Although the Lebanon-based terrorist organization is currently focused on defending Bashar al-Assad’s control of Syria and Lebanon, recent statements by its leaders are reminders that it has not lost sight of its core mission of destroying Israel. Hizballah has staged a number of small-scale cross-border attacks, and may also be ramping up its old strategy of attacking Jewish and Israeli targets outside the Middle East. Matthew Levitt writes:

This much is clear: Hizballah remains an immediate threat to Israel, even while it is bogged down in Syria. That much [its leader Hassan] Nasrallah wants us all to know. To be sure, roadside border bombings will continue from time to time, and Hizballah may even claim responsibility for some of these. But because of its desire to avoid opening a second front with Israel at the present time, the Hizballah threat to Israel today is in some ways more acute oceans away—in places as far afield as Thailand and Peru—than it is along its northern borders.

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.