whYNOT

"Buffoon"? Who cares how he comes across - and although of another nationality, I care very much about America's future direction and particularly its moral stance. When Trump says of something, "That's a bad deal!" -  what does that say?  A bad deal is surely when you get less out of something than what you've put in. In other words, losing a greater value for a lesser; In short, self-sacrificial altruism. Why, I can't understand, has this central aspect never been picked up (that I've seen) by Objectivists? For whatever his (very likely), businesslike pragmatism, your president has one overall principle, and that's to pull back the USA from further descent into its dutiful sacrificial altruism, which all other nations have taken as 'a given' for so long. Make no bones about it, beneath the enraged/scornful opposition (we get here too from our self-righteous Left-liberals) they ~know~ what's going on. No one will mention, or always explicitly understand, the basic ideology at stake, but this unbelievable, unceasing opposition to Trump, especially the hatred seen from the loathsome CNN, can't be taken any other way. It shows me their fear, and that a threat to their altruism is implicit in whatever they're  doing.
Like I say, what do I care about what he says, or acts like. We are feeling his shakeup in many places in the world, all to the better.

"Myth No. 4: Trade and open markets create "a race to the bottom."
That's how Jon Stewart decries globalization on his show, saying, "Globalization allowed corporations to scour the planet for the cheapest labor and loosest regulations!"
----
That problem child, "globalization", would be fine and dandy when governments are barred from entry, economy and state kept strictly apart . Individuals (and companies) deal and trade with others, wherever and whenever they see opportunities and at their own risk. As it is, the large corporates operate "hand-in-glove" with their Gvt which in turn makes deals with foreign gvts. That is then, corporate-globalization, backed, and given entree by, the power of states.
Corporatocracy plus statism.
(which gives spurious credibilty to socialists who claim capitalism = imperialism ("/neocolonialism")
As good a place for this essay by Jeffrey Tucker
https://brownstone.org/articles/how-did-american-capitalism-mutate-into-american-corporatism/
 

"Myth No. 4: Trade and open markets create "a race to the bottom."
That's how Jon Stewart decries globalization on his show, saying, "Globalization allowed corporations to scour the planet for the cheapest labor and loosest regulations!"
----
That problem child, "globalization", would be fine and dandy when governments are barred from entry, economy and state kept strictly apart . Individuals (and companies) deal and trade with others, wherever and whenever they see opportunities and at their own risk. As it is, the large corporates operate "hand-in-glove" with their Gvt which in turn makes deals with foreign gvts. That is then, corporate-globalization, backed, and given entree by, the power of states.
Corporatocracy plus statism.
(which gives spurious credibilty to socialists who claim capitalism = imperialism ("/neocolonialism")
As good a place for this essay by Jeffrey Tucker
https://brownstone.org/articles/how-did-american-capitalism-mutate-into-american-corporatism/
 

"Myth No. 4: Trade and open markets create "a race to the bottom."
That's how Jon Stewart decries globalization on his show, saying, "Globalization allowed corporations to scour the planet for the cheapest labor and loosest regulations!"
----
That problem child, "globalization", would be fine and dandy when governments are barred from entry, economy and state kept strictly apart . Individuals (and companies) deal and trade with others, wherever and whenever they see opportunities and at their own risk. As it is, the large corporates operate "hand-in-glove" with their Gvt which in turn makes deals with foreign gvts. That is then, corporate-globalization, backed, and given entree by, the power of states.
Corporatocracy plus statism.
(which gives spurious credibilty to socialists who claim capitalism = imperialism ("/neocolonialism")
As good a place for this essay by Jeffrey Tucker
https://brownstone.org/articles/how-did-american-capitalism-mutate-into-american-corporatism/
 

