As Jerusalem lurches toward what some are already calling a third intifada, terrorist attacks have spread throughout the country. In the Galilee town of Kafr Kanna, an Arab Israeli named Kheir Hamdan attacked a group of police officers with a knife and was then shot while trying to flee the scene. The incident and its aftermath, writes Ruthie Blum, highlight the volatility of the social climate:

In spite of the fact that the focal point of the current Arab uprising is Jerusalem, police in other Arab-populated areas have been trying to prevent an already volatile atmosphere from escalating. In such a climate of rock-throwing, fire-crackers, Molotov cocktails, and hit-and-run terrorist attacks, law-enforcement agents are in a state of constant jitters. . . .
Following [the] revelation [of the details of the attack], a storm ensued, as did calls for investigations into the “unnecessary killing” of Hamdan. Even many mainstream Israelis have been saying that the police “could have shot him in the leg.” Arab Knesset member Ahmad Tibi called the incident a “cold-blooded execution,” and demanded that the officer who shot Hamdan be immediately arrested and put on trial.

MK Mohammad Barakeh, Kafr Kanna Mayor Majhad Awadeh, and other Arab dignitaries joined thousands of Israeli Arab demonstrators on Saturday as they chanted, “Zionists, get out of our lives,” while waving posters of Hamdan saying, “His only crime was being an Arab.” In fact, his “crime” . . . was terrorism. And while he is hailed as a martyr, the policeman who shot him will be dishonored and possibly imprisoned. It is this societal situation, more than any weapons deemed fit in the PA for an intifada, that ought to spring Israel into high alert.

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.