|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
NYT:
"With dark warnings and a call to action, Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu of Israel used one of the world's most prominent venues on
Tuesday to denounce what he called a 'bad deal' being negotiated with
Iran and to mount an audacious challenge to President Obama. In an
extraordinary spectacle pitting the leaders of two close allies against
each other, Mr. Netanyahu took the rostrum in the historic chamber of the
House of Representatives to tell a joint meeting of Congress that instead
of stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, Mr. Obama's diplomatic
initiative 'would all but guarantee' that it does, in turn setting off a
regional arms race. 'This deal won't be a farewell to arms,' Mr.
Netanyahu told the lawmakers, who responded to him with a succession of
standing ovations. 'It would be a farewell to arms control. And the
Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region
where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear
tinderbox.' Such dire predictions could make it much harder for Mr. Obama
to sell an agreement to a Republican-led Congress even if his negotiators
reach one in Geneva. The president quickly tried to counter the prime
minister by dismissing the speech as 'theater' and 'nothing new.' Mr.
Netanyahu, the president told reporters, had no better ideas than the
status quo or, in theory, military strikes against Iranian facilities...
The prime minister dissected Mr. Obama's proposed deal, complaining that
it would allow Iran to keep some nuclear enrichment facilities and leave
it capable of producing enough fuel for a bomb within a year if it broke
the deal. The agreement would last only 10 years or so and would not
address Iran's ballistic missile program. 'It doesn't block Iran's path
to the bomb. It paves Iran's path to the bomb,' he said, adding, 'This is
a bad deal.'" http://t.uani.com/1DNLjRm
NYT:
"President Obama's task of selling a potential nuclear agreement
with Iran to a skeptical Congress became far harder on Tuesday after an
impassioned speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to
lawmakers already nervous about the deal. 'The president has a very heavy
burden of persuasion here,' said former Representative Lee H. Hamilton, a
Democrat and the onetime chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
who now directs Indiana University's Center on Congress. 'That task is
made much more difficult when a powerful case is stated against the
emerging deal, as the prime minister has done.' ... Visibly irritated by
Tuesday's speech when asked about it in the Oval Office afterward, Mr.
Obama dismissed the pressure from his Israeli counterpart, pledging to
take his case 'to every member of Congress once we actually have a deal.'
But as he makes that crucial sales job - which will involve persuading
lawmakers to go along with the easing of a complex set of sanctions
against Iran, some put in place by Congress - Mr. Obama must now overcome
not only the animosity of Republicans but also the words of the leader of
Israel, whose powerful speech will serve as the counterpoint to a
president they already distrust... Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky,
the majority leader, moved quickly after Mr. Netanyahu's address to put
the president on notice that lawmakers intended to have their say in the
matter. 'Congress and the American people need to be part of this
discussion, too,' Mr. McConnell said as he moved to schedule debate on
legislation that would make any Iran agreement subject to congressional
approval. 'Congress must be involved in reviewing and voting on an
agreement reached between this White House and Iran.'" http://t.uani.com/1FWiiW0
WSJ:
"In appealing to U.S. lawmakers to steer away from the emerging
international nuclear deal with Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is betting he can use Congress to either circumvent the White
House's diplomacy or at least significantly toughen and broaden the terms
of any deal. In his no-holds-barred speech to a joint session of Congress
on Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu appealed heavily to U.S. lawmakers to use their
authority to potentially block an Iran deal from taking effect.
Republican leaders moved quickly to build on the momentum of the speech.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) laid the groundwork
Tuesday for lawmakers to vote on a bill, as soon as next week, requiring
congressional approval of any Iran nuclear agreement. The White House
opposes the measure... But two Democratic co-sponsors of that bill, Sens.
Robert Menendez and Tim Kaine, voiced concern over plans to speed up the measure.
