An Argument against Ronen Bergman’s 'The Secret War with Iran' - 1

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.

Part 1:

About ‘The Secret War with Iran’

Introduction

Ronen Bergman, author of The Secret War with Iran (2008), breaking a deep-seated tradition, does not shy away from revealing his own and his written works’ connections with Mossad and other Israeli regime intelligence services. Known for his columns in the Israeli yellow journal Yediot Aharonot, Bergman has another book on Iran and the regional ramifications of the 1979 Islamic Revolution: Rise and Kill First (2018). What we target in this criticism is the first one, i.e. The Secret War with Iran.

An author’s affiliation with secret services would normally discredit the person and his/her works on the grounds of violation of independence requirements, which would in turn create the impression that such works pursue any other objective than cultural ones. In such cases, one would naturally wonder what objective intelligence services have sought by investing in a written work.

The first response would be inspired by the title chosen for the work in question. In The Secret War with Iran case, the title seeks to spread the message that on behalf of global Capitalism, Zionism is indulged in a relentless and victorious battle against Iran’s daily-growing power and that without uninterrupted action on Iran more serious threats would be directed at the US and Britain. Relying on such fabricated mindset, not only should pro-Zionist governments not cast doubt on the efficacy of the so-called “Israel” base established in the heart of the Muslim world, but based on such well-conversed report by a famous author, they should also offer more aid to Israel.

Such extraordinary and uncommon endeavor to prove the competence of Israeli intelligence services across the globe – even though in appearance – stems from the fact that the Zionists’ functionality in the Capitalist West’s West Asian base, i.e. Israel, has long been cast into doubt. Even more, continued investment for its preservation is faced with growing challenges. It is hardly forgettable that the highly extremist racists who dominated the Palestinian territory used to claim their mission was to contain barbaric Muslims, a point noted in clear terms by Zionism founder Theodor Herzl. “We have to set up part of Europe’s fortresses and fortifications against Asia; we have to build a civilizational watchtower against barbarism.” (Israel and the Arabs, Maxime Rodinson, translated by Reza Barahani, Khawrazmi Publications, 1^st edition; What’s Iranology?...and several other articles by Dariush Ashuri, Agah Publications, 2^nd edition, 1972, p. 157)

However, following the occupation of Palestine and the establishment of the fake Israeli regime and subsequently Muslim nations’ firm resistance, a new slogan was uttered: “A powerful supporter of nations against Red Army threats”. That was when a large number of West-dependent Muslim States embarked on intelligence cooperation with this Zionist base; Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and post-Nasser Egypt among others were attracted by the intelligence and training services offered by the Zionists. These Muslim countries had truly reached the perception that the Zionists would share the latest torture techniques and equipment with them, regardless of so-called human rights standards advocated by the US and Britain.

During years of the Cold War between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), protests in West-leaning nations were largely backed by the Soviet bloc. Therefore, the slogan of powerful support for Occidentalist regimes won supporters, at top of whom was Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. But the downfall of the post-coup government in Iran struck a heavy blow with irreparable consequences to the Zionists’ self-declared capacity in safeguarding Western-backed regimes in the region. Had any USSR-backed change transpired Iran, Israel would not have lost much credibility to see its functionality called into question.

The Zionists who claimed to be endowed with the most sophisticated equipment, who claimed to have mastered the latest methods of suppressing national revolts and who claimed to have shared their experience fully with the Pahlavi II secret police, known with its Persian acronym Savak, had no option but to concede defeat in the face of the willpower of a defenseless nation with no foreign support and even subject to the most atrocious forms of torture. To know precisely about the fake Israeli regime’s standing in such confrontation, one has to review the account of the last head of Mossad station in Iran about the final months leading to the overthrow of the Shah regime. “Our ambassador, who was chairing the meeting, believed that the situation will worsen even further to cross redlines, in which case the Shah government will understand how critical the situation is. Then he will toughen the martial law restrictions to establish order, but not without bloodshed. I acknowledge that I personally had no coherent idea and I was even infuriated with myself…However, I would like much to see the ambassador’s prediction come true.” (Big Satan, Small Satan, Eliezer Tsafrir, translated by Farnoosh Ram, Autumn 2007, Ketab Corps., Los Angeles, p. 196)

