Armed struggle was used for several purposes.
Self-defense against the regime’s security forces
In an offensive format to create and consolidate a progressive underground organization
As a propaganda tool to announce the existence of the organization and recruit from it
As a means to punish the regime for its mistreatment of various segments of society, especially workers
Gaining support in acts of civil disobedience
Creating a popular army to overthrow the regime in a successful revolution
Criticism of the guerrilla approach
Criticism of the guerrilla movement (Tudeh Party and Islamists) has expressed its criticism from various angles.
Criticism from the Tudeh Party, whose main target was the Fedayeen organization. The main point of the Tudeh Party’s criticism was that the Fedayeen’s theories on armed struggle were alien to Marxism-Leninism. The Tudeh Party argued that armed activity in organizational tactics only became important when the objective conditions for revolution had been created. In the party’s view, in the absence of these conditions, armed activity as the Fedayeen planned was wrong.
Another aspect of the criticism of the guerrilla approach came from the Islamists. The cleric-led Islamists who supported Ayatollah Khomeini were hostile to the Marxist guerrillas but initially supported the Muslim guerrillas (the People’s Mojahedin Organization). Relations between the two groups also deteriorated steadily throughout the 1970s. The reasons for this were the Mujahedin’s liberal interpretation of Marxism, its view of revolutionary Islam without regard for clerical leadership, and its emphasis on armed action as the only way to victory.