Everybody gets the blues once in a while. A few moments from Ayn Rand's life, as recounted by Nathaniel Branden in Judgment Day: My Years with Ayn Rand (1989):
By the fall of 1958, it was apparent that Ayn was sinking into a deep and tenacious depression. Not the sales of her novel or the torrent of fan mail or any of the interesting people we were meeting seemed to cheer her for more than a few hours or evoke in her any desire to write again. The thought of another project—any other project—exhausted her. Every day, she sat long hours at her desk playing solitaire, the game becoming a metaphor for her sense of her position in the world. She did not read. She left her correspondence largely unanswered. Her body ached with numerous tension pains. She had written a novel about a man who stops the motor of the world; now it was as if her motor had stopped. She saw herself as trapped in a swamp of mediocrity, malice, and cowardice. She had found admirers but no champions. . . I thought she was experiencing a delayed letdown after thirteen years of high emotional intensity while writing Atlas full-time. Ordinary living could hardly compete. In many of our discussions, from the summer of 1958 and for the next two years, she would begin to cry while describing her perception of the world and her own place in it, and she confided that she cried almost every day. This struck me as shockingly out of character, and I realized that I had underestimated the depth of Ayn’s struggle, with which I felt enormous and painful empathy.
We had long conversations on the telephone every day. I visited her two or three evenings a week, sometimes alone, sometimes with Barbara, so we could discuss how we might better interpret the events that were such blows to Ayn’s ambition, energy, and enthusiasm. These sessions typically lasted until five or six in the morning. Her suffering was devastating to watch. [...]
Ayn’s depression persisted relentlessly. “I’m ashamed of myself for crying so much,” Ayn said one evening. “The Collective would be shocked if they knew. You don’t tell them, do you?” I told her I did not. “Galt would handle all this differently. Somehow, he would be more untouched by it. More realistic. But I don’t know how or in what way. I would hate for him to see me like this. I would feel unworthy, as if I had let him down.” I was used to hearing her discuss Galt as if he were a real person; all of us did that. I said, “I look at it differently. If I were knocked down and hurt badly by something that had happened to me, so that I was crying a lot or devastated or whatever, I think I would say, ‘All right, look at me. I’m in a bad way. So what? In a little while, I’ll pick myself up again. Meanwhile, this is reality. Why pretend it isn’t?’ ” She chuckled unhappily. “You’re quoting my own philosophy back to me. Only, for once, I can’t seem to apply it.” (ch. 11)
Her view of depression, if accurately told, was interesting:
When I tried to tell her of some new research that suggested that certain kinds of depression had a biological basis, she answered angrily, “I can tell you what causes depression. I can tell you about rational depression, and I can tell you about irrational depression. The second is mostly self-pity, and in neither case does biology enter into it.” I asked her how she could make a scientific statement with such certainty, given that she had never studied the field. She shrugged bitterly and snapped, “Because I know how to think.” (ch. 15)
I suppose she would have scoffed at Schopenhauer's claim:

Why I've advocated a measure of distance between the longstanding allies to keep their friendship alive throughout unpredictable changes of administration.  Biden, Schumer et al  must accept that Israel is not "the 51st state" to do their bidding. The IDF must complete this last push into Rafah. (And for Israel to decide how to handle the aftermath, not the pressured and impossible (for now) 2-state solution that will guarantee unending conflict with the Palestinians who, common knowledge, will seize it as the path to the 'one-state' solution they wish for. .
Not another "prolonged war" with Israel as "proxy".
Let Israel finish the task, unimpeded- to ensure the US doesn't need to enter down the line. 
Analyst on Epoch TV:
"It is the position of the Biden Administration that wants to prevent Israel from winning, that is most likely to entangle America in this region".
 
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/how-bidens-policies-are-prolonging-the-gaza-war-eugene-kontorovich-5613002?utm_source=NS_ATLNewsletter&src_src=NS_ATLNewsletter&utm_campaign=atl-2024-03-30&src_cmp=atl-2024-03-30&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAde0lbBkLyNPE7b0Knm1WH7l7wk9AJCYDvu4puebPx%2B%2Bc52sNbBYRuw%3D%3D?utm_source=ref_share&utm_campaign=copy

I'd venture in keeping with both NB and AR, that Rand's "the volitional consciousness" - which would draw blank stares from most free will-ers and determinists - is the core component and principle of free will, as recognized generally. From which Branden widens his scope for his psychological purposes.

