On September 26, a Pakistani-born teenager injured two people with a meat cleaver outside of the former Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. And on Friday, a French history teacher was decapitated after receiving threats for showing students cartoons of Mohammad in the context of a discussion of freedom of speech. France’s President Emmanuel Macron, shortly before the beheading, had given a forceful speech about the dangers of Islamism to French society. Praising his words, Ayaan Hirsi Ali urges Macron to put his money where his mouth is:

In his speech, Macron . . . said that the “challenge is to fight against those who go off the rails in the name of religion . . . while protecting those who believe in Islam and are full citizens of the republic.” If he really means this, perhaps he could provide security and support to those French Muslims courageously speaking out against radical Islam? . . . In the effort to combat the extremists, it is vital to distinguish the Muslims pushing for real change from the Islamists with silver tongues. A great many French Muslims are fighting against the Islamists, and Macron could do far more to support them.

French law [already] allows the government to reject naturalization requests on grounds of “lack of assimilation, other than linguistic.” So in the spirit of this law, Macron should start to repatriate asylum-seekers who engage in violence or the incitement of violence—particularly against women.

In foreign policy, he could tackle the ideological extremism that is disseminated by the governments of Qatar and Turkey—among others—through their support of Islamists. . . . He could take a much stronger stand against the Iranian regime—bilaterally as well as at the EU level—for its hostile activities on European soil, its vicious cruelty towards its own population, and its efforts to export revolutionary Islamism throughout the Middle East. This would also mean further strengthening France’s ties to Israel, the UAE, and Egypt and demanding that Saudi Arabia stop funding Wahhabi extremists abroad.

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.