An Argument against Ronen Bergman’s 'The Secret War with Iran' – 14

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, especially 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 14:

On the one hand, doctoring what is clearly said and accepted would give rise to contradictions. For instance, as it was said, Mossad’s representative said in response to the Shah’s request: “Assassination has no place in our school of thought”! On the other hand, in all works penned by Bergman, all under supervision of Mossad, in a bid to spread terror among nations, the stories of thousands of assassinations are recounted, some of which in details and as a strong point of the Zionists. In this chapter, in order to paint an image of tough time for the Zionists during the nationwide uprising in Iran, childish stories are fabricated. Furthermore, the stories are narrated as such Iranians were unaware of the location of Israeli agents and that they had left the country secretly, who might have otherwise met a bad fate.

“Eventually, it was arranged in a meeting between Minister of Defense Weizman and CIA representatives in Tel Aviv that the Israelis would fly out with a group of Americans in two Pan Am planes…The Israelis, who had gone through so much in the previous weeks, asked the pilot not to report that there were Israelis on board until they were clear of Iranian airspace because they feared they could still be forced to land.” (Chapter 2, pp. 41-42)

Bergman claims that Israeli diplomats and Mossad agents left clandestinely following the victory of the Islamic Revolution. But in order to know the reality, we review the narrative of the last head of Mossad’s Tehran branch: “I first called the office of Amir-Entezam, introducing myself as Jean-Jacques. But it was a bad moment…I finally talked to him. He was very polite. I told him that we are thirty something Israeli diplomats in Iran, serving the government and nation of Iran, and that we would like to continue to stay if our host agrees. In response, he said it seems that you should return home.” (Big Satan, Small Satan, Eliezer Tsafrir, translated by Farnoosh Ram, Autumn 2007, Ketab Corps., Los Angeles, p. 394)

Therefore even the Mossad representative in Tehran, who was directly involved in Savak crimes, did not feel any threat from Iranian people amid struggles; rather he was willing to stay here with other Zionists to serve (?!) Iran. This expression of willingness means they were not faced with abnormal conditions for living in Iran, and a nation that distributed flowers among soldiers never sought chaos even in the midst of uprising. The Mossad representative highlights another important point too. “It’s so surprising that no American citizen was attacked in the midst of the Iranian Revolution. Surprisingly, the Ayatollah [Khomeini] named the US as the Great Satan, but no Iranian beat up any American.” (Ibid, p. 269)

Of course this prominent Mossad agent refuses to admit to the fact that no Zionist was targeted by Iranians. When he recounts how he left Iran, any reader would bow to the greatness of the Iranian nation. “Early in the afternoon, the chief of staff of Foreign Minister contacted me…All Israelis were invited to Hilton Hotel by 5pm to be informed of arrangements for our departure. Yes, that’s it! Arafat in! We are out! For a moment, there was a crowd in front of the hotel. A revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, came in. We plucked up our courage and approached him and started a conversation. Some of us knew basic Persian. But he knew English and German a bit. Beheshti was a tall and handsome man with long, black and decorated beard. His last word was very important to us. He told Mr Mohandes: ‘Treat Israelis with respect as the Iranian culture of hospitality necessitates so that they would leave Iran with good memories without any grudge. They have committed no error. Their government is responsible.” (Ibid, pp. 417-418)

Bergman, who was not present there and does not produce any document or reference for his claims, must have studied the memoirs of the last head of Mossad in Tehran because most anti-Iranian issues there have been cited in his book. So how come he changes the history? To this question there is no other answer than the Zionist historians’ habit of playing the martyr. First, in the midst of millions-strong demonstrations that had spun out of the dictatorial Pahlavi’s control, the Zionists and their embassy were not attacked. Second, even in the street clashes between the Imperial Guard and demonstrators, the Zionists did not fear any retaliatory action from the people and therefore no action was taken for an emergency exit of the Zionists, particularly Mossad agents and the regional head of this notorious organization, out of Iran. Third, following the victory of the nationwide revolt, they contacted new government officials and officially demanded that they stay in Iran. Does it imply any precarious conditions for them? Fourth, after Iran’s post-revolutionary Foreign Ministry tells the Zionists to leave because they can no longer stay under the new government, a program is arranged for them at Iran’s best hotel to be informed of their departure. Fifth, on due date, the fifth highest-ranking official personally goes to Esteqlal Hotel (formerly Hilton Hotel) so that American and Zionist staff would be taken to airport in full safety and fly to Frankfurt.

