisation staying in Iraq, and the other is to move them out of Iraq. The final result in both cases would be unaltered. Taking them out of Iraq certainly means that the Organisation’s war with IRI is definitely over.

Third: kept in the list, armed covertly in Iraq:

This means initiating clandestine military-intelligence war against the IRI. In this case, sooner or later, the matter would be revealed and the results of the first case would apply.

Fourth: kept in the list, decisively unarmed in Iraq:

This of course is to carry on with the situation as it is today. In this case the West and the USA have MKO in hand to sit for negotiations with Iran. In other words the present situation is the best possible situation, since the USA has both advantages of having MKO still in the list – USA has MKO in hand and can startle Iran by using the threat of removing them from the list – and has remained committed to the Western standards of tackling terrorism. Nevertheless as soon as MKO is out listed, the USA has nothing in hand for negotiation and to make a deal, and therefore would have the military option and using MKO in destructive operations to face with.

In other words, so long as the USA in seeking negotiations and willing to compromise with Iran and the Western strategy has not shifted towards military option, MKO would remain in the list. But if the West and USA decide to tackle Iran using force, particularly using destructive operations, they would move MKO form the list of Foreign Terrorist Groups.

Therefore the Third Option that Maryam Rajavi is proposing the West contains a paradox of its own accord, in view of the fact that her demand of removing MKO from the list, would be fulfilled when West is determined to tackle Iran militarily. In effect Maryam Rajavi is urging the USA to forget about the military option against Iran and the same time to remove MKO from the list which is absolutely impossible.

Ebrahim Khodabandeh, August 2006

August 16, 2006 0 comment

Iraqi Authorities' stance on the MEK

An End to the Presence of Terrorists in Iraq

Iraqi Prime Minister Dr. Nuri al-Maliki, in an interview with Al-Iraqia TV channel, pointed to the presence of some foreign terrorist groups in Iraq and reported of his government’s decision to crack on these groups: "in the process of rooting out terrorists, there are difficulties and complexities but we are determined to finish their presence in Iraq with the help of our security services."

In this interview, broadcast on August 7, 2006, al-Maliki referred to his government’s security strategies on terrorist groups, and in response to the question that "what are the achievements in the field of security?" he said: "in fact, we have not achieved all our goals because the plan has different phases. In the first phase, we achieved what we wanted, the most important of which was the destruction of safe houses of terrorists and arresting them. This was a very large scale operation and its message for terrorist was that we are determined in our work and that we will root them out with our national plan."

"In the second phase of this plan, we go to different regions to clean them from terrorist groups and then we rebuild the place to make it suitable for living," he added.

"This plan will be followed by security services and terrorist will be hunted. In the past, they were able to stay in our country. Some of these terrorists are Iraqis and some others are foreigners. Of course, there are difficulties and complexities in the way of fighting terrorism but we are determined to end the presence of terrorists by the help of our security services. Some of these terrorist groups try to occupy some parts of Iraq but our security services are able to be successful in their operations against terrorists.

IranDidban – 2006/08/12

August 14, 2006 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Protected Status Guarantees no Political Asylum

Desperately struggling with its hard days in Iraq, MKO does not deem it prudent to take direct position against the Iraqi government authorities’ recent reiteration of MKO’s expulsion from Iraq. On the other hand, the Iraqi personalities are careful not to play into MKO’ hands whenever turning on the issue of MKO. Mojahedin, however, take advantage of these statements as tokens of support that postulate the organization’s rights in Iraq.

According to NCRI’s news propaganda quoting some Iraqi press, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister for Security and Services, Dr. Salam al-Zubai, in referring to the issue of Mojahedin has said, “They enjoy the special status of protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention and are protected by United States forces”. Mojahedin published his words as an evidence of his advocating “PMOI members’ right to political asylum in Iraq”.

It is obvious to the world that Mojahedin are enjoying the special status of protected persons granted by the US forces and nothing more. The words in no way denote any support for MKO. Although Mojahedin are maters of playing with the words, but nothing can change the wills of a nation determined to reconstruct a country devoid of terror and disorder.

mojahedin.ws – 12/08/2006

August 14, 2006 0 comment

Daniel M.Zucker

Ravings of MKO’s Zionist Supporter

Distorting history and producing different versions of a same historical event is an illness, with long history in the MKO.

For different reasons, including whitewashing the crimes of the past or to win the attraction of new supporters, MKO distorts the history and broadcast new versions of it through its propagandistic outlets.

It was determined recently that this kind of illness is contagious and that MKO supporters also get this illness following their deals with this group.

During past few days, MKO websites published an article by Zionist supporter of Mojahedin, Rabbi Daniel Zucker, who’s responsible for protecting Israeli interests in the US. After meeting Maryam Rajavi a few months ago, he officially asked the Israeli government to recognize his real friends (terrorist MKO) and support it.

