Will Iran Launch an Unprovoked Nuclear First Strike Against Israel?
AEI’s Michael Rubin says that “[t]here is reason to take the worst case scenario seriously.” In fact, there is no such reason. Rubin’s “reasoning” goes like this. We should ignore every statement that’s ever been made on this subject by every current and former Iranian official on the grounds that such statements “may be taqiya, religiously sanctioned dissimulation meant to lull an enemy” but we should pay a lot of attention to one statement made once by former president Rafsanjani.
You can read Justin Logan for some debunking of Rubin’s work on this topic and also for the observation that he’s ignoring even cursory elements of scholarship like reviewing existing literature. But also check out Rubin’s gloss of the single statement ever made by an Iranian official that he thinks should be taken seriously:
Amid chants of “Death to Israel,” he declared, “The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. . . . It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” Even if Israel responded with its own nuclear arsenal, the Islamic Republic has the strategic depth to absorb and withstand the retaliation, and so the price might be worth it. “It will only harm the Islamic world,” he argued.
Consider this alternative, more accurate, rendering of Rafsanjani’s remarks from GlobalSecurity.org:
Hashemi Rafsanjani, president of Iran from 1989 to 1997, gave a speech on 14 December 2001 that was widely interpreted as indicating that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Israel. Calling the establishment of Israel among the worst periods of our contemporary history, Rafsanjani stated that, “If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now.”
Now of course Rafsanjani’s words are open to interpretation. And of course Rafsanjani could be lying. But nobody in a leadership position in Iran got to that position by behaving in a suicidal manner. Nor has the Revolutionary regime lasted for almost thirty years by engaging in cavalier risks about its hold on power or ever seriously put anything on the line in order to harm Israel. All indications are that those Iranian officials who are seeking nuclear weapons are doing so for the same reason as everyone else — to obtain a deterrent.
61 Responses to “Will Iran Launch an Unprovoked Nuclear First Strike Against Israel?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 6th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I remember reading somewhere that nuclear weapons all have a “fingerprint” that can tell us where they were made: the tiny amounts of other elements mixed in with the Plutonium or Uranium.
If a nuclear-armed Iran were to build and use the bomb on someone without claiming responsibility, would we somehow know the bomb was Iranian? Would there be some way we would know what the “fingerprint” of an Iranian bomb is, assuming there had been no testing ahead of time?
November 6th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Obvious thought: I can almost guarantee that if a nuclear weapon is used against Israel by an Islamic country, then Israel in its death throes will use its nuclear weapons to destroy Mecca and Medina. Given the importance of the sacred sites to the practice of Islam, I cannot see a rational Islamic true believer initiating such an exchange.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I’m going to be un-PC and just say it to the Rubin’s of the world: if you’re first concern in life is Israel, then MOVE TO ISRAEL.
I’m tired of guaranteeing the security of the most controversial country on the globe, and sending them $4 billion a year, when they won’t even listen to us and stop expanding settlements.
I don’t want anything to happen to Israel, but we don’t need to wear complete blinders either. I’m an American and not jewish, and frankly just f’ing sick of this whole subject distorting our politics so much.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Rubin and his ilk think about this issue the same way Mixner thinks about rail and mass transit…
November 6th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I think you give Rubin too much credit here. The Rafsanjani statement is a pretty straightforward statement of deterrence.
The paraphrase by Rubin that such an attack might be worth it does not correspond to anything in the actual quote. Reaching a standstill is a rather different thing than having one side turned into dust. So Rafsanjani’s actual prediction is the opposite of the one Rubin attributes to him.
To suggest that Rafsanjani’s claim is open to legitimate interpretation along the lines that Rubin gives is nonsense.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Consider this alternative, more accurate, rendering
What, you’ve been hiding it all these years that you’re a Farsi scholar?
You’ve got a pretty good case on the main points, why weaken it by an unnecessary dunb claimn that permits assholes like me to turn the argument toward a subsidiary issue? You’d think someone who studied philosophy, and presumably logic, would know better.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
So, Rubin is reading the “strategic depth” thing between the lines. If so, he (and any Irani politician sharing this view) are wrong.
Iran does not have much strategic depth in terms of nuclear war. One “Fatman” bomb they could take. But, I think it’s safe to say that’s not all they’d be taking.
Iran’s industries and urban centers are few and very concentrated. Tehran, Isfahan, and five other cities are about all that stands between Iran as an industrializing, urban nation and it’s small town, agrarian past.
On the other hand, I suspect the Israelis have already reached the point where they could knock down the handful of IRBMs the Iranis could lob that far, never mind any sort of air strike.
