An Argument against Ronen Bergman’s 'The Secret War with Iran' – 30

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 30:

In a bid to shed light on the level of treason by the Zionists ruling Palestine, we only offer a narrative from Mr. Bergman. Here is his description of Sharon’s reaction to an operation in the occupied land that left three people dead:

“The assumption was that Arab militants were using West Bank villages close to the border as bases to attack Israel. Sharon selected one of those villages— Qibya, which may or may not have been involved in the Yehud murders—as a target. On October 15, before dawn, Sharon led a force of 130 men from Unit 101 and other outfits, carrying more than 1,500 pounds of explosives, into Qibya. Within hours, the village was destroyed…At least sixty-nine were killed, most of them women and children. The world, including much of Israel and Jewish communities around the globe, was horrified. The UN Security Council condemned the raid, as did the US State Department, which announced that it already had suspended aid to Israel for violating the armistice agreements of 1949. Israel’s official explanation for the massacre was that rogue Jewish civilians were responsible….Privately, Ben-Gurion gave Sharon his full support, because Unit 101— despite the worldwide outrage—boosted morale within an Israeli Army exhausted by unrelenting defensive operations.” (Ibid, pp. 80-81)

Did the Zionists pay a single penny for this crime, i.e. burial of villagers under ruins of their houses? Even if we view the Palestinian resistance against the occupation of their homeland to be no legitimate right for them, at least based on apparent condemnations, has any permission been ever given for legal action against such historically unprecedented criminal acts with US and European courts?

The Zionists’ files are burdened with such crimes aimed at driving the real residents of Palestine away from their homeland. Of course, unconditional support offered to the Zionists from Capitalist leaders would further embolden them in their imagination that they can change the course of history by resorting to explosion, torture, assassination, kidnapping and massacre among other crimes. That explains why Bergman so proudly speaks about Israel being the top assassin. “Since World War II, Israel has assassinated more people than any other country in the Western world. On innumerable occasions, its leaders have weighed what would be the best way to defend its national security and, out of all the options, have time and again decided on clandestine operations, with assassination the method of choice. This, they believed, would solve difficult problems faced by the state, and sometimes change the course of history.” (Ibid, p. 23)

Emboldened by US and UK support, have the Zionist racists imagined that by presenting fabricated scenarios like the Holocaust they can continue to mislead humanity for eternity while suppressing a nation’s right for return to homeland by exercising the most brutal methods? History has a clear response to this question. No occupier has remained an occupier forever. The course of history is unchangeable. Human experience has been the same since the very beginning. As the Lebanese managed to drive Zionist occupiers out of their homeland after 18 year, Palestinians will sooner or later drive the racist migrants out of the holy land and Palestine will be back into the hands of Palestinians, including Muslims, Christians, Judaists and other citizens who have long lived together peacefully.

Bergman wrongly imagines that he can hinder the Lebanese experience. Ranting for intelligent agents of Israel and pro-Zionism nations cannot sully the image of resistance in this country. For instance, he tries to defame Hezbollah by citing Auque who had entered Beirut under the guise of journalist, but to provide field information for the Zionist occupiers; however, Bergman is not happy with Auque’s words. “After a year in captivity, and despite strenuous efforts by France’s foreign intelligence service, the Direction Générale de la Securité Extérieure, or DGSE, Hezbollah achieved several of its goals…. Only then was Auque freed, together with another Frenchman, a photographer, and flown to Paris in a special plane sent by the president of France. “No, I am not angry,” he says now. “True, I lost a year of my life, but at least, unlike some other hostages, I am still alive, with a wife and children…. What’s more, they aren’t worth my anger. We’re speaking of a gang of barbarians, fools and lunatics. On the day of my release, the guards asked me if I would ever forgive them. I replied that forgiveness from me wasn’t their problem. … I told them that seizing hostages is the weapon of cowards, not of the brave. They really didn’t like this reply.”  (Chapter 7, p. 121)

