Simay Azadi English

Author name: Editorial Documentary Desk

News

Who was Iran’s Dictator Ali Khamenei?

/

Simay Azadi April 2026 – April 8, marked the 40th day since the death of Ali Khamenei, the Iranian regime’s supreme leader. Khamenei’s final days were defined by the January 2026 uprising, where his final act of domestic policy was the “black bag” strategy—broadcasting images of dead protesters in industrial bags to terrorize the public. It was the closing chapter for a leader whose transition from a minor cleric to a multi-billionaire dictator left Iran on the brink of ruin.  Roots and the “Superficial” Scholar  Born in Mashhad on April 19, 1939, Khamenei was the son of Javad Khamenei, a cleric born in Najaf, Iraq. His education began in traditional Maktab-khanehs and progressed through various seminaries in Mashhad and Qom. However, his religious credentials were long disputed; his brother-in-law, Sheikh Ali Tehrani, described his studies in Qom as “superficial and unfocused,” noting that he spent only four years in serious study and lacked the focus required for high-level jurisprudence.  His political activities occurred at age 23, not through a pursuit of democracy, but in opposition to the Shah’s “White Revolution.” Alongside Khomeini, Khamenei opposed land reforms and women’s suffrage, viewing these changes as a threat to the feudal class interests of the mullahs. During the Shah’s reign, he was arrested six times, with his longest stint being an eight-month imprisonment in 1975.  The Path to Absolute Power  Following the 1979 Revolution, Khamenei moved rapidly through the regime’s hierarchy, serving as a representative to the Defense Ministry, the Imam of Friday Prayers in Tehran, and eventually President from 1981 to 1989.  His path to the Supreme Leadership was somehow cleared by the 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners. Hussein-Ali Montazeri, the designated successor to Khomeini, was ousted and placed under house arrest after protesting the execution . Following Khomeini’s death in 1989, Khamenei was elevated to Supreme Leader with the help of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, despite lacking the constitutional requirement of being a high-ranking mujtahid (jurist). At the time, Khamenei himself admitted his own inadequacy, stating, “We should weep tears of blood for the nation for which even the possibility of someone like me becoming the leader is proposed.”  As the Iranian regime marks 40 days since Khamenei’s death, it is worth remembering his own words before taking power in 1989: “One should weep tears of blood to even consider me for leadership.”Tens of thousands of killings and executions later, he was proven right.#IranWar pic.twitter.com/y6eyU9Rt2F — Ehsan Eghbal Eslami (@Ehsaneghbale) April 9, 2026 A Governance of Blood: Domestic and Foreign Terror  Khamenei’s 37-year reign as Supreme Leader was marked by the systematic elimination of dissent:  The $200 Billion Shadow Empire  While a 2018 Gallup poll ranked him as the world leader least attentive to his people’s welfare, Khamenei amassed a fortune estimated by the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and reported by Reuters at $200 billion. This wealth was managed through the “Setad” (Execution of Imam Khomeini’s Order) and various foundations like Bonyad Mostazafan and Astan Quds Razavi, which own thousands of companies in shipping, dairy, and oil.  His personal life stood in stark contrast to his public image of a “pious ascetic”:  The Cost of “Strategic Depth”  Khamenei’s foreign policy funneled the nation’s wealth into regional chaos:  The Final Failure  The regime’s supreme leader consistently preached a doctrine of “No war, no negotiation.” Yet, his strategic blindness led to both. By early 2026, his provocations resulted in the direct military confrontation that claimed his life. He died leaving behind an Iran scarred by 47 years of clerical rule—a period that began with a “superficial student” and ended with a billionaire dictator whose final legacy was the “black bags” of his own citizens.  In 2018, Ali Khamenei, as the Iranian regime’s supreme leader, said: “There will be no war, and we will not negotiate.”Eight years later, after major changes in Iran and across the region, negotiations have taken place, war has broken out, and he himself has been killed. https://t.co/Q8KEjdP64h pic.twitter.com/qBXUJlmfMd — Ehsan Eghbal Eslami (@Ehsaneghbale) March 29, 2026

