An Iranian-American attorney Elica Le Bon speaks out.

Who is Elica Le Bon (الیکا‌ ل بن)?

Elica Le Bon is an Iranian-American attorney, artist, activist, and speaker. She was born and raised in London, UK, and later moved to Los Angeles to attend law school. She initially worked as a criminal defense attorney, but has since developed a second career in activism.

Le Bon is known for her advocacy surrounding human rights in Iran and the wider Middle East. She has gained a significant following on social media, using her platform to raise awareness about the Iranian people's struggles and to combat misinformation. She is particularly outspoken against the Iranian regime and radical Islam.

She has appeared on various news programs and podcasts, including Piers Morgan, Dr. Phil, MSNBC, Fox News, and News Nation. Her activism has led to her losing friends and having family members' lives put at risk due to her views. Despite this, she continues to speak out, stating she feels a "sense of responsibility" to defend Israel and fight against what she sees as a dangerous alliance between Islamist and leftist forces in the Western world.

Elica recently wrote:

"Let me tell you why I decided that yesterday's appearance on Piers Morgan, alongside Dave Smith, would be my last.

First, I had spent the past couple of months being so emotionally exhausted and above that, genuinely devastated by Dave Smith's online rhetoric. 

It's hard to describe how much his words have hurt me, alongside millions of Iranians, and millions of Jews and Middle Eastern people. 

He repeatedly downplayed the brutality and threat of the Islamic regime in Iran, insisting over and over again "Iran (the regime) is not the threat, the U.S. government is the threat."

The overwhelming majority of 90 million Iranians know this line very well. It is the same propaganda of "anti-western imperialism," used as a red herring, that convinced them to take to the streets in '79 and bring in the Ayatollahs. 

Following that mistake, they realized this line, this rhetoric, this propaganda was complicit in one of the biggest heists of our time. 

For the past 45 years, Iranian intellectuals--both inside and outside of Iran--have exhausted themselves to try and demonstrate to the world how this type of commentary is not just a red herring, but it leads to the collapse of society, as it did for us. 

Imagine how exhausting and painful it is to try and explain the contours of this to the world, only to have people who discovered the Middle East yesterday insist we don't understand it.

After #October7, not just Dave Smith, but many westerners who had no familiarity with the reality of this type of propaganda were thrust to the spotlight by regurgitating these same appealing lines, having no idea who manufactured this rhetoric and to what end.

Societies who have been touched by the finger of death, be it under socialist utopias or jihadist domination--Iranians, Israelis/Jews, Venezuelans, Cubans, Yemenis, Afghans, Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Russians, Chinese, even many Gazans, and more--understand where these talking points begin and end.

That considered, what the post-October 7th discourse has revealed is that much of the untouched western world has become so indoctrinated by the disinformation of these bad actors--who they can't even begin to understand the inner workings of--that conversations become futile. 

These conversations become more about "winning" to those whose only investment is being right, which inevitably means losing for those whose investment is survival.

So when Piers' team reached out to me to join the conversation, I'll admit that I did actually ask to debate Dave Smith. The thing is, though, a part of me inside was screaming, "don't."

Don't do it. This man is not here to listen to you, he is here to talk over you. 

He is not here to understand Iran, and the sentiments of millions of Iranians who do not support his advocacy for "diplomacy deals" that have proved fatal to them (quite literally, by enriching the machinery used to massacre them), but to insist that his out-of-touch perspective of Iran, without knowing an iota of the long history that brought us here from the Iranian perspective, is truth.

The whole "anti-war" line has been used by the regime's lobbyists for decades, the same one Dave Smith insists on now. 

Even court documents revealed correspondence between the regime and its U.S. based lobbyists in pushing this co-ordinated propaganda effort--which they admitted to intentionally aiming at naive western anti-war activists as their "easiest targets"--to induce diplomacy deals that line their coffers with hundreds of billions. 

The only true anti-war perspective is the one of millions of Iranians who have for decades asked not to platform this regime to the point of an inevitable military confrontation. 

But how could outsiders who aren't listening know this?

I'll be honest, as soon as that conversation began, I was already defeated. As soon as the opening line was Pies reciting how much I think Dave Smith's talking points are garbage (I do, but that's obviously not how you start a fruitful conversation, that's how you egg on a cat fight) I knew I made the wrong decision.

I knew I would be taunted, pushed, and agitated, not just because I have to contend with somebody who possesses an illicit amount of confidence and arrogance despite standing on the outside of our collective sentiment, but because the conversation was clearly never intended to bring him, nor the world, closer to truth. 

This is why you should always listen to your gut instinct, and I'm disappointed in myself that I failed my instinct on this occasion.

At this point, coming closer to the truth will not happen through debates. Why? because it isn't facts people don't have, its context. Underneath the thin layer of easily accessible facts, there exists oceans of context that escape people who have never swam in our waters. 

