The Editor's Missing Place on the “Deck”

Compiled by Gholamreza Azizi*
Translated by Fazel Shirzad

2026-4-6

■ From Deck to Heaven: The Army Navy in the Sacred Defense

■ Author: Dr. Majid Najafpour

■ Tehran: Islamic Revolution Document Center

■ First Edition: 2024, 296 pages

The book From Deck to Heaven [1] offers a relatively fresh approach to examining the role of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army Navy (AJA) during the eight years of the Sacred Defense, published under the “Oral History of the Islamic Revolution” series. To compile this book, the esteemed author has utilized documentary research (referring to relevant archival centers and selecting documents) and field research (in the form of oral history interviews with eyewitnesses), in addition to library research methods. Thus, the author has endeavored to introduce the Navy's role in the Sacred Defense within the main chapters of the book by conducting oral history interviews with eyewitnesses and key actors of the events. In achieving this goal, he has approached the field of military oral history. Military oral history is a method for recording and documenting the experiences, perspectives, and narratives of members of the armed forces—including both combat and support units of all ranks and grades. It is conducted through active interviews with the aim of gaining insight into practical experiences, military decision-making, daily life on the battlefields and the home front, and the social and political impacts of military activities. These interviews are supplemented by contextualization and the use of other historical sources. Unlike military documents and records, oral history focuses on individuals' personal observations and experiences, encompassing a wide range of things seen and heard. Generally, military oral history interviews are conducted in five forms: operational[2], thematic[3], biographical[4], end-of-service[5], and after-action[6] interviews. In the oral history of the Sacred Defense, three of these groups have been more prominent:

1. Operational Interviews: The main feature of these interviews is that they are conducted live on-site during the war. From this perspective, the activities of the Sacred Defense narrators can be evaluated within the context of operational interviews (in terms of the time and place of the interview).

2. Biographical Interviews: These constitute the second group of Sacred Defense oral history interviews and include deep, detailed interviews with combatants (Army, IRGC, and Basij, regardless of rank, branch, or unit), generally covering their lives from birth to the present. Notably, the main parts of these interviews are usually dedicated to the interviewee's activities, observations, and accounts during the Sacred Defense.

3. Thematic Interviews: Unlike the two aforementioned types which are individual-centered, thematic interviews of the Sacred Defense often manifest as group interviews conducted with several people revolving around a specific subject.[7]

Returning to the book From Deck to Heaven: The book is organized into seven chapters: 1. The history of the Iranian Navy from its beginnings to the victory of the Islamic Revolution; 2. A look at the background of the Iran-Iraq border disputes; 3. Smoke-free Fire; 4. From Khorramshahr to Khooninshahr; 5. The Navy and Operations Ashkan, Shahid Safari, and Morvarid; 6. The Caravan Operation. The first three chapters serve as an introduction to the main discussion. The book concludes with images and a bibliography.[8]

In the final four chapters (where each chapter focuses on one of the operations in which the Navy played a role), the author has somewhat approached a thematic oral history perspective of the Sacred Defense but has chosen a different method for the final editing and composition of the book.

In fact, it appears that in some instances, the author's pen as an oral historian has become intertwined with “storytelling,” “embellishment,” and “rhetorical prose,” moving closer to the style, language, and tone of “historical novelists.” For example:

● “All personnel of the missile boat, wearing life jackets, were stationed in their positions. The helmsman at the wheel, the lookout on the right side of the bridge, the radar operator behind the radar, and...

Everyone stood at attention on the deck until leaving the dock. Hands waved in farewell from the boat toward the flotilla personnel standing on the dock, as if the separation of the Paykan and its departure into the vastness of the Persian Gulf carried a different meaning this time. Circling the Bushehr dock, the Paykan entered the waters of the Persian Gulf; the boat’s ceremonial posture quickly shifted to operational status, and all personnel immediately left the deck to take their operational positions” (pp. 162-163).

● “...At the height of victory, having put the Ba'athist enemy to flight and capturing the Al-Amaya jetty, Lieutenant Sarnevesht hoisted the three-colored flag high above the deck. A wave of joy and honor settled in their hearts, and the soldiers, in pride, recalled memories that had been inscribed in this soil with their blood and bravery.”

● And the like.