I was fascinated by those sophomoronic experiments which were prevalent on Youtube about 10 years ago, supposedly discounting the freedom of will. Something involving the wired-up test subject reacting to lights on a screen and pressing a button, thus 'showing' that the relevant part of his brain responded a split second before he made his physical selection--i.e. his brain 'informed' him which button to press. i.e. no free will: His act was "determined".
What? As if the brain will not in every instance show activity prior to and during activities. As if the brain is pre-programmed deterministically to "cause" one's actions in any and all encounters outside the lab environment.
I recall the young host of the show was thrilled by these superficial findings. He concluded (consistently) that no free will means nothing you do can be held against you legally or morally by others, equally that you do not need to take yourself to task for some failing. A great relief for the amoral. More, the personal choices of undertaking effortful thinking and character building can be dispensed with. Then the individual mind will be under attack. The result, individualism will succumb to collectivism-tribalism-racism (major determining antecedent - "ancestral" - factors used often to claim power through past 'victimhood') and self-esteem and pride must suffer since one also cannot be responsible for one's accomplishments.
If no-free-will has arrived in the broader mainstream the world is heading for trouble, I thought. Sure enough - what we are seeing today. One can count on human nature to take the easy options. Free will demands far too much awareness and thinking work. While valuable in their own area, the neuroscientists (I refer to the popular Sam Harris, notably, who also, I gather, consistently eliminated "the mind" together with free will) have something to be responsible for bringing about this age of pronounced determinism/skepticism. (But who would expect proponents of determinism to take "responsibility" for anything they do? They had no other choice. Or was it due to your free will, Sam?). 

A few more are sitting up and taking notice of a glaring anomaly, the 'numbers' given are those accepted without question from - a Jihadi terror group and its supporters, from whom the disingenuous claim of 'genocide' originates, the 'numbers' fuelling the lie - picked up and promoted with glee by sundry Judeophobes.
Too late this Newsweek piece, the slander was popularly embedded in the first days after Oct7, in advance of the first Gazan casualties.
But I notice a level of panic setting in, Hamasophile writers and Tubers and mass activists are not getting their way as expected in saving the remnants of their adulated hero-killers with "humanitarian ceasefire" demands - this time the IDF shows it will not cave to global sentiment and is committed to going all the way.
(The huger threat is the Hezbollah Army's coordinated attack in the North, holding back, waiting to see what happens there, and why Israel must wrap up the Gaza war quickly). This is "existential" self-preservation  for Israel (for any who are concerned).
https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/world/a-more-accurate-accounting-of-the-war-in-gaza-opinion/ar-BB1ka9IG?rc=1&ocid=socialshare&cvid=fa1e2985647b4284842206f5d0432e0e&ei=11
 

Related to what happened on the closed topic:
--- Tripping Over the Truth   [I paraphrase and expand on a quote ascribed to Winston Churchill: “stumble over the truth”.]   Tripping over the truth, on the pathway to somewhere, some people, too busy to give attention, hurry onward. Some, like a sleepwalker, will yawn and slumber on, unchanged. Some, embarrassed by the stumble or by the truth, will pretend it didn’t happen. Some will kick it away, angry at yet another intrusion by reality. But there are others, curious and caring, who will pause, look, pick it up, and bring it with them -- hopeful, excited by truth’s potential for goodness and beauty. And some, remembering later that they had tripped and passed over something strange yet attractive, now curious and recognizing a need, return to retrieve it

