Obama vs. Netanyahu vs. Ahmadinejad
U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepare to make statements after their meeting May 20, 2011 in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC. (Getty Images)
January 19th, 2012
03:36 PM ET

Obama vs. Netanyahu vs. Ahmadinejad

Editor's Note: Trita Parsi is the president of the National Iranian-American Council and author of the new book A Single Roll of the Dice – Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Trita Parsi.

By Trita Parsi - Special to CNN

U.S.-Israeli relations are in a crisis over Iran. It has been in the making for quite some time – arguably since the early 1990s – and edging closer to climax by the minute. The personal chemistry between the leaders is abysmal – Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy recently discussed how they can’t stand Benjamin Netanyahu – and disagreements abound on the Arab uprisings, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on how to deal with Iran.

Publicly, the two sides claim to share a common objective with Iran, though they may assess risks differently. In reality, the divisions are much deeper. Israel is firmly committed to the zero-enrichment objective espoused by the George W. Bush administration, i.e. that the only acceptable way to prevent Iranian bomb is by preventing it from having nuclear technology, period. “Enrichment in Iran is certainly unacceptable,” Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told me in October 2010.

The Obama administration has left this issue vague, neither rejecting nor accepting this red line. Israel fears that in a final agreement, the Obama White House would accept enrichment in Iran, a fear fueled by the administration’s attempt to exchange Iranian low enriched uranium for fuel pads for a research reactor in Tehran earlier in 2009. Both France and Israel argued that the deal would legitimize Iranian enrichment. In Israel’s view, Obama has made America’s red lines flexible and unreliable.

And between bombing Iran and an Iranian bomb, Israel prefers the former. But it is not confident Obama shares that preference.

When the two states cannot agree on an objective, tensions over tactics and strategies are to be expected. Nowhere has the disagreements been more stark than on the idea of talking to Iran. Obama entered the White House on a promise to pursue diplomacy with Washington’s foes. While this shift away from Bush’s outlook was welcomed in some quarters, it was met with great dismay in Israel – precisely due to the fear that in a negotiation, Washington would betray Israel’s security interests.

“We live in a neighborhood in which sometimes dialogue . . . is liable to be interpreted as weakness,” then-Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni said in an interview with Israeli Radio only twenty-four hours after congratulating President-elect Obama on his historic election victory. Asked specifically if she supported discussions between the U.S. and Iran, she left no room for interpretation: “The answer is no,” she declared.

From the very outset, the Netanyahu government sought to steer Washington’s policy away from diplomacy.

On May 18, 2009, Netanyahu came to Washington for a visit that both sides hoped would dispel fears of a crisis, but neither side was in a compromising mood. Netanyahu did not have the appetite for either American diplomacy with Iran or American pressure against Israeli settlements. Going up against the American president, however, would be a dangerous gambit. Obama was immensely popular at the time and enjoyed the political latitude American presidents usually experience only during their first year in office. Clashing with Obama under these circumstances could be very damaging. Still, that was the path Netanyahu chose.

In the weeks prior to his visit to Washington, he intensified the Israeli campaign to weaken Obama’s ability to move forward with diplomacy. The strategy centered on four key areas: securing a tight deadline for diplomacy; tightening sanctions before any diplomacy began; securing American commitment to zero-enrichment; and keeping the military option on the table.

Read: Without renewed diplomacy, war with Iran lies around the corner.

The Israelis argued that diplomacy should not be given more than twelve weeks, otherwise the Iranians could play for time and use the talks to expand their program. Moreover, the only acceptable outcome of talks would be for Iran to completely capitulate and give up its enrichment program. Both requirements would set the bar so high for diplomacy that failure was guaranteed. Privately, the Israelis did not conceal their desire for diplomacy to be pursued solely to demonstrate its failure and boost the efforts to pursue other, more confrontational options. The Political-Military Chief of the Israeli Ministry of Defense Amos Gilad told Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher that engagement is a good idea - "as long as you understand that it will not work."