Mr. Rubin needs to get off the brown acid.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
And how come no one ever asks the next logical question which is, is it really so bad if Iran gets nukes?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the idea. I don’t like it any better than Pakistan or North Korea or Russia or Israel or the US having nukes. But the only nation to actually ever use one was a superpower that did so in a rare window where they were immune from nuclear retaliation. And now that window is closed.
Hell, maybe the Middle East could get on with a proper cold war and cut out the petty (to their leaders) attrition.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I dunno, Matt, Khomeini was pretty suicidal going back when he did.
And the entire defence strategy during the 80s consisted of suicidal tactics.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Maybe the Iranians wouldn’t chant “Death to America” so much if our politicians weren’t singing “Bomb Iran.” Just a thought. Something that doesn’t get mentioned enough: Iran has no nuclear weapons and does not have a nuclear weapons program.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Greg:
Khomeini was taking a calculated risk, but given that the Shah had already departed, I don’t think returning to Iran was suicidal.
The widespread use of boys to clear minefields, or sending waves of ill-trained and equipped men in frontal assaults against the Iraqis was suicidal for the participants. From the command level, it was a tactical response to an inability to field sufficient conventional mechanized army units.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I was about to raise this exact point. Rubin and his fellow travelers like to take it as an unquestionable assumption that Iran does in fact have a nuclear weapons program. (Even Matt tacitly assumes it in his last sentence.) Do they have any evidence?
Iran denies the existence of such a program. Credibility: questionable.
U.N. inspectors find no evidence of such a program. Credibility: unlikely that they’re deliberately lying, but they could have been duped.
The Bush administration insists the program exists but won’t release any evidence. Credibility: nil, or perhaps slightly negative (if they *had* evidence it seems like they’d want to release some; if they’ve looked as hard as they have without finding anything then that says something by itself).
Overall, if developing nuclear weapons were a crime and I were on the jury, I sure wouldn’t vote to convict on nothing more than the public has seen.
So why do we base other policy decisions on the assumption that Iran is definitely, positively, without a doubt going to have the bomb any day now if we don’t start a war to stop them?
November 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
One never ceases to be amazed at how Mr. Yglesias pontificates so confidently from the safety of Washington, D.C. about the possibility of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. I suggest that thing might look a little different from the unsafety of Tel Aviv.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
It’s so amusing listening to Matt try to argue that the Iranians
are reasonable liberal pacifists. Of course, what we are really seeing is that secular urban hipsters like Mr. Yglesias are totally incapable of grasping the fact there are people in this world who are willing to sacrifice their own lives, and the lives of their nations, for a cause that they believe in- whether that cause be good or (in the case of Iran) largely evil. I presume that Mr. Yglesias wouldn’t risk his own life for much of anything, since he doesn’t really believe that absolute good and evil exist, or have any meaning other than what we choose to give them. He is as incapable of understanding Iran as Lyndon Johnson and McGeorge Bundy were of understanding the Viet Cong.
News to Matt: the Iranians are not rationalist pragmatic liberals like yourself. They want to ‘liberate’ the Holy Land, and to fulfil the command that all lands which were once Islamized must be Islamic forever. And they are more than happy to risk their own lives to do it. Such men currently rule Iran, and similar (Sunni) equivalents will take power in Syria and Egypt if Obama pushes his absurd plan of democracy promotion.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
While it feels weird to belittle a nuclear weapon, there’s no way a single nuclear detonation could destroy Israel, though the result would be ghastly of course. But assume a 20 kiloton or so bomb (about the best the Iranians could do any time soon, similar to the Hiroshima bomb). Within a mile of ground zero everything will be laid flat, and most people will die. Between one and two miles there would be massive damage and severe injuries especially burns and radiatiion injuries to people outside. Beyond that there would be lesser amnounts of daamge and injury. Beyond five miles almost nothing except a few cracked windows and temporary blindness in people who looked at the fireball. Fallout of course would be a big unknown: an airburst nuke creates little or no fallout (as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki). A groundburst nuke leaves behind a plume of radioative debries downwind. Depending on wind direction Israel’s immediate neighbors would also be dealing with tens of thousands of cases of radiation sickness too.
Bad– very bad of course.
But most of Israel would be completely untouched.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Hector:
People said the same things about the Soviet Union (minus the religious aspect). And had we listened to them, we would have had World War III.
And your Viet Cong analogy doesn’t hold up. The Vietnamese Communists were and are quite rational.
