Iran - New Sanctions

Topic locked
  • Reply
Iran - New Sanctions Jan 23, 2012
So today European countries agreed to put embargo on Iran's oil. In the last few weeks exchange rate of dollar and price of gold increased by 100%! It is huge. Now with this new sanctions value of Iranian rial will even more decrease. What do you think will happen in the region? As stated before by Iran, the regime is going to close Hurmoz? Do you see the war close?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577178231285985826.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16674660

melika969
Dubai Forums Knight
User avatar
Posts: 2605

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 24, 2012
I hope that the Iranians won't close Hormuz, but the sabre-rattling is a bit worrying. I hope that the Economist's conclusions are proved correct (taken from this week's Economist, and which I quote in full below - for those interested in reading more fully):
So the new sanctions are likelier to be incremental rather than dramatic in their impact on Iran. But they will add to the country's sense of isolation at a time when it faces other threats, above all the Arab spring and the possible downfall of the Assad regime in Syria, its only solid regional ally. Nor is it clear that Iran itself has decided about reaching, let alone crossing, the nuclear threshold. It is trying hard to persuade the IAEA's inspectors to come to Iran later this month in an effort to try and allay some of the agency's concerns about the "possible military dimensions" of its nuclear programme. Even with Israel champing uneasily at the bit, so long as neither Iran nor America is seeking a do-or-die confrontation, the betting, just, is that there will not be one.


In this week's Economist, there was also an interesting chart (this is from an article about State Capitalism, and is a very interesting special report feature in the Economist - but it caught my eye in terms of this topic):

Image

I wasn't aware that Iran was No1 on this measure. Food for thought? :?



More directly relevant to this thread, the economist has an article on the sanctions (conclusion quoted above) - I think the coverage is excellent and I thought I'd reproduce it here in full for convenience (and also because access to the Economist has some limits). Mel what do you think of the analysis/explanations?:

Beleaguered but still unbowed

Despite all the sabre-rattling, neither Iran nor America wants confrontation just yet
Jan 21st 2012

THOUGH they are unlikely to be fully implemented before the middle of the year, the prospect of fierce new sanctions on Iran has already ratcheted up tension between the Islamic republic and the West. On January 23rd the European Union is expected to confirm that it will embargo oil imports from Iran (see our chart), a fifth of Iran's overall sales. The EU's move follows the signing into law by Barack Obama on December 31st of measures, passed almost unanimously by Congress, to stop foreign financial institutions from transacting with Iran's central bank, the main conduit for the country's energy deals. The EU, with France and Britain in the lead, is also looking at other ways of hurting the central bank.

Iran has reacted by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf's chokepoint through which a fifth of the world's oil passes, if the embargo goes ahead. It has also warned Saudi Arabia not to make good on its promise to boost production to offset Iranian oil removed from the world market. The sanctions, which were partly prompted by the most recent report, in November, of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's watchdog, are not, however, the only reason for Iran's ire.

A car-bomb on January 11th killed a chemical engineer in charge of procurement at the Natanz uranium-enrichment plant. He was the fourth Iranian scientist to be killed in the past two years. His death followed several other recent unexplained explosions at factories and military sites, perhaps thanks to a covert campaign by Western intelligence agencies and Israel's Mossad to delay the nuclear programme. Just before the assassination, an Iranian court sentenced to death an Iranian-American former marine after convicting him of spying for the CIA.

Adding to the jumpiness in Tehran—and in Washington—are warlike rumblings coming from Israel. Having at first praised the new sanctions, Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and his deputy, Moshe Yaalon, lamented the failure to impose them immediately. Mr Yaalon provocatively accused Mr Obama of dragging his feet for fear of boosting oil prices in an election year.

The chances of Israel launching a unilateral strike on Iran this year may be rising. The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Fereydun Davani-Abbasi, says enrichment of uranium to 20% purity, close to weapons-grade, has begun at Fordow, a supposedly impregnable facility that is buried deep in a mountain complex surrounded by anti-aircraft batteries near the holy city of Qom. Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said in November there was less than a year to stop Iran's nuclear plans, because once most of the enrichment is being carried out at Fordow, Iran will be in "immune space" and the option of a military attack, at least by Israel acting alone, would be off the table.

Though many in Israel's defence and security establishment doubt the merits of an attack, the final decision would be taken by Mr Netanyahu, Mr Yaalon and Mr Barak, all regarded as hawks. Mr Netanyahu may well also believe that in an election year Mr Obama would have to support Israel if it took such a step, whereas once safely re-elected (against Mr Netanyahu's preferences) he might not.

