While the government of Emmanuel Macron has been fighting its own war on terror both domestically and in Africa, it has consistently condemned Jerusalem’s efforts to defend itself against Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Tsilla Hershco comments:

During the May 2021 Gaza war, . . . France condemned the terrorist organization’s attacks on Israeli cities and expressed support for Israel’s right to self-defense. At the same time, it demanded restraint from Israel on the alleged grounds that the violence was the product of a lack of political progress with the Palestinians, the (supposedly) provocative nature of Jewish communities in the West Bank, and the purported violation by Israel of the status quo in Jerusalem.

France feared that the events in Gaza would lead to violent demonstrations by French Muslims and an increase in anti-Semitic attacks on French Jews (as had occurred in previous rounds of war). Indeed, the French interior minister banned a demonstration by “supporters of Palestine in Paris” on May 14. Despite the ban, hundreds of French Hamas supporters gathered to demonstrate, refused police demands that they disperse, and attacked police officers with dangerous objects.

These events illustrate France’s vulnerability when dealing with growing pockets of poverty and crime, frequently in suburbs with a significant Muslim population. Obviously, the attempt to please Muslims in France by adopting a show of a “balanced” position on the Israel-Palestinian conflict does not solve the serious problems associated with the French republic’s relations with its Muslim population. Many Muslim immigrants, particularly of North African origin, have not integrated into French society and economy and are alienated from France. The growing influence of radical Islamists among French Muslims is reflected, inter alia, in the increase in the number of those who regard sharia law as above the laws of the French republic.

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.