His recent article is ridiculously full of lies and distortions so that the MKO itself has refused to publish the article in full, because it knows that all Iranians would find the lies in the article.

However, since the Rajavi’s gang is opportunist, it has taken only one sentence of the article, which says that " The MEK is the grandchild of Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, the popular nationalist prime minister".

Zucker stresses at the beginning of his article that:

"Most Americans have no idea who and what the Mojahedin-e Khalq is, and for what it stands."

In fact, the secret behind MKO’s claims and distortions should be sought in this very fact.

However, like the MKO itself, Zucker relates this to the efforts of Islamic Republic and to prove this cliché, he resorts to very naïve lies:

"The reason for this difficulty is that the Iranian regime has disseminated a highly successful disinformation campaign about the MEK, a trick that the mullahs learned from studying with the Soviet Union’s KGB. In the period before the fall of the shah, many of the student followers of Ayatollah Khomeini spent time in the USSR learning revolutionary tactics and strategy. One such individual is the present Supreme Leader of Iran, the Faqih, Ayatollah Ali Khameneí, a graduate of Patrice Lumumba Friendship University in Moscow, the Oxford of terrorism."

There’s no doubt that the paragraph above needs no explanation. The only thing worthy of note is that such lies are expressed to pave the way for other lies, in order to decorate and hide the real face of MKO in the West.

When the Israeli regime is massacring the innocent people of Lebanon, Zionist supporter of MKO comes to prepare broader cooperation fo MKO with Israel; to win the support of Zionist lobby in the US, he writes:

"One of the errors about the MEK is the allegation that they were involved in assassinating U.S. Army personal and military contractors in the early and mid-1970’s. The accusation derives from the fact that little was known about the MEK by American intelligence at the time, and not much has been learned until recently. In 1971 the leadership of the MEK was arrested by SAVAK, the shah’s secret police for their pro-democracy activities. While the leadership was in prison, a dissident group broke away from the Muslim Mojahedin and formed a Marxist faction. It was this latter group which used the Mojahedin name but violated its principles and attacked and killed Americans."

After 25 years, Mr. Zucker wants to distort the documented history; It would be good for him to study MKO’s own journals published at that time, claiming and admitting the killing of Americans in order to get political advantages.

Elsewhere in his article, Zucker tries to distort the realty on the role of MKO in takeover of US embassy in Tehran. His efforts are aimed at showing the MKO members as good and polite boys, while he roguishly points to the name of Iranian president:

"Another false accusation against the MEK is the allegation that the MEK supported the student takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran in February 1979, and subsequent 444 day hostage crisis. MEK members actually tried to protect the U.S. Embassy from the street gang Komitehs that sought to take control of it for the Islamist faction of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini’s student followers, including people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, clashed with the MEK, and forbade their entrance to the embassy. Indeed, the Islamist leaders of the embassy-takeover themselves have written that the MEK was not part of their group and would not have been allowed to participate because of major doctrinal differences."

It seems that Zucker thinks Sate Dpartment and the White House officials are stupid when he even ignores the fact that they have access to the archive of MKO journals; that’s why he calls MKO "the protectors of US embassy"!

Then, he writes:

"The claim, heard occasionally around Washington, that the MEK is unpopular with the masses in Iran does not add up. If the MEK is so unpopular, why has the regime’s media attacked the MEK 350% more than any other group?"

It’s not clear whether the popular support should be recognized from popular gatherings and demonstrations or (according to MKO’s logic) from those who curse this group!

Zucker asks:

"Why is Teheran scared of the MEK, but not of Reza Pahlavi and the monarchists, the Tudeh Party or Ibrahim Yazdi’s Freedom Movement of Iran? How is it possible for the MEK to uncover details of the regime’s nuclear and missile programs if the people don’t trust and respect the MEK?"

However, the question is "if the people are aware of the details of nuclear program that MKO’s awareness- if true at all- can bring them popular support"!?

In his article, Zucker enters the battlefield of MKO and Monarchists on getting the support of the US. In several occasions, he takes position against monarchists:

"Dr. Michael Rubin’s testimony on the sins of the Islamic regime in Teheran is always first rate. However, Rubin is a supporter of Reza Pahlavi and the monarchists. As a result, his views on the MEK must be held as suspect. I have written elsewhere about Dr. Rubin’s sympathies and those of his colleague Dr. Kenneth Timmerman for the monarchists. I would again ask, how reliable is the opinion of those who support the Iranian monarchy? …Timmerman and Rubin are fine scholars about the regime, but their biases must be recognized when one talks about the Iranian resistance and the question of regime change. The MEK is the grandchild of Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, the popular nationalist prime minister that the CIA toppled in 1953 so as to bring the shah back to power. The Iranian masses have shown a decided preference for the MEK over any possible return to a Pahlavi monarchy."

