In the early 3rd century BCE, the Egyptian priest Manetho wrote a Greek-language history of his homeland, then ruled by Alexander the Great’s successors, as a counterweight to what could be found in Greek writings, which by this time had already been informed by biblical accounts. His Babylonian contemporary Berossus did something similar for his own country. In Clio’s “Other” Sons, John Dillery examines the writings of both, known to us only in fragments cited by other ancient authors. Richard Tada writes in his review:

In [Manetho’s version of the Exodus], the pharaoh decided to cleanse Egypt of lepers and other “unclean” people, confining these unfortunates first in quarries, then in an abandoned city called Avaris. The lepers chose as their leader a priest named Osarseph, who proceeded to reject Egyptian culture just as that country had rejected him.

Osarseph ordered his followers to stop worshiping the gods of Egypt, and also to feel free to dine on the sacred animals of the country. Not satisfied with that, he also arranged to have the country invaded by making alliance with the “shepherds”—a group of people formerly expelled from Egypt, now living in Jerusalem. The lepers/shepherds tag team ravaged Egypt for thirteen years before the pharaoh’s forces finally overcame them and they retreated to Syria [a geographic designation that then included Israel]. But before they left, Osarseph changed his name to “Moses.” . . .

The Osarseph story was recorded by Josephus, writing in the 1st century CE. As a Jew, Josephus was incensed by the tale. . . . Scholarly opinion is divided about the authenticity of the “Osarseph” passage. . . . In [the] skeptical view, the story likely stems from an ancient debate between Egyptians and Jews about whose civilization was older—and hence, more likely to have influenced the ruling Greek culture. As part of this dispute, anti-Jewish polemicists rewrote sections of poor Manetho’s work, rather as if it were an ancient Wikipedia entry on Zionism. Dillery, by contrast, makes a case that the disputed quotations are genuine.

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.