This narrative is filled with insult and humiliation, but it makes it clear that the hostage-takers treated the intelligent agents of the occupiers and their supporter very humanely. Those who have had to resort to such acts of protest have not shown any violent behavior; rather, they apologized for what they had inevitably to do. But could the Lebanese reduce the atmosphere of intimidation and fear the Zionists had imposed on their nation? Although the author tries to dismiss it as futile, he indirectly puts his seal of approval on it: “The hijackers took the plane to Algiers and back to Beirut, three times. At the first Beirut stop, nineteen passengers were released in exchange for fuel. At the next Algiers stop, twenty more were let go. The hijackers were demanding the release of some eight hundred Lebanese prisoners in Israel’s hands, as well as international condemnation of Israel’s military presence in South Lebanon and condemnations of America’s activities in the Middle East.” (Chapter 7, p. 130)

The hijacking drama lasted 17 days and the TWA airplane was taken to another airport. The public opinion was kept aware of issues in Lebanon, particularly through a press conference which was watched closely. That is who the resistance movement in Lebanon managed to make its voice heard in the world. The US and Israel had to meet some of Lebanon’s rightful demands. Bergman has admitted to this issue. “About a month later, Israel freed some sixty Shiite prisoners from its jails, claiming that it had nothing to do with the release of the TWA hostages. This was not strictly accurate. The American government had obtained in advance Israel’s agreement to let the Shiites out, in order to get the whole incident wrapped up.” (Ibid, p. 131)

Although under the present circumstances such kidnappings are not justifiable, resorting to such methods was urgent in the light of the indescribable crimes committed by the Zionists in Lebanon (the Sabra and Shattila massacre, violently torturing Lebanese resistance fighters) and the closure of all ways of information by the Zionists and their supporters. Today, Hezbollah has its own media and if the Zionists attack a village it will respond firmly without resorting to such methods to speak to the public opinion in the world. But in response to the question if the resistance movement in Lebanon took ordinary innocent people hostage too or just the intelligent agents of the occupying regime and their supporters, some passages from Mr. Bergman are interesting to know:  “In July 1952, an exhibit of paintings by the Franco-German artist Charles Duvall opened at the National Museum in Cairo. Duvall … had moved to Egypt from Paris two years earlier, announcing that he’d “fallen in love with the land of the Nile.” The Cairo press published a number of fawning pieces about Duvall and his work—strongly influenced, the critics said, by Picasso—and he soon became a fixture in high society. Indeed, the Egyptian minister of culture attended the opening of Duvall’s show and even purchased two of the paintings… Duvall’s real name was Shlomo Cohen-Abarbanel, and he was an Israeli spy… Portraying himself as a bohemian artist, Cohen-Abarbanel operated networks of agents in Egypt and recruited new agents throughout the Arab world.” (Rise and Kill First, Ronen Bergman, p. 66)

In another passage, he refers to Mossad’s employment of Zionist journalists who were European nationals. “Harel (then chief of Mossad) asked the Editors Committee to provide him with three journalists, whom he subsequently recruited into the Mossad. They were sent to Europe, at the Mossad’s expense, to gather intelligence about the front companies that were buying equipment for the Egyptian project. Harel claimed he needed the journalists for operational reasons.” (Ibid, p. 118)

When he was writing The Secret War with Iran, the author did not know that several years later he would be unveiling some methodologies of Zionist politicians. Heaping praise on someone who travels to Lebanon under the cover of journalist exactly when occupiers come to Lebanon to gather field information for them would not attract readers. Rather, it clarifies the resistance fighters’ kind treatment of such people and demanding pardon from them, and the rationality of such demands as the “release of 800 Lebanese hostages”, “international condemnation of Lebanon’s occupation” and other conditions from the language of the Zionists.

In the last passage discussed here, it has to be noted that the author spares no chance to harm the image of Imam Khomeini. He has even attributes decision-making about hostage-taking of Zionist intelligence agents to him. “However, the orders for taking hostages came from Tehran and most probably from Ayatollah Khomeini.” (Chapter 7, p. 123)

That shows the deep-seated grudge held by the Zionists dominating Palestine against the historical uprising of Iranian people under Ayatollah Khomeini’s leadership.