If Iran is worried that Israel might strike, so too is the Obama administration. Though Mr Barak said on January 18th that a decision was still "very far off", relations between the two allies over Iran are strained. In a recent telephone conversation with Israel's prime minister, Mr Obama is said to have warned strongly against an attack. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, is about to visit Israel, ostensibly to share intelligence but also to ram home the message from his boss.

America was also keen to distance itself from the murder of the Natanz engineer. Tacitly pointing a finger at Israel, a Pentagon spokesman said: "The United States played no role whatsoever in the killing of this scientist. We have been very clear that we seek to lower the temperature on tensions with Iran, and we think that things have calmed down a bit in recent days." Apparently with that in mind, the White House called off a big joint war game with Israel planned for the spring, though 9,000 American troops have already arrived in Israel. But on January 13th, the Pentagon announced that it was stationing 15,000 additional forces in Kuwait. At least two carrier groups will remain on patrol in the region; a third, it is reported, may join.

The argument between America and Israel stems not from differences over whether Iran should be stopped from having a nuclear weapon; Leon Panetta, America's defence secretary, came close to promising to use force if necessary earlier this month. But their perspectives are different. Israeli hawks, such as Mr Barak, consider that the beginning of enrichment at Fordow marks the crossing of a red line which may quickly be followed by a "breakout" announcement of the kind North Korea made in 2006 when it tested a primitive nuclear device. American officials think that is improbable, given that Iran would invite an attack when it had no adequate means of deterrence. Rather, they believe Iran's approach is to keep moving every piece forward until it reaches the threshold of a capability to build a number of warheads and the missiles to deliver them. If so, there is still time for economic and diplomatic pressure to persuade Iran that crossing the threshold is not in its interest.

In truth, no one knows how likely that is. Iran has a proud record of resisting outside pressure and has dealt, albeit at some cost, with sanctions of one kind or another for over 30 years. It is also unclear how much greater pain the new sanctions will inflict on its already distorted economy. Iran will probably still be able to sell most of its oil to China and India at heavily discounted prices. And Mr Yaalon has a point when he suggests that the appetite in the West for an strict oil embargo may be limited. Even if Saudi Arabia is willing to pump a lot more oil and Libyan production is recovering faster than expected, inventories remain tight and Asian demand will quickly eat into whatever spare capacity is left. Société Générale, a bank, reckons that even if the embargo is phased in slowly, Brent crude could reach as much as $150 a barrel, as twitchy traders fret over the way the market adjusts. That might be enough to send America back into recession and worsen the euro-zone crisis.

So the new sanctions are likelier to be incremental rather than dramatic in their impact on Iran. But they will add to the country's sense of isolation at a time when it faces other threats, above all the Arab spring and the possible downfall of the Assad regime in Syria, its only solid regional ally. Nor is it clear that Iran itself has decided about reaching, let alone crossing, the nuclear threshold. It is trying hard to persuade the IAEA's inspectors to come to Iran later this month in an effort to try and allay some of the agency's concerns about the "possible military dimensions" of its nuclear programme. Even with Israel champing uneasily at the bit, so long as neither Iran nor America is seeking a do-or-die confrontation, the betting, just, is that there will not be one.



http://www.economist.com/node/21543157

Cheers,

Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 24, 2012
That is an interesting article Shaf. Thanks for sharing.

I seriously don’t know about Iran’s stage in nuclear. As I remember they have stated one year ago that Iran is close to weapons and will reach it by June 2010. So we don’t have much time. Now again there is another deadline. It might be true or not. However personally I believe if they don’t get assistance from North Korea and Russia, they are not able to produce a plastic plate, let alone nuclear weapons!

I don’t agree with the article about that effects of sanctions will be incremental. Government already lost control in dollar and gold market. The increase is crazy. Even in commodity goods like milk and bread have been 20% increase in just one week. Also in real state, etc etc. Everybody is talking about war and famine. So even if they are going to impose sanctions gradually, but the panic effect if it is already distorting markets.
melika969
Dubai Forums Knight
User avatar
Posts: 2605

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 24, 2012
You're welcome.

Sorry to hear about the increases in prices and the general feelings of unease and panic. It does not sound nice at all.