“In and of itself, utilizing this type of language and tone, and employing literary devices in the writing of oral history, might not seem incorrect; however, it appears that in some sections, this approach has undermined the book's text in both its literary and historical dimensions. For example:

● 'In the first chapter, using library research and the existence of documents and records, the frequent publication of documents and easy access to them in various research centers and library studies, the historical background of the first naval organizations from the Achaemenid Empire to the victory of the Islamic Revolution has been addressed to writing' (p. 13). The esteemed author's intention was likely this: 'In the first chapter, utilizing library research and referring to documents and records, the historical background of Iran’s naval organizations, from the Achaemenid Empire to the victory of the Islamic Revolution, has been written.'

● 'In the first strategy of the military operations of the Navy of the Islamic Republic in executing the orders of war commanders to target Iraqi oil platforms, the first stage under the title “Ashkan” by three Navy frigates of the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran named Joshan, Gardouneh, and Paykan, Iraqi oil terminals were attacked on October 30, 1980' (pp. 156-157).

The omission of one or two verbs, the failure to use prepositions and commas, the use of imported syntax (forming sentences with “by/i.e. tavasot”), and an irrelevant concluding verb, has left the 'correct reading and precise understanding' of the sentence entirely up to the reader. The author's intended meaning was likely: 'The first military operation of the Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, carried out in execution of the war commanders' orders, was the targeting of Iraqi oil platforms. In the first phase of this operation, executed under the title “Ashkan,” three frigates named Joshan, Gardouneh, and Paykan attacked Iraqi oil terminals on October 30, 1980.'

● 'However, the warriors of Islam, in a joint alliance between the IRGC, the Army, and the popular Basij, following the proud and victors’ operations of Samen-ol-A'emeh, Fath-ol-Mobin...' (p. 192).

The combination of 'proud and victors' (eftekhar-afarin va fatehin) is an incongruous pairing; 'victors' (a plural noun for people) cannot be applied to 'operations' by analogy with 'proud' (an adjective). It seems better to omit it: '...following the proud operations of Samen-ol-A'emeh, Fath-ol-Mobin...'.

However, if 'the IRGC, the Army, and the popular Basij' were meant to be the referent for 'victors,' it should not have been linked to 'proud' with a coordinating conjunction (and). Under this assumption, it would have been better to revise the sentence as follows: 'However, the warriors of Islam, in a joint alliance between the IRGC, the Army, and the popular Basij—the victors of the proud operations of Samen-ol-A'emeh, Fath-ol-Mobin...'

● 'Implementing all the planned stages was not possible, but it was planned in four main stages as follows' (p. 193). Given the opening of this phrased, it appears that '...was planned as follows' was used instead of '...was carried out as follows.'

● 'From the methods of resistance and fighting of Iraqi soldiers on the battlefield, the behavior and confessions of POWs and refugees, and other intelligence sources, one can reach them' (p. 199). The likely meaning of this sentence is: 'Through the confessions of Iraqi POWs and refugees and other intelligence sources, one can gain insight into the methods of resistance and fighting of Iraqi soldiers on the battlefield.'

● 'They also carried out heavy attacks and counter-attacks against the Nasr Headquarters, which not only failed to achieve results but also caused significant damage to enemy units' (p. 196). Since the subject of the previous sentence is a number of Ba'athist army forces (linked to this sentence with the first 'also'), some readers might be misled into thinking that 'enemy units' refers to the enemy of the Ba'athist forces—that is, the brave men of the Army of Islam. Therefore, it would have been better for the concluding phrase to be: '...but also inflicted significant damage upon the units of the Ba'athist enemy.'

The writing style of this book has created combinations that warrant scrutiny from both semantic and historical perspectives. For example:

● “... sholevar tar shod” (p. 13); instead: “... sholevar tar kard” (made more intense/flamed up).

● “Sedaye-enkhar-navoche va monfajer shodan-e mowadate an faza-ye manzere-ro roshan kard” (p. 169). “The sound of the explosion... lit up”?? The intended meaning was likely: “The sound of the frigate's explosion and its ammunition detonation filled the area.”

● “Hamase-ye ghomi-ye gheyor ke she-er-e fakhrashan dar mostanavi-ye azim-e rishadat, shehamat va shahadat moj me-zaned” (p. 187). “Sh-e-er-e fakhr” (verse of pride) appears instead of “she-er-e fakher” (lofty/exalted verse).

● “Ghoroor-nashe az tovakkol be Khoda... barge-ye-ayi az omid va nashat...” (p. 168). Pride?? From trust in God? (What kind of pride stems from reliance on God?)

● “... ama in fatehe-Qadisiye hergah tehasol-e chenan shekast-e motafzane-ayi...” (p. 193). “This Conqueror of Qadisiya”!!! Saddam?? The Conqueror of Qadisiya??

● “... ejraye digar marahel-e amaliate Baitol-Moqaddas ra shayaad be-tavan... dar edame-ye tarhe amaliate Baitol-Moqaddas be shomar avard” (p. 194).

●”Anjam-e noh sa-at-e paraz-e havanavva-ye shabane dar kharha...” (p. 191); instead: “Anjam-e noh sa-at-e paraz-e shabane-ye havanavva dar kharha...” (The nine-hour night flight operations of the seaplanes in the harbors).
● It has been stated twice that the naming of the Saeen-ol-A'emeh operation was by the Army's proposal, and one time in between, it has been said: “The naming of this operation was by the Army's proposal, which the IRGC also did not oppose” (p. 190). What meaning is implicit in emphasizing the IRGC's lack of opposition to this naming? Has there been evidence of the IRGC opposing the Army's naming of other operations in the interviews?

The writing style of this book has caused references to sources and their usage to sometimes not conform to historical research methods:

●The sources for content on pages 153–156 are not specified.

●The footnote on p. 179 indicates that content from pages 172–179 regarding the sinking of the Paykan frigate is “A summary of the memories of the surviving commandos of Operation Morvarid (Naser Saranvesht, Kavian Shekouh, Zarghami, Isa Hosseini Bay).” Is such a reference worthy of historical research, or does it not bring it closer to a historical novel?

● “Jeloo-giri az eghteshash-hayi ke bostan dar ser-e kemdoon-e kalahaye zerori dar bostani az naghahaye keshvar rokh midad” (p. 234). Which disturbances? Which goods? In which areas of the country? And at what time? Using ambiguous qualifiers like “sometimes” and “some” is not suitable for historical research.

● “... az pechidegi-haye vezhe-ye-i baresh darad va har hava nav be-tavore-mostaqeem do sortee az Bandar-e Imam Khomeini (RA) be Bandar-e Choubadeh va bar-e-ghazeb ba hadod-e 12 sa-at-e paraz dar shab ra anjam dad” (p. 191); The sentence is incomplete; since this statement is a direct quote from page 175 of the book Hesrashakan*, I consulted that book and found that “bayaed” (must) and “har” (each) were omitted from the original source, making the sentence incomplete.[[9]] The original quoted sentence, without omissions, was: “... az pechidegi-haye vezhe-ye-i baresh darad va har hava nav *bayaed be-tavore-mostaqeem do sortee az Bandar-e Imam (RA) be Bandar-e Choybadah va bar-e-ghazeb ba hadod-e 12 sa-at-e paraz dar har shab* ra anjam dad.”

● “Mo-aven-e Jahan A-ara ke alan esmesh ya-dam raft...” (p. 144) — has not been properly attributed. Failure to maintain proper spacing appeared in the text in the following two ways:

• Without half-space (n-im fa-see): Shomaal-e Sharghi (p. 114), Police Raha, Dizelabad (p. 119), Shomaal-e Gharbi (p. 120), Bombbaran (p. 123), Padeegan-haa (p. 107, footnote).

• Without spacing: Markaz-haye-Hassees (p. 107, footnote).

In continuation, other orthographic errors of the book can be mentioned:

• “... bayan-e hoadaseh va ettefaqati me-par-dazim” (p. 15); instead: “... bayan-e hoadaseh va ettefaqat me-par-dazim”.

• “Shakesh-ta-shodan-e hosr” (p. 191); instead: “Shakes-te-shodan-e hosr”.

•”Pieesh ro-yi” (p. 113); instead: “Pieesh-ro-yi”.

• “Ro-oz-e Neyoye-ye Daryaa-ya” (p. 162); instead: “Ro-oz-e Neyoye-ye Daryaa-i-ya”.

• “Daroo Daraman” (p. 105); instead: “Daroo va Daraman”.
• “Darb dar manzali” (p. 109) instead of “Dam-e Darb-e Manzali” (or the more correct: “Dam-e Dar-e Manzali”).

•”Parbaar” (p. 12); instead: “Par-bar”.

•“Barxee Naa-tegh” (p. 192); instead: “Barxee Man-ta-gh”.
• Faryad Ageh Del12 (p. 222); in fact, 12 is written instead of 1.

• “Mosahabe ba Negara-n-deh ba Daryadar-e Dvavam” (p. 182, footnote).

• “Baruy” (p. 166); instead: “Be Roy-e”.

• Using the separated ya (ی) in the place of the izafe marker (kasre-ye Ezafe) throughout the text does not appear correct.

