If international terrorism like the murder of Rabbi Kogan represents an additional front in the war to destroy Israel, so too does the movement to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, argues Netta Barak-Corren:

It is hard to overstate the stakes of this front not only for Israel, but for countries all over the world who benefit from Israel’s scholarly contributions to many fields. The boycott has already scotched research collaborations in medicine, computational biology, chemistry, informatics, political science, child welfare, and more.

In America, some legal and legislative remedies have already been used against the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement. Such legal means, Barak-Corren explains, are also available in Europe:

Through the EU-Israel Association Agreement, Israeli researchers and institutions have access to EU grants, which constitute some of the largest sources of research funding in the world. The regulations for such funding include nondiscrimination rules as a condition for eligibility, . . . meaning that universities or researchers who terminate collaborations with Israeli collaborators will violate their contractual commitments and risk their eligibility for funding.

Although there are laws in the United States that prohibit government contracts with entities that participate in the BDS movement, these laws mainly apply to commercial activity. . . . It is perhaps timelier than ever to push similar legislation through Congress.

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.