Mr. Menendez, of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, said he would vote against any effort to take up the
bill... Congress has several other avenues of leverage. Lawmakers can
pass new sanctions on Iran while talks are continuing, which they have
signaled they may do after a late March deadline in the talks. President
Barack Obama has said he would veto any additional sanctions. Congress
also could refuse to lift Iran sanctions, as would be required in a final
deal. Secretary of State John Kerry has said the administration believes
'all sanctions must be lifted' under any final accord. Mr. Obama can lift
certain sanctions on his own but would need Congress to undo some of the
most stringent ones." http://t.uani.com/1M76vIv
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
Reuters:
"The U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers wrapped up three days of
talks over Iran's nuclear programme on Wednesday, a day after Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal being negotiated was a
serious mistake. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran's Mohammad
Javad Zarif have negotiated for more than 10 hours since Monday in the
Swiss lakeside town of Montreux, hoping to work out a framework deal by
late March. 'We have made some progress but have a lot of challenges yet
ahead,' a senior U.S. State Department official told reporters traveling
with Kerry. 'The bottom line here is that (there is) no deal to announce
to anybody today, but very intense, hard work, some progress, but tough
challenges yet to be resolved,' the official said. 'We expect that we
(and the Iranians) will regroup bilaterally, with the European Union
present as well, on the 15th of March, location to be confirmed but most
likely Geneva.' Asked if he thought they had made progress, Zarif told
reporters: 'We have, but a lot of work remains.'" http://t.uani.com/1w3cFoZ
AP:
"A senior U.S. official spoke of some progress Wednesday in reaching
a nuclear deal with Iran but tamped down expectations of a formal,
preliminary deal this month outlining constraints on Tehran's nuclear
program in exchange for sanctions relief for the Islamic Republic. The
official said the negotiations are aiming for a much looser construct -
'an understanding that's going to have to be filled out with lots of
detail' by their late March target date." http://t.uani.com/1wV1vxR
NYT:
"After winding up three days of talks that American officials said
had led to some progress toward an accord to limit Iran's nuclear
program, Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday flew to Saudi Arabia
to take on the challenge of explaining the potential deal to a kingdom
that is both an adversary of Iran and an ally of the United States. In
Riyadh, Mr. Kerry plans to meet with King Salman, the new Saudi monarch,
and to consult with foreign ministers from Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar
and the United Arab Emirates, who are also flying there. Like Israel,
which opposes the potential deal, Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations in
the Persian Gulf see Iran as an opponent. And they have also been
concerned about terms of the deal, which would be limited in duration and
would allow Iran to retain some of its nuclear infrastructure... Asked
about Mr. Netanyahu's criticism, the State Department official declined
to discuss how Iran might be precluded from constructing a large network
of additional centrifuges after the accord expires." http://t.uani.com/1B6zyqJ
AFP:
"Iran denounced as 'lie-spreading' a speech Tuesday in which Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the US Congress a nuclear deal
being negotiated with Tehran would threaten the world. Foreign ministry
spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham, in a statement, denounced as 'very
repetitious and boring Netanyahu's continuous lie-spreading about the
goals and intentions behind Iran's peaceful nuclear programme'... The
Iranian spokeswoman said the speech was a 'sign of weakness' and that it
revealed the isolation of 'radical groups' in the Jewish state. The
anti-Iranian policy 'is facing serious problems because of the continuous
talks and Iran's serious determination to overcome this fabricated
crisis,' she was quoted as saying." http://t.uani.com/1AICGFH
Iraq Crisis
AFP:
"Iran's role in an Iraqi military offensive to recapture Tikrit
could be positive as long as it does not fuel sectarian divisions in the
country, the US military's top officer said Tuesday. General Martin
Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told senators that
Iran's military assistance for Shiite militia was nothing new but was
carried out in a more open manner this week as Iraqi forces pushed to
retake Tikrit from Islamic State jihadists. 'This is the most overt
conduct of Iranian support,' Dempsey said, which came 'in the form of
artillery' and other aid. 'Frankly, it would only be a problem if it
resulted in sectarianism,' he told the Senate Armed Services Committee...
