WarSclerotic

Israel’s Iran strategy: Bombs? Bluff? Both? | Reuters.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – If Washington is perplexed by Israeli “opacity” on whether it might attack Iran, that is no accident, since Israel’s leaders are themselves torn – but also content to let fears of bluff and double-bluff play to their advantage.

Aware of daunting military difficulties and potential for diplomatic and domestic backlash should they try to hit Iran’s nuclear programme, Israelis have been giving out mixed verbal signals that they hope may both encourage their U.S. ally to up the pressure on Tehran, and unnerve their Iranian enemies.

While a senior U.S. security official has told Reuters that Washington has a “sense of opacity” on what might prompt Israel to strike, few experts doubt Israel’s well-funded forces could dent an Iranian atomic development programme in which it sees the makings of a mortal threat to its existence.

However, many in Israel and abroad question whether its leaders would take the risk of plunging an already volatile region into war without the full support of its U.S. ally.

Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may think it is a risk worth taking. Ever a big-picture thinker, the U.S.-educated premier gave a speech this week commending Israel’s founding premier David Ben-Gurion for making fateful decisions at a “heavy price”, despite protests heard at home and abroad.

Commentators, on the alert these days for any clue about a possible strike on Iran, spotted a subtext – that Netanyahu, too, was ready to take lonely action in Israel’s interest.

He could hope for a repeat of the 1981 attack on Iraq’s atomic reactor and a similar sortie against Syria in 2007, when the anger of Washington’s initial reactions quickly faded.

“In the two previous experiences, even an American public, that may not have been persuaded, subsequently found out that the Israelis probably did what was necessary to be done,” said Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel.

“So there’s a huge public relations issue here: Can you make a credible case over the head of the administration, and get the American public to buy into the pain that is going to follow — Americans being killed in terrorism, oil shock, whatever it is.”

For now, Kurtzer estimated, Obama administration warnings against unilateral Israeli strikes on Iran would account for “5 percent” of Israeli deliberations, with the Netanyahu government’s military calculations taking the lion’s share.

Its priorities include fending off Iran’s promised missile reprisals and containing potential knock-on border wars with the Lebanese and Palestinian guerrillas who are allied to Tehran.

Former Mossad spymaster Meir Dagan has predicted that Syria, Iran’s key Arab ally and now beset by a bloody domestic uprising, might also choose to join in the foreign conflict.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said last week that an Israeli attack on Iran was not imminent. He has also said there were several months left in which to decide on such action, and described Israel and the United States as coordinating closely.

But senior figures in Washington say things are less clear, with rhetoric playing an important role in the confrontation at this stage: “I don’t think the administration knows what Israel is going to do. I’m not sure Israel knows what Israel is going to do,” Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee told Reuters. “That’s why they want to keep the other guys guessing. Keep the bad guys guessing.”

POLLS AND PR

Ordinary Israelis, their isolation deepening as the Arab Spring undermines U.S.-allied regimes in the region, are divided on whether to open a front with Iran. Memories of rocket salvoes from the Lebanon and Gaza wars of 2006 and 2008 still hurt.

Public reluctance has been galvanised by the unusually vocal questioning by Dagan and some other retired security chiefs of Netanyahu and Barak’s secret strategising.

These critics have urged U.S.-led sanctions on Tehran be given more time. Israel and its Western partners are also widely believed to have been sabotaging Iran’s uranium enrichment and ballistic arms projects, though Barak said any such covert campaign cannot be relied upon to finish the job.

A December 1 poll by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the U.S. think-tank Brookings found that 43 percent of Israeli Jews backed attacking Iran, while 41 percent would be opposed.

By a ratio of two to one, respondents said they would agree to stripping Israel of its own atomic arsenal as part of a regional disarmament deal. Ninety percent predicted Iran, which says its nuclear project is peaceful, would obtain in time become a nuclear military power.

Slowing its progress toward that point, however, may be enough of an objective for Israel, which Barak assessed last month stood to lose “maybe not even 500 dead” to Iranian retaliation.

Should it end up worse, “there are international mechanisms that would curtail the war between Iran and Israel”, former Israeli military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin said last month.

