Much will be clarified in the coming weeks about how various political leaders, groups, and institutions respond to war between Israel and Hamas. In France, Marine Le Pen, the leader of the hard-right National Rally party, along with her number-two, issued strong statements of support for the Jewish state last week. Michel Gurfinkiel explains:

These are the most pro-Israel pronouncements both leaders have ever made. Marine’s father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded and led the National Front—the National Rally’s forerunner—managed to be at the same time an old-fashioned anti-Semite, a critic of Arab and Islamic immigration to France, and a close friend and supporter of Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.

When Marine Le Pen took over the National Front from him in 2011 and turned it into a more mainstream populist party, she repudiated anti-Semitism and ventured to express some sympathy for Israel, albeit in vague and ambivalent terms.

Clearly, the National Rally is now stepping up the tone. For one thing, its base is increasingly convinced that Israel and France have a single common enemy—radical Islam—and that what happens now in Israel, or what national defense policies Israel must resort to, is a blueprint for France’s short-term future.

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.