If you exercise editorial control, it ceases to be a "forum" at all, and becomes a "magazine" or a "journal." That's my point.
If I write a book I can control everything in the book. But it's not literally a "forum." It's a book.
(My biggest concern is that no one would read it, which is one reason why I like having access to open forums.)
(Maybe this is more like a continuum than an either-or thing.)
I can't find the exact quote, but I believe Rand said somewhere (perhaps in "What Can One Do?") that as long as free speech exists, the right ideas have a chance.
I will agree with @Boydstun that there are a lot of choices as to how to exercise one's free speech. But the thing about a forum is precisely that it does not constitute an exercise of one's own speech -- it constitutes giving others an opportunity to speak, which is a different thing (and can be valuable too, including to the giver of the opportunity).
Of course when you provide that opportunity it's pretty much true by definition that you give up control over what those others are going to say. You are signing up for surprises. Some of them may be pleasant, some not. The pleasant ones are what make it worthwhile.
(But also, a person may run or participate in an open forum because he wants to test his own thinking and ideas by being exposed to those of others.)
Peikoff writes that lies are "impotent" because the underlying reality is still there and will be discovered. This is why people who live by lies end up having to resort to force (because the lies alone are never enough). It's also why a free society can afford to have free speech. So in that sense there shouldn't be any harm in allowing people to speak their minds. (I'm excluding stuff like harassment that would render the forum useless). The truth will come out eventually.
Even posting the truth here isn't necessarily going to end the discussion, though, because people have to see that truth for themselves, and they have to see it in reality, not just in the forum. Discussions end when there is nothing more to add.
My concern is that the calls to exercise more editorial control are actually rooted in the idea that lies are not impotent, that lies have to be censored because they'll "mislead" people.
This is rooted in the primacy of consciousness, but not in the usual way: most people familiar with Objectivism know better than to think that lies "create reality." We all know that I can lie and say I have a gold bar, but the lie doesn't create the gold bar.
But there is a "second order" version of the "primacy of consciousness," if you want to call it that -- the notion that if false ideas spread around, people will believe them, and then act on them, and then this will give rise to oppressive governments and cultures. So well-meaning people then conclude that the spread of the false ideas has to be stopped.
False ideas need to be refuted; that's the only way to really stop them.
The possibility that people will believe bad ideas called "free will" and is metaphysically given, and there's nothing we can actually do about that. We can try to put the right ideas out there, and also try to explain why the wrong ideas are wrong.
Trying to fight the metaphysically given is why it's a second-order version of the primacy of consciousness. We can't stop people from thinking bad thoughts. If refutation is not enough then the human species is doomed anyway.
I think that setting up forum rules to ban the discussion of certain ideas only serves to create the impression that Objectivism cannot withstand those ideas, which is not true. Further, the ideas are not "gone," they just go to other forums. Merely hiding the arguments we disagree with doesn't help; it can even amount to self-deception.
I will admit that sometimes people raise the same tired old objections to Objectivism over and over. In that case it should be sufficient to refer to them to places where the objections have already been answered. However, it is possible that the answer to the tired old objection was somehow incomplete and so another question may need to be answered.
There are also people out there who would expect you to "prove" that 2 + 2 = 4, and they won't accept anything you say, so that they are either trolling or their reasoning is irreparably defective. In that case, just stop. There is nothing you can do. (Why get all upset about it?)
The correct thing to do, the only thing we really can do, about the evil in society, is try to patiently explain why having an oppressive culture is a bad idea, and how to make a better one -- which is sort of what Objectivism is about in the first place.
--
There is a second concern, too. The forum owners may say that they don't want their resources to be used to promote bad ideas.
The thing is, when the forum is open, and somebody posts a bad idea, it doesn't count as a "promotion" in the same way it would if it had been approved by editors. This is because people know that the forum is open and that just about anything can be posted.
If everybody wins an award, the award is not very meaningful, and that's an instance of the same principle.

Monart, here's a link to Brownstone Institute and their many articles
https://brownstone.org/
the gold standard for all things pandemic, good science, optimal health and freedom-orientated, fronted by the heroic Jeffrey Tucker ("Liberty or Lockdown?"). They have been my bright reference point

Monart, here's a link to Brownstone Institute and their many articles
https://brownstone.org/
the gold standard for all things pandemic, good science, optimal health and freedom-orientated, fronted by the heroic Jeffrey Tucker ("Liberty or Lockdown?"). They have been my bright reference point

Monart, here's a link to Brownstone Institute and their many articles
https://brownstone.org/
the gold standard for all things pandemic, good science, optimal health and freedom-orientated, fronted by the heroic Jeffrey Tucker ("Liberty or Lockdown?"). They have been my bright reference point

Monart, here's a link to Brownstone Institute and their many articles
https://brownstone.org/
the gold standard for all things pandemic, good science, optimal health and freedom-orientated, fronted by the heroic Jeffrey Tucker ("Liberty or Lockdown?"). They have been my bright reference point

"Prevarication" = non-stop lying and distraction
It's your minds they own.
 
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-ukraine-war-runs-on-lies/

"Prevarication" = non-stop lying and distraction
It's your minds they own.
 
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-ukraine-war-runs-on-lies/

[The following article is inspired by Ayn Rand's "'What Can One Do?'" and "Don't Let It Go" (in The Ayn Rand Letter Vol I-Nr7,4,5 republished in Philosophy: Who Needs It). This article is a philosophical, perpetually youthful, romantic resolution for real noble best living.]


===
 
What Can One Do?                                                                                      1 Jan 2024
 