Dave Smith well never, not for as long as he lives, know how much he has hurt us. 

These conversations will never bring the world closer to truth.

Truth will come to light, as it always does, but it will happen not by attacking the darkness, but through shining the light. 

Eventually, enough people will shine the light of truth until every corner of darkness is dispelled.

So even though I won't be engaging in these reality TV style debates, I will continue speaking where people are interested in listening, and that have a chance of moving the needle closer to truth. 

Until then, we may continue to face the abuse, attacks, hate, and ostracization from the masses lingering in the dark, but in the words of Ricky Gervais, "your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer."

John Adams the Zionist

As a historian I like to clarify some posts I have seen. Regarding President John Adams 

John Adams held a complex and generally respectful view of the Hebrews, as evident in his correspondence with Thomas Jefferson. 

While he, like many "enlightened" Christians of his era, saw Judaism as anachronistic and hoped for the conversion of Jews to Christianity, he also deeply venerated the ancient Hebrews and acknowledged their profound historical contributions.

Here are some key points from his letters to Jefferson regarding the Jews -"Hebrews" whom he labelled:

     "The most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth".

In an 1808 letter (not directly to Jefferson, but referenced in resources about their correspondence), Adams expressed strong admiration, stating:

"How is it possible [that Voltaire] should represent the Hebrews in such a contemptible light? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in comparison of the Jews. They have given religion to three quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient or modern." 

This quote of his highlights his profound respect for the historical impact of the Jews (Hebrews) , particularly in the realm of religion.

Adams viewed the Jews-"Hebrews" as having laid the foundation for Christianity: by enunciating monotheism. 

He saw Abraham as having given religion not only to the Hebrews but also to Christians and Muslims.

In a letter from February-March 1814, Adams mentions reading  Joseph Priestley's, "A Comparison of the Institutions of Moses with those of the Hindoos and other Ancient Nations"  published in 1799. He notes that Priestley: 

"proved the superiority of the Hebrews to the Hindoos, as they appear in the Gentoo Laws and Institutes of Menu." 

This suggests Adams agreed with the idea of the Jews (Hebrews) possessing a more advanced or significant institutional framework.

Adams believed that Jews deserved rights and protection under the law, seeing them as worthy of respect by virtue of their historic contributions and citizenship.

Remarkably, Adams later in life even expressed pro-Zionist views in later correspondence (after his presidency), stating in a letter (acknowledging a gift from Mordecai Manuel Noah) in 1819, 

"I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation." 

The two most powerful active and enterprizing Nations that ever existed are now contending with Us. 

The two Nations to whom Mankind are under more obligations for the Progress of Science and Civilization, than to any others except that of the Jews / Hebrews. 

This consideration affects me more than the danger from either Bolingbroke's religious skepticism or that of Voltaire's.

I excepted the Jews "Hebrews",  I strongly disagreed with Bolingbroke's religious skepticism and his disparagement of the Bible and the Hebrews "in Spight of Bolingbroke,". Which is a direct reference to Henry St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke (1678–1751), a prominent English politician, statesman, and philosopher of the Enlightenment era who was a leading figure among the English Deists. Deism, broadly speaking, believed in a God who created the universe but does not intervene in its daily workings (a "watchmaker God").

In his quote Adams believed Voltaire presented the Hebrews in a sordid "contemptible light".

Voltaire was vehemently against organized religion, especially what he saw as the irrationality and superstition of Christianity. Since Christianity was founded upon Judaism, he often attacked Judaism as a way to undermine Christianity:

“The Jews are an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.”  

Voltaire frequently employed common European antisemitic stereotypes of his time, particularly concerning avarice and usury, projecting negative aspects of emerging commercial society onto Jews.

Voltaire often expressed a deep-seated contempt beyond religious criticism, for the Jewish people as a distinct "race" or culture, believing them to be inherently flawed and unchangeable.

John Adams directly challenged the negative views propagated by Voltaire; 

"I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize Men than any other Nation. If I were an Atheist and believed in blind eternal Fate, I should Still believe that Fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential Instrument for civilizing the Nations." 

If I were an Atheist of the other Sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by Chance, I Should believe that Chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate, to all Mankind the Doctrine of a Supreme intelligent wise, almighty Sovereign of the Universe, which I believe to be the great essential..."

His rationale, however, was partly driven by a hope that "once restored to an independent government and no longer persecuted they [the Jews] would soon wear away some of the asperities and peculiarities of their character and possibly in time become liberal Unitarian christians."

In summary, John Adams held the ancient Jews "Hebrews" in high esteem for their historical and religious contributions, considering them a foundational people for monotheistic traditions. While his views on contemporary Judaism were tinged with the common prejudices of his time (hoping for conversion), his admiration for their past achievements and his belief in their fundamental rights were notable.