But Yadlin, who was among the eight F-16 pilots who carried out the 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, sounded circumspect about Israeli military capabilities against Iranian targets that are numerous, distant, fortified and on the alert for attacks – in contrast to Saddam Hussein’s sole installation near Baghdad.

Israel, he said, should “open lines of dialogue with those who have superior operational abilities than we do” — effectively, shelving unilateralism in favour of cooperation with the United States and its NATO allies.

Dan Schueftan, head of the National Security Studies Centre at Haifa University, said Israel’s recent hawkish talk could be meant for foreign ears: “Because they (Netanyahu and Barak) fear that if it is believed that there is no possibility of Israel attacking Iran, the United States won’t consider taking action.”

Even Dagan publicly dangled the possibility that he has been playing into a propaganda ruse, telling Israeli television: “If Dagan is arguing against a conflict, then the Iranian conclusion is … ‘Listen, these Jews are crazy. They could attack Iran!'”

But posture can also be self-realising. Before launching his surprise attack on Israel at Yom Kippur in 1973, Egypt’s Anwar Sadat repeatedly issued mobilisation orders to his forces while also saying he was willing to consider peace negotiations, lulling Israelis into believing Cairo was not a serious threat.

“Sadat came to be seen as desperate. But he was not bluffing,” said Abraham Rabinovich, author of “The Yom Kippur War: The Epic Encounter that Transformed the Middle East”.

“He clearly intended his militant statements as a signal to Israel, and the United States, that he would go to war if there was no diplomatic solution. And so it was.”

(Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Alastair Macdonald)

Romney: Obama ‘timid and weak’ on Iranian threat to Israel – The Hill’s Ballot Box.

The Cutting Edge News.

Cutting Edge Terrorism Analyst

Sanctions and sabotage have not stopped them. Neither have threats nor United Nations resolutions. Iran’s leaders say they’ll never give up their nuclear program, and evidence shows the Iranians are closer than ever before to acquiring the bomb.

So how would a nuclear-armed Iran change the face of the Middle East and the world?

According to reports, Iran already has enough enriched uranium to produce at least four nuclear bombs.

And unless something changes, it appears the writing is on the wall for Iran’s neighbors.

“In the end, I would argue that Saudi Arabia, which is the most Sunni, most Wahhabi — which is the most extreme of the Sunnis — is in more danger than America or Israel or Europe or anybody else,” Harold Rhode, a senior advisor to the Hudson Institute, told CBN News. See video here.

Rhode, a former foreign affairs specialist at the Pentagon, said nuclear weapons would allow Iran to dominate its neighbors and set the global price of oil.

“The Saudis and other people who are supplying the world with oil and gas would have to kowtow to the dictates of this tyrannical regime in Tehran,” he predicted.

Iranian leaders are also reaching out to the radical forces that have gained power due to the so-called Arab Spring. They’re calling on the Muslim world to unite for a final showdown with Israel and the West.

A nuclear arsenal could be the galvanizing force that does just that.

An Iranian nuclear umbrella could also protect the terror groups Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Fear of nuclear retaliation might force Israel to think twice before responding to attacks by these Iranian proxies.

But Iran would use the bomb to flex its muscle far beyond the Middle East. The Iranians now have missiles that can reach most of Europe and they’re working on ones that can reach the United States as well. With their cities in the crosshairs, Western leaders could be forced to take a much softer tone toward Tehran.

Some have argued that Iran only wants to have nuclear weapons to deter its enemies — that it would never actually use them.

Yet Iranian leaders say the return of their Islamic messiah — known as the Mahdi, or Twelfth Imam — is drawing near. In their view, using nuclear weapons against Israel or the West could hasten his appearance.

“He will come back and save them. So an attack and a conflagration is an incentive,” Rhode explained.

Iran expert Dr. Michael Ledeen, a freedom scholar with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said when Iranian leaders threaten to destroy America and Israel, we should take them at their word.

“Obviously, their nuclear program is closely related to their messianic vision,” he said.

He notes that the West ignored the statements of Hitler and other tyrants during the 20th century and paid a heavy price.

“Over and over and over again we said, ‘Nah, they can’t possibly mean these things.’ But they meant it and they did it. So any prudent leader has to act under the assumption that they mean it and they’ll do it,” Leeden said.

