Born in the German city of Mannheim in 1654, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger spent nearly two decades studying the Talmud and other rabbinic texts with members of the Jewish community of Amsterdam, to whom he presented himself as a prospective convert. Then, in 1700, he published one of the best researched, and most influential, works of anti-Jewish slander. Henry Abramson writes:

Spanning 2,000 pages over two brick-like volumes, Entdecktes Judenthum (“Judaism Unmasked”) is an exhaustive survey of every possible passage from the Talmud that could be distorted to reflect badly on Jews and Judaism. Its verbose subtitle thoroughly describes his intent, which was to prove how “the stubborn Jews frightfully blaspheme and dishonor the Holy Trinity . . . . and despise and curse to the uttermost extreme the whole of Christianity.” He also promised “ridiculous and amusing stories” to boot, “written for the honest information of all Christians.”

Eisenmenger’s purpose and even his methodology were hardly new. Jew-haters have been mining the Talmud for talking points since the 13th century, when the apostate Nicholas Donin first denounced it before Pope Innocent III. Few, however, were able to penetrate the depths of this massive, ancient text written in a mixture of highly coded Aramaic and Hebrew.

Eisenmenger began his lifelong deception in 1680 at the age of twenty-four. By the time he was ready to bring his malicious book to print, he could count many rabbis among his teachers, including the prolific David ben Aryeh Leyb of Lida [in modern-day Belarus]— then chief Ashkenazi rabbi of Amsterdam.

For the past three centuries, from John Peter Stehelin’s [1748 English-language abridgment] to the ugliest parts of the Internet, anti-Semites have relied on Eisenmenger’s [perverse] research to promote hatred. Eisenmenger strove for accuracy in citation and translation, but criminally distorted the meaning of the passages in context with unacceptably tendentious commentary to promote awful lies like the infamous blood libel.

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.