An Argument against Ronen Bergman’s 'The Secret War with Iran' – 8

Iranian journalist and expert Abbas Salimi Namin has disproved the claims and opinions of Israeli analyst Ronen Bergman in the book ‘The Secret War with Iran’. ‘The Secret War with Iran’, written by renowned Zionist journalist Ronen Bergman, was published in 2008 by Simon & Schuster publishing company in the United States.

Born in 1972, Bergman is a graduate of Tel Aviv University in the Middle East political relations. He is a famous Zionist journalist and analyst in the military and security fields who has worked with Israeli newspapers ‘Haaretz’ and ‘Yedioth Ahronoth’, American dailies and weeklies such as ‘The New York Times’, ‘Newsweek’, ‘The Wall street Journal’, and British media groups including ‘The Guardian’ and ‘The Times’.

Bergman has been interested in topics relating to the enemies of the Zionist regime (particularly Iran, Hezbollah and the Palestinian resistance groups), as well as subjects on the history of the Israeli regime’s assassination operations, which are cited in his recent book ‘Rise and Kill First’.

In an interview with Persian TV channel ‘Iran International’, Bergman has pointed to the Iranian nuclear program and the issues surrounding it -particularly the Zionist regime’s secret attempts to halt the process of nuclear activities in Iran and assassinate Iranian scientists. He has also cited ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden as saying that the assassination of nuclear scientists is the best way to impede Iran’s growing process in that field, and has implicitly held Israel responsible for it.

In the book ‘The Secret War with Iran’, Bergman has written a history of encounters between Iran and the Zionist regime, while the bulk of the book relates to the Lebanese Hezbollah -Iran’s main ally in the battle against the Zionist regime since its formation until the 33-day War- focusing on the role of Martyr Imad Mughniyeh.

His book also includes sections about the final years of the Pahlavi regime and victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, short periods of the war imposed by the Ba’thist party of Iraq on Iran (focusing on the McFarlane affair), Iran’s role in supporting the Palestinian groups, and the Iranian nuclear program.

Bergman’s multiple undocumented and untrue comments as well as personal and purposeful analyses (with the main purpose of displaying Israel’s power, specially in a competition with the US) that have repeatedly come in his book make a critical review of the book necessary for Iranian readers.

Director of the Iran History Studies and Compilation Bureau, Abbas Salimi Namin, has written an extensive criticism in a book about ‘The Secret War with Iran’. Born in 1954, Salimi Namin is an experienced journalist and a renowned Iranian researcher in history and political sciences who has published many articles and books.

About ‘The Secret War with Iran’

Part 8:

Islam also lays emphasis on taqiya (precautionary dissimulation). It means that in the fight with tyrants, combatants should not let enemies read their mind. During the Iranian nation’s struggle against them, the Zionists were very angry at the fact that Imam Khomeini never let enemies know of his decision-making mechanism because that stripped them of any initiative and put them in the position of inaction. Therefore, deception and dissimulation are two intelligent approaches in confrontation with the enemy. These two approaches were never practiced against people and rival groups throughout the Islamic Revolution struggles.

However, Bergman tries in vain to disrupt Imam Khomeini’s character and thoughts – from allegations of the BBC serving the Imam to attributing bad luck to the Imam and limiting the “Velayat-e Faqih theory” to him despite having been recognized by many senior Shia clerics. The reasons for such hostility are clear. Ever since the start of his movement in the 1960s, the Imam was firm vis-� -vis the Zionists ruling Iran and finally managed to drive these racists out of the country. Therefore, it would not be unexpected to see so much hostility against him. Instead of analyzing the details of all allegations attributed to Imam Khomeini, one has to find out why the Leader of the Islamic Revolution was so sensitive to these racists. Were the occupiers of Palestine acting in the best interests of the Iranian nation under the Pahlavi regime or were they plundering this territory? How did the Zionists treat ordinary Iranians during the 57 years of Pahlavi rule that people were united to fine-tune their calls for their exit from Iran? Iran Air striking employees had specifically called for a halt to El Al flights because of the Israeli airline’s involvement in dirty acts like hard currency smuggling.

“Iran Air staff went on a general strike, saying in a statement that they would end their industrial action only if US Pan-American and Israeli El Al flights are halted. General Mohaqeqi, director of Civil Aviation Organization, was stuck between the hammer and the anvil. He was tasked with the resumption of Iran Air flights while he had also to guarantee the safety of all foreign airlines’ flights…Therefore, he asked us to stop El Al flights temporarily for several days in a personal gesture to him.” (Big Satan, Small Satan, Eliezer Tsafrir, translated by Farnoosh Ram, Autumn 2007, Ketab Corps., Los Angeles, p. 264)

Such widespread sensitivity even among Iran Air staff towards the Zionists’ activity in Iran is indicative of their anti-Iranian actions and wrongdoings. However, in order to document part of their inhumane deeds that provoked people from all walks of life, we have to reflect on this issue. The bitter realities of the period of Israeli dominance in Iran have been recounted by many sources. But in a bid to avert doubts about the references not being impartial vis-� -vis the Zionists, this section refers exclusively to Zionist sources. One case in point is the Zionists’ disastrous profiteering under the Pahlavi regime, which did not spare even innocent Iranian children. Importing big volumes of expired powdered milk was among the crimes committed by the Zionists.

In response to public protest which were not covered extensively in Savak-controlled press, the then Israeli ambassador writes: “In another period, a dispute intensified between Kayhan (newspaper) and Jews in Iran and Israel with regard to printing untrue articles on a Jewish businessman importing rotten powdered milk into Iran and making many innocent children sick. After this unauthentic report was printed in a largely-circulated newspaper, Jewish Committee leaders gathered at the Israeli embassy in Iran to find a solution and react accordingly. After long discussions, we decided to end our subscription to the Kayhan newspaper in the first step and stop advertising in that paper for two to three months in order to test our strength. Following the same methodology, we decided to give room to Kayhan’s rival Ettela’at new room to maneuver.” (Festschrift, Meir Ezri, translated by Abraham Hakhami, printed in Beit ul-Moqaddas, 2000, vol. 1, p. 179)

Finally the Zionists exercised their power and forced Mesbahzadeh, director of Kayhan, to dismiss Chief Editor Abdorrahman Faramarzi, who was competent and knowledgeable. Resorting to economics and suppression to prevent any reflection of the Zionists’ inhumane conduct in the Pahlavi-era press was the most telling reason on the accuracy of Faramarzi’s positions as otherwise, it is known to everyone that the Zionists were politically and economically powerful enough to apply pressure on any publication revealing acts about their activities, let alone attributing something untrue to them. Apart from that, if Kayhan’s report on the Zionists’ profiteering activities were unfounded, the Israeli ambassador could prosecute the paper and seek damages. Therefore, the Zionists’ resort to economic levers and Savak’s suppressive structure indicates that their main objective was to prevent any revelation of facts in newspapers. Dismissing someone as influential as Abdorrahman Faramarzi, a qualified journalist and an MP, sent a warning to other media and cultural circles. Faramarzi was an obstacle in the way of the Zionists’ freedom of action and he was incorruptible too. The Israeli ambassador gives an embittered account of his meeting with Faramarzi. “Faramarzi (Kayhan’s chief editor) wrote harshly and bitingly. He had no good ties with Israel. From time to time, he referred to this nascent country as having been born out of US Imperialism that intends to dominate the Middle East…My first meeting with Faramarzi was at his home. Afar was present. I never forget that tough meeting. He asked questions in rapid succession and I had to answer. The questions were like interrogation and not for the purpose of knowledge and awareness. The more we went ahead the more difficult our discussions became and I found myself stuck. He could not easily accept the history of Judaism, 2,000 years of Goliath’s sufferings and the Holocaust atrocious deaths as being narrated.” (Ibid, vol. 1, p. 178)

Faramarzi, one of rare qualified journalists in that period, defeated the Israeli ambassador’s attempt to invite him to Israel. Faramarzi wrote from time to time about the disasters caused by the greedy Zionists in Iran. This knowledgeable chief editor was finally dismissed under pressure from the Zionists.

The Zionists were happy with the dismissal of a chief editor whom the Israeli ambassador feared due to his high knowledge.

“The very same day, English-language Kayhan International, relying on Radio Ahvaz, ran an ambiguous story in praise of Abdul Nasser. Bir Moshe (Israeli intelligence officer) tried to convince Pakravan (Savak chief) to read the report once more. But after Faramarzi was replaced, the whole story ended.” (Ibid, vol. 1, p. 206)

Is there any humiliation of a nation higher than the replacement of the largest circulated newspaper by foreigners only for defending innocent children? As shown in the Zionists’ narrative, they committed crimes while at the same time they pressured one of their low-ranking intelligence officers, i.e. Savak chief, to reshuffle the Kayhan editorial board in a bid to frighten other journalists and clear the way for plundering the Iranian nation further.

For example, the story of gas pipe laying in Tehran was as follows: “After years of long drawn-out talks, a plan was proposed in summer 1960 for laying gas pipelines across the city of Tehran. Emmanuel Rasin led a delegation from French company Durillet (sic) to Tehran on July 14 the same year. Along with me, Entezam, Behbahanian and several top officials from the Pahlavi Foundation, meetings were held. Following these meetings, an agreement was signed with National Iranian Oil Company for laying gas pipelines in Tehran.” (Ibid, vol. 2, pp. 165-166)

Ezri has confessed that 19 years before the outbreak of the nationwide uprising in Iran, which ended the US, UK and Israeli dominance on Iran, an agreement for laying gas pipelines in Tehran was signed with the Zionists. Big sums were spent from national wealth, but the project remained limited to feasibility studies. Even in northern districts where pipe-laying was much easier than in the dense southern districts, no effective step was taken to supply gas to a nation sitting atop the second or first largest gas reserves in the world.

The last head of the Tehran branch of Mossad has had to point to the problems caused by lack of access to gas piping in Tehran. “Gas cylinder distribution companies were among the first to go on strike. Influence peddling was of no use and domestic gas cylinders were being discharged.” (Big Satan, Small Satan, Eliezer Tsafrir, translated by Farnoosh Ram, Autumn 2007, Ketab Corps., Los Angeles, p. 167)

Despite their dependence on the Iranian government support during the Pahlavi regime (because of Muslim and Arab resistance to the Palestinian occupation) to get out of regional isolation, the Zionists were fully focused on plundering the Iranian nation. The extent of this procedure was such that it drew objection even from politicians. For instance, the Israeli ambassador is speaking about an agreement which a Zionist company lost because of failure to meet technical requirements, but the project was awarded to it under political pressure. Interesting to know is that this company was planning to establish the company after receiving money from Iran.