When one is faced with the challenges of life, or when sometimes demoralized by doubts about one’s choices, or when oppressed by others’ irrational or criminal acts – but always seeking to effect right causes and make good changes – what can one do?
For a start, one can just begin: begin with another chance and another choice. Each morning, one can begin with the thoughts, the philosophy and the arts, that support this focus, this aspiration, this declaration:
---
I am at my best. I am becoming better and better. Today, I will get better in everything I do.
I will grow smarter, stronger, straighter . . . more serious and serene. I will act more alive and be really real.
Really, I am always at my best, at my best personality, my best individuality, my best self. To be my best self, I must live well. To live well, I must act. To act, I must know. To know, I must think. To think, I must look and listen, touch and taste. To be really alive, I will make life, not fake it. I will seek true values of goodness and beauty. I will be sensible, logical, reasonable. I shall mind my rational, romantic morality.
Morality:  the motor of morality is the mind. The mind drives morality to the achievement of a successful, happy life. Minding my morality is the way to doing right, being good, and living well. The mind matters most. A mindful morality is the motive power that moves me with integrity and courage towards beauty and joy. I won’t mangle or mess with my mind. or it will become meek and mushy. A mangled or messy mind gives a mangled, messy morality and a mangled, messy life – life without power or drive or aim, drifting away to a deadening mortality. Without mind, there is no reason for living, no rational morality, no romantic happiness. My morality, I shall always mind.
With my mind, I am powerful and effective in making my values, but I don’t know everything and I may mis-understand, mis-remember, mis-take illusion for reality. I may get unlucky, get sick and tired, get fooled or mugged. I may get distracted or be tempted by fantasies of false shortcuts or by excuses of being meek, lazy, or unready. I may face intimidation or bribery for my conformity and dependency. I may get diverted or overwhelmed by intense fear, anger, hatred, disgust, contempt, pity, grief, or guilt. Depression and despair may threaten to demotivate and immobilize me. I may become numb to suffering and get deluded into complacency or stupor. . . . I may lose my mind and let go of my love and joy.
Let go of my self I may, but I shall NOT. Misery and shame I do not want. If I weaken, I will find a way to get stronger, straighter, smarter, more serious and serene. I will act better. I will not lose sight of reality and abandon my reason. My rights and romance for the best life, I will defend and honor. Not for pain and suffering will I let go of my mind and morality. For truth and beauty, for joy and happiness, I will act and achieve. For a better life will I persevere.
So, given the gift of life, and having the freedom to act with it, what can one do?
I can, today, starting right now, I can and will do better:  act by act, thought by thought, choice by choice, step by step, breath by breath, from here on.
At my best, I shall be, every day every way, at work and at play. This I vow, each morning now, when rises here, another chance, another choice.
Proudly, for my happiness, with my head up and forward, I shall be, at my best, my very, very noble best.
===
 
“What Can One Do?” is also a title to an article by Ayn Rand, in her January 3, 1972, The Ayn Rand Letter Vol I-7. Republished in Philosophy: Who Needs It?
The article’s theme is:  “The role of the individual in the philosophical re-education of the country.”
Excerpts:
“The battle is primarily intellectual (philosophical), not political. Politics is the last consequence, the practical implementation, of the fundamental (metaphysical-epistemological-ethical) ideas that dominate a given nation's culture. You cannot fight or change the consequences without fighting and changing the cause; nor can you attempt any practical implementation without knowing what you want to implement.”
“If you want to influence a country's intellectual trend, the first step is to bring order to your own ideas and integrate them into a consistent case, to the best of your knowledge and ability.”
“. . . when you ask "What can one do?"—the answer is "SPEAK" (provided you know what you are saying).”
“If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell. But time is on our side—because we have an indestructible weapon and an invincible ally (if we learn how to use them): reason and reality.”
===

It should also be emphasized that the political Left wrongly conflates the two; i.e., they hold that your race determines your ideas (including religion), or perhaps that your race ought to determine your ideas, which is to say, if you don't share the ideas of your race then you're a traitor to your race, or, to put it another way, "if you don't vote for Biden, you ain't Black."
This is the kind of thinking that makes things like genocide -- killing people solely because of their race -- seem necessary. If ideas are determined by race, then the only way to kill an idea is to wipe out the race that it belongs to. This can also be played the other way, and used to say that, since committing genocide is immoral, the only thing you can do if people are ideologically motivated to kill you, is to accept it, since their ideology is a product of their race and rejecting it would supposedly require committing genocide, and morally (according to this theory) it's better to be a victim of genocide than a perpetrator.
If you want to live, that choice requires proper self-defense, not acquiescence to one's own murder. So it's important to keep race and ideas separate. It's not race but ideas (including religious ideas) that cause people to want to kill each other. So sometimes the ideas need to be changed or eliminated, and if people can't be talked out of those ideas, they will act on them, and then force may be necessary in self-defense -- but a race as such is never a threat to anybody.
People whose ideas motivate them to kill large numbers of others tend to form or find governments that either look the other way, or actively assist them in killing. A government that does either is committing an act of war. It is proper for another government to recognize it as such, in self-defense and the defense of its people.