As are the Iranians. Our Middle East policy has created conditions in which the Shiite government of Iran can most effectively pursue its interests by opposing us, taking advantage of the chaos in Iraq, and pitching itself as the go-to government for violent anti-Israel groups in Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. If we pursued a different strategy, we could change the incentives. That wouldn’t make Iran into a bunch of pro-Western secular capitalists (bear in mind that pro-Western secular capitalism has a very bad image in Iran due to the way the Shah governed the country) but it could very well result in both parties pursuing their interests to beneficial advantage.
And if it doesn’t work, the beauty of the strategy is that we lose nothing. We can always return to a more bellicose posture if we have to.
The problem is that if you assume state actors are not rational, you very quickly move towards war. And war is very bad for all involved.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Dilan,
Yes, I should have used a different word other than rational. The Viet Cong were oriented towards value rationality, not goal rationality. They wanted Vietnam to be unified under socialism, and there was no amount of suffering that was too high of a cost to achieve that goal. That was why bombing them into oblivion didn’t work. Ultimately the United States lost the Vietnam war because the Vietnamese were willing to die for their cause, and the Americans were not. (The fact that the Vietnamese cause was, in this case, a good one and the Americans’ was a bad one doesn’t really affect the argument.)
Likewise, the Iranians aren’t trying to further ‘interests’, they’re trying to further a set of values. One of those values is the ‘Dar Al Islam’ principle, that states that once a piece of land is Islamized, it must remain under Islamic rule forever, by any means necessary. That is why the jihadists want to reconquer places like Spain, India, Timor and Israel.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I think they will launch a nuke attack on Israel, about the time they decide to end 5000 years of Persian history once and for all. What could trigger such a decision? Perhaps Ahmadinejad’s fav windbreaker gets wrecked in a dryer and he goes nuts. Perhaps the ghost of Xerxes himself tells some crazy secular Revolutionary Guard general to launch an attack.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Whatever anyone thinks about the larger issue of a potential Iran-Israel war, up to and including nukes, trying to parse Rafsanjani’s words in either translation offered here (be nice to have a real Farsi expert chime in, working from the original) as meaning an intent on Iran’s part to perhaps contemplate a nuclear first-strike is just, well, wrong.
If we accept that we have a decent translation, then what he said is actually the opposite.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
It’s so amusing listening to Matt try to argue that the Iranians are reasonable liberal pacifists.
This characterization of Matt’s argument bears no resemblance to Matt’s actual argument.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
One can dispute the general premises and details of Michael Rubin. For example, does “religiously sanctioned dissimulation” include the rare public and official statements of The Supreme Leader? I think, these should be treated very seriously.
In the same vein, Rafsanjani is “mister insider” of the religious establishment, and I think that parsing what he was saying is more important than parsing Ahmedinejad who is just an engineer in charge of daily affairs of the government EXCEPT FOR THE SERIOUS STUFF.
The structure of Iranian government is rather subtle, with enormous un-elected power of the theocrats exercised relatively sparingly.
Hector is attribute a certain Sunni extremist position to Iranians, while I NEVER, EVER, seen any Shia advocating the restoration of the former extend of Dar Islam.
November 6th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
What piotr said. I was going to say, the last thing the Iranian Shiites want is restoration of the Caliphate!
November 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Hector, you are conflating al-Qaeda’s stated rhetoric (to re-Islamicize the world, which is obviously completely unrealistic and I suspect even AQ knows this–it’s not like Spain is going to revert to being Muslim), with Iran, which is not and has not ever been expansionist. The Iranian leaders are repressive and thuggish, but they are not irrational. Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is incendiary but it’s for domestic consumption at least partially–divisive rhetoric to rile up his people and mask his own failed policies. (Sound familiar?)
November 6th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Re: Likewise, the Iranians aren’t trying to further ‘interests’, they’re trying to further a set of values.
Best analogy to present-day Iran would be 16th century Spain, which was both furthering its own national interests (or at east the interests of its ruling class) and furthering the cause of Catholicism. Philip II and his grandees probably saw no difference between those goals, just as the Iranian rulers identify Iran’s best interests with those of Shi’a Islam, and vis versa. The analogy breals down of course when we acknowledge that Spain was a true world power while Iran is at most a power wanna-be. Also, Spain had a fair number of fans in the larger Catholic world, whereas Iran is something of a pariah in the Islamic world.
November 6th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Khomeini was taking a calculated risk, but given that the Shah had already departed, I don’t think returning to Iran was suicidal.
Considering what happened to the last guy in Tehran to try and kick around the US (by, I dunno, acting like the leader of an independent country), I would have thought that he was practically begging to be martyred by the CIA.
