WarSclerotic

The downing of the F-16i jet on February 10 by a Syrian antiaircraft missile was due to an operational mistake on the part of the pilots, the IDF announced Sunday.

“Between the tension of completing the mission while facing enemy missiles, there was an operational mistake on the part of the team whose actions did not match the order of priorities required by the threat it was facing,” a senior Israel Air Force officer said, explaining that the pilots did not take the proper evasive measures.

“The moment that there is a missile threat, they had to leave their targets in the mission and react properly to the threat.”

The jet was part of two four-plane formations that were taking part in retaliatory air strikes following the infiltration of an advanced Iranian drone into Israeli airspace earlier that morning.

IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot stands with anonymous IDF soldiers. (IDF Spokesperson’s Unit)

Thirteen Syrian antiaircraft missiles were fired at the jets during that operation and a total of 27 missiles were fired at Israeli planes on the retaliatory missions following the Iranian drone infiltration.

While the one jet was hit during the operation, another one had a missile locked onto it but was able to evade it.

IDF chief of the General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot visited the Ramon air force base Sunday morning, where he was a presented with the full investigation of the event which dealt with the entire sequence of the events of the day.

“More than once, the road to successfully carry out significant operational missions requires us to take risks,” he said. “My expectation of every fighter is that during a mission he will take the fate of the task onto his shoulders.”

According to a senior IAF officer, the infiltration of the drone was not meant to draw the Israeli planes into an ambush and that the warning systems in the downed aircraft functioned as required and provided timely warnings to the pilot.

The air force was not surprised that Syrian anti-aircraft missiles were fired at the planes as “it has occurred before,” the senior officer said, but the number of missiles fired towards Israeli jets that night was “a significant increase” from previous missions.

Injured navigator returns to service flying with IAF Chief Major General Amikam Norkin / IDF SPOKESMAN’S UNIT

ISRAEL RARELY comments on foreign reports of military activity in Syria but IAF Air Division Brig.-Gen. Amnon Ein-Dar admitted that the IAF has carried out thousands of missions over the wartorn country in the past year alone. Israel has admitted to carrying out at least 100 air strikes on Hezbollah targets in Syria.

The intelligence that was in the possession of the mission planners and pilots was sufficient and provided the required response to the mission they were flying, the senior officer continued, adding that the decision to abandon the plane when it was struck by the Syrian SA-5 missile was the correct decision.

It was the first time that Israel lost an aircraft in a combat situation since 2006 and the first time in 30 years that an Israeli fighter jet was lost in a combat situation.

Injured navigator returns to service / IDF SPOKESMAN’S UNIT 

In leaked transcripts of their debrief, Channel 2 News quoted the pilots as saying they had no time to report on their radio that they were bailing out of the plane.

“We were very focused on the mission. Then there was an explosion and we understood we were hit. It is a very uncomfortable feeling, the loss of control,” read the transcript.

“There is no long process and also there is no time. A few seconds. The understanding [was] that we need to quickly eject as a result of the physical damage to us and also as a result of the damage to the plane that ceased to function,” they were quoted as saying.

“We were extremely lucky. The missile exploded close to the plane and the force of the explosion could have killed us. The missile exploded at a certain distance from the plane and its shrapnel was enough to damage the plane,” the transcript said.

IAF commander Maj.-Gen.Amikam Norkin emphasized in his summary of the investigation into the crash that the episode “is an opportunity for the IAF” to learn, adding that the “in-depth investigation reflects the learning at all levels, both at headquarters and in the field, and it will make the IAF better.”

Both the pilot and the navigator, who were both injured during the incident, have since been released from the hospital.

Last week, the navigator, Maj. A, who was lightly wounded, returned to his squadron and flew his first returning flight with Norkin.

The pilot, who was seriously injured, is expected to return to full operational duties following his recovery.

NEGOTIATIONS THAT led to a landmark nuclear deal with Iran in 2015 were lavish and public affairs. Over a two-year period, diplomats from six world powers and Tehran camped out in Europe’s finest hotels, surrounded by legions of press from all across the world eager for details from behind gilded conference room doors.

The new Iran talks, on the other hand – quietly announced last month by US President Donald Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson – are shaping up to be quite different. These negotiations do not include the press. They do not include Iran. And they are up against a very short deadline of 120 days.

These talks, held directly between State Department officials and their counterparts from Britain, France and Germany, or the E3, are over whether it is possible to broker an addendum agreement to the 2015 nuclear accord that will keep Trump from killing it outright.

European governments know the stakes are high. But they don’t know the standard for success they are working toward, given the president’s imprecise threats, his political interest in scrubbing the deal and his seemingly vague understanding of the nonproliferation agreement in the first place.