Islam and Terrorism Facts

 As a historian and fact checker allow me relay some pertinent information to many who are uninformed of truth and facts.

First of all  The world's population is estimated to be over 8.2 billion as of mid-2025. Of this   Muslims make up approximately 24.1% of the global population, totaling an estimated 2 billion people.

As to Arab -Muslim extremism -mainly that which is aimed against Israel-we can readily see that there are many Muslims who do not support "terrorism". In fact, several Muslim-majority countries have established diplomatic relations with Israel, indicating a more moderate stance and a willingness to engage in peace and cooperation. These countries generally fall into two categories: those who signed peace treaties decades ago, and those who have normalized relations more recently through the Abraham Accords.

Countries with Established Peace Treaties:

• Egypt (1979): The first Arab nation to sign a peace treaty with Israel (Camp David Accords). They maintain full diplomatic relations and security cooperation.
• Jordan (1994): Signed a peace treaty with Israel, establishing diplomatic ties and cooperation on various issues, particularly water resources.

Countries that Normalized Relations through the Abraham Accords (starting in 2020): brokered by the United States, marked a significant shift in regional dynamics.

• United Arab Emirates (UAE): Has rapidly developed robust economic, technological, and tourism ties with Israel since normalization.
• Bahrain: Also a Gulf nation, Bahrain has established strong diplomatic and security relations with Israel.
• Morocco: Re-established full diplomatic relations with Israel, building on historical ties between Moroccan Jews and the kingdom.
• Sudan: While Sudan signed a normalization agreement, the process has faced some internal challenges due to political instability.

Other "Notable Mentions":

• Turkey: Though Turkey was the first Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel in 1949. Relations have fluctuated over the years but generally maintain a level of diplomatic and economic engagement.
• Azerbaijan: A secular, Muslim-majority country that has long maintained strong strategic and economic ties with Israel, particularly in energy and defense.
• Kosovo: A Muslim-majority country that established diplomatic relations with Israel in 2021.

It's important to note that the term "moderate" can be interpreted differently, and relations between these countries and Israel can still be influenced by regional events, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, these nations have made the strategic decision to normalize or maintain ties with Israel.

The "Terrorism in Islam" phenomenon is not inherent to Islam itself, but rather a dangerous pathology rooted in the manipulation of religious doctrine by a fringe element for clear political and ideological objectives by a small, extremist minority like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc., There leaders twist religious texts and concepts to justify violence for political or ideological aims. Here are the major Global Jihadist Networks and their Affiliates:

Al-Qaeda (AQ): Ideology: Founded by Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda seeks to establish a global Islamic caliphate by overthrowing what it perceives as corrupt, Western-backed regimes in Muslim-majority countries and expelling Western influence from the Middle East. They prioritize attacks on the "far enemy" (the United States and its allies) to weaken their support for "near enemy" (local governments). Their ideology is rooted in a radical interpretation of Salafi-jihadism.

Area of Operation: Historically active globally, with core leadership largely diminished but strong affiliates in various regions.

Key Affiliates:

• Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP): Yemen-based, known for sophisticated bomb plots targeting aviation.
• Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM): Operates across North Africa and the Sahel region.
• Al-Shabaab: Somalia-based, seeks to overthrow the Somali government and establish a strict Islamic state.
• Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM): A coalition of Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups primarily active in the Sahel (Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger).
• Al-Nusra Front (now Hayat Tahrir al-Sham - HTS): While HTS has somewhat distanced itself from overt Al-Qaeda ties and focused on local governance in Idlib, Syria, its origins are as Al-Qaeda's Syrian branch.

 Islamic State (IS), also known as ISIS/ISIL/Daesh:

Ideology: A successor to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS is even more extreme and brutal. It declared a "caliphate" in parts of Iraq and Syria in 2014, demanding allegiance from Muslims worldwide. Its ideology is characterized by extreme takfir (excommunication of other Muslims as infidels), sectarian violence (especially against Shias), and a literalist, apocalyptic interpretation of Islamic texts. They prioritize controlling territory and establishing governance.

Area of Operation: While its territorial caliphate in Iraq and Syria has been largely dismantled, it maintains active insurgencies and has a global network of affiliates.

Key Affiliates (Provinces - Wilayats):

• Islamic State - Khorasan Province (ISK or ISIS-K): Active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and increasingly targeting Iran and Russia.
• Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP): Dominant in parts of Nigeria and the Lake Chad Basin, having eclipsed Boko Haram in some areas.
• Islamic State - Sinai Province: Active in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.
• Other smaller affiliates/cells exist in various countries, including parts of Africa (e.g., Mozambique, Congo), Southeast Asia, and Europe.

