During the 1960s, two methods of struggle created a kind of diversity and change in the anti-regime campaigns. Resulting from the inevitable existence of different revolutionary groups focused on confrontation with the ruling regime, such diversity was based on the simultaneous use of various methods and tactics for expressing opposition to the regime. Because on the one hand, the methods and tools to which the public had access were used, and on the other hand, a method that was specific to a certain group was employed.

 

Therefore, the adoption of a soft strategy by Imam Khomeini in the struggles against the Pahlavi regime on the one hand, and the one-hundred percent success of this strategy in contributing to the victory of the Islamic Revolution on the other (which in turn is one of the differences between the Islamic Revolution and other revolutions), pose this question that why Imam Khomeini had adopted such strategy during the Islamic Revolution?

 

The Role of Hard Power in the Victory of the Islamic Revolution 

 

Using violence is so common in all political and social revolutions that it is considered as one of the pillars of the revolution. As far as the victory of the revolution and the revolutionaries are concerned, using violence and the fact that all revolutions are bloodthirsty is seen as a counterpoint to the suppression carried out by the ruling regime thereby changing the equation in their favour. Although generally using violence in revolution is inevitable, but its extent, scope and intensity may vary. The regimes facing a revolution, try to defeat uprisings, movements and revolutions by using hard power (repression), and revolutionaries have no choice but to use hard power (violence) so that to gain victory. In comparison with other revolutions, the Islamic Revolution has far less used violence in terms of intensity, scope and extent, as Imam Khomeini pointed out: “This Revolution gained victory very quickly and with the least cost, and maybe that’s why people don’t appreciate it as it deserves.”

 

Armed Struggle (Hard Threat) and its Basics

 

During the Islamic Revolution of Iran, mostly the Marxist and some religious forces who followed Imam Khomeini tended to use the “hard threat” method of armed struggle.

Marxist groups who pursued tactical and strategic goals in armed struggles, explicitly stated that their primary goal is confronting the enemy in order to change the oppressive atmosphere in the Iranian political environment.

 

However, victory in the armed struggle, along with other conditions, depended on the weakness of the regime’s armed forces, whereas during the peak of the guerrilla struggles, the armed forces were regarded as the regime’s strong point and its repressive forces in those years were among the strongest ones in the world. This led to the relentless repression of the guerrillas by the government thereby causing their revolutionary actions not to go beyond affectional actions such as assassinations, bombings, suicides, etc. Therefore, the guerrillas, despite their efforts and endeavours, ended up with imprisonment and execution.

 

Generally, in terms of ideology, the guerrilla wave in the 1960s can be divided into two main groups:

1) Groups that were created on the basis of the Islamic ideology and sought to implement religious teachings in all aspects of government and establish an Islamic state; take, for example, the Islamic Nations Party, Islamic Coalition Parties, People’s Mojahedin Organization, and so on;

2) The Marxist guerilla warfare that used the labour community was predominantly pursued by the Organization of People’s Fedai Guerrillas and some other smaller Marxist groups.

 

The Armed Struggle of Religious Forces

 

Comparing the Marxist with Islamic groups in terms of pioneering in the field of struggles, the latter, as the historical analysis acknowledges, was the one initiating an armed struggle against colonialism and tyranny in Iran; because long before the rising of the guerilla groups, the devotees of Islam were ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of this religion and hence they can be considered as the real pioneers in the field of armed struggle; those who had chosen armed struggle based on religious teachings to achieve their goals. For the first time in contemporary history, they formed a political-military organization with the aim of overthrowing the ruling system while pursuing the strategy of physical elimination of key figures. However, despite the significant temporary results which were achieved due to the regime’s weakness at that time, they failed to overthrow the government for various reasons.

 

But in the meantime, the activities of the People’s Mojahedin Organization are more prominent than other Islamist groups; because they openly adopted the strategy of armed struggle in Iran and managed to continue their movement until the first half of the 1970s, which was the peak of using such method of struggle. From the 1960s onwards, this organization was the most vocal political group which was associated with the Islamic leftist current and pretended to follow Imam Khomeini’s struggles. But soon the intellectual and ideological deviations, as well as moral and spiritual weaknesses of some of its leaders, led to the official breakup of the organization and the changing of its doctrinal positions thereby exposing its deceptive policies. 

