WRITE for ATol ADVERTISE MEDIA KIT GET ATol BY EMAIL ABOUT ATol CONTACT US
WSI
Asia Time Online - Daily News
             
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese



    Middle East
     Mar 16, 2005
Tussling with Tehran
By Farda's Mehdi Khalaji and Ardavan Niknam

Introduction
Iran has made great strides in recent years in rebuilding bridges to Europe and Asia after the tumultuous early years of the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Those years saw the new Islamic regime seeking to export its revolutionary values abroad and assassinating opponents. The early excesses led many countries to regard the Islamic Republic as a rogue state and to try to isolate it politically and economically.

Today, Iran claims its right to again be a full member of the world community. But doubts linger about how much it has moved away from its use of terrorism as a political tool. Washington, for example, still considers Iran to be a state sponsor of terrorism and cites as evidence what it says is Tehran's continued support of Middle Eastern terrorist groups, the killings of dissidents in Iran and interference in Iraq. Why does Washington view Tehran as part of an "axis of evil" and as an enemy in the global war on terrorism?

A relation based on mutual distrust
In Washington's eyes, November 4, 1979 marked the beginning of the Islamic Republic's state sponsorship of terrorism. That's when a crowd of militants unopposed by police stormed the US Embassy in Tehran.

The well-organized attackers took 52 American members of the staff hostage and held them for 444 days. By the time the incident ended, in January 1981, the US had severed diplomatic ties with Tehran and had attempted, unsuccessfully, to liberate the hostages in a commando operation.

Then US president Jimmy Carter announced the failure of the US commando operation: "I share the disappointment of the American people that this operation was not successful." The rescue operation had to be unexpectedly aborted after a helicopter developed engine trouble in a staging area in the Iranian desert. The mission ended in the deaths of eight Americans as two US transport planes collided.

Gary Sick was the principal White House aide for Iran during the Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis. He said those events continue to shape the tense relationship Tehran and Washington have today.

"A lot of this also goes back to the early days of the [Islamic] Revolution, which was seen not only as a revolution against the Shah but a revolution against the United States," Sick said. "The concept of 'Death to America', the 'Great Satan' and other such slogans and words have become very much part of the revolution, particularly after the mass demonstrations associated with the takeover of the US Embassy. So it is very much part of Iran's domestic politics. At the same time, the United States suffered greatly because of the takeover. And Iran became the US's 'Satan'. They are now part of the axis of evil. Many politicians have identified them as the sort of permanent bad guys in the Middle East and that, of course, is increased by the fact that Israel regards Iran as its No 1 enemy. So between Israel and the US, the rhetoric on the American side is in some cases no less as dramatic as on the Iranian side. And this has become part of American domestic politics, too, which immensely complicates any kind of discussion or any hope for developing better relations."

For Tehran, the hostage-taking also remains a powerful symbol. But it portrays the event as a just reaction against what it calls decades of US exploitation of Iran.

As an example, Tehran charges the US with helping orchestrate the 1953 coup that toppled the government of prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq after he nationalized Iran's then foreign-dominated oil industry. Some US involvement was subsequently acknowledged by former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright in 2000.

Tehran also saw the US as propping up the government of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, which was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution in January 1979. Revolutionary leaders regarded the Shah's government as corrupt and ruthless in its use of its state Intelligence and Security Organization (Sazeman-i Ettelaat va Amniyat-i Keshvar, Savak) to target opponents.

The leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, made anti-Americanism a principle of the Islamic Republic's foreign policy, lashing out at Washington in many of his speeches.

"We are here to prevent America committing evil acts, to defend ourselves," Khomeini once said. "We do not expect America to do any good to us. We trample upon America in these matters. We will not let it interfere with our affairs. Nor will we let any other party interfere [with] us. And if they want to invade, we will not let their planes land. We will kill their paratroopers in midair."

Today, relations between the US and Iran continue to be characterized by hostile statements on each side. Occasional attempts at starting talks to ease tensions have always run aground due to preconditions set by both sides. Iran says there can be no talks until the US first ends it efforts to isolate Iran through unilateral sanctions.