Investigative reporter Erick Stakelbeck is a terrorism analyst at CBN News.

The Gulf Between Washington and Jerusalem Over Iran – Jeffrey Goldberg – International – The Atlantic.

William Galston, who attended the Saban Forum this past weekend (along with Goldblog), on how the Iranian threat is perceived in the two capitals:

By far the gravest issue, though, was how to proceed in the face of a looming Iranian nuclear threat. I came away from the two days with a dark and disturbing conclusion: There is a gulf between Israel and the United States that could have momentous consequences in 2012. When American officials declare that all options are on the table, most Israelis do not believe them. They have concluded, rather, that when the crunch comes (and everyone thinks it will), the United States will shy away from military force and reconfigure its policy to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. This is an outcome that no Israeli government can tolerate. For Israel, the Palestinian issue is an identity question: What kind of country will Israel be and what kind of life will Israelis lead? But the Iranian issue is an existential question: Will Israel and Israelis survive?

I have to say that I’m beginning to have doubts about the Obama Administration approach to this issue. I have fewer doubts about President Obama himself: I think he understands the potentially catastrophic consequences of an Iran with nuclear weapons. But I think there are people around him who are convincing themselves that either 1) a nuclear Iran is containable; or 2) the sanctions regime currently in place will be sufficient to stop Iran.

Of course, Obama Administration officials know things we don’t, including and especially the effectiveness of sabotage programs meant to cripple the Iranian nuclear program. But I’m beginning to question the seriousness of some of the players in this drama: If Iran’s nuclear program is actually unacceptable, then why the hesitancy to sanction Iran’s Central Bank? I know the reason, of course: Such sanctions might lead to a spike in gasoline prices. But either you think Iran’s nuclear program is the most serious foreign policy challenge facing America, or you don’t. As for containment, well, as numerous people mentioned to me at the Saban forum (and mentioned in forum sessions as well) the chance of an accidental nuclear confrontation in a highly-combustible Middle East is very high. Imagine the following scenario: Hezbollah launches a serious attack on Israel’s north. Israel begins to retaliate. Iran, coming to the defense of its Lebanese proxy, makes a not-so-subtle threat: If you invade Lebanon, we will respond, without saying how. At the same time, Israeli intelligence learns that Iran is mating nuclear warheads to their fissile cores. Do you think Israel is going to wait to pre-empt a possible Iranian nuclear attack?

Unfortunately, this sort of devastating escalation is within the realm of possiblity. For this reason alone, it is worth trying to stop the Iranian nuclear program through more strigent sanctions.

Jeffrey Goldberg – Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Reporting. Author of the book Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror, Goldberg also writes the magazine’s advice column.

Britain sees the sharp end of radic… JPost – Magazine – Opinion.

Signs point to further difficulties after the Iranian attack on Tehran’s British embassy.

Photo by: REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi

Last week, an Iranian mob attacked the British embassy in Tehran, vandalizing the building and seizing diplomatic staff. Due to the violence and destruction resulting from several hundred attackers rampaging through the building, the embassy has been evacuated and closed by the British government, and diplomatic relations between Britain and Iran have ceased. The Iranian embassy in London has been closed and over twenty Iranian diplomats were unceremoniously sent home.

British Ambassador to Iran Dominick Chilcott has publicly accused the Iranian government of backing the attack. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is believed to have ordered the raid, which was led by a volunteer militia, the Basij, headed by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei. It is rumored that Ayatollah Khamenei has been grooming his son to eventually take over the role of supreme leader one day.

Perhaps this attack was a demonstration of Iranian resolve to resist Western protests over its development of nuclear weapons, or simply a political game intended to give Khamenei an upper hand over his subordinate, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Regardless, the damage to British-Iranian relations is severe, and many Western governments are now accelerating their diplomatic retreat from the government in Tehran.

Memories of the seizure of 55 American hostages by Iranian protesters in the American embassy in 1979 have been forefront in many minds. In addition to looting and stealing, individual British staff members were taken into custody by the mob. Fires were set in various rooms of the British embassy and pictures of Queen Elizabeth II were torn down.