Last month, Trump gave Paris, London and Berlin a mid-May deadline to come up with a new sanctions framework around the nuclear accord, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, agreeing “for the last time” to waive nuclear-related sanctions critical to US participation in the deal.

“My administration has engaged with key supplemental agreement that would impose new multilateral sanctions if Iran develops or tests long-range missiles, thwarts inspections, or makes progress toward a nuclear weapon – requirements that should have been in the nuclear deal in the first place,” Trump said.

“Today, I am waiving the application of certain nuclear sanctions, but only in order to secure our European allies’ agreement to fix the terrible flaws of the Iran nuclear deal,” he added. “This is a last chance. In the absence of such an agreement, the United States will not again waive sanctions in order to stay in the Iran nuclear deal. And if at any time I judge that such an agreement is not within reach, I will withdraw from the deal immediately.”

Trump’s deadline caught European leaders off guard. Does the president expect them to complete a new, supplemental agreement that “fixes” the agreement to his liking in four short months? Would a framework for negotiations suffice? Or is this simply Trump posturing, preparing the world for his inevitable withdrawal?

Europe’s diplomats are preparing for both. They are asking Tillerson’s team to explicitly outline what it will take to keep Trump within the deal for the time being. But they are also preparing a backup plan if he pulls out: the imposition of “blocking regulations,” a mechanism that would protect European businesses engaged in Iran from US secondary sanctions should they snap back into place.

It’s a controversial move that would spark heated internal debate within Europe – and one that, if executed, would set up a direct confrontation with Washington, and a potential trade war. Europeans are generally in agreement that US secondary sanctions, which they refer to as “extraterritorial,” violate international law and the spirit of their historic alliances with the US.

Europe has imposed blocking regulations to protect their businesses working in Cuba from US penalties. But the case of Iran is wholly different, involving a bigger market drawing larger companies exposed to greater risk – and a country the US deems a top national security threat.

Trump’s team is working directly with the E3 after giving up on the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, Frederica Mogherini, whom they view as politically invested in the survival in JCPOA. The EU organized the original 2013-15 Iran talks, which included the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and Iran.

Mogherini has warned that the EU will not take part in any supplemental deals that impose new terms onto the nuclear agreement. And she opposes new European action against Iran’s ballistic missile work – one of Trump’s baseline requirements for remaining within the JCPOA.

Trump has also asked European powers to address Iran’s regional behavior, noting that its aggressive tactics in the Middle East have been emboldened by the nuclear deal itself.

“I also call on all our allies to take stronger steps with us to confront Iran’s other malign activities. Among other actions, our allies should cut off funding to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its militant proxies, and anyone else who contributes to Iran’s support for terrorism,” Trump said. “They should designate Hezbollah – in its entirety – as a terrorist organization. They should join us in constraining Iran’s missile development and stopping its proliferation of missiles, especially to Yemen. They should join us in countering Iran’s cyber threats. They should help us deter Iran’s aggression against international shipping. They should pressure the Iranian regime to stop violating its citizens’ rights. And they should not do business with groups that enrich Iran’s dictatorship or fund the Revolutionary Guard and its terrorist proxies.

“No one should doubt my word,” he continued. “I said I would not certify the nuclear deal – and I did not. I will also follow through on this pledge. I hereby call on key European countries to join with the United States in fixing significant flaws in the deal, countering Iranian aggression, and supporting the Iranian people. If other nations fail to act during this time, I will terminate our deal with Iran.”

SINCE THE president’s ultimatum, administration officials have offered mixed messages on what they will accept as adequate progress in talks with Europe to continue negotiations, justifying for Trump one more sanctions waiver. One official said he expects an agreement that “enshrines certain triggers that the Iranian regime cannot exceed related to ballistic missiles; related to a nuclear breakout period, to hold them to one year or less, and to inspection; and that would have no sunset clause.”

Their bullish rhetoric has born some fruit: France and Britain have already called for additional action against Iran’s “malign activities” regionwide, and warned that Tehran is in violation of existing international laws banning its ballistic missile work.

But they continue to insist on protecting the “fundamentals” of the nuclear deal itself, and on “compartmentalizing” talks such that the core of the JCPOA – its basic text – remains unaffected. And that position may prove irreconcilable with the Trump administration’s stance. It may be that no amount of time for negotiations would alter it.

Despite the president’s threats, Tillerson cautioned recently that Washington cannot force Europe to act one way or another, much less in a matter of weeks.

“The US is under a bit of a timetable to deliver on what the president is looking for, but we don’t – we can’t set timetables for others,” he told reporters on January 22, announcing his intent to “formalize” working groups on the matter.

Tillerson, who toured the Middle East this month, is leading an effort within the administration to keep Trump from tearing up the nuclear accord, hoping instead that he will leverage his threats to bring Europe to a meaningful compromise.

“It’s always darkest before the dawn,” Tillerson said.