The US says there can be no talks until Iran ends what it charges is its state sponsorship of terrorism and its rejection of the Arab-Israeli peace process. Washington also wants Tehran to renounce any efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.

US Vice President Dick Cheney recently expressed Washington's position toward Iran. "[Iran] has been a major source of state-sponsored terrorism, if you will, and [is] devoted to the effort to destroy the peace process," he said. "We find that clearly something that we can't accept, and we've made clear our opposition to that, as well as to their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

Iran denies it supports terrorist groups or is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

Militant groups and terrorist organizations
To back up its charges that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, the US cites evidence it says proves that Tehran provides financial and possibly some weaponry to militant groups in the Mideast opposed to Israel. These militant groups - including Lebanon's Hezbollah and radical Palestinian Islamic groups like Hamas - have previously carried out or continue to carry out attacks that kill civilians as part of their conflict with the Jewish state.

Iran does not hide its close relations with Hezbollah, which include meetings in Damascus or Tehran with leaders of the group. But it calls the Shi'ite Hezbollah - which forced Israeli troops from southern Lebanon in 2000 - a liberation movement, not a terrorist group. The Islamic Republic extends the same terminology to Sunni Palestinian groups like Hamas because they also are fighting to evict Israel from what Tehran says is Muslim land. Tehran does not recognize Israel as a state.

Immediately after taking power in Iran, Khomeini called for exporting the Islamic Revolution to other countries. In one of his messages, Khomeini said, "We will not rest until the slogan, 'There is but one God and Mohammed is his prophet', echoes through the whole world."

He considered Israel - which had good ties with the deposed Shah and is a close ally of Washington - an enemy in his global struggle, second only to the US. The reason was what he considered Israel's illegitimate occupation of Muslim land.

The feelings about Israel were expressed in propaganda campaigns aimed at both domestic and foreign audiences. In Iran, the last Friday of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan was proclaimed as Qods Day. Qods is the Arabic name for Jerusalem. Qods Day was to remember that the city - Islam's third holiest after Mecca and Medina - is under the control of a non-Muslim power.

Khomeini described Qods Day as marking a Muslim struggle not only against Israel but all "arrogant" powers. "Qods Day is a day to warn all superpowers that Islam is no more under their domination through their evil mercenaries," he said.

When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the conflict with the Palestinians spread to include a country with a sizable Shi'ite community. Shi'ite Iran responded by supporting the Lebanese Shi'ite Hezbollah as a guerrilla force battling Israel's establishment of an occupied "buffer zone" across much of southern Lebanon.

Hajir Teymourian, a Middle East expert in London, described Tehran's activity: "The most important terrorist organization that Iran helped form was Hezbollah, which was set up in 1982 by Iran's ambassador in Lebanon, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour. According to journalists, it still receives tens of millions of dollars of economic and military aid from Iran annually. For 12 years, Hezbollah was the major kidnapper of Western citizens in Lebanon, and caused Iran's government to be internationally isolated as a terrorist state - an isolation that still continues - and inflicted billions of dollars of damages on Iran's economy. I think no one doubts that [the militant Islamic groups] Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are also supported by Iran," Teymourian said.

On the world stage, Tehran always denied that it gave military support to Hezbollah, a group that not only became notorious for kidnapping Westerners in Lebanon in the 1980s, but also for killing more than 240 US soldiers in a 1983 suicide bombing of their Beirut barracks. It also hijacked a US commercial airliner in 1985.

But inside Iran, figures such as Hassan Abbasi, a high-ranking commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and head of the Islamic Republic's Doctrinal Strategic Center, openly spoke of the country's close ties with Hezbollah. He described the group's activities as "sacred".

"If something can be done to terrorize and scare the camp of infidelity and the enemies of God and the people, such terror is sacred. This terrorism is sacred. Lebanon's Hezbollah was trained by these very hands. Pay attention! Do you see these hands? Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were trained by these very hands," Abbasi said.

Sick, the former White House aide, said factional struggles within the Iranian establishment had made it hard to know whether the support of Hezbollah comes directly from Iran's elected government or, instead, from hardline organizations like the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, which enjoy considerable independence.