Now, a comparison between the Iranians’ kind treatment of those who showed the most inhumane treatment in Iran with Bergman’s fabrications can show the reliability of his works. He describes the conditions as highly precarious for the Zionists such that they had flown clandestinely from Mehrabad Airport, claiming that they felt the danger as long as they were in Iran’s airspace as they risked death in case of identification. In response to such greatness, Israeli military attaché Segev repeatedly describes Iranians, who put an end to the Zionists’ rule, as “mobs”.

““In the hallucinatory situation that we were all in, with the mobs flooding the streets with holy fury, this was a particularly hallucinatory comic interlude,” Segev recalls. Khomeini’s mobs were taking control in Iran. The royal family was on the run—and not all of their royal pets could survive.” (Chapter 2, p. 29)

In order to know why such a rude tone has been used against the Iranian nation, which gives rise to another fabrication, we have to focus on Bergman’s claim about domestic animals of the royal family.

The issue of taking two fallow deer out of Iran in the midst of the nationwide revolt of the Iranian nation against dictatorship and foreign dominance has been highlighted in the memoirs of the last head of Mossad in Tehran as a success story. But Bergman refers to other aspects of this story. “The director of Israel’s National Parks Authority, General Avraham Yaffeh, had had the idea of recreating herds of the animals that had roamed the country in biblical times, among them the fallow deer… On November 28, 1978, as rioting in Iran approached a crescendo… the Parks Authority sent a crew to Tehran. With vehicles and security provided by Segev, they travelled to a nature preserve on the shore of the Caspian Sea, picked up two pairs of fallow deer (the royal family had generously broadened the original permit for one pair), and returned to Tehran… As Segev recalls, “We applied some pressure on the embassy security officer and we put the beasts into a corral that we fenced off in the embassy yard.” Then another problem cropped up. It turned out that in order to fly the animals out, a special permit was required, and Muller was the only person competent to issue it. “We asked him, and to our surprise he agreed,” says Segev. “And we soon understood the reason for his generosity. He would grant the permit only if we agreed that the royal tiger and lion be included in the shipment. The Shah kept the animals in cages in his palace grounds, under Muller’s care, but as the riots spread they were moved to the zoo. Muller was frightened that like the other symbols of the monarchy, they would fall victim to the angry mobs, and he wanted them shipped to Holland. I had no choice, and I agreed.”… On January 1, 1979, Segev arrived at the zoo in a convoy of vehicles, to pick up the two big cats. He found Muller there, crying. “It turned out we were a couple of hours too late. Thousands of demonstrators had broken into the zoo and slaughtered both of the big cats. Muller was distraught with grief.”  (Chapter 2, pp. 30-31)

In response to Bergman’s fabrication of realities about the performance of the Zionists until the last moments of the Pahlavis in Iran, several points have to be recalled: 1. The allegation of demonstrators’ attack on the Tehran zoo (an unreasonable act totally incompatible with the Iranian culture) at that time has not been reported in any media, even pro-Pahlavi Western media, particularly at a time they were sparing no effort to find a weakness for suppressing the national revolt in Iran. 2. In none of chronologies about the Islamic Revolution, be it inside or outside the country, nothing has been recorded to that effect. 3. Lions and tigers were certainly held in the Tehran zoo and it was not easy to distinguish those belonging to the royal family after their transfer to the zoo unless one claims that people had slaughtered all lions and tigers. 4. The Iranian nation gave flowers to the Imperial Guard whose forces were shooting at people. How could have they treated animals in such an uncivilized way? Furthermore, how could a powerful nation, whose strength was symbolized at least in millions-strong demonstrations and which never took on CIA and Mossad agents who had committed many crimes against it, have been such violent against animals belonging to the Court?

Therefore, one has to see what realities Bergman is trying to cover up by fabricating these stories.