The Jewish historian Josephus, who both fought in the Judean revolt against Rome of 66-70 CE and thereafter became its most important historian, describes a bloody battle that culminated with Roman legionaries breaking through the walls of Jerusalem, allowing them to take the city and destroy the Second Temple. A recent excavation has uncovered evidence supporting his account. Gavin Rabinowitz writes:

[T]he archaeologists found the remains of a tower surrounded by scores of stones and boulders fired by Roman catapults at the Jewish forces guarding the wall. . . .

“This is fascinating testimony to the intensive bombardment by the Roman army, led by Titus, on its way to conquering the city and destroying the Second Temple,” the [archaeologists] said. “The bombardment was intended to attack the sentries guarding the wall and provide cover for the Roman forces so they could approach the wall with battering rams and thereby breach the city’s defenses.” . . .

The part of the wall that was breached was known as the Third Wall. . . . According to accounts by Josephus, this part of the wall was designed to protect a new quarter of the city that developed outside the other two existing walls. For much of the 20th century, scholars have been debating the route of this Third Wall.

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.