In an assault launched Monday, officials in Baghdad say a 30,000-strong
force has been mobilized to take back Tikrit. Dempsey said Shiite militia
-- which are armed by Tehran -- account for about two-thirds of the force
while Iraqi government army troops make up the remainder." http://t.uani.com/18jZXa0
WashPost:
"The U.S. military has no direct role in the ongoing military
offensive to take back the Iraqi city of Tikrit from Islamic State
militants, but U.S. commanders have seen it coming for days, according to
the top U.S. general overseeing operations in the Middle East. The
assault, said to involve about 25,000 Iraqi troops, was launched Monday
to take back the birthplace of Saddam Hussein. Numerous photos have
surfaced of Gen. Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Quds Force, in
the region assisting Shiite militias that are taking part in the
offensive. The operation, launched without direct U.S. involvement, has
been called an eye-opener to the United States by some analysts. But Gen.
Lloyd J. Austin III, chief of U.S. Central Command, told the House Armed
Services Committee on Tuesday that it was 'no surprise,' even if the
United States and Iran don't see eye-to-eye on other issues and do not
coordinate operations against the Islamic State." http://t.uani.com/1aLpLxJ
Human Rights
RFE/RL:
"Six Iranian Kurds have reportedly been executed despite human right
defenders' calls on Iranian authorities to spare their lives. The
Norway-based Iran Human Rights (IHR) group said the Sunni Muslim men were
executed early on March 4 inside Rajai Shahr prison in the city of Karaj,
near Tehran. On March 3, Amnesty International renewed its call not to
hang the six inmates, who it said had gone on a hunger strike. The
London-based group said they were sentenced to death after being found
guilty of the offense of 'enmity against God.' Four of them were accused
of killing a senior Sunni Musilm cleric in 2009, but they claim they were
arrested several months before the killing. They were among 33 Sunni
Muslim men on death row in mainly Shi'ite Iran. All of them maintain that
they were targeted solely because they practiced or promoted their
faith." http://t.uani.com/1Elb3s2
Opinion &
Analysis
WashPost
Editorial: "The concerns about a prospective nuclear
agreement with Iran raised by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
in a speech to Congress on Tuesday are not - as the White House was quick
to point out - new. They had, for example, been spelled out in Senate
hearings, as an editorial we published last month recounted. Mr.
Netanyahu's decision to repeat this case before a joint meeting of
Congress in defiance of the White House and leading Democrats risked
turning what should be a substantive debate into a partisan scrimmage.
Nevertheless, Mr. Netanyahu's arguments deserve a serious response from
the Obama administration - one it has yet to provide. The White House has
sought to dismiss the Israeli leader as a politician seeking reelection;
has said that he was wrong in his support for the Iraq war and in his
opposition to an interim agreement with Iran; and has claimed that he
offers no alternative to President Obama's policy. Such rhetoric will not
satisfy those in and out of Congress who share Mr. Netanyahu's legitimate
questions. His speech singled out 'two major concessions' he said would
be part of any deal the United States and its partners conclude with
Iran. The first is the acceptance of a large Iranian nuclear
infrastructure, including thousands of centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
The second is a time limit on any restrictions, so that in as little as a
decade Iran would be free to expand its production of nuclear materials.
Consequently, Mr. Netanyahu said, the deal 'doesn't block Iran's path to
the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.' The Israeli prime minister's
most aggressive argument concerned the nature of the Iranian regime,
which he called 'a dark and brutal dictatorship' engaged in a 'march of
conquest, subjugation and terror.' Saying that the regime's ideology is
comparable with that of the Islamic State, he asserted that it could not
be expected to change during the decade-long term of an agreement. He
proposed that controls on the nuclear program should be maintained 'for
as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.'