Thanks for sharing your personal experiences - it puts the 'news' into real perspective and shows that global politics have real effects on the day to day lives of ordinary people. I wish you and the Iranian people all the best and I hope that the fears of war do not come to pass.

I guess the Economist's article was written before the prices and markets reacted as they have done. I hope that any profiteering that is going on is limited.

Keep well Mel, you are in my thoughts and prayers.

Cheers,

Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 24, 2012
After this long pestering of the Iranians, will come the actual freedom... What we don't see and told, is a big political arrangements that agreed upon by the major players...

Just keep remembering what happened to Europeans in Europe before the Jews had their national freedom and a right to exist as a state in ME in power...

The lesson is everthing great and precious doesn't come without a great cost.... At least Iranians are keeping their pride and national efforts without causing much harm and destruction in the region..
Berrin
Dubai Forums Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 1390

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 24, 2012
i dont get it! Even if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons, whats wrong with that? Pakistan has it, India has it, I dont see USA,UN/EU putting sanctions on them anymore? On top of that China, Korea, Japan, Germany, Russia, USA, UK etc ALL have nuclear weapons including Israel!
rudeboy
Dubai Forums Zealot
Posts: 3309

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 24, 2012
What rubbish! Iranians cannot have any kind of “freedom” under dominance of mullahs and religion.

Nuclear weapons don’t bring freedom to Iranians, it will just give opportunity to mullahs to make the second North Korea.
melika969
Dubai Forums Knight
User avatar
Posts: 2605

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 24, 2012
melika969 ,

I didnt say anything about "freedom". All I said was that if every other nations can have nukes than so should Iran! Its double standards.



I am sure if the Iranians said to the Americans, that look we will pay you $6 Billion and you setup our nukes, and trust me they WOULD do it!



Melika i would recommend you read the following link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/549745.stm despite the embargo Americans still did business with Iranians! I know its old but I am sure I can find you latest news where American firms are still doing business with Iran despite these embargos!



At the end of the day its all about money ;)
rudeboy
Dubai Forums Zealot
Posts: 3309

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 24, 2012
Rudeboy, my post was directed to Berrin.

And yes of course it is all about money.
melika969
Dubai Forums Knight
User avatar
Posts: 2605

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 26, 2012
Darn, I'm going to be humming that tune all day now!! :D :D

Cheers,

Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 26, 2012
how insensitive!
melika969
Dubai Forums Knight
User avatar
Posts: 2605

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 26, 2012
melika969 wrote:how insensitive!


Mel, I apologise on behalf of those two. It must be a very difficult situation for you and your fellow countrymen. I'm sure the majority of those on DF are with you in your struggle.

Good luck Mel. I'm thinking of you.

--- Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:48 pm ---

desertdudeshj ,

Why do you bother?
Bethsmum
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
Posts: 6601
Location: JBR

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 26, 2012
Thanks BM. :)
melika969
Dubai Forums Knight
User avatar
Posts: 2605

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 26, 2012
Mel, I have a question for you if that's all right. Given the unrest and bickering going on within Iran and as you say between the regime and the people, I just wondering if a tactic by the 'regime' would be to wage war and issues such as controlling the distribution of oil and kicking off, would be a way for them to unit people in Iran and make them forget about the other issues. It's a thought that I've heard put out there on mor than one occasion recently and just wondered about your take on that.

I feel sorry for the effect that it's all having on the people, they've been through so much over the years and it really needs to stop.
Chocoholic
Miss DubaiForums 2005
User avatar
Posts: 12829

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
melika969 wrote:Nuclear weapons don’t bring freedom to Iranians, it will just give opportunity to mullahs to make the second North Korea.


Mel is exactly right, alongside India, Pakistan and Israel, N Korea have yet to sign up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it does appear to be, on the surface, unfair that Iran should be isolated and subjected to international sanctions, but Ahmedinnejad is the only one who has promised to wipe another sovereign nation off the face of the Earth if he had the capacity isn't he?

The threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is sabre rattling, it will never happen, Ahmedinnejad can only lose that battle, there are far more powerful and capable parties and alliances interested in keeping that route open.

Mel, my heart goes out to you and your Countrymen and women, it's unfair that you and your fellows should suffer as you are doing under such a two tier oppressive regime, my sincere hope is that your Government will eventually agree to sit at the negotiating table with the EU and sincerely discuss the peaceful way forward.