Other Notable Groups (some with varying degrees of direct "terrorist" designation depending on the country):

Boko Haram: Nigeria-based, seeks to establish an Islamic state in Nigeria and reject Western education. While historically independent, a faction split off to become ISWAP.

The Taliban: Afghanistan-based. While it now controls Afghanistan and presents itself as a governing authority, it was a designated terrorist group and maintains strong ties with Al-Qaeda. Its ideology is based on a strict and often brutal interpretation of Islamic law.

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP): The Pakistani Taliban, separate from the Afghan Taliban, aims to overthrow the Pakistani government and impose its version of Sharia law.

Hamas: A Palestinian Sunni-Islamist fundamentalist organization. It has both a political wing and an armed wing (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades). Its stated goal is the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of an Islamic state. It is designated as a terrorist organization by many Western countries.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ): Another Palestinian Islamist militant group, even more hardline than Hamas, also committed to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine. It is also widely designated as a terrorist organization.

Hezbollah: A Lebanese Shia Islamist political party and militant group. It is heavily backed by Iran. While it operates as a political party in Lebanon, its armed wing is designated as a terrorist organization by many countries due to its history of attacks and ongoing involvement in regional conflicts.

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG): Philippines-based, a smaller, more fractured group with factions that have pledged allegiance to ISIS, known for kidnappings, bombings, and extortions in the southern Philippines.

It is worthwhile to note that the primary victims of "Islamist" terrorism are often other Muslims as has been seen in the bloody civil war in Syria and Iraq. These groups frequently target civilians in Muslim-majority countries, killing far more Muslims than non-Muslims, further underscoring their deviance from mainstream Islamic values.

Extreme Interpretation of Religious Texts (Quran and Hadith) by certain Imans contribute to their behavior as they utilize selective and decontextualized Readings.

Extremists often isolate specific verses (e.g., the "sword verses") from the Quran, ignoring the historical context of their revelation or other verses that promote peace, justice, and proportionality.  Extremists have redefined the term "jihad" as a perpetual, offensive holy war against anyone they deem an "enemy of Islam," including other Muslims who disagree with them. They claim it is an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) for every Muslim, bypassing legitimate religious or political authority, and use it to justify indiscriminate violence, including suicide bombings. 

Abrogation (Naskh): Some extremist interpretations claim that later "more militant" verses abrogate or override earlier, more peaceful ones, justifying offensive warfare. Mainstream Islamic scholarship largely rejects this broad application of abrogation.

Misinterpretation of Jihad: The concept of "jihad" (which literally means "struggle" or "exertion") is central. While mainstream Islam emphasizes the "greater jihad" as an internal spiritual struggle against sin and the "lesser jihad" as defensive warfare, extremists reinterpret it as a perpetual, offensive holy war against non-believers and "apostate" Muslims. They often claim it's an individual obligation (fard ayn) for all Muslims, rather than a collective one (fard kifaya) to be waged under legitimate authority.

Takfir (Excommunication):

This is the practice of declaring other Muslims as kafirs (disbelievers or infidels). Extremist groups use takfir to justify violence against those they deem not "true" Muslims, including mainstream Muslims, government officials, or even entire societies who do not adhere to their rigid interpretation of Islam. This act of excommunication then allows them to justify killing those Muslims, arguing they are no longer part of the Ummah (global Muslim community) and have forfeited their right to life under Islamic law. Thereby denying them the protections typically afforded within Islamic law.

The establishment of a Caliphate/Islamic State:

Many extremist groups believe in the necessity of establishing a global Islamic caliphate or a strict Islamic state governed by their interpretation of Sharia law. They see the current political order as illegitimate and strive to overthrow it through violent means.

Anti-Western and Anti-Modern Sentiments:

These groups often reject Western influence, democracy, and secularism, viewing them as corrupting forces against true Islam. They advocate for a return to what they perceive as the "pure" early Islamic society.

They often use grievances related to perceived Western aggression, occupation of Muslim lands, or support for "apostate" regimes to recruit and justify their actions.

Exclusivism and Intolerance:

Extremist ideologies are characterized by an intolerant and exclusivist worldview, believing that only their specific interpretation of Islam is correct and that all others are misguided or enemies of God. This can lead to hatred and violence against religious minorities, other Muslim sects, and anyone who doesn't conform to their narrow view.

Martyrdom (shahada-Istishhad):

Martyrdom (shahada) is highly revered in Islam, typically referring to dying while defending one's faith or community, or in pursuit of justice, often through conventional warfare or unjust persecution.

Extremist groups manipulate and glorify "martyrdom operations" (suicide attacks), promising immense rewards in the afterlife for those who die while committing acts of violence in their cause. This incentive plays a significant role in motivating individuals to carry out terrorist acts.