 

But apart from the above-mentioned groups, we should mention the seven groups which after the victory of the Islamic Revolution were known as “Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution Organization.” These groups, which entered the political arena in the early 1970s, and often adopted an armed campaign strategy, considered themselves part of the Islamic Movement. They included Mansouroun (Victors), Ommat-e Vahedeh (United Ummah), Movahedin (Monotheists), Fallah (Salvation), Badr, Tohidi-ye Falaq, and Tohidi-ye Saff.

 

In general, these groups failed to play a significant role in the whole Movement, and many of their members were arrested before they could take any action. In addition to these groups, there are groups such as Abuzar Nahavand, Jama’eh, Hezbollah, Fajr-e Eslam, Hadid, Mahdiyoun, etc. 

 

As far as the turning of the Muslim forces towards guerrilla warfare is concerned, it can be argued that they regarded this policy more as a means for the physical elimination of the enemy than a strategy such as creating a mass armed uprising which had been the main goal of the Marxist guerrilla groups in pursuing the armed struggles.

 

The Armed Struggle of Marxist Groups

 

Perhaps the first documents about the left-wing groups belong to the revolutionary organization of the Tudeh Party, which, through blind imitation of Maoism, sought to justify the outbreak of armed warfare in the countryside claiming that the situation in China corresponds to that of Iran. Among the organizations affiliated with this group in 1969, is the Organization of Communist Revolutionaries of Iran, the member of which were arrested before initiating any action. The other armed group is known as “Felestin,” was mainly based at the University of Tehran. In 1969, SAVAK identified the group while it was about to conduct an armed operation. Among the guerrilla movements before the Islamic Revolution, the Organization of Iranian People’s Fedai Guerrillas is more significant than others, both in terms of quantity and quality.

 

However, since the beginning of the armed uprising and during 1970-1979, only one armed conflict, that is to say, Siahkal Incident, occurred between the guerrillas and the government forces, which was a complete military failure of the theories that had been used by the guerrillas for several years; the reason is that the uprising was severely put down by the government forces, and in the meantime, they lost most or all of their first-generation leaders, and somehow came to a standstill.

 

The Role of Soft Power in the Victory of the Islamic Revolution

 

Power in Imam Khomeini’s thought is based on the relationship between God and man as the Creator and creature. This view addresses both the human aspects of soft power which revolves around the factor of people and its divine aspect which emphasizes the divine origin of the power. Therefore, it can be regarded as the best manifestation of soft power.   

 

Although Imam Khomeini’s perspective is based on theoretical aspects rooted in religious teachings, some of the central elements of his view have played a pivotal and fundamental role in the three stages the Islamic Revolution passed to produce soft power, namely the elimination, establishment and continuation. Imam Khomeini’s purification of the soul, awareness, management, unparalleled courage, reliance on God, self-confidence, belief in the people, sense of duty, etc. have been among the aspects of this ideology that became the bedrock of soft power in the Islamic Revolution.

 

Imam Khomeini’s Method of Struggle

 

Imam Khomeini’s method of leadership and struggle in the Islamic Revolution is rooted in a long historical tradition that began in the early days of Islam. He chose his method of struggle with a profound understanding of the Qur’an, sunnah, the teachings of the infallible Imams, along with studying the socio-political developments of the Islamic world, especially Iran. His method was very simple and far from any political games.

 

Therefore, he neither sought to establish an organized party nor had a pre-planned program. Rather, he employed the necessary tactics to establish an ideal society only by using his abilities, charisma and special determination as well as relying on clear Islamic criteria and mottos. Accordingly, propagation was the most important tool for him. in the view of Imam Khomeini, propagation in that time was no different from that of the early days of Islam. Imam Khomeini’s intellectual foundations in this regard, like other matters, were rooted in religious teachings.