:|
Dillon
Dubai Master of Thread Hijackers
Posts: 1563
Location: Marina

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
Agree with Dillon on pretty much all of his post above -- the NPT and the observation about the nuclear powers who haven't signed up, the sabre rattling and indeed the good wishes for the Iranian people.

Just a small point I wanted to comment on (and Mel, perhaps you can confirm the Persian translation):
Dillon wrote:Ahmedinnejad is the only one who has promised to wipe another sovereign nation off the face of the Earth if he had the capacity isn't he?


Err, not quite - the oft-mentioned 'Israel will be wiped off the map' was exposed as a mistranslation of what he said in a speech at a university - the words actually were 'The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.' - or '.. vanish from the pages of history'.
the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 14/post155

I think it has more to do with the oil and gas than Ahmadinejads pro-Palestinian stance.

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
Chocoholic wrote:Mel, I have a question for you if that's all right. Given the unrest and bickering going on within Iran and as you say between the regime and the people, I just wondering if a tactic by the 'regime' would be to wage war and issues such as controlling the distribution of oil and kicking off, would be a way for them to unit people in Iran and make them forget about the other issues. It's a thought that I've heard put out there on mor than one occasion recently and just wondered about your take on that.
It is not that simple, US is not helping too. Ahmadinijad might have been gone in the next elections, but with all threats from US and Isreal, people will probably support him more now.
Nucleus
Dubai Forums Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 1342
Location: Krition

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
shafique wrote:Err, not quite - the oft-mentioned 'Israel will be wiped off the map' was exposed as a mistranslation of what he said in a speech at a university - the words actually were 'The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.' - or '.. vanish from the pages of history'. the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 14/post155I think it has more to do with the oil and gas than Ahmadinejads pro-Palestinian stance.


Semantics, and I wasn't referring to the Ayatollah Khomeni quote specifically, I was referring to the general language from the Iranian Mullah's through their mouthpiece, I'm sure if you could be bothered to look you'd find some fine examples of his poetic convoluted veiled threats.

Oil and Gas? another conspiracy theory, the EU has imposed sanctions in order to get the regime around a negotiating table to discuss their nuclear ambitions and their perceived threat to peace in the region, as well as Israel they've threatened most of the Gulf states as well haven't they?

Nucleus wrote: It is not that simple, US is not helping too. Ahmadinijad might have been gone in the next elections, but with all threats from US and Isreal, people will probably support him more now.


He should have gone at the last elections but the mullah's rigged the vote to keep their mouthpiece, what makes you think the next elections are going to be any different? The Mullahs are pulling the strings in Iran, I don't think which puppet they use really matters. The threats from the US and Israel? it is my understanding the threats are coming from the regime in Iran and the rest of the world is reacting to those threats.
Dillon
Dubai Master of Thread Hijackers
Posts: 1563
Location: Marina

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
Dillon - as I said, I agreed with pretty much all of your post except that one part of your post..

Whilst Ahmadinejad is certainly pro-Palestinian and an outspoken critic of Israel's military occupation, I've not seen any real indication that he has advocated Iranian attack on Israel, or indeed advocated any other state attack the State of Israel. I have indeed looked into his subsequent statements which have been presented as 'look he's threatening Israel again' - but the result is still the same.

It certainly has not been because I haven't looked.



And yes, I'm afraid that I do indeed believe that the fuss is more about Oil and Gas than a regional nuclear threat.

Cheers,

Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
Aah, so Ahmedinnejad and the regime he speaks for are everyone's best friend, there is no nuclear threat from the regime's ambitions and the rest of the world are just picking a fight with him because they want to steal Iran's oil and gas reserves, right then.
Dillon
Dubai Master of Thread Hijackers
Posts: 1563
Location: Marina

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
Yep, that just about sums it up (sarcasm noted, though) ;). (I could add that Iran hasn't actually invaded any country in centuries.. but you knew that..)

I had similar discussions with guys who insisted that Saddam had WMD - my view at the time was that that was an excuse. I smell the same fishiness this time round with Iran.

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
Yes Shaf, you're right again of course and the rest of the world is wrong, again. :roll:
Dillon
Dubai Master of Thread Hijackers
Posts: 1563
Location: Marina

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
Whole world? Hmm - a bit presumptious of you there, I think. Am I really the ONLY one who thinks it is about Oil and Gas? Really?

But yet again, I remember EXACTLY the same argument for Saddam's WMD - 'the whole world can't be wrong', at the same time that many were indeed questioning the 'official' line.

