“Lies, damned lies and statistics” was a troubling phrase coined more than 100 years ago during the time of Mark Twain, whether or not he can be attributed as the author. But that was on the assumption that statistics, even if inappropriate, could be used to refute an argument.

Things have advanced in our time where there are lies, lies and more lies — and then be damned with statistics.

It has been said that if you can repeat a lie often enough, it can become the truth. Sad as it may be, that is what society has become accustomed to. Let me be clear in this case, referring to the Israeli attack on Iran.

The attack is now mooted by Israel and repeated by some media as a pre-emptive attack against its nuclear facility because Iran was on the verge of creating a nuclear weapon. Furthered by the rationale of the need for a regime change because, should it get its hands on a nuclear weapon, the Iranian leadership is hellbent on destroying Israel.

Two immediate contradictions occur. The first is that Iran has a leadership that has declared a religious edict against the use of nuclear weapons, and that the International Atomic Energy Agency has consistently upheld that Iran is not pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon, and has been open to inspections, which was initially confirmed by Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, before she backtracked under pressure from the Trump Administration.

Additionally, despite Donald Trump’s dismissal of his own agency’s intelligence, in a recent interview with Vladimir Putin, he declared that it was Russia that built the Iranian nuclear facility, and that Russia has no interest in seeing Iran move towards developing a weapon — appearing to secure Israel’s safety against such.

So why is there a hype about Iran’s sovereign right, which it has exercised since the early 1950s, to have a peaceful nuclear facility used appropriately for electricity and medicine?

This brings us to “regime change” and why.

This question cannot be answered without first acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons and that it refuses to sign the non-proliferation agreement or allow the international body to inspect its nuclear programme. That aside, Israel has been conducting an expansionist colonisation in the Middle East against all of its neighbours without exception. This despite condemnation from the United Nations while most of the world has stood aside and watched for 22 months an extermination of the Palestinian people.

The only nations that have stood as defenders of the rights of the Palestinians are Iran and Yemen. How convenient is it for Israel and its backers to desire regime change for the only real resistance to the tyranny inflicted on the region?

This is a clear humanitarian war. Binyamin Netanyahu and Mr Trump have declared that Gaza needs to be emptied of all the Palestinians without a right of return. This is not covert; it’s overt. And while there is an exercise of starvation imposed by Israel, it has set up food camps as death traps to shoot hungry and desperate people.

How heinous does it have to get before one realises the biblical verse, “As much as is done to the least of us”? When do the Palestinians qualify as simply humans, let alone the least of us?

This is not a national or religious matter; it’s a human matter.

Let’s view it with some historical context. In 1953, the United States overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran to install the Shah. During the period of the Shah, 60 per cent of the oil supplied to apartheid South Africa came from Iran. Israel was a client state during that period and was complicit with South Africa. Immediately after the overthrow of the Shah, one of the first acts of the Iranian revolution was to take back the oil, and it cancelled South Africa trade and supported the African National Congress, Nelson Mandela and the end of apartheid. That was the beginning of hostility between Israel and Iran.

There is a legacy of resistance to oppression of all types despite the Shia orthodoxy of the regime, which some may consider repressive. In this case, the orthodoxy is an indication of the sincerity it has towards principles such as a commitment towards non-nuclearisation. It goes beyond caprice and political expedience because it is a fundamental belief.

For those who may not be aware, I was very knowledgeable of all the philosophies as an imam during that revolutionary period. I was known as Imam Al Hujji Khalid Bin Waleed and changed my name to Khalid Abdul Wasi because of the deep Persian contribution to Islam.

Just on a practical observation, why would Iran need a nuclear weapon when it could defeat Israel easily using conventional warheads? Again, why would Iran consider using a nuclear weapon on sites that it considers holy? Or on an area that is the homeland of Palestinians? Nuclear destruction destroys the whole ecology of the areas involved; Iran would not do that while trying to liberate Palestinians. The allegation is lunacy and a campaign built on lies.

In summary, one can analyse each country by its end goals.

The end goal of Israel is to neutralise Iran through the annihilation of its leadership, to have unimpeded access to its expansion wherever that may be — without any neighbour having the military might to resist.

The goal of America is to replace the leadership with a puppet whom it will select, to control Iran’s vast resources in its bid to contain the growth of China.

The goal of Iran is to free Palestinians and to allow the region from the “river to the sea” to have equality, regardless of religion or race. Which means Christians or Jews, Muslims and any faith — or no faith.

These are their declared goals, and as the Bible says, “Choose ye this day whom ye shall choose”.