"Obviously, Iran claims absolutely that it does not support terrorism. But it does, however, make no apologies that it supports Hezbollah, which from the Iranian point of view and from Hezbollah's point of view is fighting a war of liberation against Israel," Sick said. "They consider that a legitimate activity. They deny that they, in fact, train and support terrorist activities. Iran has a particular problem, and that is that Iran is comprised of two or three different governments, different groups of people, different factions, each of which has a certain amount of control over things that happen. It is possibly very true that people such as President [Mohammad] Khatami may not, in fact, even know what people in some parts of the Revolutionary Guards, for instance, are doing with Hezbollah. But, in any case, the government is held responsible. So Iran has created a problem for itself to some degree by its rhetoric, very strong rhetoric, which some people say is more 'Palestinian' than the [rhetoric of the] Palestinians themselves."

Tallal Salman, editor of Lebanon's Al-Safir daily, believes Iran not only supports Hezbollah but also tries to extend support to Palestinian militant groups - though it is logistically more difficult to do so. "Any resistance [movement] has its own conditions," Salman said. "Lebanon is geographically tied to Syria, and in terms of military support and training, Iran does have the means to help Hezbollah. But it is much more difficult in Palestine. Iran obviously gives political support to Palestinian groups, and also other forms of support that we may not be able to detect. But I believe that even today, there is an organic connection between Iran, Hezbollah and Palestinian groups."

In one sign of support for Palestinian militant groups, Iran hosted former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as one of its first foreign visitors immediately after the Islamic Revolution. At the time, many Iranians reportedly named their newborn sons Yasser in enthusiasm for the Palestinian cause. More recently, in January 2002, Israel stopped a ship loaded with arms, which Arafat eventually acknowledged was destined for the Palestinian Authority. Both Israel and the US said the arms originated in Iran, which Tehran denied.

But as Arafat pursued on-and-off peace talks with Israel, Iran's relations with him cooled. Tehran saw his attempts to negotiate as falling short of its own policy of fully opposing the Jewish state.
In recent months, Washington's concerns over Iran as a sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East have shifted from the Arab-Israeli conflict, further east to Iraq.

Kenneth Katzman, a regional expert with the Congressional Research Service in Washington, DC, said the concern for many in Washington now is that Iran is supporting groups in southern Iraq who might want to form a nondemocratic, strict Islamic government modeled after Iran.

Iraqi and US officials have accused Iran - as well as Syria - of interfering in Iraq by permitting groups in their countries to supply Iraqi insurgents with money and other resources.

US President George W Bush repeated the charges against both countries recently. "We will continue to make it clear, to both Syria and Iran, that - as will other nations in our coalition, including our friends the Italians - that meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq is not in their interest," Bush said.

Iran and Syria reject charges of interfering in Iraq. On February 16, the two countries declared that they had formed a mutual self-defense pact to confront "threats" - an apparent reference to the US.

Outside of the Middle East, Iran also appears to have sought to use its aid to Bosnia's Muslims during the conflict there to secretly train fundamentalist groups.

Nima Rashedan, an Iranian journalist and analyst, said much of the evidence of such activities comes from documents seized by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces in Bosnia.

"This is a case that happened in a place in Bosnia. Before the Dayton Accords and the presence of the United States and NATO in Bosnia, the Islamic Republic had sent groups to Bosnia, including the Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force, led by Mohammad Reza Shams Naqdi, and his deputy, Hossein Allahkaram, based near Sarajevo - another group from the Intelligence Ministry - who had set up a camp, training fundamentalists close to [Alija] Izetbegovic's Democratic Action Party, to establish the intelligence apparatus of Bosnia. Later, NATO attacked the camp and arrested a number of people, including Iranian intelligence officials. The most interesting point was the discovery of documents that were part of the curriculum for the training of Bosnian intelligence recruits by Iranians. Among the instructions in the texts were methods for killing opposition figures and silencing journalists. That is, the Intelligence Ministry instructed a foreign organization's members how to intimidate, hunt, kidnap, eliminate and threaten the families and the financial sources of journalists," Rashedan said.

