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.