In the end, Zucker points to MKO’s main problem, namely being unpopular and lacking popular base; he asks the US government to support the MKO:

"It would be prudent for the State Department to de-list the MEK and the NCRI to allow them to lead the Iranian people to make the necessary changes to bring about a secular democracy in Iran."

That’s why the MKO efforts during past 10 years to get out of terror list have all failed, because they are wholly based on lies and distortions.

MKO thought all other politicians and government officials are stupid to believe in lies and distortions of realities.

Irandidban – 2006/08/13

August 14, 2006 0 comment

Iraq

Roots of MKO Problems in Iraq

MKO’s irresolvable crisis- that has happened to this group after the fall of Saddam- has nothing to do with the new Iraqi government or the pressures from Iran (despite all propaganda by the MKO); instead, the presence of terrorist and murderous gang of Rajavi in Iraq, which received legitimacy from the toppled dictator, is illegal from international viewpoints and should be reviewed.

In other words, the presence of MKO in Iraq was a part of Saddam’s plans against Iran and was not related to the world’s refugee regulations. Everyone knows that the relations of the MKO with the former regime was not an ordinary relationship; in fact, as Rajavi says himself "there were strategic ties between the two".

So, regime change in Iraq (in any case) could lead to the current situation for the MKO; it could also lead to reviewing the status of MKO. Even, according to some reports, some Baathist commanders and Saddam deputies didn’t agree with MKO’s staying in Iraq after the war and believed they should be extradited to Iran; the only person who prevented this was Saddam Hussein himself.

However, now that Saddam has been ousted and occupying forces are protecting the MKO, the situation is a bit different:

1. The legal status granted to the MKO by occupiers doesn’t meant that the MKO members are refugees in Iraq; in fact, this status prevents their extradition and helps them ask the UNHCR for refugee status.

2. Requests for getting refugee status should be handled by UNHCR, which reviews the requests and tries to find another country for the people. It can’t decide independently on the issue.

3. Only in the case of the agreement of Iraqi government, and only through the UNHCR, MKO members may be given refuge in Iraq.

4. MKO presence in Iraq is not legal at all, and this is the major problem for this group.

What has happened now in this regard is as follows:

1. Iraqi government has expressed its absolute disagreement with the presence of MKO in Iraq.

2. International organizations are waiting for the right time to come in order to start determining the fate of MKO members in Camp Ashraf.

3. Terrorist MKO, witnessing the imminent expulsion from Iraq, claims that its presence in Iraq is legal so as to put Iraqi government before international organizations in order to take advantage of the situation.

When forcing the occupying forces to stand before the Iraqi government proved to be of no use for the MKO, this terrorist group tried to force international organizations to stand before the government.

Shortly, the roots of MKO’s current problems in Iraq should be sought in its 25-year illegal presence in Iraq, which can’t be justified at all.

Irandidban – 2006/08/12

August 14, 2006 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

MKO’s New Cause of Anger

The recently published book Mojahedin Khalq Organization; Arising & the End is a celebrated and collective work of some Iranian researchers unveiling many facts on the formation and activities of MKO. The three volumes work is mainly a research based on existing evidences many of which are included. The work is so telling that Mojahedin lost their rag and could keep silent no more.

Mojahedin-run TV station in its weekly “Direct Contact” program attended by two vehement Mojahedin propagandists, Mohammad-Ali Tawhidi and Hamid Assadyan, tried to justify what they referred to as distorted facts in the books. A documentary work to answer many questions formed in the minds of the sympathizers seems to be more hazardous than an activated time-bomb. Following their past method of responding to facts revealed about the organization, the two propagandists referred to the books as an act of Iran’s security system to counteract Mojahedin’s activities, a blacklisted terrorist group trying to posture as the main Iranian resisting group and threat against the ruling system.

mojahedin.ws – 10/08/2006

August 13, 2006 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Role of Terrorist Groups in US Plan

According to Newswires, Iraqi president Mr. Jalal Talabani has announced that Iraq has reached an agreement with Ankara to stop the penetration of PKK paramilitary forces to Turkey.

Following reports on the closure of some PKK offices in Iraq, Turkish foreign minister said: "PKK will be dismantled and we will see this very soon".

There’s no doubt that Iraq’s agreement to stop the activities of PKK and preventing this group from threatening Turkey from the soil of Iraq is a result of Iraq’s new policies (having good relations with neighboring countries and cleansing Iraq from terrorist groups). However, the amazing point is that PKK, like the terrorist MKO, sends messages for the US that it can serve it in the region and that it can be a good servant for US’s plan of New Middle East.

In this regard, Jamil Bayik, an activist from Iraqi Kurdistan, has told Americans that they can’t advance their plan without considering the issue of PKK and Kurds.

This is not strange that such groups resort to the US, since they are well aware that the US has come to the region for invading the countries of the region, not for fighting against terrorism and that they should eventually play the role of protectors for Israel.

Irandidban – 2006/08/06-09

August 13, 2006 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts