If one knew little about the Middle East and its many strands of religious, political, military, and strategic interests, this seemingly well written work would have the reader believing that Israel is the altruistic good guy – although making tactical mistakes in its counter terrorist endeavours – and the Iranians are the cause of all the atrocities in the Middle East. In the epilogue Ronen Bergman indicates that he "began researching this book in order to uncover and make sense of" the "secret war" that has been ongoing between Israel and Iran, and "to place the events...in their historical context." If that is what he intended to do, then this work fails completely. The major fault with The Secret War With Iran is exactly that, one of context. It is a fault that puts this book squarely in the genre of blatant apologetics and rhetoric exhorting the Americans to attack Iran. The contexts not revealed in the text are several. The main hidden context being the reasons for much of the Middle East's anger at Israel, the ongoing occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian "territories". This uses many guises from outright military force, imprisonment, torture, house demolition, through to the subtler and yet more psychologically abusive tactics of land expropriation, marriage laws, and a multitude of other laws that make it impossible for the Palestinian people to have a home and a culture. Only once in the work do I recall the word occupation being used, with the implication otherwise that the Israeli military is in Palestinian territory to stop the terrorists, not to ethnically cleanse the territory for Jewish Zionist settlers. 
The United States is mentioned frequently with the final commendation being that "Israel's considerable contribution to America's endeavors to make the world a better place must be acknowledged." I would consider that an outright lie, unless Israel's contribution is the shaping of the American political landscape (consider AIPAC and all the right wing American apocalyptic rapture fanatics looking for Armageddon). America has little consideration for the world being a better place, only a place that is subservient to its demands and wishes for resources and geopolitical control. That underlies the second major dissimulation in the text, the massive support that the United States has given Israel both directly as $3 billion in direct aid and more in military aid (per annum), and the aid it has provided to other Middle East countries in its attempts at hegemonic control. Alongside rests the American tendency to make this a religious war, "this crusade" in the words of Bush, and the Israeli acceptance and support for that are all concealed to the reader. Iran is not the only country that uses money, religious fanaticism, and subterfuge to work towards its goals.
This lack of context emphasizes the double standards that to a skeptical and educated mind permeate the stories. Along with the occupation of Palestine, the massive military support of the U.S., and the Israeli nuclear weapons, other double standards occur. The suicide bombings effects in Israel are vividly described, but never are the atrocities committed by the IDF in the occupied territories. Bergman says, "No attempt was made to get down to the root of the matter [suicide bombings]." Of course not, because the root of the matter is the occupation and subjugation of the Palestinian people, although at this point in his tale of woe, the Israelis are in occupied Lebanon. Hezbollah and the Palestinians are implicated in drug dealings, ignoring the connection that wherever the Americans go in their quest against communists or terrorists major drug operations seem to spring up. Where there's oil, there are Americans, where there are Americans there are war and drugs – it's not strictly limited to Hezbollah and the Taliban. 
The ultimate insult from the perspective of double standards is in the reference section. Bergman's sources are almost entirely Jewish (should we be surprised?) and he emphasizes the oral interviews as the main emphasis for his research. Oral history is described as "a complex matter that demands various rules and precautions, mainly finding written or oral evidence to confirm the information process." That fully contradicts Israeli attempts to deny the oral history of Palestine, the destruction of over 500 villages and towns, the slow gradual cleansing of Palestinians from their land in spite of both oral and written records. Of course the occupation and ethnic cleansing are not even considered in this work so that disturbs Bergman not at all. [see note 1]
It would be laborious to go through the work pointing out all the other matters that are borderline dissimulation, double standards, and outright lies, but allow me a few examples. First up is Mossadegh who in most histories is considered to be a full fledged democratic personage who took power away from the Shah, gave the power to the people via the parliament, nationalized the oil companies (mostly British at the time) and while he despised the communists, allowed them to continue to operate. Bergman however describes Mossadegh as someone who "practically took over the government." If taking over the government means transferring the power to the people, then yes, he "practically" took it over – we should be so lucky if that happened in the U.S. The only reason he did not was because Britain and the U.S. conspired to eliminate him one way or another. That is where the real story of modern Iran begins, not with the overthrow of the Shah. 
A few 'smaller ' items entertain the story along the way: Khomeini seeing the world "as a clash between good and evil (same school of religion as Bush); the Shah's son being "perhaps the best person to explain his downfall" (truly unbiased that would be); the U.S. "maintained pressure on Tehran not to violate human rights" (a constant with U.S. foreign affairs, never minding its own business); criticizing the PLO for behaving in Lebanon "as if the country belonged to them" (perhaps recognizable from the Israeli occupation of Palestine?).
What really irked my anger was the simplistic lie concerning the Sabra and Shatilla massacres, that "Israel was not an active partner in this atrocity, but its forces also did nothing to prevent it." Even if one could salvage a grain of truth from this, the Israelis were an occupying force and therefore responsible under international law for the safety and health of the citizens of that country. There is so much evidence against this that it can only be labeled a lie – oh yes, I forgot, it's oral history mostly, corroborated by many participants and eye-witnesses. I guess it doesn't count then.