While extremists cloister their violence in religious rhetoric, their underlying motivations are often deeply political and ideological.

Establishment of a Global Caliphate/Islamic State: 

A primary goal for groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda is to overthrow existing governments (both Muslim and non-Muslim) and establish a global caliphate governed by their specific, rigid, and often brutal interpretation of Sharia law.

"Resistance" to Perceived Western Influence: 

Many groups are fueled by a narrative of resisting Western "aggression," "occupation," or "cultural imperialism" in Muslim lands. They exploit legitimate grievances (e.g., foreign policy issues, historical injustices) to recruit and justify their violence as a form of liberation or defense.

Overthrowing "Apostate" Regimes: 

They often target Muslim governments and leaders whom they deem illegitimate or "apostate" for not adhering to their extremist version of Islam, or for being allied with Western powers.

Socio-Political Discontent: Extremist ideologies can tap into feelings of marginalization, injustice, poverty, and lack of opportunity, especially among disenfranchised youth, offering a distorted sense of purpose, belonging, and power.

Power and Control:

 Ultimately, these groups seek to establish and wield power, imposing their will through fear and violence, rather than through religious devotion alone.

Israeli Aircraft

To all the "Armchair generals" "But I know it alls" allow me to provide facts.

We do NOT require a "B-52" an aircraft originally designed in the early 1950's! Nor an overly expensive B-2.

As in the past we have seen how our own Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has a rich history of designing and producing superior military aircraft, thereby playing a crucial role in Israel's defense.

IAI is world particularly renowned for it's revolutionary production of "UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and improvements on American produced aircraft like the F-15I and F-35I.

While  Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) have also produced civilian aircraft and converted various types for cargo, their contributions to military aircraft upgrades are particularly notable.

Here are some of the key military aircraft designed and built by IAI over the years:

IAI Nesher: This was IAI's first fighter jet, essentially a reverse-engineered and improved version of the French Dassault Mirage 5, after France imposed an arms embargo on Israel. It was introduced in 1971.

IAI Kfir: Building on the Nesher, the Kfir (Lion Cub) was a more advanced multi-role fighter, incorporating a stronger American J79 engine and canards for improved maneuverability. It entered service in 1975 and has been exported to several countries. Various variants exist, including the C.1, C.2, C.7, and two-seat trainers (TC.2, TC.7). Some were even leased to the US Navy and Marine Corps as aggressor aircraft (F-21A Lion).

IAI Lavi: This was an ambitious project for a highly advanced, lightweight, single-engine multi-role fighter. It was intended to replace aircraft like the A-4 Skyhawk and Kfir in IAF service. The Lavi featured cutting-edge avionics, ELBIT electronocs, a digital fly-by-wire system, and extensive use of composite materials. 

Although two prototypes flew, the project was ultimately canceled in 1987 due to significant development costs and political pressure, particularly from the United States, which preferred Israel to purchase American-made aircraft like the F-16. 

Despite its cancellation, the Lavi program significantly advanced Israel's aerospace industry and its technologies found their way into other Israeli defense systems.

IAI Arava: This was a short take-off and landing (STOL) transport aircraft, designed for both military and civilian use. The military version was used for light transport and surveillance.

IAI Tzukit (Fouga CM.170 Magister): While originally a French design, IAI undertook licensed manufacturing of this twin-jet trainer, which became the primary trainer for the Israeli Air Force for decades. It also saw combat use as a close-support aircraft during the Six-Day War.

Beyond these fully designed aircraft, IAI is also a major player in: UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles): 

IAI has been a pioneer and global leader in drone technology, with a wide range of UAVs for reconnaissance, surveillance, and even strike capabilities. Notable examples include the Scout, Searcher, Heron (including Heron 1 and Heron TP), Harpy, and Harop.

Aircraft Upgrades and Conversions: IAI has extensive experience in upgrading and modernizing various military aircraft, often developing sophisticated avionics, electronic warfare systems, and structural modifications for both Israeli and foreign air forces. They also convert passenger aircraft into cargo aircraft for military and civilian clients.

Missile and Defense Systems Integration: IAI is heavily involved in integrating complex missile and defense systems onto various platforms, including their own and foreign-built aircraft.

It is most certainly plausabile that the IAI together with Elbit can produce a suitable UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) to carry a "Massive Ordinance Device" MOD. 

The making of a UAV capable of carrying the weight of an MOD is not to "far farfetched" take for example the Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) Heron TP / Eitan (Israel) which is in use today: This large MALE UAV is reported to have a very high payload capacity, with some sources indicating up to 2,700 kg (5,950 lb). It can carry multiple mission systems, including radar, intelligence sensors, and combat payloads.

