Considering ongoing debates over the future of political conservativism in the U.S. in their more elevated form, Peter Berkowitz chastises those who have called for “public life” to be “rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private.” Such a vision, Berkowitz contends, would abandon America’s own venerable traditions of liberty:

In a much smaller and substantially less diverse country, America’s founders recognized religion’s moral and political significance but rejected its nationalization. They understood that amid diverse Protestant denominations, government support of Christianity would cause bitter divisions within the nation, especially among Christians, by favoring one contested interpretation of their faith. America’s founders knew, moreover, that officeholders lacked expertise in religion, and the disposition and skill to honor it. And they believed that responsibility—limited by basic rights and fundamental freedoms—for fostering piety and cultivating the moral virtues primarily belonged to individuals, communities, and religious authorities.

Even more so in today’s vastly larger and more diverse America: government honors religion best by vigorously protecting religious liberty.

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.