And as for the leadership during the war, I recall Khomeini giving a speech – quoted by the War Nerd and I can’t recall where from – that every day was Karbala, and that everyone should go out and martyr themselves.
The real suicidal portion was the last couple years, where they had pushed Saddam out, and Khomeini just kept throwing everyone into the meatgrinder despite the fact that a) the Iraqis had basically ended the invasion and b) the Iranians were not going to conquer Iraq (for one thing, we never would have let them).
November 6th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Point taken, Piotr.
You know, we could solve this debate very easily. The United States could use Iranian spies to infiltrate the top echelons of the Teheran government, and find out if they are really planning to attack Israel. I suspect that the answer is yes, but it’s true that we can’t know for sure, in the absence of some inside intelligence.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Yeah, it’s not like any country ever had large numbers of nuclear weapons aimed at our nation’s capitol.
If you want to argue that MAD won’t work, come up with a situation where the Iranian government behaved suicidally.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:07 am
“The United States could use Iranian spies to infiltrate the top echelons of the Teheran government…”
Simplicity itself. Once there, they would realize that THIS stuff is not decided in Teheran but in Qom. By the way, doesn’t “our man Chalabi” live part time in Teheran?
Down in Qom, you do not rise through the rank in haste. My impression is, it takes more than one generation.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:32 am
Whatever Israel’s many flaws, the idea that it would launch nuclear strikes on Saudi Arabia in response to a nuclear attack is utterly ridiculous
November 7th, 2008 at 7:41 am
hope that you keep reporting and following up on this issue. I signed the petition because I can’t think of anything that is more important to the long-term health of our country, our environment, and our economy than a smart transportation policy, and especially
November 7th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Well, the definition of “reasonable liberal pacifist” is “not nationally suicidal” in my dictionary, too.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Iranian leadership should be rational enough to understand than testing Israeli second-strike capability might result in a devastating blow to Iran, Tehran’s losing its leadership of the Shi’a world, and Shi’a losing stature within Islam.
An optimum result for such a second strike would require concentrating not on a death toll (which Shi’a leaders tend to dismiss) but rather on economic and military nodes, which spy satellites and drones are recording with gusto even as I write this.
On the other hand, to avoid being seen as in full agreement with Matt, these are the same guys who occupied the US embassy, and the same guys who sent their own 14-year-old boys to a certain death in the 1980s war armed with a “key to paradise”.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Do you really think the Bush Administration isn’t trying to spy on Iran? Or that if they found anything they thought was politically advantageous they wouldn’t trumpet it from the rooftops? Either they’ve failed to get spies into position, or they don’t want to repeat what those spies are reporting.
Such as, for example, that Iran is actually ruled by pragmatists who use religious rhetoric to motivate the masses but would never upset their own applecart for a religious end. Doesn’t history show that this kind of cynical manipulation of religion is the norm in religious states? Even the Crusades were self-interested; they got troublemaking hotheads out of the way, increased the prestige and power of the papacy, and brought back loot.
Israel is useful to the rulers of Iran the same way it was useful to Saddam Hussein and the same way al-Qaeda is useful to Bush: point at it and yell a lot and the people of your country rally behind you. If it didn’t exist they’d have to invent it.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Yes, Persian, Shiite, Iran is going to sacrifice itself so that Sunni Arabs can secure an irradiated homeland for the Palestinians.
The only geopolitcal benefit of an Iranian capacity to lauch significant nuclear attacks on Israel is as a deterrent to a US invasion. I think they would like to have this capacity, but are not willing to be causght in any stage of development that can’t be explained as pursuit of nuclear energy. For now, vigilance is adequate.
I think there is reason to be concerned that a nuclear armed Iran might not exercise sufficient stewardship of their nuclear arsenal. This concern is all the more relevant since we wish to see instability in Iran which results in the overthrow of the government. An Iranian ruling oligarchy which has nuclear weapons is less vulnerable to foreign attempts at destabilization.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:27 am
You’d think someone who studied philosophy, and presumably logic, would know better.
And you’d think that someone that was being such an asshole would realize that he’s talking about rhetoric and not logic.
And Hector, I’m sorry to say it, but as others have pointed out, you’ve put on display that you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about when it comes to Iran. The Shi’ites don’t think like the Sunni. At all. The Persians don’t think like the Arabs. At all. The power is in Qom, not Tehran. They don’t attack, they manipulate.
You want displays of Iranian rationality? Try Iran’s explicit and open cooperation with the USA after 9/11, because they hate the Taliban more than just about anyone. Then watch as the respond to some fucking moron who says they’re part of the “axis of evil.” They activate an agent who successfully takes their global threat to regional dominance (USA) and puts at war with their immediate threat to regional dominance (Iraq). They sit back and pull puppet strings, paying no cost, while their two enemies drive into a ditch.
