The U.S. Consulate in East Jerusalem, which serves as a de-facto embassy to the Palestinian Authority, recently violated a 2011 agreement by firing some of the IDF veterans who guarded the consulate and replacing them with members of the Palestinian police. The incident follows American efforts to beef up Mahmoud Abbas’s security forces, ostensibly to protect his government in the event of a violent confrontation with Hamas. Arming the PA has worked out poorly in the past, and there is little reason, writes Shoshana Bryen, to believe it will work better this time:

Throwing American support to one Palestinian faction over another was a political decision to side with what [the U.S.] government assumed was “better” or more “moderate” Palestinians, hoping they would use [American] help to put down Hamas rather than using it to kill ever more Israelis.

What it did was legitimize the creeping movement of the Palestinians toward [possessing] a full-fledged army.

The question always was twofold: What constitutes “appropriate” weapons for the Palestinian security forces, and how does the U.S. justify training security forces the ultimate loyalty of whom will be to a government that we cannot foresee and may become something—or already is something—[the U.S.] doesn’t like? . . .

To raise the questions is to understand that there are no sound answers from either the consulate or the State Department.

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.