There is also the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (USA): This is one of the most well-known military UAVs. It has a significant payload capacity, capable of carrying 1,746 kg (3,850 lb), which includes 1,361 kg (3,000 lb) of external stores (weapons, sensors, etc.). It can be armed with Hellfire missiles, guided bombs, and other munitions.

The use of a manned device like the B-1 and B-2 has proven to the US Military to be costly not only in operating (flight) cost but seriosly and massively expensive in upkeep.

Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) and Israel

 More information / facts-(So you will know and understand)

First it should be stated Part of the need for the US Airforce B-2’s is that it could penetrate very deeply into Iranian airspace and strike its targets without having to execute a full air war.

It would still need major support, but, combined with standoff capabilities and stealth tactical jets, it provides an avenue to a quicker and hopefully cleaner conflict aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The need for the B-2’s stealth qualities is drastically reduced now that Israel has declared air superiority over Iran. That doesn’t mean ground-based air defenses are not still a threat — especially road mobile, shoulder-fired, and non-traditional systems — but Iran’s overall counter-air capability has been severely degraded. Fighters and even slow-moving large drones that operate at medium altitude are now flying relatively freely over major Iranian population centers today.

It is now plausable that an Israeli Airforce C-130 "Hercules" can survive reliably deep into Iranian territory now that the IAF basically control the skies over Iran.
Therefore it would be relevant for going after those nuclear targets that standard aerial weaponry cannot reach.

The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) could be designed to maximize the C-130’s airdrop envelope and not exceed it, and should have no problem fitting inside of and being released by a C-130.
Dropping a weapon weighing nearly 30,000 pounds out the back of a C-130 would certainly be something to behold.

One major area where the C-130 would be at a disadvantage to the B-2, beyond its survivability and ability to carry two MOPs at once, is its speed and altitude. The Hercules flies substantially lower and slower than the B-2, which would have an impact on the weapon’s overall impact force, and likely substantially so. A C-130 dropping the same weapon at 25,000 feet and 250 miles per hour will result in significantly less kinetic force of impact than a B-2 dropping the weapon at 50,000 feet and 500 miles per hour. This is a big deal for a munition that is meant to burrow down as deeply as possible into a mountain and detonate.
It isn’t clear if these performance differences would separate success from failure. It may be that just additional munitions would be needed in order to burrow down one on top of the other deeper into the mountain to hit the targeted cavity.

The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is a precision-guided "bunker buster" bomb primarily comprised of:

BLU-127 Bomb Body (Warhead/Penetrator Case): This is the core of the weapon, designed to penetrate deeply buried and hardened targets.
Explosive Fill: The BLU-127 bomb body contains a significant amount of high-performance polymer-bonded explosives, typically a combination of AFX-757 and PBXN-114. This explosive is optimized for controlled detonation after penetration.

Casing: The bomb's casing is made from a high-density Eglin steel alloy, specifically engineered to withstand the extreme stresses of deep penetration before detonation.

Guidance Kit: This provides the precision guidance for the bomb.
Global Positioning System (GPS) and Inertial Navigation System (INS): These systems work together to ensure accurate targeting, allowing the bomb to strike within meters of its intended target.

Grid Fins: These retractable fins help stabilize the bomb in flight and allow for mid-course adjustments to maintain its trajectory.

Large Penetrator Smart Fuze (LPSF): This advanced fuzing system manages the detonation timing, adjusting the moment of explosion based on impact depth and the characteristics of the underground structure.

In essence, the GBU-57 is a combination of a robust, penetrating bomb body with a powerful explosive fill, integrated with a sophisticated guidance and fuzing system for precision and optimized detonation.

Palestinian Unity and the Nachba

 After seeing countless social media posts; by the Haters of Israel Zionism and Jews -specifically those graduates of the Communist / Socialist Antifa Shahid (Martys) school for imbeciles and those fellow self-hating Jews (in Name Only) who rant and rave like the lunatics they are that the "Zionist aggression" started "70 years ago" when the "All powerful" (read American and USSR supplied and armed) Hagannah , Palmach and vilified Irgun and LECHI led to the "Great Nachba".

Those who speak of Arab "Palestinian Unity" fail to note that even before the creation of the Jewish State the competing Arab leaders; the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and exiled Iraqi former Prime Minister Rashid Ali had desired to divide the land between themselves and had established "armed militias" to achieve their goals.

Now for the WHOLE truth -

Iraqi former Prime Minister Rashid Ali had created the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji while the Grand Mufti had created the Army of the Holy War led by his kinsman Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni.
In addition to these two "militias", who vied for the former British Mandates Areas, where the armies of the Arab League who also vied for the conquest of the "Mandated Areas" to divide the land betwen themselves.