The British Embassy is of great significant historical status, as the location of the famous Tehran summit in 1943, where former US president Franklin D. Roosevelt, former British prime minister Winston Churchill and former Soviet premier Josef Stalin began to decide the fate of the post-war world. Now subjected to wanton violence and destruction, the embassy is symbolic of the damage Iran has done to its international standing, both generally and specifically in connection with its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency recently issued its report on the Iranian nuclear program, which reaffirmed many fears. Iran currently has enough uranium for four bombs, although work is still required to enrich that uranium to weapons grade. As a result, Western leaders and commentators are increasingly grappling with the question of whether mere sanctions alone will be enough to convince Tehran to abandon their dream of becoming a nuclear-armed country.

How likely is a military strike on Iran, targeting its nuclear weapons facilities?

Prominent Israeli newspapers have begun to openly debate the prospects of an attack on Iran. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has made clear that he would bomb Iran’s nuclear sites if necessary. For many Israelis, an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would pose a direct and cataclysmic threat to the future existence of the Jewish people. Iran is believed to have at least 300 hundred missiles with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel. With US-produced F15 and F16 fighter planes, and an ample supply of “bunker-busting” GBU-28 bombs, Israel is equipped to do the job, if a decision was ever reached to unilaterally deny Iran the nuclear option.

What would be the impact of such an attack on the other Arab countries in the region?

The Arab Spring that has swept through the region over the past year has encouraged both liberal groups to voice their concerns and Islamist organizations to make real progress in securing political power in the new regimes. Should the region be engulfed by war, it is highly unlikely that any trend towards openness and democracy would continue in such an emotionally-charged environment, and anti-Israeli sentiment could foster the continued popularity of extremist and conservative political leaders.

Notably, if Iran were attacked, it is highly likely that they would close the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which 90 percent of the oil produced in the Gulf region is transported. Although over-ground pipelines have been installed in Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Iraq, the impact of a regional war on global oil supplies could be significant. Iran therefore plays a pivotal role in the future of the region, and Britain, together with the United States and other Western countries, must takes the steps necessary to ensure that long-term security and stability is maintained in the region.

In addition to escalating diplomatic confrontations with Iran, Britain also faces difficult economic times at home. Recent pronouncements by the British government have made clear that their intention is to continue on the path of austerity that they have followed since the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition unseated the big-spending Labor party two years ago. Unfortunately, many of Britain’s Western allies, who are essential to helping it achieve its diplomatic goals for Iran, are also suffering severely economic challenges.

In such fiscally-strapped times, it is tempting for a government to de-prioritize complex international problems, in favor of the immediate financial needs of their citizens. Britain must resist the temptation to ignore the risks posed by Iran and postpone these problems to the indefinite future.

Instead, Britain and its allies, including the United States, must remain committed to a non-nuclear Iran. Iranian leaders have shown where their radical rhetoric can lead. Adding nuclear weapons to that volatile mix would be a step in the wrong direction.

The writer is a commentator who divides his time between the United Kingdom and Southern California. He has appeared on CNN, CNBC, BBC and Sky News, and has been featured in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Financial Times and the Economist.

Iran gets room to manoeuvre in phantom war | The Australian.

Russian navy squadron sails to Syrian port; Damascus deploys tanks on Turkey border.

Al Arabiya

Wednesday, 07 December 2011

Russia’s Defense Ministry said a navy squadron has set off for the Mediterranean. (File photo)

inShare3

Panetta and Clinton Take Aim at Israel – Forward.com.

Officials Speak Sharply at Saban Forum, but Few See Rift

department of defense

Tough Talk: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says it’s time for Israel to start serious peace negotiations, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton takes aim at the growing gender segregation of women in Israel. Do the sharp words represent a new rift between close allies?

By Nathan Guttman

Washington — Just as the troubled relationship between the Obama administration and the government of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to be getting on track, remarks by top American officials have made it clear that frustration still runs deep in Washington over Israel’s policies.

Over the course of just a few days, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, along with other government officials, talked about their displeasure with Israel policies ranging from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to relations with Turkey and Egypt and, domestically, to limitations on women’s rights and on Israeli civil society freedoms.

Analysts agree that it would be a mistake to interpret the criticism as an orchestrated attack meant to pressure Israel. No actions from Washington that would back up the critical comments appear to be on the horizon. But many see the statements as a sign of a growing gap between the two countries.