Netanyahu’s approach did not lack critics back home in Israel. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz warned about the increasing distance between the two countries’ leadership and policies. “While the Americans are actively seeking a way to start a dialogue, Israel is preaching confrontation and the toppling of the government in Tehran,” the daily said in an editorial. “The new government should give Obama’s diplomatic initiative a chance.”

Obama prevailed in the first round. Netanyahu was shocked to find even some of his closest Congressional allies reluctant to challenge Obama’s Iran policy. Even the powerful America Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) efforts to pass sanctions through Congress prior to the talks fell short, prompting Andrew Glass of the Politico to write that AIPAC faced some “challenging times.” AIPAC’s failure resulted from the “rough consensus that had formed in Congress to give the Obama administration time and space” to pursue diplomacy, a senior Senate staffer told me. “Supporting Obama meant not supporting sanctions.”

In the end, all of Israel’s pressure against the diplomacy it so feared was for naught. The Iranians, it turned out, would do far more damage to diplomacy than Israel ever could. The massive human rights abuses following Iran’s fraudulent presidential elections significantly reduced Obama’s already compromised space for diplomacy. “After the elections, skepticism in Congress against our strategy turned to outright hostility,” a senior Obama official told me.

By the time diplomacy finally could take place in October 2009, pressure was enormous for instantaneous success. The Obama administration had neither space nor political capital to spend on prolonged talks. The Israeli demand for tight deadlines had de facto been adopted.

Diplomacy rarely yields immediate results, and the talks between the Permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) and Iran October 2009 were no different. The proposal to swap Iranian low enriched uranium for fuel pads for the Tehran Research Reactor ultimately did not win approval in Tehran, mainly due to infighting within Iran’s political elite. The deal fell “victim to internal Iranian politics,” then-Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom David Miliband told me.

Read: Assassinations to scuttle talks.

The damage to Obama’s gamble on diplomacy was so severe that advantage had now turned to Netanyahu in his next clash with the American president. But the game had shifted; it was no longer about diplomacy, but about sanctions. Would Obama have the time and space to secure sanctions at the U.N. or would Israel strike Iran’s nuclear facilities first? The Obama administration feared that Israel would start a war that inevitably the U.S. would get dragged into – against its own wishes.

The White House simply could not afford any Israeli adventurism with Iran. To drive the point home, Obama sent an army of high-level officials to Israel with the aim of pressing the Israelis to give Obama the time he needed to get a strong Security Council resolution. Between January and March 2010, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg, Undersecretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, CIA director Leon Panetta, National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Jack Lew, and Vice President Joseph Biden were all dispatched to Israel.

Mullen took the unusual step of convening a press conference to send a clear message to the Israeli public: an Israeli strike against Iran would “be a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences of a strike,” he said.

To make matters worse, in the midst of the jockeying over Iran, a major crisis erupted between Israel and the U.S. over a different issue mid-May 2010. Frustrated with the stalemate in talks between Israel and the Palestinians, Biden traveled to Israel to resume negotiations. But on the day that the vice president arrived, the Netanyahu government announced that another 1,600 apartments would be built in a settlement in Arab East Jerusalem.

The Israeli move infuriated the White House, which viewed it as a provocation and an insult. Such a blatant show of defiance by Israel against the U.S. served only to further weaken Washington’s position in the region, the administration believed. Biden himself was infuriated and had an angry exchange with Netanyahu, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth. “This is starting to get dangerous for us,” Biden told Netanyahu. “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace,” he said, linking negative sentiments in the region against the U.S. to Israeli policies.

This enraged the Israelis, who categorically rejected any suggestion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fueled anti-American terrorism. Netanyahu’s brother-in-law Hagai Ben-Artzi even went so far as to accuse Obama on Israeli radio of being an anti-Semite. “When there is an anti-Semitic president in the United States, it is a test for us and we have to say: we will not concede,” he said. “We are a nation dating back 4,000 years, and you in a year or two will be long forgotten. Who will remember you? But Jerusalem will dwell on forever.”