Besides the above-mentioned items, the following grammatical errors were also observed in the text:

• The language of the introduction is sometimes third-person singular active: “Ghalem mez-ne-” (writes); sometimes third-person singular passive: “Par-dakhte shoda ast” (has been addressed); and sometimes sfirst-person plural: “Me-par-dazim” (we address).

• “Mod-dae-i zame-me-she-ndan-e Khoramshahr be khak-e Iraaq ra elaan dasht” (p. 60); instead: “Mod-dae-i zame-me-she-ndan-e Khoramshahr be khak-e Iraaq *shod” (Iraqi claimed annexation of Khorramshahr); or even: “Ed-de-ye-ye zame-me-she-ndan-e Khoramshahr-ra be khak-e Iraaq dad”.

• “Ba tagh-doost-e estakr-e adoovat” (p. 160); instead: “Ba tagh-doost-ba-ye estakr-e adoovat” (Considering the deployment of equipment).

• “... nabood-e in iskele-haab bavar nadasht” (p. 161); instead: “... nabood-e in iskele-haar bavar na-dasht” * (did not believe in the destruction of these docks).

• “Takavaran yek be yek piyādeh shodeh ... khod rā makfi kard” (p. 164) instead: “Takavaran yek be yek piyādeh shodand ... khod rā makfi kardand.” (The commandos, one by one, disembarked ... hid themselves.)

• “Yeki az nāvchahā-ye jangī rā .... be mā mulhaq shavad” (p. 166); “rā” is redundant. (One of the warships .... was to join us.)

• “Sath-e makān-e dargiri por karde ast” (p. 175); instead: “Sath-e makān-e dargiri rā por karde ast.” (The surface of the place of engagement has filled.)

• “Pooshesh-e lāzem barāy-e ekhtefā rā dārā bood” (p. 188); instead: “Pooshesh-e lāzem rā barāy-e ekhtefā dārā bood.” (It possessed the necessary cover for concealment.)

• “... be injāneb eblāgh shod keh dar be kār andākhtan-e yek nāv-e poshtibāni keh moddat (taqriban) do sāl dar eskalley-e Booshehr be soorat-e rāked qarār gerefte bood bā komak-e digar doostān va be har zahmatī bood rāh-andāzī konim.” (pp. 223-224); instead: “... be injāneb eblāgh shod keh yek nāv-e poshtibāni rā keh moddat (taqriban) do sāl dar eskalley-e Booshehr be soorat-e rāked qarār gerefte bood, bā komak-e digar doostān va be har zahmatī keh bāshad, rāh-andāzī konim.” (… It was communicated to me that, in putting into operation a support vessel which had remained inactive for (approximately) two years at the Bushehr dock, with the help of other colleagues and by whatever effort, we should put [it] into operation.)

“Pāreh shod va ātasoozi-ye mahibi rokh dādeh bood va khosārāti rā be eskalley-e Van Oocheh vāred kard” (p. 225) Instead: “Pāreh shod va ātasoozi-ye mahibi rokh dād va khosārāti rā be eskalley-e Van Oocheh vāred kard.” (It tore and a terrible fire had occurred, and it caused damages to the Van Oocheh dock.) The combination and order of the verbs in the sentence do not seem correct. This sentence would naturally be more fluent: “It tore, and a terrible fire occurred, and it caused damages to the Van Oocheh dock.”

Beyond the examples mentioned, other cases have been observed that, if the esteemed author deems them appropriate, their correction (as well as the aforementioned points) would improve the book under review.

• P. 29, para. 2 is a rewrite of paragraph 3 in the author's voice and is effectively a repetition.

• “Amaliyāt-hā-ye bozorg va pichideh dar sath-e mantagheh bood va natijeh-ye in amaliyāt...” (p. 190); a phrase seems to have been deleted from the beginning of the sentence. (There were large and complex operations at the regional level, and the result of this operation...)

• The sources for the photos in the image section are unclear. Except for one photo on page 260, which apparently, since it was taken from the internet, has at least a name and address (?) inscribed on it.

• On page 263, the photo caption reads: “Dar roozhā-ye moqāvemat va chehārrū.” I did not understand the meaning of “chehārrū”. (On the days of resistance and four-days/four-faces/four-rivers.)

• Source number 18 is actually a continuation of source number 17, which was mistakenly moved to the next line and numbered.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the overall structure of the book is suitable. The division and chapter organization of the book are appropriate for the text and are good. The book's appearance in terms of visual features; calligraphy, typesetting, layout, illustration, cover design, and book size are also good, and the print and binding quality of the book have been done well.