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
Hey all, thanks for your comments and concerns. Sorry for my late replyi have been moving and didnt have internet access.
Chocs, the tactic u mentioned might be an option for regime. One external enemy and a war might give this opportunity to mullahs to unite with their own people. But I dont see it very probable.because the situation is very different from the time of war with Iraq. In that time people has just come out od eevolution and had this urge to become free, but now after 30 years of suffering I dont see anyone ready to fight..
Shaf is right about the translation.but as agmadinejad had made these threats in different occasions, I understad how a nuclear Iran can be such a big threat.
Honestly I dont care if they want to take Iran oil. In Shah time,they used to take Iran oil and people were happy and proud. Why should we give it away to support hamas and bashar assad?
melika969
Dubai Forums Knight
User avatar
Posts: 2605

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
Dillon wrote:He should have gone at the last elections but the mullah's rigged the vote to keep their mouthpiece, what makes you think the next elections are going to be any different? The Mullahs are pulling the strings in Iran, I don't think which puppet they use really matters. The threats from the US and Israel? it is my understanding the threats are coming from the regime in Iran and the rest of the world is reacting to those threats.


Majority of Iranians are shia, and they are religious. They are more than 50% at least. How does that play for Ahmadinijad, well they can vote other religious candidates, but with all the threats from outside it is probably shifting more people in his favor. I'm not a fan of Ahmadinijad and I didn't like how recently they didn't have sunni minority held eid prayers. But I've to be fair, and I don't see war as a solution it will make things worse for everyone.
Nucleus
Dubai Forums Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 1342
Location: Krition

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 27, 2012
shafique wrote:Whole world? Hmm - a bit presumptious of you there, I think. Am I really the ONLY one who thinks it is about Oil and Gas? Really?

But yet again, I remember EXACTLY the same argument for Saddam's WMD - 'the whole world can't be wrong', at the same time that many were indeed questioning the 'official' line.
No, of course not.

Many in the tin-foil hat brigade believe the Iraq war was over oil or something or other.

I sincerely doubt your credibility about your claim that you knew the "truth" about Iraq's WMD's.

Sure you did. Just like you don't retroactively claim you never said something in the very thread you said it.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 28, 2012
event horizon wrote:Many in the tin-foil hat brigade believe the Iraq war was over oil or something or other.

I sincerely doubt your credibility about your claim that you knew the "truth" about Iraq's WMD's


You seem to forget that some of the biggest marches in UK history were in the run up to invasion of Iraq and were by people who very specifically were questioning the WMD claims. Similar marches took place around the world and there was no shortage of people stating very publically and very loudly ahead of the invasion that it was not justified.

I'm afraid this is one aspect of (recent) history you're going to have a lot of trouble putting a revisionist spin on. Indeed I was sceptical of each supposed 'discovery' of WMD in the first weeks of the invasion - I remember 'truck factories' being discovered and publicised, only to have a small disclaimer a few days later saying it wasn't really what they thought.

Mel - thanks for confirming the translation was correct. As for a nuclear Iran being a concern, I also understand that aspect too - but my previous comments still stand, and I have looked at each subsequent report/instance of Ahmadinejad supposedly threatening Israel.

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 28, 2012
Sure they did.

Go ahead and post links that protesters didn't believe Iraq had any chemical weapons.

Happy to see you try to revise history from "it doesn't matter if Iraq has chemical weapons" to "Iraq doesn't have chemical weapons" line of the protesters.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 31, 2012
MEMRI (its text of the speech is available here) is headed by a former Isareli military intelligence officer and has sometimes been attacked for alleged distortion of Farsi and Arabic quotations for the benefit of Israeli foreign policy. On this occasion they supported the doveish view of what Ahmadinejad said.
Flying Dutchman
Dubai Forums Zealot
Posts: 3792
Location: Dubai

  • Reply
Re: Iran - New Sanctions Jan 31, 2012
event horizon , Of course the whole Iraq thing was about the oil! How about you actually speak to people who worked there during the conflict. It was never EVER about WMD. And I'm sick to death of all the stories that go around, unless you actually know and talk to people who were there, who knew what was going on, don't believe all the garbage the media spewed out. No one can know exactly what was going on unless they were actually there.
Chocoholic
Miss DubaiForums 2005
User avatar
Posts: 12829

posting in Dubai Politics TalkForum Rules

Return to Dubai Politics Talk