Abdul Qadir al-Husayni was born to the prominent and influential al-Husayni family of Jerusalem.
Abdul Qadir completed his secondary education in Jerusalem with distinction and then started at the College of Arts and Sciences at the American University of Beirut, but did not continue his studies there. Instead, he went to and later graduated in chemistry at the American University in Cairo while organising the Congress of Educated Muslims.

Initially, he took a post in the settlement department of the British Mandate government but eventually moved to the Hebron area during the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine to lead the struggle against the British where he was a guerilla commander for the Jerusalem district in the summer 1936.
In 1938, Abdul Qadir was exiled and in 1939 moved to Iraq where he took part in the Golden Square coup d'état. He moved to Egypt in 1946, but surreptitiously returned to Palestine to lead the Army of the Holy War in January 1948.

Husayni was killed while personally reconnoitring an area of Qastal Hill shrouded by fog, in the early hours of 8 April 1948.

His forces later captured al-Qastal from the Haganah, which retreated to the Jewish settlement of Motza.
Palmach troops recaptured the village on the night of 8–9 April, losing 18 men in the attack; and the hill became a command post.

Husayni's death has been regarded as THE major factor for the loss of morale among his forces.

Fawzi al-Qawuqji was a Lebanese-born Arab nationalist who served as a colonel in the Nazi Wehrmacht during World War II, and commanded the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) during the 1948 Palestine War.

After the UN Partition vote, the Arab League appointed Fawzi al-Qawuqji to be field commander of the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) in the 1948 Palestine War. This appointment was opposed by Haj Amin Husseini, who had appointed his own kinsman Abdul Qadir al-Husseini as the commander of the Army of the Holy War.
The execution of the 1948 Palestine War was marked by the personal, family, and political rivalry between al-Qawuqji (who fought mainly in northern Palestine) and al-Husayni, who fought mostly in the Jerusalem area.

It cries out to be noted that in early March 1948, al-Qawuqji moved some of his forces from the Damascus area and crossed - unmolested by British troops- into the Mandated Area of Palestine over the Allenby Bridge on March 6 and 7, leading hundreds of Arab and Bosnian volunteers in a column of twenty-five trucks.
The British troops' inaction infuriated General Sir Gordon MacMillan, who stated that al-Qawuqji should not be allowed "to go openly rampaging over territory in which Britain considered herself a sovereign power." General MacMillan did not want to confront al-Qawuqji's force, since he cowardly saw "no point in getting a lot of British soldiers killed in that kind of operation."

Inside Mandatory Palestine, al-Qawuqji commanded a few thousand armed men who had infiltrated the area deom neighboring Arab countries. They were grouped into several regiments concentrated in Galilee and around Nablus.
According to Collins and Lapierre, Al-Qawuqji told his troops that the purpose was "ridding Palestine of the Zionist plague", and his aim was "to drive all the Jews into the sea."

On the 4th of April 1948, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) mounted a major attack on the kibbutz Mishmar HaEmek which sat near the strategic road that connected Haifa to Jenin, and was surrounded by Arab villages.
In the attack al-Qawuqji initiated the first use of artillery during the war by directing his seven 75 and 105 mm field guns to fire on the kibbutz for a 36-hour barrage. During this battle al-Qawuqji issued a number of announcements that were subsequently proven false.
In the first 24-hours he announced victory, on April 8th he announced he had taken Mishmar HaEmek.

However after the battle was lost he claimed the Jews had been assisted by non-Jewish Soviet troops and bombers. As "Proof" al-Qawuqji claimed to have intercepted copies telegrams, but these mendaciously false "telegrams of proof" can be seen preserved in the Jordanian archives.

The Haganah and Palmach counter-attacked and the ALA were routed. The battle was over by 16 April, and most of the Arabs in the area fled, disheartened by the defeat of the ALA or demoralized by the Jewish victory. The remaining minority were expelled from the surrounding Arab villages by Jewish forces.

In July, al-Qawuqji launched a rolling offensive of counterattacks, focusing on Ilaniya (Sejera), a Jewish settlement deep in ALA territory. Although he deployed armored cars and a battery of 75 mm artillery the opposing Golani Twelfth Battalion withstood the attack, inflicting heavy losses on the ALA. The battle ended on 18 July, with the ALA losing the Arab village of Lubiya, which had been their main base in Central Eastern Galilee.

The ALA established control of upper central Galilee, from the Sakhnin–Arabe–Deir Hanna line through Majd al-Krum up to the Lebanese border until October 1948. On 22 October, the date of the third UN Security Council cease-fire order, the ALA attacked Sheikh Abd, a hilltop overlooking Kibbutz Manara and put the kibbutz under siege.

In conclusion The REAL TRUTH, in THEIR OWN WORDS, of WHY the "Arab inhabitants of the Mandated Area of Palestine" FLED!