“All these issues are bubbling up because Israelis fail to recognize the depth of American concern,” said Dov Zakheim, undersecretary of defense in the George W. Bush administration. Zakheim, who has been involved in relations between Israel and the United States for decades, said, “Israelis thought for years that they could do whatever they wanted and get unstinting support from the U.S., but it is no longer so.” According to Zakheim, the Obama administration, as well as America’s military leadership, feel that Israel “just didn’t work hard enough” to achieve peace, and therefore there is widespread frustration in the foreign policy and national security communities.

Triggering the latest round in tension between Israel and America was a strongly worded speech delivered on December 2 by Panetta at the Saban Forum, an annual weekend seminar hosted by the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy. When asked about measures that should be taken by Israel to advance the peace process, Panetta, true to his reputation as a straight-shooter, responded, “Just get back to the damn table.”

The Pentagon chief also pointed out the trend of Israel’s growing isolation. And while explaining that there were several reasons for this problem, Panetta seemed to lay part of the blame on Israel when he stated, “I have never known an Israeli government — or an Israeli, for that matter — to be passive about anything, let alone this troubling trend.”

Panetta urged Israel to increase its efforts to reconcile with Turkey. He openly rebuked Israeli arguments about the effectiveness of a possible military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Panetta’s address surprised and even shocked Israeli officials.

The prevailing notion in Jerusalem had been that Obama’s highly supportive speech at the U.N. General Assembly on September 21 signaled recognition from the United States that it is the Palestinians’ refusal to negotiate that has led peace talks to a dead end. “The Israeli interest is not to keep the current situation as it is,” Israeli Cabinet minister Dan Meridor told the Forward on the sideline of the Saban conference. “It is an illusion to think you can maintain the status quo. It is in Israel’s interest to solve the conflict.”

But Panetta’s comments suggested that Israel isn’t off the hook yet. In Washington’s view, it appears, the Netanyahu government, like the Palestinians, requires more prodding in order to engage in talks.

Obama administration in the dark on Israel’s Iran plans, U.S. officials say – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Senators John McCain and Carl Levin say uncertainty stokes concern in Washington, where preferred course for now is sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

By Reuters

The Obama administration does not know Israel’s intentions regarding potential military action against Iran, and the uncertainty is stoking concern in Washington, where the preferred course for now is sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Although Israel remains one of the United States’ closest allies and the two countries’ officials are in regular contact, U.S. officials have a “sense of opacity” regarding what might prompt an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear sites, and about when such an attack might occur, according to a senior U.S. national security official.

	U.S. Senator John McCain gives a speech at the World Economic Forum annual meeting on the Middle East at the Dead Sea, October 23, 2011.
	Photo by: Reuters

Two key U.S. senators acknowledged on Tuesday that there are gaps in U.S. knowledge about Israeli leaders’ thinking and intentions.

“I don’t think the administration knows what Israel is going to do. I’m not sure Israel knows what Israel is going to do … That’s why they want to keep the other guys guessing. Keep the bad guys guessing,” said Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator John McCain, the senior Republican on the committee, echoed Levin’s view: “I’m sure (administration officials) don’t know what the Israelis are going to do. They didn’t know when the Israelis hit the reactor in Syria. But the Israelis usually know what we’re going to do.”

In one way, the ambiguity is an advantage for the United States, because Washington could claim it had no foreknowledge of any Israeli attack, which would almost certainly increase anti-American sentiment among many Muslims in the Middle East.

Israeli leaders have not suggested an attack on Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons sites is imminent. But neither have they – or U.S. President Barack Obama, for that matter – ruled it out.

Israel, widely believed to have the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, says a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten its existence. Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and denies Western accusations it is seeking an atomic bomb.

‘Unintended consequences’

The uncertainty comes amid extraordinarily sharp public warnings in the last few weeks by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about the potential “unintended consequences” of military action against Iran.

Panetta told a forum in Washington last week that an attack on Iran would risk “an escalation” that could “consume the Middle East in confrontation and conflict that we would regret.”

