On Friday, a Palestinian stabbed an Israeli soldier in Hebron, one of the latest incidents in a general uptick in West Bank terrorist activity since the beginning of 2022. Danny Zaken contends that the violence is in fact a result of the crumbling of confidence in the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is rapidly losing control over the areas for which it is responsible. A key indicator of this loss of trust, Zaken writes, are recent protests by Palestinians who work within Israel’s pre-1967 borders:

They are protesting against the transfer of their salaries through the banks rather than in cash, as was the case until now. Their lack of trust in the PA causes the workers to oppose the move, which is supposed to help them. . . . Last week I spoke to Amjad, a Palestinian laborer from the Hebron area who has been working in Israel for years and I asked him about his opposition to transferring his salary through the banks. “You [Israelis] are cooperating with the corruption of the Palestinian Authority, and so are the Americans. Every dime that enters the Palestinian Authority goes to the corrupt.”

These harsh sentiments are echoed in countless conversations, and they are completely justified; investigations by international media over the years substantiate the complaints.

The primary beneficiaries of this corruption, as Amjad himself asserts, are the PA president Mahmoud Abbas and his sons. And this isn’t the only problem, according to Zaken:

Another reason for the escalation in the security situation is the approaching end of [Abbas’s] rule. Abbas is over eighty-seven, has postponed presidential elections more than once on various pretexts, and his status, as well as the status of the leadership of the PA as a whole, is being undermined. All this is being expressed in the deterioration of the rule of law.

In Hebron, clan battles involving gunfights have been going on for months with deaths on both sides, and the Palestinian police are powerless.

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.