In essence, this was an argument that Iran must be sanctioned and
contained while its clerical regime remains in power. That has been the
explicit or de facto U.S. policy since 1979, but Mr. Obama appears to be
betting that detente can better control Iran's nuclear ambitions and,
perhaps, produce better behavior over time. Yet he has shied from
explicitly making that case; instead, his aides argue that the only
alternative to his approach is war. Mr. Netanyahu strongly disputed that
point. 'Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current
proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a
very vulnerable regime,' he said. Is that wrong? For that matter, is it
acceptable to free Iran from sanctions within a decade and allow it
unlimited nuclear capacity? Rather than continuing its political attacks
on Mr. Netanyahu, the administration ought to explain why the deal it is
contemplating is justified - or reconsider it." http://t.uani.com/18P8Zgs
WSJ Editorial:
"President Obama thought so little of Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to
Congress Tuesday that he made clear he hadn't watched it and said the
text didn't 'offer any viable alternatives' to the Administration's
pending nuclear deal with Iran. We'll take that presidential
passive-aggression as evidence that the Israeli Prime Minister's critique
was as powerful as Mr. Obama feared... Point by point, he dismantled the
emerging details and assumptions of what he called a 'very bad deal.' The
heart of his critique concerned the nature of the Iranian regime as a
terror sponsor of long-standing that has threatened to 'annihilate'
Israel and is bent on regional domination. The Administration argues that
a nuclear accord will help move the revolutionary regime toward
moderation. But Mr. Netanyahu spent some 15 minutes laying out the
regime's historical record. Since Hasan Rouhani became president in 2013,
Iran's internal repression has become worse than in the days of Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad . Iran has doubled down on its military support for Bashar
Assad in Syria, gained control of north Yemen through its Houthi militia
proxies, and continued to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and
Shiite militias in Iraq. Mr. Netanyahu noted that the pending deal would
lift the economic sanctions that have driven Iran to the negotiating
table. 'Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its
economy is stronger?' Mr. Netanyahu asked. 'Why should Iran's radical
regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds:
aggression abroad, prosperity at home?' These are good questions that the
Administration should be obliged to answer... He also zeroed in on the
deal's acceptance of Iran's already robust nuclear infrastructure,
coupled with a 10-year sunset provision after which Iran could enrich as
much uranium in as many centrifuges as it likes. To appreciate the scope
of this concession, recall that the Administration and U.N. Security
Council demanded that Iran 'halt all enrichment activities' in a
resolution adopted in 2010. The Administration now says that it can't
plausibly forbid Iran from having some enrichment capability. But the
only alternative to zero enrichment isn't the major capacity the White
House is now prepared to concede to Tehran. Such a capability makes it
easier for Iran to cheat on any agreement it signs. The sunset provision
also means that Iran can simply bide its time to build an even larger
nuclear capacity... Mr. Netanyahu was especially effective in rebutting the
Administration's claim that the only alternatives at the current moment
are Mr. Obama's deal-or war. This is the familiar false choice-his way or
disaster-that has become a hallmark of the President's political
argumentation. But Mr. Netanyahu said there is a third choice-negotiate a
better deal. He pointed out that sanctions had driven Iran to the
negotiating table when oil was $100 a barrel and it would be under
greater pressure now when oil is closer to $50. For all of its fanaticism
and ambition, Iran is still a relatively weak country under great
economic pressure. The U.S. has leverage to drive a harder bargain if it
is willing to use it. Mr. Netanyahu hinted that he could still accept
some kind of agreement, despite attempts to portray him as opposed to any
concessions... Given Mr. Obama's reaction, the Prime Minister knows his
real audience is Congress and the American people. His speech raised
serious doubts about an accord that has been negotiated in secret and
which Mr. Obama wants Americans to accept without a vote in Congress. Now
maybe we can have a debate worthy of the high nuclear stakes."
