Last Friday, the Washington Post published a column by Ishaan Tharoor—a dedicated Israel hater—titled “The Trump Administration’s Obsession with an Ancient Persian Emperor.” The column took as its prime example a tweet sent by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo marking the day in 539 BCE when “Cyrus the Great entered Babylon and freed the Jewish people from captivity” and declaring that the U.S. “stands with the Iranian people who are blocked by the [current] regime from celebrating [Cyrus’s] legacy.” While admitting that this “famous event in history” is documented by “sources including biblical Scripture,” Tharoor made sure to point out that Cyrus “presided over massacres and pillage.” He then went on connect the Trump administration’s invocations of the Persian monarch to its affection for lawless despots as well as the eschatology of a radical fringe of evangelical Christianity.

Rivkah Fishman-Duker responds:

Pompeo’s tweet was [in part] aimed at the tremendous popular response that the ancient king of Persia still evokes among Iranians, which stands diametrically opposed to the ideology of the Islamic Republic of Iran. [Tharoor’s] reference to excesses in battle is an attempt to discredit his standing as “proto-national hero.”

Evangelicals, [for their part], have their own ways of interpreting the Bible. They are not “obsessed” with anyone except for Jesus of Nazareth. All leaders like to compare themselves to previous significant figures whom they admire. There are countless examples. Didn’t Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey declare at the anti-Brett Kavanaugh hearings last year, “I am Spartacus!”?

If Harry Truman, [of whom Tharoor makes no mention], and Donald Trump choose to think of themselves as Cyrus, the comparison is historically flawed but well-intentioned, and I would not pay too much attention to it.

For those who wish to vilify Israel, anything that can be invoked against Israel is useful for the cause. . . . Oddly enough, [though, Tharoor’s column] reminds the world that the Temple was in Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, and acknowledges the Jewish presence there long before Islam and the Palestinians. This runs counter to the mendacious Palestinian narrative that claims that the Jews are not the indigenous people but usurpers who lack a historical claim to the land.

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.