Completed in 515 BCE, the Second Temple in Jerusalem was the focal point of Judaism until its destruction nearly six centuries later. Lawrence Schiffman provides an introduction to the Temple’s history, its significance in Judaism and Christianity, and the conflicts surrounding it in the latter part of its existence:

The Second Temple and its rituals were a point of contention between various Jewish groups, with numerous [ancient] texts criticizing the Temple for violating the laws of the Torah. The Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ disagreement led to inconsistent control of Temple rituals. Sadducean views held sway until the Pharisaic approach came to dominate after the Maccabean revolt [in 160 BCE], but the Sadducees regained control later in the Hasmonean period. The Dead Sea sectarians [associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls], who believed Temple ritual was being conducted illegitimately, abstained completely. Josephus reports that the Essenes processed offerings in their own area of the Temple in order to fulfill their special ritual-purity requirements. The Temple Scroll from Qumran, like the end of the book of Ezekiel, looked forward to a vastly expanded Temple complex.

Josephus records numerous events around the Temple during pilgrimage festivals, often related to the deteriorating relationship between the Jews and their Roman rulers. Huge numbers of Jews from all over the world attended the pilgrimage festivals. According to [the Jewish-Roman historian] Josephus, 256,500 lambs were sacrificed to accommodate more than 2.7 million people at the Passover celebration of 66 CE. While this may be an exaggeration, Josephus also reports that during that Passover, right before the outbreak of the great revolt [that culminated in the Romans’ destruction of the Temple], a massive protest erupted against the actions of the Roman procurator Florus.

In 2003, the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, spooked by the American display of might in Iraq, decided to destroy or surrender his entire nuclear program. Informed observers have suggested that the deal he made with the U.S. should serve as a model for any agreement with Iran. Robert Joseph provides some useful background:

Gaddafi had convinced himself that Libya would be next on the U.S. target list after Iraq. There was no reason or need to threaten Libya with bombing as Gaddafi was quick to tell almost every visitor that he did not want to be Saddam Hussein. The images of Saddam being pulled from his spider hole . . . played on his mind.

President Bush’s goal was to have Libya serve as an alternative model to Iraq. Instead of war, proliferators would give up their nuclear programs in exchange for relief from economic and political sanctions.

Any outcome that permits Iran to enrich uranium at any level will fail the one standard that President Trump has established: Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Limiting enrichment even to low levels will allow Iran to break out of the agreement at any time, no matter what the agreement says.

Iran is not a normal government that observes the rules of international behavior or fair “dealmaking.” This is a regime that relies on regional terror and brutal repression of its citizens to stay in power. It has a long history of using negotiations to expand its nuclear program. Its negotiating tactics are clear: extend the negotiations as long as possible and meet any concession with more demands.