Hardline elements of the Iranian regime
Revolutions consume their children. That maxim was arguably as true of the Islamic Revolution at its outset as it was of the French Revolution. But as the Islamic Republic has matured over the past 26 years, the fierce political jockeying and violence of its early period has largely been forgotten. Instead, Iran appears today to provide some room for political differences within the limits of its theocratic system. Those differences are expressed in parliamentary struggles that are often characterized as showdowns between hardliners and reformists - that is, those who brook little change in the existing system and those who seek to reform it from within.

But if Iran has a limited parliamentary system, it remains a state whose inner workings can be far from transparent. That is particularly true of its Intelligence and Security Ministry - an institution controlled by hardliners and with responsibility for assuring, among other things, public security. That ministry has been the focus of one of the most riveting dramas in Iranian public life in recent years - the assassination of four prominent dissidents by what officials later claimed were "rogue" intelligence agents acting on their own. The case - and suspicions that many more dissidents might also have been killed - raised questions about the extent to which hardliners in the regime might be terrorizing domestic opponents or critics in order to silence them.

Like many revolutions, the Islamic Revolution led by Khomeini came in two waves. The first wave toppled the Shah in January 1979. The second consolidated power in the hands of Khomeini and his supporters at the expense of many other groups, including secular ones, that had made common cause with his camp.

The consolidation-of-power phase of the revolution saw the Islamic regime employing its security services against rivals in exile.

Outside Iran, perhaps the best-known case was that of Shapour Bakhtiar, the last prime minister of the Shah's era and a prominent opponent of the Islamic Republic. He was stabbed and killed in his Paris home in 1991. A French investigation led to the imprisonment of several individuals who were believed to have been intelligence agents of the Islamic Republic.

In 1992, an attack on Kurdish opposition leaders in a Berlin restaurant, the Mykonos, caused such an uproar that it led to a major breakdown in attempts to improve ties between Iran and the European Union.

Mehdi Ebrahimzadeh was among nine people hit by automatic-weapon fire in the Mykonos. He recalled the trial that followed the incident: "On 17 September 1992, the restaurant was drenched in blood with the commando-style terrorist attack of the agents of the Islamic Republic, in which four opposition figures were killed. With four to five years of judiciary investigations and hearings that followed, the outcome was the trial of top officials of the Islamic Republic. In April 1997, for the first time a European court issued a sentence, in which it named Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, president Hashemi Rafsanjani, foreign minister Ali Velayati and most important of all, intelligence minister Ali Fallahian, as the person who implemented the collective decision of physically eliminating the opposition - in this case, the leaders of Democratic Party of Kurdistan. The verdict also mentioned other assassinations, including the assassination of Dr Qassemlu in Vienna and Dr Shapour Bakhtiar in Paris," Ebrahimzadeh said.

Following the German court's verdict, Iranian officials denied having any role in the Mykonos killings. However, EU countries recalled their ambassadors from Tehran to emphasize that Europe would not tolerate Iranian state sponsorship of terrorism. The ambassadors returned again in late 1997 after the EU became convinced that Iran's Intelligence Ministry - at least in the future - would not carry out political assassinations on European soil.

Inside Iran, thousands have perished in apparent assassinations that followed the Islamic Revolution - including dissidents and intellectuals. But the killings have been obscured by the monolithic structure of the new cleric-led government, the lack of an independent press, and a ban on non-governmental political bodies.

Analyst Rashedan, who has studied what he believes is a pattern of political assassinations, said: "The concern of the plotters of terrorism in the first post-revolution decade was the damage that the victims could inflict upon the foundations of the revolution in Tehran. Those who were assassinated were considered threats to the revolution, considered serious threats by fundamentalist revolutionary forces in Tehran. But in the second decade, the trend becomes somewhat more sophisticated. It seems that terror was now used as a lever in foreign policy, as a balancing or sometimes destabilizing ballast in the foreign relations of the Islamic Republic. In the second wave of assassinations - which statistically is the larger part, under Intelligence Minister Ali Fallahian - individuals were not as important as the very nature of terror was."

Observers suggest that it was only after the election of reformist President Mohammad Khatami in 1997 that an independent press emerged to look into cases where intellectuals or dissidents disappeared under mysterious circumstances.