 The drama escalated further a week later during Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. The visit coincided with AIPAC’s annual policy conference. In just three days AIPAC coordinated a letter signed by a whopping 326 members of Congress and sent to Secretary Clinton, asserting that “it is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel’s security as an independent Jewish state is maintained.” And a bipartisan chorus of lawmakers spoke aggressively against the administration and in favor of the Israeli position at the conference itself. “If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion,” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a close Obama ally, added to the anti-Obama chorus at the conference.

At the same time, only a few blocks away at the White House, Obama and Netanyahu were staring each other down. Obama had presented Netanyahu with a list of thirteen demands designed to end the feud. But Netanyahu would not yield, prompting Obama to abruptly rise from his seat and declare: “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.”

Obama did leave the Israeli leader with an opening, though, telling him that he would still be available if Netanyahu were to change his mind. Netanyahu and his aides stayed in the Roosevelt Room in the White House for about an hour to prepare a response to Obama’s demands. But no resolution was found. The tensions with Israel and the debate inside the White House got so heated that leaks suggesting dual loyalty among some senior Obama administration officials emerged.

Fast-forward till today, and the crisis is even more acute. The Obama White House has pursued a strategy of maximizing pressure on Iran both through sanctions and by creating a credible military threat. The belief is that Iran only yields under such levels of pressure. The danger, however, is that Obama cannot control the Iranian reactions – and the risk of Tehran misreading Washington’s moves. After all, Obama is not seeking war, he is only signaling his readiness to go to war if Tehran doesn’t capitulate. Nor does Obama have the ability – or the political strength – to control Israel. All that is needed is a single spark and a major war can be triggered.

Whether Israel was behind the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran last week or not, much indicates that the Obama administration fears that the intent was to spiral things out of control by goading Iranian retaliation. This might explain the unprecedented step by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to – in person – quickly condemn the act and categorically deny any American involvement.

Clinton’s swift move might have saved the U.S. and the region from war for now, but it shows how risky the Obama administration’s Iran policy at this stage and its susceptibility to manipulation by hardliners in Israel, Iran – Washington.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Trita Parsi.

Post by:
Topics: Iran • Israel • United States

soundoff (213 Responses)
  1. cjohns102

    Comments are not pre-screened before they post. Hmmm, I have posted like 5 comments that are not showing up. Me thinks CNN is full of crap.

    January 23, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Reply
  2. zultarian

    Wow, these comments just show how racist and very ignorant these anti Semites /muslim hoards are. How many of y'all judging Israel have even been there? I've seen the exact spot across the Qidron valley where the new apartments are going up. and the good thing is the Israelis are going to do an archeological excavation in the area, which has never been done The arabs are just mad because they will find plenty of Jewish (and other) artifacts way predating the muslim invasions. And being trained nuclear engineering, Iran has enriched uranium up to 20%. You only need 3% for electric generation. Sooo if all of you anti Westerners think Iran is not up to something then you are more ignorant than a bedouin trying to build an igloo. And Israel was attacked in 1948 war, Six day war (preemptive), and Yom Kippur. And since then Israel has been reacting to their hostile neighbors shelling them. And I dont see a hell of a lot of arabs liking each other too. Y'all have been fighting each others tribes for 1000's years- grow out of the dark ages!! As Matt Damons only intelligent line in a movie, "...that a hundred years ago you were living in tents out here in the desert chopping each other's heads off and that's where you'll be in another hundred years" May we discover another source of energy than oil!!!

    January 23, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Reply
    • Dking

      Well Put!

      January 23, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Reply
  3. NORI AL MALEKI IS WAR CRIMINAL AS BASAR AL ASAD OF SYRIA AND EVIL IRAN PRESIDENT

