According to the biblical account, the kings Saul, David, and Solomon ruled over all twelve tribes of Israel; after Solomon’s death, their kingdom split into two rival states—Judea in the south and Israel in the north. One of the enduring arguments among historians of this period is whether the “united monarchy” ever existed. While conclusive evidence remains to be found, a recent excavation lends credence, in the eyes of some, to the Bible’s version of events, as Owen Jarus writes:

Archaeologists have discovered a sprawling, possibly 3,000-year-old house. . . . The archaeologists who excavated the house, at a site now called Tel Eton, [argue] that the date, design, and size of the house indicates that a strong organized government existed at Tel Eton around 3,000 years ago. They added that this government may be the united monarchy. The site is located in the central part of Israel in a region called the Shefelah. . . .

Before construction of the house began, a 3,200-year-old chalice was buried in what archaeologists call a foundation deposit. To confirm when the house was constructed, the archaeologists radiocarbon-dated four artifacts—a piece of charcoal found near the chalice, another piece of charcoal found within the remains of a floor above the chalice, and two olive pits found within the remains of the house’s floor.

The house is oriented toward the east and . . . is divided into four areas—three long spaces at the front and a long space in the back—that are then subdivided. Israelites frequently built houses with this type of design; non-Israelites did not. . . . Additionally, the archaeologists found that Tel Eton was fortified around 3,000 years ago, something they believe strengthens their argument that a powerful government existed at Tel Eton. They also point out that other sites dating back 3,000 years ago have been found in Israel that could be connected to the united monarchy, including Khirbet Qeiyafa, a fortified hilltop city located nineteen miles southwest of Jerusalem.

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.