The first cases to receive significant public attention were the 1998 killings of four liberal dissidents, including well-known secular politician Dariush Foruhar and his wife, Parvaneh. The outcry sparked an investigation that officially blamed "rogue" agents in the Intelligence Ministry with killing the dissidents on their own initiative. Further investigations were stymied when the accused ringleader of the agents, Said Emami, died in jail. Emami's death was labeled a suicide.

Some journalists who have investigated the killings say they appear to be part of a wider campaign of targeting dissidents, believed to have claimed the lives of 70 to 100 victims.

Many observers suspect that the so-called rogue intelligence agents were acting on orders from much higher authorities, possibly the then head of the Intelligence Ministry, Ali Fallahian. But the inconclusive nature of the investigations left such questions unanswered.

Nasser Zarafshan, a lawyer representing the families of the slain dissidents, described the case in 2001. "Mr Fallahian, who was for years the direct superior of Saeed Emami, and therefore has had direct supervision over his work, says that, 'I will give no explanation without my superior being present'. And thus to avoid the circle of investigations to encompass him, he attaches himself to others," Zarafshan said. "Therefore, people themselves guess what's wrong with the case. The problem is not to which faction the perpetrators of the murders belong, but to which faction the issuer of the fatwas [assassination orders] belongs."

Alireza Nourizadeh is a journalist who has investigated a number of dissident deaths. He suggests that former Intelligence Ministry head Fallahian's post appears to have shielded him from more thorough scrutiny.

"In the courtyard of the Intelligence Ministry, those who later became the key players in this case were playing soccer when the minister arrived in his Mercedes-Benz. He called out to Mr Mostafa Kazemi and asked him, 'Why hasn't this job been done'? Later, Mr Minister fled from prosecution by taking an oath [that he was not involved], and he is now the prosecutor. But four witnesses - two of whom I have talked to - have admitted that the minister did come to the courtyard, called Kazemi and Alikhani, and asked them why the job was not done. It was after that talk that they started to act. They went to the Foruhars' house with the false claim that their stolen car had been found. They entered the house and brutally murdered Dariush and Parvaneh - the latter was sick and in bed upstairs - and even broke Foruhar's arm," Nourizadeh said.

Journalists and lawyers pressing for information have faced strong official pressure to abandon the case, and several have been imprisoned. One prominent journalist, Akbar Ganji, continues to serve a jail term.

With such unsolved cases, it remains unclear whether hardline authorities in control of the Intelligence Ministry or other security branches are willing to resort to extrajudicial killings to silence critics.

Reformist Mohammad Reza Khatami, the brother of the Iranian president and the secretary of the Mosharekat Party, has warned that a "cancerous tumor" is still alive and could reemerge at any moment.

Rushdie affair clouds Tehran
As the US accuses Iran of state support for terrorism, and Tehran adamantly denies the charge, it can be difficult to judge the merits of each side's arguments. Many of the actions fueling the debate have taken place in an atmosphere of extreme secrecy and with few publicly known details.

But one major incident that is often cited to link Tehran to international terrorism has played out very much in the open. That is the death sentence passed by the Islamic Revolution's founder, Khomeini, against British author Salman Rushdie in 1989. The death sentence, issued in a fatwa, called on Muslims anywhere in the world to kill Rushdie for alleged blasphemy against Islam's Prophet Mohammed.

The call shocked much of the world because it appears to be an inducement to murder. It also drove Rushdie into hiding and made him a symbol for critics of the Islamic Republic's policies on free speech, even far from its own borders. Sixteen years later, Iran's hardline Islamic Revolution Guards Corps recently declared that the fatwa remains valid, and cash rewards are still being offered for Rushdie's death.

In the fatwa - which was never shown to the public in its original written form - Khomeini called on Muslims of the world to try to assassinate Rushdie, promising that they would be regarded as "martyrs" if they were killed in the attempt.

The fatwa was quickly given added weight by substantial financial rewards offered to any successful assassin. Those rewards were backed by different religious bodies, such as the 15th of Khordad Foundation.