David Ignatius in
WashPost: "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
lobbied powerfully against a nuclear agreement with Iran in a
well-crafted speech to Congress on Tuesday. The problem is that he has
now created a zero-sum game with the Obama administration, in which
either the president or the prime minister seems likely to come out a
loser... Consider the possible outcomes as the Iran negotiations head
toward a March 24 deadline: Netanyahu could 'win' and convince Congress
to derail the biggest foreign-policy initiative of Obama's presidency. Or
Obama could 'win' and push ahead to conclude what Netanyahu characterized
as 'a very bad deal.' Either outcome would traumatize U.S.-Israeli
relations and portend a poisonous final two years for Obama's presidency.
Two other hard landings are possible after Netanyahu's high-wire
performance. Iran could balk at further concessions, walk away from
negotiations and accelerate its nuclear program - forcing the United
States and Israel to consider military action. Or Netanyahu, having bet
his political future on the visit to Washington, could lose in the
Israeli elections on March 17. That defeat may be less likely after
Netanyahu's deft presentation... What's least likely is that Tehran will
bend enough to agree to Netanyahu's formula. Netanyahu's speech didn't
offer many new ideas, but a White House senior official's dismissal of it
as 'all rhetoric, no action' was overstated. Although the Israeli leader
clearly rejects the deal Obama is contemplating, he argued that if the
United States is determined to proceed, it should insist that the
agreement not terminate until Iran has abandoned its aggression in the
region, halted its terrorism and accepted Israel's existence. Obama hopes
for just such an evolution toward post-revolutionary sanity in Tehran
over the decade-long duration of the planned agreement, and Netanyahu is
right that it would be good to put this in writing. But that would almost
certainly be a deal-breaker for Tehran... What Netanyahu did Tuesday was
raise the bar for Obama. Any deal that the administration signs will have
to address the concerns Netanyahu voiced. Given what's at stake in the
Middle East, that's probably a good thing. As administration officials
said at the outset of negotiations, no deal is better than a bad one. The
Israeli prime minister's speech, for all its divisive political
consequences, served to sharpen the focus on what a good deal would look
like." http://t.uani.com/1M77FDV
Michael Hayden in
WT: "The United States is fast closing in on a
nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The signs are
multiplying. There is Secretary of State John F. Kerry, trying to deflect
last-minute congressional intervention, stubbornly claiming that the
details of an agreement are so undecided that he can't discuss them.
Meanwhile, other administration sources are outlining the draft agreement
in considerable detail: up to 6,500 centrifuges permitted; limits on
fissile material such that, at least in theory, Iran would need a year to
sprint to a bomb; a deal of 10 years' duration with perhaps an additional
five-year ramping-down of restrictions on Iran. No mention of Iran's
ballistic missile program which, absent weapons of mass destruction,
makes little sense. No mention either of coming clean on Teheran's past
nuclear activities, including its warhead weaponization program. Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, seeing the handwriting on the wall as
clearly as Babylonian King Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel, has hurried
to Washington to make an eleventh-hour appeal to Congress. (Belshazzar
was killed and his capital sacked by the Persians the very night of
Daniel's prophecy.) Mr. Netanyahu's haste is understandable. The draft
agreement represents what has fairly been described as massive and
irreversible concessions to Iran. After all, the starting point for all
of this was a series of U.N. Security Council Resolutions that directed
Teheran to suspend all enrichment activities. Of course, the United
States and its negotiating partners conceded Iran's right to enrich at
the beginning of this process, opting, as Henry Kissinger has described
it, to manage rather than prevent nuclear proliferation. Now this
agreement will legitimate Iran as a nuclear state and - with the rolling
12-month weaponization shot clock - as a permanent nuclear weapon
threshold state as well. Whatever constraints the deal finally sets will
have defined time limits. The agreement's impact on future
counterproliferation efforts also will be profound as a struggling,
isolated regional power has just challenged the world and clearly won.
There's a lot not to like here, and it will be pretty easy to shoot holes
in the agreement. Congress should certainly be offered the chance.