Liberal? No. Pacifist? No. The kind of place that will needlessly risk having the vastly superior Israeli planes bomb the shit out of them? Fuck no.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Nolaboyd,
You may well be right, and I’m no expert on Iran. In fact, I hope you are right. It’s true that Iran showed themselves to be quite pragmatic in the way they cooperated with the US invasion of Afghanistan. And it’s also true that Iran isn’t an explicitly expansionist power (although they have, of course, favored the Shia cause in Lebanon).
My concern is that Ahmadinejad, himself, is not a terribly pragmatic person. I think he is driven by a passionate desire to ‘liberate’ Jerusalem from dominance by non-Muslims, and I don’t think he is terribly dissuaded by pragmatic concerns (although he might be if the consequences were high enough). I would be delighted if this was all a sham and Iran has no intention of going to war with Israel. But I don’t think you can _assume_ it is. Let’s be honest, we have no idea what is being discussed in private between Ahmadinejad and his military staff.
There are a lot of people in the world who aren’t pragmatically driven, and who would gladly risk a global war for something they believe in (whether that something be good or bad). I mean, look, Ernesto Guevara was in many ways a good man, as no less a conservative than Archbishop Chaput has acknowledged. But he was also, for better or worse, an ultra-ideological man with not a pragmatic bone in his body, and if it had been up to him the world would very likely have entered a nuclear war in 1962. Is it impossible to believe that Ahmadinejad fancies himself something of an Islamic Guevara?
November 7th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I think AEI should be forced out of the country. If your loyalty is Israel, then call yourself IEI not AEI. There’s nothing American about AEI.
out of American please.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Hector, this thread is long gone, but if you check back, please remember that Ahmadinejad is not one of the three most powerful people in Iran. Ignore him…he’s the magician’s show hand.
I don’t assume, I conclude based on available evidence. Iran may well fuck with Israel, and in a very nasty way. But it won’t be a frontal assault.
November 8th, 2008 at 5:11 am
Hector, in his usual massive ignorance, said: “we have no idea what is being discussed in private between Ahmadinejad and his military staff.”
Yes, we do – because Ahmadinejad HAS NO military staff. He HAS NO military authority.
As for what Rafsanjani said, it’s exactly what I’ve said on numerous occasions at TPM (where I was banned for saying it) and here. Namely, that the only possible reason Iran could have for wanting a nuclear weapon of any kind would be to take regime change by Israel and the US off the table. Because if Iran ever possessed a nuclear weapon (that it could deliver, another huge caveat, by the way) and Iran knew it was going to be attacked anyway regardless, then it would be rational to use that weapon against Israel. And Israel cannot afford a nuclear first strike, even though it has a nuclear second strike capability.
Therefore if Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel and the US would have to remove regime change in Iran as a strategic goal.
But in fact, Iran really has little to worry about because, as Rafsanjani also said, it has the geographic size, location and population to be able to withstand any conventional military assault and insure that, even though its infrastructure and economy might be devastated in such an attack, it would be nearly impossible to actually overthrow the regime, as happened in Iraq.
And if there is any reason why Bush and Cheney have not attacked Iran so far, that reason is precisely because the Pentagon has informed them of these facts – that Iran cannot be conquered and its oil seized by any conventional means, no matter the damage that can be inflicted on it by the US and/or Israeli conventional military.
Iran is not Iraq. And Iran is not Afghanistan.
And if Obama doesn’t get his head out of his ass, he will find that out as well. He will also find out that Pakistan is not Iraq or Afghanistan.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Re: But in fact, Iran really has little to worry about because, as Rafsanjani also said, it has the geographic size, location and population to be able to withstand any conventional military assault and insure that, even though its infrastructure and economy might be devastated in such an attack, it would
Alexander the Great, the Parthians, the first Caliphs, several medieval Turkic tribes, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane would all disagree with this notion of Iran’s geographic invulnerability.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Nolaboyd,
Ahmadinejad doesn’t have much legal/constitutional power, that’s true. But he has something more valuable- the ability to inspire the masses and stir up popular sentiment. Charismatic authority can often trumpt legal/constitutional authority, as the Shah found out vis-a-vis Khomeini.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Prescription pills http://MyRxPill.com
March 11th, 2009 at 4:24 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Love your site, great info on the subject as well…. Tks
March 14th, 2009 at 5:05 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 1st, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Great post, thanks for the info
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Incredible site! viagra