When we speak of violent struggle, it does not mean that we are denying the right to legitimate self-defense—either for ourselves or others. The right to legitimate self-defense is one of the most basic human rights, recognized in all advanced societies and even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No one should ever be blamed for defending their own life, nor should anyone be asked to sit quietly and file legal complaints while being viciously attacked—especially in a country where the police…
Today, as protests rise across Iran against the Islamic Republic after the killing of Mahsa Amini and decades of oppression, countless Iranian youth—men and women—have taken to the streets. In some cases, they have clashed with security forces and plainclothes militia, sometimes even injuring or overpowering them. Observing such retaliatory acts has prompted some of our friends to warn the public against confronting law enforcement and to frame these acts as “violence,” even going so far as to imply …
The question is: what is the appropriate form of legitimate resistance against the violent and brutal behavior of security forces and plainclothes mercenaries of the Islamic regime?
Some friends cite civil rights leaders who embraced nonviolence—like Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela—and advise protesters to endure the pain and brutality without reacting. But I am not prescribing any specific tactic for confronting the regime’s oppressive forces—I am not on the streets myself. Yet I ask: if I were in the streets of my country and under attack by batons and bullets, would I still argue that defending oneself—even by striking back—was wrong?
In many countries, people carry pepper spray or tasers to defend themselves if attacked and no authorities are present to protect them. So why should we not acknowledge the right to self-defense in a country where the authorities themselves are the aggressors?
If I were in Iran and assaulted by security forces, and had an opportunity to defend myself, I would absolutely take it. I would not allow an attack to go unanswered.
When we speak of violence, we must understand that legitimate self-defense is not the same as aggression. What we are seeing today in Iran’s streets is not violence—it is the people’s basic right to defend themselves. I am surprised that some friends mislabel such acts and advise against resistance, confusing defense with violence.
Interestingly, those who oppose such responses often quote Gandhi, MLK, or Mandela—without acknowledging that none of them ever condemned legitimate self-defense. In fact, the African National Congress, under Mandela’s leadership, endorsed armed resistance when necessary. Mandela was arrested and tried for organizing an armed movement, and even in negotiations with the apartheid regime, he never disavowed it.
In my own visit to South Africa, I went to the Liliesleaf Farm where Mandela and other leaders of the ANC hid and were arrested. Documents seized there were used as evidence of armed resistance in court. The leaders defended themselves and their methods proudly.
At the entrance, a quote from Chief Albert Luthuli, Nobel Peace Prize winner and ANC president, reads:
“No one has the right to condemn brave people who, in pursuit of justice, resort to violence or organize themselves to establish peace and racial harmony.”
This statement was part of the 1964 trial defense that led to Mandela and other ANC leaders’ sentencing.
So when we speak of violence or nonviolence, we must define our terms clearly. Shouldn’t we distinguish between oppressive aggression and legitimate self-defense in the face of it?
We, especially outside Iran, should not dictate people’s responses on the ground. But we can ask: what would we do if we were in their place? And if we cite other historical struggles, we must convey those experiences accurately.
If I were in Iran and assaulted, I would defend myself—not with guns or war, but with any appropriate means within my reach.
We all wish for the Islamic Republic to stop its brutal repression and respond to the people’s demands. We hope for change with the least cost possible. But the regime has shown over four decades that it won’t respond to peaceful protest—it meets it with bloodshed. Therefore, it is the people who must decide how to defend themselves and pursue justice.
We outside the country must support their right to self-defense and never condemn it.
Reza Fani Yazdi
September 22, 2022