In the memoirs of Haled al Azm, who served as Prime Minister of Syria in 1948 and 1949, that were published in Beirut in 1973. Azm admitted in his memoirs that it was actually the Arab governments who called for the palestinian Arabs to evacuate and leave by sowing terror in them.

"Five: the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and to leave for the bordering Arab countries after sowing the terror among them, following the incident at Deir Yassin."

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave."

Note the closing paragraph from his memoirs:

"We have brought destruction upon a (sic) million Arab refugees by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their land, their homes, their work and business, and we have caused them to be barren and unemployed...we accustomed them to begging for handouts and to suffice with what little the UN organization would allocate them."

The notion of an inherent "right to exist" in regards to Pakistan, India, and Israel

Pakistan is a Moslem country and India is a primary Hindu nation how is their the notion of an inherent "right to exist" different from that regarding Israel?

While the concept of a state's "right to exist" isn't explicitly codified in international law as a standalone right for any state, the circumstances of their formation and the subsequent international acceptance lead to different political and legal realities concerning their existence.

Here's how the situations of Pakistan, India, and Israel differ in terms of the "notion of an inherent right to exist":

India and Pakistan: Basis of Formation: 

India and Pakistan were formed in 1947 through the partition of British India upon its independence. 

This was a direct result of British colonial policy and the culmination of decades of independence movements, particularly the demand for a separate Muslim homeland (Pakistan) due to fears of Hindu majority dominance in a united India.

Self-Determination of Existing Communities: 

Their formation was largely seen as an act of self-determination for the Hindu-majority population of India and the Muslim-majority population of Pakistan (though with massive displacement and violence). 

The legitimacy of their existence stems from this decolonization process and the immediate, widespread international recognition as sovereign states.

Lack of Fundamental Challenge to Existence: 

While India and Pakistan have a deeply contentious relationship, marked by wars and ongoing disputes (especially over Kashmir), the fundamental right of either state to exist is generally not questioned by the international community as a whole. 

Their borders and sovereignty are recognized, and disputes revolve around territory and specific policies, not the legitimacy of their statehood itself. 

Even when relations are at their worst, the idea of one nation ceasing to exist is not typically part of the mainstream international discourse or a stated aim of either government (though some extremist elements might hold such views).

Israel: Basis of Formation: 

Israel's formation in 1948 was also rooted in a form of self-determination – that of the Jewish people to establish a national home in their ancestral land, Zionism. 

However, unlike India and Pakistan, it emerged from the British Mandate for Palestine, a territory also claimed by the Arab Palestinian population who also sought self-determination.

International Mandate and UN Resolution: 

Key to Israel's legal argument for its existence are the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (which explicitly recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land and the grounds for reconstituting their national home), and the 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181). The Partition Plan recommended the creation of both a Jewish and an Arab state. While the Jewish leadership accepted the plan, the Arab states and Palestinian leadership rejected it, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Contested Legitimacy from Neighboring States: 

Unlike India and Pakistan, Israel's very "right to exist" has been systematically denied by a significant number of its immediate neighbors and some other nations for decades. This denial often stems from the narrative that Israel's creation involved the displacement of Palestinians and the perceived injustice of a Jewish state being established on land also claimed by Arabs. While some Arab states have since recognized Israel (Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco), the foundational challenge to its legitimacy persists from many others and from significant portions of Palestinian society.

"Right to Exist" as a Political Assertion: For Israel, the assertion of its "right to exist" is not just a legal formality but a critical political and security statement. It is a demand for acceptance of its fundamental legitimacy as a sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people, especially in the face of movements and ideologies that seek its dissolution. This makes the "right to exist" a more highly charged and frequently invoked concept in the Israeli context than it is for India or Pakistan.

Key Differences Summarized:

Acceptance by Neighbors: India and Pakistan, despite their conflicts, generally accept each other's statehood. Israel, for many decades, faced fundamental rejection of its existence by a large bloc of its neighbors and the wider Arab/Muslim world.

Narrative of Formation: 

While all three involved complex historical processes and often violent partitions, the narrative surrounding Israel's formation is heavily intertwined with the ongoing Palestinian national aspirations, leading to a direct clash over land and legitimacy that doesn't exist in the same way between India and Pakistan.

Political vs. Legal Emphasis: 

For India and Pakistan, their existence is a given, legally and politically.

For Israel, while legally established and recognized by many, its "right to exist" remains a prominent political assertion due to continuous challenges to its fundamental legitimacy by some actors.

In essence, while the legal framework for statehood (sovereignty, recognition, territorial integrity) applies to all three, the political and historical context of their formation and subsequent relations means that the "notion of an inherent 'right to exist'" plays out very differently. For Israel, it's a constant affirmation against denial, whereas for India and Pakistan, it's an accepted premise, even amidst severe bilateral disputes.