    من المؤكد ان السيد نوري المالكي رئيس وزراء العراق ليس من اتباع المذهب الوهابي الذي يحرم زيارة الاضرحة، فأثناء زيارته الى واشنطن قال في تصريحات صحافية انه شيعي اولا، وعراقي ثانيا، وعربي ثالثا، وعضو في حزب الدعوة رابعا، في اجابة عن سؤال حول كيفية تعريفه لنفسه.
    بالامس اصدر السيد المالكي فرمانا يمنع زيارة قبر الرئيس الراحل صدام حسين وقبور ولديه عدي وقصي وحفيده مصطفى، المدفونين في مدينة تكريت مسقط رؤوسهم، وابلغ افراد عشيرتهم بهذا القرار، وارسلت حكومته قوات امن لتطويق الاضرحة، ومنع اي زوار من الوصول اليها.
    لا نعرف لماذا يخاف السيد المالكي، وهو الذي جاء الى الحكم لاقامة نظام ديمقراطي يحترم الحريات العامة والشخصية، ومارس على مدى السنوات التسع الماضية عملية اجتثاث شرسة ودموية للنظام السابق، وكل منتسبي حزب البعث، الذي كان يحكم باسمه، لا نعرف لماذا يخاف رجل مثله من هياكل عظمية مدفونة تحت الارض، وهو الذي يملك نصف مليون جندي ورجل امن ويحظى بدعم امريكا وايران معا؟
    الرئيس صدام حسين اعدم، ومن وقع قرار تنفيذ اعدامه السيد المالكي نفسه، بعد محاكمة مزورة، وقامت حكومته بتسليم جثمانه الى شيخ عشيرته من اجل دفنها، فلماذا يمنع ذووه، او محبوه، من زيارته حتى لو اختلفوا معه في الرأي ؟ أليس الف باء الديمقراطية، التي يتباهى بها العراق الجديد وحكامه احترام الرأي الآخر، ومشاعر قطاع عريض من مواطنيه؟ ثم ماذا يضير السيد المالكي لو زار افراد من عشيرة صدام او اقاربه قبره، وهم الذين فعلوا ويفعلون ذلك منذ سنوات، هل ستقوم القيامة، ام ستتفجر ثورة في العراق؟
    الحاكم القوي العادل الواثق من نفسه، وحب الشعب له، لا يخاف من الاضرحة وساكنيها، ولا يخشى انصارهم، وافراد عشائرهم، ولكن يبدو ان السيد المالكي ليس من طينة هؤلاء، وما زالت تسيطر عليه عقدة الخوف، وتتحكم بقراراته، اليس هو من يطارد السيد طارق الهاشمي نائب الرئيس العراقي ويسعى لاعتقاله، اليس هو من افرغ العملية السياسية من كل معانيها وابعد وزراء الكتلة العراقية التي يتزعمها خصمه اياد علاوي، وكل من يختلفون معه في طريقة ادارته للبلاد، ومن منطلقات طائفية في معظم الاحيان؟
    امر غريب جدا لا بد من التوقف عنده، وهو ان امريكا وحلفاءها، الذين ثبتت اركانهم في قمة السلطة، بعد ان ضمنت تدفق النفط، يجمعهم قاسم مشترك، وينتمون الى مدرسة الرعب من ضحاياهم نفسها حتى بعد اغتيالهم والتمثيل بجثثهم في معظم الاحيان تحت عناوين الديمقراطية واحترام حقوق الانسان.
    ' ' '
    فها هي امريكا القوة الاعظم في التاريخ تخشى من جثمان الشيخ اسامة بن لادن، زعيم تنظيم 'القاعدة' وتقرر 'دفنه' في البحر، تحت ذريعة منع تحول قبره الى مزار لانصاره ومعتنقي فكر تنظيمه الاسلامي المتشدد، والاكثر من ذلك انها ما زالت تفرض الاعتقال القسري على زوجاته الثلاث وابنائه وبنات، وتمنعهم من الحديث الى اجهزة الاعلام، خشية كشفهم كيفية اغتياله وبما يتناقض مع الرواية الامريكية المفبركة، وحتى لا يعرف الرأي العام الاسلامي الحقيقة كاملة من كل جوانبها. فمن المؤسف ان هذه الادارة التي تتباهى بهذا الانجاز تدعي انها تقود العالم الحر، وان رسالتها نشر الديمقراطية وحرية التعبير واحترام حقوق الانسان ومعتقداته، وهناك قانون ثابت فيها ينص على حرية انتقال المعلومات دون عوائق وعدم حجبها عمن يطلبها.
    لم يكن من قبيل الصدفة ان يحذو حذوها (اي امريكا) حلفاؤها الجدد في ليبيا في الخوف من الموتى، فقد حرصوا على دفن جثمان الزعيم الليبي معمر القذافي وابنه المعتصم، ووزير دفاعه ابو بكر يونس جابر في مكان مجهول في قلب الصحراء الليبية، بعد التمثيل بجثثهم والاعتداء عليها، اوبعضها، جنسيا، واقسم من نفذوا عملية الدفن في ليلة ظلماء ان لا يكشفوا السير مهما كانت الظروف والضغوط، وكأن هذا الكشف سيهدد مستقبل ليبيا وامنها ووحدتها الترابية.
    الحكام الجدد الذين تنصّبهم امريكا، او يأتون عبر مشاريعها الديمقراطية المدعومة بآلتها العسكرية الجبارة، نتوقع ان يكونوا مختلفين عمن سبقوهم من الديكتاتوريين من حيث العدالة، والتسامح، والترفع عن النزعات الثأرية، واحترام حرمة الموت والاموات، مهما كانت جرائمهم، حتى يقدموا نموذجا مشرفا يؤكد لنا انهم يفتحون صفحة جديدة، بل مناقضة، لكل صفحات من سبقوهم من الديكتاتوريين، ولكن ما نراه حاليا مناقض لذلك تماما، نقولها وفي حلوقنا مرارة.
    تعالوا نلقي نظرة سريعة على احوال البلدان التي 'حررتها'، او غيرت انظمتها القوات الامريكية، سواء بشكل مباشر، مثلما حصل في العراق، او عن طريق حلف الناتو، وحاملات طائراته، مثلما حدث في ليبيا، او في افغانستان المحتلة منذ عشر سنوات.
    بالامس اصدرت منظمة 'هيومان رايتس ووتش' الامريكية تقريرا اكدت فيه ان العراق يعود الى الاستبداد، وفي طريقة للتحول الى دولة بوليسية ان لم يكن قد تحول فعلا، حيث يقمع النظام الحالي بقسوة حرية التعبير والتجمع، ويمارس الترهيب واحتجاز الناشطين والصحافيين، ويقيم سجونا سرية يمارس فيها التعذيب كسياسة رسمية.
    وبالامس ايضا خرج علينا المستشار مصطفى عبد الجليل، رئيس المجلس الانتقالي الليبي بتصريحات حذر فيها من انزلاق بلاده الى هاوية بلا قاع، بعد ان اقتحم محتجون مقره في بنغازي وحطموه احتجاجا على فشل الحكومة، وتدهور الاوضاع الامنية وعدم توفير العلاج الكريم للجرحى، وعدم تطبيق الشريعة الاسلامية، ولولا تدخل كتائب امنية بسرعة لما نجا المستشار من غضبة الثوار الجدد على نظام حكمه ومجموعة المتسلقين الانتهازيين الملتفين حوله، حسب توصفهم، وقبلها بيومين حدث الشيء نفسه لنائبه عبد الحفيظ غوقة في جامعة بنغازي حيث طرده الطلاب شر طردة.
    ' ' '
    ليبيا غابة بنادق، واصبحت مرتعا للميليشيات المتقاتلة، والجماعات الاسلامية المتشددة، ويكفي التذكير بان تنظيم 'القاعدة' الذي حرص اعضاء المجلس الانتقالي على نفي وجوده في بلادهم قد اختطف محافظا جزائريا في وضح النهار، واقتاده ومرافقيه الى الاراضي الليبية للمساومة عليه للافراج عن معتقلين من انصاره، اي تنظيم القاعدة، في السجون الجزائرية، ولا نعرف تفاصيل الصفقة التي ادت الى الافراج عنه.
    هذا الكلام لن يعجب الكثيرين، او بالاحرى سيغضبهم في زمن التضليل والتعمية على الحقائق، تماما مثلما لم يعجب غيرهم كلام مماثل حول خطورة الاحتلال الامريكي للعراق والنتائج الاستراتيجية الكارثية التي ستترتب عليه، ولكن الحقيقة لا بد ان تقال، اذا اردنا ان ننهض ببلداننا ونقيم انظمة ديمقراطية حقيقية، تقود الى النهضة الشاملة التي تتطلع اليها شعوب المنطقة، وتحررنا من الاستعباد الامريكي.
    من يخاف من القبور وساكنيها لا يمكن ان يؤسس لنظام ديمقراطي يقوم على المساواة والعدالة والحريات بأشكالها كافة، ويحقق لمواطنيه ما يتطلعون اليه من تقدم ورخاء اقتصادي، وتعليم متقدم، ونظام قضائي مستقل، وشفافية مطلقة، ومحاسبة مدعومة بالقانون والبرلمانات الحرة المنتخبة.
    لسنا من زوار القبور والاضرحة، والاستثناء الوحيد هو قبر الرسول محمد(صلى الله عليه وسلم)، وصحابته الكرام (رضي الله عنهم)، ولم نكن يوما، ولن نكون، معجبين بالديكتاتوريين وانظمتهم القمعية، ولكننا كنا، وسنظل، ضد مشاريع العربدة والهيمنة الامريكية التي تريد سلب خيرات بلادنا، وتحويلنا الى سبي للاسرائيليين ، ولهذا وقفنا دائما في الخندق المقابل لهذه المشاريع، ومن يتواطأ معها.

    January 24, 2012 at 9:21 am | Reply
  4. john

    This is all just wasted ink, until the US rids itself of dual citizens in the Senate and Congress and less influince from AIPAC , can the US have its own foreign policy, not just in Iran but the entire ME. However Obama will be under such pressure that there will be errors that will bring on war, anyones guess to what it will lead to.

    February 4, 2012 at 8:51 am | Reply
  5. phone number lookup canada

    Thanks for some other informative web site. Where else may just I am getting that type of information written in such an ideal method? I've a mission that I am simply now working on, and I've been on the look out for such information.

    April 2, 2012 at 4:08 am | Reply
  6. Florida free green offers,Eco-friendly,Eco-friendly gifts,Environmental friendly products,Green living,Green offers,Free green offers

    Normally I do not learn post on blogs, however I would like to say that this write-up very compelled me to try and do it! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thank you, very nice post.

    April 3, 2012 at 4:51 am | Reply
  7. smart repair

    certainly like your web site however you have to check the spelling on quite a few of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to inform the truth nevertheless I will surely come again again.

    April 5, 2012 at 2:48 pm | Reply
  8. website design

    I'm really inspired together with your writing abilities as neatly as with the layout to your weblog. Is this a paid subject matter or did you modify it your self? Either way stay up the nice high quality writing, it is rare to see a great blog like this one these days..

    April 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Reply
  9. European Medicines Agency jobs,European Medicine careers,looking for health authority jobs?

    Hello my loved one! I wish to say that this post is awesome, nice written and include almost all significant infos. I would like to peer more posts like this .

    May 20, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Reply
  10. Cobyp Preuettf

    I discovered your weblog web site on google and verify just a few of your early posts. Continue to keep up the excellent operate. I just further up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking ahead to studying more from you afterward!…

    July 3, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Reply
  11. visit

    Hello very cool website!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Wonderful .. I'll bookmark your blog and take the feeds also?I'm glad to seek out so many helpful information right here within the publish, we need develop extra strategies in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .

    September 18, 2012 at 10:27 pm | Reply
  12. badminton gear

    Hello, i think that i saw you visited my web site thus i got here to return the want?.I am trying to find issues to improve my website!I suppose its ok to make use of some of your concepts!!

    October 23, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Reply
  13. Mobile Repairing Course in Hyderabad

    Surely great blog for sharing the interesting information with us in an understanding way of writing skills, nice effort, keep it up!

    September 28, 2014 at 9:29 am | Reply
1 2 3

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,739 other followers