Mossad’s poor and superficial knowledge of a nationwide revolt in Iran during the last months leading to the triumph over despotism and hegemony and incorrect assessment of the situation cost the spying agency, which at least fully dominated Iran’s intelligence service, its credibility and called into question the functionality of the Zionist base. Even though Mossad’s Tehran spymaster had not acknowledged such weakness so matter-of-factly, it was still known that the Zionists failed to take any effective measure to safeguard the coup-born Pahlavi II government. Two reasons are forwarded among others for this failure: First and foremost, the Israeli intelligence service’s dominant view that mankind’s willpower could be shattered by applying organized violence and enhanced methods of torture to tame them; second, the spread of financial corruption among Mossad agents and Israeli diplomats (as well as British and American argents) based in Tehran thanks to lucrative deals offered in the wake of oil price hikes.

Aided by its OPEC allies, the US drove oil prices up 10-fold with a view to building a gendarme-style structure in the strategic regions of the world based on the Nixon Doctrine. The gains obtained in parallel by application of this policy for the sustained dominance of Washington over the world intensified corruption within Iran’s ruling system and supplanted economic prosperity for a safe haven. That explains why US and Israeli intelligence agents and even diplomats mainly stayed in Iran after their mission ended to pillage the Iranian nation.

Tsafrir has acknowledged this fact although he names the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unreasonably in a bid sure to exonerate Mossad he was affiliated with. “In January 1978, The New York Times wrote in an editorial that the CIA had 50 active spies in Iran with the retired spies still living in Iran numbering around 100. Without going into details that would cause shame for my CIA counterparts, I would only say that this laudable number of active and retired spies is significant enough to carry out necessary missions.” (Ibid, p. 173)

The inefficacy of US intelligence service in foreseeing developments in Iran and its lack of initiative despite having Tehran as its regional base is a significant issue to reflect on. However, critical comments by Mossad’s top officer are not aimed at uncovering the reasons of such failure; rather, he highlights the CIA’s central role in this scandal in a bid to exonerate the organ he represented in Iran by that time or at least to drive into oblivion Israeli allegations of protecting US-backed regimes.

In early 1970s, in pursuit of the Nixon Doctrine, Washington made arrangements never seen before in all sectors due to the significance of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s gendarme status in the US’s regional ties; It took action to drive oil prices up, added to its advisors in Iran and expanded its intelligence and political network in Tehran, among other measures. Richard Helms, then Director of the CIA, was named ambassador to Tehran.

But one has to see why the US political and intelligence apparatus would suffer humiliation despite heavy investment, to the extent that Mossad agents – themselves instrumental in the humiliating result – scoff at Washington. Assadollah Alam, minister of Royal Court, implies involvement of US agents – in particular the ambassador – with business in Iran. “It was Sunday, October 24, 1976. The US Ambassador [Richard Helms] rang me early in the morning, saying he wanted to meet with me urgently. He came to my residence at 8 am. He said he had come to tell me he was being replaced, but he wanted announce it before the [US] presidential election so that in case the incumbent president was not reelected he would not be blamed for not staying in office. He said he was quitting and envisaged self-employment.” (Alam’s Notes, edited by Ali-Naqi Alikhani, vol. 6, Maziar & Moin Publications, 2008, p. 308)

The US ambassador keeps mum on his future business plan. But several months after his dismissal, he addresses a letter to Alam, disclosing his strong desire to step into the “Safe Haven of Business Brokers”. By writing to Alam, Helms was wooing him in a sycophant manner to raise the case with Mohammad Reza Shah and secure his engagement with business affairs.

The item will be continued...