It could disrupt the fragile economies of the United States and Europe, spark a popular backlash in Iran bolstering its rulers and put U.S. forces in the region in the firing line, he said. “The United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases,” Panetta said.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Reuters in an interview he did not know whether the Jewish state would give the United States notice ahead of time if it decided to act.

An Israeli government official said, “Israel and the United States are in close and continuous communication on the threat posed to world security by the Iranian nuclear program. We appreciate President Obama’s determination to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” The official declined to comment further.

At the same time, however, Obama’s relations with Israeli leaders have not been particularly warm. He has not visited the country as president.

A former U.S. government official said: “There are plenty of instances when the Israelis have undertaken action without informing the United States first. So not always should we assume a level of coordination (between Washington and Israel) in advance on all issues.”

Repeat performance?

Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA expert on the Middle East who has advised Obama, said, “Israel has a long history of conducting military operations from Baghdad to Tunis without giving Washington advance notice.”

Riedel said the White House wants to send Israel a strong message that the United States does not expect to be blindsided by its ally. “Obama wants Bibi to understand unequivocally he does not want a repeat performance in Iran,” he said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his nickname.

The Obama administration suspects that Israeli leaders have marked out for themselves certain “red lines” related to Iranian nuclear progress which could trigger Israeli military action if they are crossed, one U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But Obama administration policymakers are plagued by a “sense of opacity” in their understanding of where the Israeli red lines are drawn, the official added.

Two other U.S. officials, also speaking on condition they not be named, said Washington is deeply concerned Israel, unconvinced sanctions and diplomatic pressure will halt Iran’s nuclear program, could eventually decide to take action on its own.

By the same token, one of the U.S. officials said, speeches and statements by Israeli leaders, like an address by Netanyahu on Sunday in which he talked about making “the right decision at the right moment” even if allies object, could be politically motivated.

Under this interpretation, Netanyahu and other Israeli officials may be playing to domestic audiences or trying to put pressure on the international community to do more on Iran.

‘Assad: Syria troops’ violence not my resp… JPost – Middle East.

    Syrian President Bashar Assad told US news station ABC that he is not directly responsible for acts of violence committed by his security forces since an uprising against the Alawite president began in Syria in March of this year, Dubai-based Arabic-language news channel Al Arabiya reported Wednesday.

According to a press statement released by ABC concerning the interview – which will be aired Wednesday evening – Assad said “I am the president…I am not the owner of the nation, so these are not my troops,” according to Al Arabiya.

“There is a difference between a deliberate policy of repression, and the presence of some errors committed by some officials. There is a great difference,” Assad reportedly said.

The situation in Syria has grown increasingly chaotic in the last few months, with a death toll rising above 4,000 people according to the United Nations.

Western leaders, Turkey and the Arab League have ordered that the Syrian president stop a brutal crackdown on protesters that has caused thousands of deaths, and usher in political reforms that he promised almost immediately after the uprising began.

UN officials have said Syria is close to “civil war,” and there are fears that sectarian differences among Syria’s ethnically diverse population could push the country into a conflict similar to that in neighboring Iraq.

In addition to accusations by human rights groups of torture, killings, and unwarranted arrests of activists and bloggers by the Syrian armed forces, recent reports point to a new phenomenon of unknown assailants and deaths on both the pro- and anti-Assad sides.

In the past two days, more people were killed in mysterious circumstances than by the state security forces firing in the streets, activists and residents say. Yet very little is known for certain about who is behind such killings, which appear to have targeted government supporters, as well as opponents.

Along with a rise in ambushes and bomb attacks by military defectors who have set up a “Free Syrian Army”, the emergence of irregular militias has complicated what began in March as a popular revolt against Assad, inspired by unarmed demonstrators who led Arab Spring protests elsewhere.

Available reports offer only a partial explanation of who stood behind the kidnapping and murder of over 60 Syrians whose bodies were dumped on Monday in two separate places in Homs.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights quoted a witness in Homs as saying on Monday he saw the bodies of 34 people “who were originally kidnapped earlier today by Shabiha from the neighborhood uprising against the regime”.

Shabiha is a popular name for state-backed paramilitaries drawn from Assad’s minority Alawite sect, who are outnumbered about eight to one by Syria’s Sunni Muslim people