If there is only one honest and objectively knowledgeable historian to listen to, among an online slew of pretenders and haters of the good welcoming Israel's demise, (i.e. ethnic cleansing) I urge this one, it will be worth your time; 2 hours of Dr Benny Morris in this searching exchange of facts and aspirations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYUkb49BdmQ
 

It is working perfectly: none of my claims were disproved.

At root, easily explained. By and large, the fundamentalist Muslims are and were racist against Jews.
Their religious texts and newfound Islamic nationalism, the basic sources.
From pre-1948 until '48 when five surrounding Arab nations attacked the new state, the predominant sentiment was - We will never share this territory with Jews. Into the next aggressive war and the next... and to the present.
It was those wars that caused a mass displacement of the people, naturally, - and created the "Palestinian problem".
The problem then, a direct responsibility of Arab nations which initiated force on Jews.
Earlier on, the Jewish contingent were evidently amenable to partition, nor had strong feelings against Arabs. 
Fast forward, and with the unremitting attacks on and hatred shown to the Israelis for decades, it is unsurprising that many in turn, from fears for their existence, have reciprocated racial prejudice against Palestinians, they are human too.

It's complete ignorance or evasion of the full destructive capacity of the modern (conventional) weapons and methods of warfare, by which the 'genocide of Palestinian' alarmists observe the battlegrounds.
They show ignorance of the huge distinction between "collateral damage" and deliberate civilian attacks.
Civilians en masse being the easiest of targets to locate and hit.
IF it is/was "genocide" being intended, the Israelis are terrible at it.
You have to do better, IDF !! Too few civilians killed ! There are millions living yet.
Those many pretend ~humanitarians- (who are anti-human-value) demand it.
Because, AS IT IS APPARENT, many screeching against Gazan 'genocide' desire nothing less than Jewish/Israeli genocide.
"See, we pick and choose whom we'd like annihilated"...
These are cowardly accomplices to mass-murderers.

Yes. The 'right' of (national) self-defense entails a Gvt. which must and will protect its citizens to any extent they see fit to end the danger, no arbitrary options about it.
It is after all, "delegated" to do so - by every citizen's individual right of self defense.
"A nation doesn't have rights"- (if I quoted Rand correctly)
I often suspect that the foreign politicians, etc., who concur "Israel has the right to defend itself" are vague about how a nation came by that "right" and might not know defense-retaliation is unquestionable and obligatory by Gvts. And pols may rescind that country's 'right' whenever it suits them personally or politically.

"Relations were... being normalized. Not with the kind of killing... in Gaza".
But what do you think was ~one~  motive of the Hamas attack on Israel?
This: To disrupt Israel's and Saudi Arabia's talks for an accord.
Some value was growing out of the Abraham Accords. Who do you think feared that?
Gaza attacks Israel; and not any doubt - Israel attacks Gaza; there is intensive conflict against underground terrorists - and so on.
I don't know how anyone can miss it, this was not just some crazy, brutal attack without motive on Israel.
E.g. Because the poor Gazans were "under siege" - bla bla, (from the Hamas apologists and propagandists)
I have constantly stressed that Hamas KNEW what would happen-- many Gazans (terrrorists and civilians) would be killed by Israel...etc.etc., the fallout would be an outpouring of support for poor Gazans, Israel gets vilified as "the genocider" ... AND -  talks would end, and relations be strained with Israel's moderate Accords partners. The threat to Iran's regional dominance is nullified.
Come on. You people should be too intelligent and cognizant of the causal sequence to be fooled by these shrewd ploys. You underestimate the enemy's cleverness and falsity.
How the US  was taken in by Iran's glib assurances, last time round by Obama/Kerry.
 
Jerusalem Post
"Intelligence reports show that Hamas’s assault on Israel on October 7 was prepared over several years, with active support and guidance from Iran. The timing of the attack was motivated, to some extent, by the rapid advances in the US-led normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia in the weeks preceding the attack. Such a normalization could undermine the goals of both Hamas and the Iranian regime, who realized that a normalization pact would stymie their efforts to delegitimize and ultimately destroy Israel. For now, it seems their plot has partially succeeded; the normalization process came to a screeching halt and there are growing signs of tension and irritation among the Arab signatories of the Abraham Accords (the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco) that may lead to the collapse of these agreements or their deterioration to the “cold peace” that describes relations between Israel and two of its other peace partners – Egypt and Jordan".