Rushdie was already a controversial author in some parts of the Muslim world even before the fatwa was announced. The reason was that his novel The Satanic Verses had made references to verses in the Koran that refer to the worship of idols, something forbidden in Islam. The verses are generally believed by Muslims to have been surreptitiously inserted by Satan into the Prophet Mohammed's message from God.

A number of Muslim leaders in India and Pakistan argued that the novel contained insults to Islam, and some bookshops selling the novel were attacked. In Iran, where the book was translated and published in 1988, it was also labeled as blasphemous by some newspapers. But none of those attacks compared in scale to that of the Islamic Republic's supreme leader.

Experts on Iranian politics continue to discuss today why Khomeini sentenced Rushdie to death. The action shocked the Western world and set back prospects for the Islamic Republic to rebuild trade relations with Europe, even as some capitals suggested Iran was becoming more moderate 10 years after the Islamic Revolution.

Ahmad Salamatian is a former Iranian parliament member and a political analyst in Paris. He says the fatwa was issued mainly to overcome a series of domestic and international crises the Iranian regime was then trying to weather. They included the challenges of recovering from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War and the worsening of Khomeini's health.

"The fatwa against Rushdie was one of the Islamic Republic's biggest shows [aimed at] finding an extraordinary presence in domestic and international arenas in order to mobilize parts of its supporters again," Salamatian said. "In that sense, it is somehow similar to the [November 1979-January 1981 US Embassy] hostage crisis. It coincides with the Islamic Republic's failure to export its revolution through a disastrous eight-year classical war, admitting its failure by the metaphor of 'drinking a goblet of poison'. It also coincides with a major crisis among key bodies of the Islamic Republic following the execution of thousands of political prisoners. It also marks the intensifying of Ayatollah Khomeini's illness 18 months earlier, such that according to his associates, he would fall into a coma for several days or weeks. In the likely absence of Mr Khomeini, the establishment would have three pillars: Mr Ahmad Khomeini, Mr Khamenei and Mr Hashemi Rafsanjani, all of whom were in harsh disagreement over the issue of succession."

One of the fatwa's clear effects was that it created enormous public sympathy for Rushdie in the West. That sympathy increased as Rushdie, who was forced to go into hiding with round-the-clock police protection, showed defiance in the face of the death threat.

Rushdie labeled the anti-religious interpretation of his novel as misguided - protesting that he had not intended to insult religious concepts. But he also challenged the right of religious leaders to control any author's freedom of expression.

"It showed this is a latest stage in a campaign that began with smears and vilifications and distortions of a book, which has escalated into all sorts and levels of violence," Rushdie said. "And frankly, I wish I had written a more critical book. I mean, religious leaders who are able to behave like this and then say that this is a religion which must be above any whisper of criticism, this doesn't add up. It seems to be that Islamic fundamentalism could do with a little criticism right now."

Khomeini's fatwa has been criticized by many religious scholars and even some senior clerics in the Muslim world. Mehdi Haeri Yazdi, one of Khomeini's prominent pupils and the grandson of the founder of the influential Qom Seminary, wrote that the fatwa was inconsistent with the principles of Islamic law, or Sharia. He also said it was against the interests of Muslim society, which should come before any Sharia tenet.

But if the fatwa against Rushdie is today controversial in parts of the Muslim world, there are no signs that it can safely be ignored. The author continues to live under security restrictions. He has, however, increased his public appearances in an effort to enjoy some semblance of a normal life.

The risks were evident recently when supporters marked 16 years since the Rushdie fatwa was issued.

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, which answers directly to the current Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a statement saying it considers the fatwa valid and "irrevocable". The statement warned that "the day will come when they will punish the apostate Rushdie for his scandalous acts and insults against the Koran and the Prophet [Mohammed]."

The statement comes despite the fact that the government of Khatami has long distanced itself from the fatwa in an effort to improve relations with Britain and the European Union.

London and Tehran today enjoy normal diplomatic ties and growing commerce, largely based on the Islamic Republic's assurances that it now rejects terrorism.

Copyright (c) 2005, RFE/RL Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington DC 20036

 

 
 

All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd.
Head Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110

Asian Sex Gazette  Middle East Sex News