 

Imam Khomeini’s emphasis on using the issue of propagation does not only relate to the 1960s. Rather, when he wrote the book “Kashf al-Asrar” in 1943, while strongly criticizing the propaganda campaign launched by Reza Shah, which in his view was like a factory that eliminated chastity, courage, and religious ideology, emphasized the correct Islamic propagation and its effects and blessings in addition to the issue of education and Islamic government.

 

Accordingly, peaceful opposition in the form of negative resistance was the main method of struggle used by Imam Khomeini. Employing such a method by the Supreme Leader of the Revolution caused the clergies to recognize it as their main campaign strategy and hence they went on strikes, refused to attend the congregational prayers, and closed the seminaries and markets in order to promote this method of struggle.

 

During his struggles, Imam Khomeini was aware that dealing with the regime and moral anomalies in various fields, requires a kind of culture-building. A culture that should emerge step by step within the arena of struggle and can prove the legitimacy of Islam and the irrationality of the regime based on the teachings of the Holy Prophets and infallible Imams.

 

Using Armed Struggle in Imam Khomeini’s Method of Struggle

 

Analyzing Imam Khomeini’s messages, speeches, and interviews during that period shows that he regarded the cultural struggle and raising public awareness as his basic strategy. According to the available documents, Imam Khomeini never acknowledged the armed struggle used by the Marxist groups in guerrilla warfare and instead insisted on enlightenment, public awareness, and mass mobilization. In his view, had it not been for the inclusive, conscious and willful presence of the people, the Islamic Revolution would fail.  

 

Imam Khomeini was always aware of the fact that armed operations, bombings and assassinations endanger the lives and property of the people. Therefore, he rejected the methods used by the leftist and violent groups which sought power through using force and violence.

 

He was under pressure imposed on the one hand by the regime so that to make him change the peaceful way of struggle and turn the armed struggle into a bloody war, and on the other hand by some of the revolutionary individuals as well as small guerilla groups who considered his popular movement as a threat. Moreover, by intensifying the suppressions and killing people, the regime sought to bring the Revolution to an armed confrontation thereby justifying the severe oppression and probably massacre of people. Nonetheless, being aware of the ineffectiveness of those tools and means in achieving the Revolution, and knowing the regime’s decision to set the ground for adopting the iron fist policy through driving the Revolution into an armed struggle, Imam Khomeini remained steadfast in his method of struggle.

 

In fact, the main reason that the Revolution tried to avoid using violent methods as much as possible was refraining the leader of the Movement from emphasizing on the use of violence. In this regard, Imam Khomeini did not even agree to terrorist acts limited to the assassination of the individuals. In his memoirs, Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani mentioned that although Imam Khomeini remained silent during the armed struggles, he did not agree to terrorist acts, because he refused to permit assassinating the Shah. 

 

After the incident of Black Friday which aroused the anger of people and thus they expected the changing of fighting policy of the Revolution, Imam Khomeini, during an interview with the Figaro newspaper, in response to the question of whether it is time to change the policy of the struggle against the regime, emphasized on adopting his own strategy regarding the using of armed methods against the regime: “Even after the incident of Friday that left so many people murdered in Tehran, we still kept the same trend of struggle. As the whole world knows, our message did not change by that clash, and this movement is going to keep its usual course. Nevertheless, I have been asked whether it is yet the time to change course and start an armed confrontation...? I have said no. However, today I am asking myself this question—could the bare chest be held before gun barrels forever? So far, in compliance with my guidelines regarding maintaining our peaceful struggle, we have not changed our routines, but I may be forced to do so.”

 

At this time, by emphasizing that if a peaceful policy does not work, he will change it, Imam Khomeini keeps the regime in a state of worry and anxiety about the issuance of the ruling of jihad. In addition, during that time, Imam Khomeini neither officially approved the armed struggle nor publicly denied it. It should be noted that his negative views regarding some groups, were related to the ideology of those armed groups, not the concept of the armed movement and uprising.

 

Reference: Pazhouheshnameh-ye Enqelab-e Eslami [A Quarterly Academic-Research Journal on Islamic Revolution]. Volume 3, NUMBER 10, Spring 2014.

Archive of Imam Khomeini