Codifying a deal of this magnitude on executive prerogative alone would
be unconscionable. Beyond the specifics, the administration's macro views
are also fair game for inquiry. Was the Iranian deal so important,
intrinsically or as part of the president's legacy, that he pulled
punches in Syria against Teheran's client Bashar Assad or in Ukraine
against Vladimir Putin, an essential negotiating partner vis-a-vis
Teheran. And what of the talk of an overall American-Iranian
rapprochement once the nuclear issue is behind us? The president himself
has spoken of a better-behaving Iran as a 'very successful regional
power' and of an 'equilibrium ' between Teheran and the Sunni states of
the region. The New York Times' David Brooks even suggests that the
president's big plan is that 'Iran would re-emerge as America's natural
partner in the region.' So there will be lots to talk about and to
challenge and criticize. It won't be hard to find weaknesses in the nuclear
deal or in the worldview that nurtured it. I will certainly be among
those citing such flaws. Watch this space, for example, for commentary on
the need for an invasive inspection regime since American intelligence on
its own cannot give adequate assurances that the Iranians are not
cheating. With international inspectors still barred from checking on
past weapons activity at Parchin, I will be skeptical. I will be
skeptical too that, after an agreement is reached, Iran won't be the
duplicitous, autocratic, terrorist-backing, Hezbollah-supporting,
Hamas-funding, region-destabilizing, hegemony-seeking theocracy that it
is today. But people like me also need to be prepared to answer another
question: If not this agreement, then what? 'What if,' as a Jack Nicholson
character once put it, 'this is as good as it gets?' ... There was a
reason we thought this was the problem from hell while I was in
government. It still is. Stay tuned." http://t.uani.com/17QDhyc
Faisal J. Abbas in
Al Arabiya: "It is extremely rare for any reasonable
person to ever agree with anything Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu says or does. However, one must admit, Bibi did get it right,
at least when it came to dealing with Iran. The Israeli PM managed to hit
the nail right on the head when he said that Middle Eastern countries are
collapsing and that 'terror organizations, mostly backed by Iran, are
filling in the vacuum' during a recent ceremony held in Tel Aviv to thank
outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz for his role during
'challenging' times. In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to
accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel
(which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region.
What is absurd, however, is that despite this being perhaps the only
thing that brings together Arabs and Israelis (as it threatens them all),
the only stakeholder that seems not to realize the danger of the
situation is President Obama, who is now infamous for being the latest
pen-pal of the Supreme Leader of the World's biggest terrorist regime:
Ayottallah Ali Khamenei. (Although, the latter never seems to write
back!) ... As such, the real Iranian threat is not JUST the regime's
nuclear ambitions, but its expansionist approach and state-sponsored
terrorism activities which are still ongoing... Not only is Iran
responsible for sponsoring Shiite terrorist groups, but Sunni ones too.
In fact, according to the U.S.'s own State Department, Tehran was home to
a number of Al-Qaeda facilitators and high ranking financiers. These
accusations are also backed by findings of the U.S. Treasury Department
as well. Now, some would argue that it would be biased and/or naive to
leave out Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, out of the equation and
blame most of the regions problems on the mischievous Iranian regime. On
the contrary, it would be biased and/or naïve NOT to blame Iran for such
problems. After all, yes there are terrorists in Saudi Arabia and there
are people who financed terrorism, but these are officially outlaws, who
are either in jail, being hunted down or are hiding in the caves of Tora
Bora or some other remote area. The same, sadly, doesn't apply to the
terrorists of Iran; these are in uniform, hold government positions and
are not bothering to hide their evil plots anymore!" http://t.uani.com/1CwbRvc
|
|
Eye on Iran is a periodic news summary from United Against
Nuclear Iran (UANI) a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear
Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code. Eye on Iran is not intended as a comprehensive
media clips summary but rather a selection of media elements with
discreet analysis in a PDA friendly format. For more information please
email Press@UnitedAgainstNuclearIran.com
United Against Nuclear
Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a
commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional
super-power possessing nuclear weapons. UANI is an issue-based
coalition in which each coalition member will have its own interests as
well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment