Speculation about an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities has reached fever pitch in recent weeks, driven by comments from Israeli officials and a slew of articles in the international media.

Israel, like much of the international community, accuses Tehran of using its nuclear programme to mask a weapons drive, a charge denied by Iran.

And the Jewish state, the sole, if undeclared, nuclear power in the region, has made clear it sees a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat that it will prevent at all costs.

But experts say Israel's rhetoric about a military strike could be seen as a strategy to obviate the need for an attack by piling on the pressure on Iran and the international community.

Political science professor Yehezkel Dror's book "Israeli Statecraft" analyses various ways Israel could confront Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions and says that bellicose rumblings from the Jewish state serve a range of purposes.

"Israel certainly wants other countries to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons, and is surely using the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran as one of the means to convince them to do so," he told AFP.

By brandishing the threat of military action, Israel targets policy-makers both in Tehran and the West, Dror says, using "a very accepted means of creating deterrence, as well as a motivating force."

Israel's sabre-rattling appears to have stepped up, with Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon warning that no Iranian facility, however reinforced, is immune to Israeli attack.

But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also said to have asked officials to stop "blabbing" about such an attack, warning it could create the impression an attack was imminent or be seen as undermining tough new European sanctions against Tehran.

For Israeli military and intelligence writer Ronen Bergman, the attack rhetoric is a good way for the Jewish state to preemptively justify an eventual military operation.

"Israel is trying to tell the world: 'We told you that if you wouldn't act, we would,'" he said.

"Part of the international legitimacy for the decision-makers is to say: 'We raised the alert, we did everything throughout the years to get the world to impose sanctions to prevent an attack.'"

Bergman caused a splash last month with a New York Times magazine cover article entitled "Will Israel Attack Iran?," which concluded, based on discussions with senior Israeli officials, that an attack this year is likely.

But he acknowledges that even among his most informed sources, there is still uncertainty. "There has not been a decision to attack," he says.

Avner Cohen, an Israeli-American professor with the Non-Proliferation Centre at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, also believes Israel is keeping its options open for tackling Iran's nuclear programme.

Israeli talk of an attack "may be an 80 percent bluff in the current context, in the sense that Israel has not made a decision," he said.

But he notes that "Israel under Netanyahu and (Defence Minister Ehud) Barak is committed to act, if nothing else would stop Iran, if Iran continues and develops nuclear weapons."

"Israel would likely act alone, so in that aspect it's not a bluff," he adds.

Cohen acknowledged that there is still uncertainty about whether Iran is in fact seeking nuclear weapons, and that any preemptive attack could galvanise their resolve to obtain them.

"The Iranian decision very much depends on how the world would respond," he said.

"They don't need actual weapons, they would like to be perceived as very close to the weapon, to the point that it doesn't really matter whether they actually have the weapon or something short of it," said Cohen.

"Only if Iran would be attacked would they leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty and declare their right to have nuclear weapons in the name of self defence."

Such uncertainty contributes to Israel's mixed messages, Dror said.

"It is not reasonable, to my mind, that the ambiguous threat to attack alone might be a 'bluff' solely meant to galvanise others into action," he said.

"It is much more reasonable to assume that Israel is keeping its options open, which is the right thing to do."

"Few people know all the details," he added. "All the rest is speculation."

The British government would face "significantly greater challenges" if it launched a second Libya-style mission, the Commons Defence Committee said.

Britain was at the forefront of international efforts to support Libya's rebels against Moamer Kadhafi's regime, launching UN-mandated military action with France and the United States in March before NATO took over.

The country's final bill for the operation, codenamed Ellamy, was at £212 million ($337 million, 254 million euros) far higher than the tens of millions the government estimated at the start of the campaign.

And the operation was launched before key cuts in the government's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) -- which slashes defence spending by eight percent over four years -- had come into force, the committee said.

"We believe the government will face significantly greater challenges should an operation of similar size be necessary in the future and it will need to be prepared for some difficult decisions on prioritisation," the committee said.

"We consider that Operation Ellamy raises important questions as to the extent of the United Kingdom's national contingent capability."

The Libyan conflict forced Britain's Royal Air Force to delay the decommissioning of its ageing Nimrod R1 spy planes while the Royal Navy had to divert resources from counter-drugs operations, the MPs said.

But they added that Britain had been right to take military action against the Kadhafi regime.

After the SDSR was carried out in 2010, the British government said it would cut 17,000 jobs from the army, navy and Royal Air Force over four years.

The review has also seen Britain, which still has more than 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, give up its flagship aircraft carrier.

The assurances came as South Korea's President Lee Myung-Bak held talks in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday with Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi and the head of Saudi state oil giant Aramco, Khalid al-Faleh.

They discussed "means of bilateral cooperation between both countries," Saudi state news agency SPA said without giving further details.

But South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted a senior official as saying Naimi had "promised to help ensure a stable supply of crude to South Korea."

"Regarding oil supply-demand, we will meet any request and additional demand from South Korea," senior South Korean presidential press secretary Choe Geum-nak quoted Naimi as saying.

"Lee asked for Saudi's support for a stable supply of crude oil to South Korea in case of a contingency, stressing that a rise in oil prices at a time of global economic difficulty could deal a blow to the world economy," Yonhap quoted the official as saying.

Washington wants close ally Seoul to reduce purchases of Iranian crude in line with a US-led drive to sanction Tehran for its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

Naimi said last month that Saudi Arabia was ready to make up for any shortfall in Iran's oil exports under new Western sanctions, an announcement that prompted Tehran to urge Riyadh to "reflect" on its vow.

South Korea, the world's fifth largest oil importer, accounts for around 10 percent of Iran's oil exports but has yet to cut the imports of Iranian oil due to fears of economic damage.

In 2011, top world oil exporter Saudi Arabia exported 270 million barrels of oil to South Korea, accounting for 31.4 percent of Seoul's entire oil imports.

Lee is expected to meet King Abdullah and Saudi Arabia's defence minister on Wednesday for talks "about boosting cooperation in energy, construction, defence and health care areas," South Korea's presidential office said.

He will also visit the kingdom's gas-rich neighbour Qatar on Thursday and make a stop in the United Arab Emirates on his way home.

"I am determined to work harder than any other heads of state to overcome the (global financial) crisis this year, including visiting the three Middle Eastern nations," Lee said during a meeting with South Korean residents in Saudi Arabia.

The study finds that the growing rivalry between them has intensified in recent years, particularly with the rise of "principlist" (fundamentalist) leaders in Iran and the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. Israeli leaders now view every regional threat through the prism of Iran, even while their strategic community is divided about how to address this challenge and, particularly, the utility of a military strike option.

Iran, which currently views Israel in more ideological and less pragmatic terms, may be emboldened to further challenge Israel if it has a nuclear weapons capability. Despite the current animosity, the study finds that the two countries have not always been rivals. Both before and after the 1979 Islamic revolution, shared geopolitical interests led to years of pragmatic policies and, at times, extensive cooperation.

Study authors recommend that the United States can help manage this rivalry by focusing on policies aimed at prevention and preparation. This means discouraging an Israeli military strike, while bolstering Israeli capabilities in preparation for a future where Iran has managed to acquire nuclear weapons. For Iran, this means dissuading the regime from weaponizing its nuclear program and, if that fails, making preparations to deter it from brandishing or using its weapons.

Title:	Israel and Iran - A Dangerous Rivalry
Date:	2012-02-07
File Type:	pdf
File Size:	602.92 kB
Hits:	99
Category:	Defense Papers/Reports
Download Link:	Israel and Iran - A Dangerous Rivalry

The SAR statute requires that life-cycle cost reporting for major weapon systems be uniform, to the extent practicable, across the department, but GAO found a number of inconsistent practices in how program offices were reporting life-cycle O&S cost estimates in the SAR.

Program offices were inconsistent in (1) the explanatory information they included with the cost estimates; (2) the source of the cost estimate they cited as the basis for the reported costs; (3) the unit of measure they used to portray average costs; (4) the frequency with which they updated reported costs; and (5) the reporting of costs for an antecedent system being replaced by the new weapon system.

For example, 35 (42 percent) of the 84 programs that reported O&S costs in the 2010 SAR did not cite a source of these data, contrary to DOD’s guidance, and 57 (68 percent) of the programs did not report O&S costs for an antecedent system. Also, O&S cost submissions in the SAR did not always incorporate best practices for presenting cost estimates, such as tracking cost changes over time and identifying cost drivers. In addition, 11 systems did not provide O&S cost estimates in the 2010 SAR.

Although SARs are intended to provide Congress with authoritative program information on major weapon systems, 7 of the 15 sample programs GAO reviewed submitted unreliable O&S cost estimate data in the 2007, 2009, or 2010 SARs. For example, an Air Force program underreported O&S costs by $2.1 billion (fiscal year 2002 dollars), or 18 percent. While some of the program offices did not provide an explanation for the errors in the submitted data, others cited specific reasons.

Title:	DEFENSE LOGISTICS: Improvements Needed to Enhance Oversight of Estimated Long- term Costs for Operating and Supporting Major Weapon Systems
Date:	2012-02-07
File Type:	pdf
File Size:	3.53 MB
Hits:	26
Category:	Defense Papers/Reports
Download Link:	DEFENSE LOGISTICS: Improvements Needed to Enhance Oversight of Estimated Long- term Costs for Operating and Supporting Major Weapon Systems

For example, one Navy program office underreported O&S costs in the SAR and explained that it excluded certain costs that were not under its control, such as externally funded spare parts and military personnel. However, excluding such costs is contrary to the SAR statute. An Air Force program reported current and projected funding for the program rather than estimated life-cycle O&S costs. This practice also had the effect of underreporting these costs.

DOD’s reports to Congress on estimated weapon system O&S costs were often inconsistent and sometimes unreliable due to a lack of (1) detailed implementation guidance for reporting these costs and (2) an effective process for reviewing the O&S cost sections of the SAR before final submission to Congress.

DOD’s guidance collectively provides minimal instructions for O&S cost reporting. The guidance also does not incorporate some of the best practices GAO has identified for presenting cost estimates. Further, although the SAR data submitted by program offices are subject to multiple reviews within the military services and by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, this review process has not provided assurance that O&S costs are reported consistently and reliably.

In the absence of improvements to the SAR guidance and to the review process, deficiencies in reporting O&S costs are likely to continue. Improved reporting of O&S costs in the SAR could help to place more emphasis on assessing, managing, and controlling long-term weapon system O&S costs.

The region's Arab nations, particularly those in the energy-rich Gulf, remain avid buyers of military hardware. In its latest Middle East market analysis, Forecast International anticipates that the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members will combine to spend $385 billion toward defense and security through 2016. Over the same period, Iraq is expected to invest $65 billion in its security forces.

With the Middle East accounting for about 20 percent of the world's arms imports during the latter half of the previous decade, arms producers increasingly set their sites on this lucrative market. The rise in regional arms purchases corresponded with several developments in the security environment of the Arabian Peninsula. These included an increasingly assertive Iranian regional posture, a spike in oil prices that topped out at $147 per barrel in July 2008, and energy infrastructure concerns heightened by a failed terrorist attack on Saudi Arabia's Abqaiq oil-processing facility in 2006.

Today, military modernization programs that include expansions in air, air-defense and naval capabilities are the principal drivers of procurement policy in the GCC states. Cushioned from the drop in international oil prices between late 2008 and mid-2010 by their sovereign wealth funds, the GCC members – led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – have continued to invest in weaponry and advanced platforms, with little sign of a slowdown.

With oil prices now hovering around $100 per barrel and security anxieties in several Gulf Arab kingdoms heightened, there is little reason to expect a slowdown in the defense procurement tendencies of the region, according to Forecast International’s Middle East Military Market analyst, Dan Darling.

Home to an already tenuous security environment now perceived as that much more fragile in the wake of the Arab Spring events in Egypt and Syria, Israel, too, is intent on pressing forward with projects in the areas of missile defense, cyber warfare, tactical mobility, and precision firepower. FI expects Israel to spend over $77 billion over the coming five-year period despite the pressures placed upon the Netanyahu government to expand social welfare spending, partially by reallocating funds from the defense budget.

"No matter where you look, the fragility of the political situation in many countries translates to increased security anxiety, driving procurement policy forward," Darling notes. "This is the same whether it relates to Iraq, Jordan, Israel or the UAE. Security worries combined with force modernization programs equals a ripe export market for foreign suppliers."

A turbulent and transitioning political environment would seem to portend a more cautioned Western approach to arms sales, yet all signs indicate that the competition for the Middle Eastern market will remain intense as producers look to offset shrinking orders at home. Despite the controversy it generated at home, a June 2011 decision by Germany's Federal Security Council to clear the way for a potential multibillion-dollar sale of Leopard tanks to Saudi Arabia is indicative of the lengths some governments are willing to go to achieve the objective of providing strategically aligned partners with modern weaponry while also bolstering their respective national defense industries in the process.

The United States stands at the head of the line of suppliers to the Middle East. Washington already provides Israel and Egypt with annual foreign military financing (FMF) of $3 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively. Iraq has also been the beneficiary of U.S. funding, receiving some $20.5 billion in congressionally approved appropriations since 2005 for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund (ISFF) aimed at rebuilding the Iraqi forces from the ground up.

But it is through its government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) channel that the U.S. secures much of its business with the region. While the U.S. had established itself as a leading supplier of weaponry to the region decades earlier, in 2007 the Bush administration announced a combined $20 billion FMS package targeted toward the Gulf Arab states. The sales aimed to enhance GCC defense capabilities and interoperability. Greater military coordination between GCC members would, the thinking went, bind together a pro-U.S. strategic bulwark that would help contain Iran.

Since then, the Obama administration has continued this policy, green-lighting a combined $60 billion FMS package for Saudi Arabia in the fall of 2010. Meanwhile, a rumored $20 billion bundle of sales aimed at modernizing the Royal Saudi Navy remains under consideration.

"The upheaval in the Middle East may slow the pace of U.S. arms deals with Arab nations," Darling says, "but until events on the ground dictate otherwise, it is unlikely to bring them to a halt. Military assistance and government-to-government orders give Washington a sense of wielding influence within the armed forces and policy-making circles of recipient nations. This leverage, real or imagined, is not an element the U.S. will hastily forfeit."

Though the U.S. remains the dominant defense provider to the region, by no means have other supplying nations been shut out of the market. France still hopes to garner an export sale of its Rafale combat aircraft in one of the several countries – Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE – considering jet fighter replacements. The British are hoping to lock down an order for the Eurofighter Typhoon in Oman. Meanwhile, concerns regarding over-reliance upon U.S. material may prompt some nations such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE to diversify and shift away from single-source purchasing. Such moves would open up opportunities for suppliers beyond Europe, including Russia, China, South Korea and Turkey.

The change, which took effect yesterday, was included in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law Dec. 31.

"Members will see the prorated amount in their Feb. 15 pay records," Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby said.

The act called for DOD to pay service members imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in areas that qualify for the pay. In the past, service members received $225 per month if they spent any time that month in an area where the pay was authorized.

"This is a more targeted way of handling that pay," Kirby said.

Now, service members will receive $7.50 a day for days spent in these areas. Personnel who travel to the designated areas for periods less than 30 days should keep track of the number of days they are in the area to verify that they are paid for the correct number of days, officials said.

The military services are working to waive or remit debts for members who may have been overpaid for January, officials said. The services can waive this "when there is no indication of fraud, fault, misrepresentation, or when members were unaware they were overpaid," Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said.

Proration is based on a 30-day month, which translates into a rate of $7.50 per day. It does not matter if the month is 28 or 31 days long, officials explained; if service members serve in affected areas for the complete month, they will receive the full rate of $225 per month.

The Defense Department defines imminent danger pay areas as places where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.

Service members who come under fire, regardless of location, will receive the full monthly hostile-fire pay amount of $225.

Service members will receive notification of the change via emails, on the MyPay system, on social media sites and via the chain of command.

Washington banned military aid to Tashkent in 2003 amid concern over human rights abuses.

The ban was officially lifted on January 18, according to State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, who said supplying the Uzbek government with nonlethal items such as night vision goggles and GPS systems will support its ability to secure routes to Afghanistan.

"Nobody is shying away from having the tough conversation," Nuland said. "That said, we also have other interests and things that we need to protect in our relationship with Uzbekistan."

In a recent report, the U.S.-based rights watchdog Human Rights Watch called the human rights situation in Uzbekistan "appalling."

The waiver will expire in September 2013.

The move comes as Pakistan continues to keep its border with Afghanistan closed to NATO supply trucks following NATO attacks that killed two dozen Pakistani border guards in late November.

U.S. troops are due to leave Afghanistan in 2014.

James R. Clapper Jr., a retired Air Force lieutenant general, said capabilities, technologies, know-how, communications and environmental forces “aren’t confined by borders and can trigger transnational disruptions with astonishing speed.”

“Never before has the intelligence community been called upon to master such complexity on so many issues in such a resource- constrained environment,” he added.

CIA Director David H. Petraeus, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, Defense Intelligence Agency Director Army Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess Jr. and others accompanied Clapper during his testimony on Capitol Hill. Clapper spoke for all agencies in his opening statement.

All U.S. agencies are combating the complex environment and making sense of the threats by continuing to integrate the community and “by taking advantage of new technologies, implementing new efficiencies and, as always, simply working hard,” Clapper said.

Still, he said, all agencies are confronting the difficult fiscal environment.

“Maintaining the world’s premier intelligence enterprise in the face of shrinking budgets will be difficult,” the director said. “We’ll be accepting and managing risk more so than we’ve had to do in the last decade.”

Terrorism and proliferation remain the first threats the intelligence agencies must face, he said, and the next three years will be crucial. “With Osama bin Laden’s death, the global jihadist movement lost its most iconic and inspirational leader,” Clapper said. “The new al-Qaida commander is less charismatic, and the death or capture of prominent al-Qaida figures has shrunk the group’s top leadership layer.”

But while degraded, the organization remains a threat, Clapper warned. “As long as we sustain the pressure on it, we judge that core al-Qaida will be of largely symbolic importance to the global jihadist movement,” he said. “But regional affiliates … and, to a lesser extent, small cells and individuals will drive the global jihad agenda.”

Efforts to develop, acquire or spread weapons of mass destruction, also pose a major global strategic threat, Clapper told the senators. “Among nation-states, Iran's technical advances, particularly in uranium enrichment, strengthen our assessment that Iran is well-capable of producing enough highly-enriched uranium for a weapon if its political leaders, specifically the supreme leader himself, choose to do so,” the director said.

North Korea continues to export ballistic missiles and associated materials to several countries, including Iran and Syria, Clapper said, and intelligence leaders do not see a change under Kim Jong Un, the North’s new leader.

Cyber threats have risen in danger, Clapper said. “We foresee a cyber environment in which emerging technologies are developed and implemented before security responses can be put in place,” he said. “Among state actors, we're particularly concerned about entities within China and Russia conducting intrusions into U.S. computer networks and stealing U.S. data.”

Nonstate actors also are cyber threats capable of employing disruptive, and even lethal, technology, Clapper told the panel. The two biggest challenges in the cyber world, he said, are centered on knowing who launched an attack and how to manage the enormous vulnerabilities within U.S. networks.

While some troops are coming home, Afghanistan remains a hot spot, Clapper said.

“During the past year, the Taliban lost some ground, but that was mainly in places where the International Security Assistance Forces … were concentrated,” the director said. “And the Taliban’s senior leaders continued to enjoy safe haven in Pakistan.”

ISAF’s efforts to partner with Afghan national security forces are encouraging, he said, “but corruption and governance challenges continue to threaten the Afghan forces’ operational effectiveness.”

To be successful, Afghanistan must have support from ISAF and its neighbors -- particularly Pakistan, Clapper said. “And although there’s broad international political support for the Afghan government,” he added, “there are doubts in many capitals, particularly in Europe, about how to fund Afghanistan initiatives after 2014.”

U.S. troops are out of Iraq, but U.S. interests in the country remain, the director said. Since the pull-out, violence and sporadic high-profile attacks continue. Iraqi government actions have heightened political tensions with Sunni leaders, “but for now, the Sunnis continue to view the political proves as the best venue to pursue change,” Clapper said.

Revolts and unrest have spread across the Middle East and North Africa, Clapper noted. People confronting ruling elites; sectarian, ethnic and tribal divisions; lack of experience with democracy; stalled economic development; military and security force resistance; and regional power initiatives all have potential for exploitation by extremists.

“These are fluid political environments that offer openings for extremists to participate much more assertively in political life,” Clapper said. “States where authoritarian leaders have been toppled -- like Tunisia, Egypt and Libya -- have to reconstruct their political systems through complex negotiations among competing factions.”

In Syria, the Assad regime continues to dig in and has ordered security forces to fire on their own people. Continued violence “could potentially turn domestic upheavals into regional crises,” the director said.

In Yemen, although a political transition is under way, the security situation continues to be marred by violence, and fragmentation of the country is a real possibility, he said.

“The intelligence community is also paying close attention to the developments across the African continent, throughout the Western Hemisphere, Europe and across Asia,” Clapper said. “Here, too few issues are self-contained. Virtually every region has a bearing on our key concerns of terrorism, proliferation, cybersecurity and instability.

“And throughout the globe,” he added, “wherever there are environmental stresses on water, food and natural resources, as well as health threats, economic crises and organized crime, we see ripple effects around the world and impacts on U.S. interests.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said Tuesday the Western and Arab-backed draft resolution will not achieve a compromise in the 10-month long rebellion against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's 11-year autocratic rule.

Syrian opposition activists said government troops were consolidating control over eastern suburbs of Damascus Tuesday after several days of heavy fighting with rebels who briefly seized the communities just several kilometers from Assad's seat of power.

The activists said Monday's fighting between pro-Assad forces and the loosely-organized rebels in the Damascus suburbs and the central province of Homs killed about 100 people, many of them civilians. It was not possible to confirm the casualties independently because Syria bars foreign media from operating freely in the country.

The Moroccan-sponsored draft resolution is expected to be formally presented to the Security Council later Tuesday. Key supporters of the draft are due to appear at the session, including Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby, Qatar's prime minister, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her counterparts from Britain and France.

A Look at the Arab League

• The League of Arab States, or Arab League, is an association of 22 Arab states, based in Cairo.
• It was founded on March 22, 1945 in Cairo, with the aim of strengthening the relationships between member states through political, cultural and economic cooperation.
• The first six members of the organization were Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (later renamed Jordan), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Yemen joined a few months later.
• Nabil Elaraby was elected secretary-general of the Arab League in May 2011.
• Syria's membership was suspended in November 2011, following bloodshed caused by brutal government crackdowns on pro-democracy protests.
• On Jan. 22, 2012, the Arab League proposed to Syria that President Bashar al-Assad should transfer power to a deputy and form a national unity government within two months. The plan was rejected by Syria.

Western news agencies that obtained copies of the document say it endorses an Arab League plan requiring Syrian President Assad to transfer power to a deputy and form a unity government to prepare for elections under international supervision. They say the draft also warns of unspecified further measures if Syria does not comply. The Assad government already has rejected the plan as a violation of its sovereignty.

Russia has vowed to oppose any Security Council measure that it believes could give Western powers a pretext for military action against the Assad government. Syria is a long-time Russian military ally that provides Moscow with a naval base on the Mediterranean coast and frequently buys Russian military supplies.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Tuesday he hopes the Security Council will act in a coherent manner that reflects the wishes of the international community for an end to Syria's unrest. He was speaking on a visit to the Jordanian capital Amman.

The Syrian government accuses armed terrorists of driving the anti-Assad revolt and killing 2,000 security personnel. The United Nations estimated the death toll from the unrest at 5,400 earlier this month, before it stopped updating the figure because of difficulties in obtaining information.