News, Special Production

Who is Mojtaba Khamenei? Iran’s New Supreme Leader  

/

The Life, Crimes, and Dynastic Rise of Mojtaba Khamenei  March 8, 2026 — On March 8, the Iranian regime’s Assembly of Experts officially chose Mojtaba Khamenei to succeed his father as Supreme Leader. While the state presents him as a man of faith, investigative dossiers reveal a “corrupted prince” who has spent decades commanding paramilitary death squads and amassing a private fortune through the systematic pillaging of Iran’s oil wealth.  I. The Indoctrination of a Successor  Born on September 8, 1969, in Mashhad, Mojtaba was groomed within the regime’s most elite and controversial circles.  II. The “Commander of the Coup” (2005–2009)  Mojtaba’s rise to power is inseparable from the subversion of Iran’s elections and the blood spilled on Tehran’s streets.  III. Regional Ambitions: The “Iraq Iftar”  Mojtaba has long acted as a shadow diplomat, directing regional instability alongside the late Qasem Soleimani then commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force.  IV. The Global Property Empire: The Bloomberg Investigation  A recent landmark investigation by Bloomberg has exposed how Mojtaba used a network of shell companies and loyal oligarchs to shield a massive international real estate portfolio from the Iranian public.  V. Financial Crimes & The 1.6 Billion Euro Embezzlement  Mojtaba’s name is synonymous with the pillaging of the public treasury (Beit-al-Mal).  Conclusion: A Legacy of Repression  By elevating Mojtaba Khamenei on March 8, the Assembly of Experts has once again showed that the regime lacks any pretense of religious or popular legitimacy. Mojtaba takes the throne as a leader who is already reviled for:  His reign begins with a nation united by a single, decades-old slogan: “Mojtaba bemiri, Rahbari ro nabini” (Mojtaba, may you die and never see the Leadership). The “Shadow Prince” has become the Sultan, but he inherits a country that has already rejected his family’s right to rule, as it rejected the rule of the Shah and his son.  

News

Iran-Iraq War Part 1: The Role of the Iranian Resistance (NLA)

/

July 24-25 marks the beginning of the National Liberation Army (NLA) “Eternal Light” operation. The NLA played a key role in forcing the Iranian regime to accept ceasefire. This study examines the critical factors that led to Ruhollah Khomeini’s acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 598 on July 18, 1988, effectively ending the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. Contrary to the official state narrative, the decision was not a voluntary move towards peace but a forced concession driven by several important issues, including the military successes of the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) and the political campaign of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), in addition to a mounting internal and international pressure on the regime. This study consolidates evidence, including admissions from high-ranking regime officials, to demonstrate that the Resistance’s actions were the decisive factor in compelling Khomeini to end a conflict he had vowed to continue indefinitely. 1. The Stated Policy: War Without End From the outset, Khomeini framed the war as an existential and expansionist crusade. His public stance was one of absolute intransigence, famously declaring, “Even if this war lasts 20 years, we will stand firm.” This policy was ideologically driven by the slogan “The path to Jerusalem passes through Karbala,” which positioned the war with Iraq as a necessary step for exporting his reactionary ideology throughout the region. The regime’s leadership was unified in this goal. As the regime’s former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani later stated in a September 2009 interview, there were three primary objectives: “until an Islamic government is established in Iraq,” “until sedition is eliminated from the world, which the Imam also said,” and “until the aggressor is punished and Iran’s rights are secured.” Rafsanjani confirmed that no faction of the regime “was willing to back down from these three demands.” 2. The Human Cost: A Policy of “Disposable Soldiers” The regime’s commitment to endless war resulted in staggering human and economic costs for Iran: Lacking adequate military training and weapons to fight Iraq, a cornerstone of the regime’s military strategy was the systematic use of child soldiers. This practice was justified by a fatwa from Khomeini, which stated: “As long as the fronts need forces, going to the front is obligatory, and parental permission is not a condition.” The regime’s Ettela’at newspaper on May 1, 1982, published a chilling account of these children being used to clear minefields, describing how they would “wrap themselves in blankets and roll over the mines, so that the pieces and fragments… would not be scattered so far that they could not be gathered.” The scale of this crime prompted NCRI Chairman Masoud Rajavi to send a formal message to UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar on December 1, 1985, warning of the “great danger threatening the lives of more than 10 million Iranian schoolchildren” and labeling it one of the “greatest and most bitter crimes against humanity.” 3. The Alternative Path: The Resistance’s Campaign for Peace While Khomeini pursued war, the Iranian Resistance advocated for peace. After initially defending Iran’s borders against the 1980 invasion, the PMOI/MEK announced that there is no point in continuing the war following the Iraqi arm’s withdrawal from most Iranian territory in June 1982. At that time, Iraqis withdrew from the port city of Khorramshahr, and signaled readiness for a ceasefire. From that point, the Resistance deemed the war “anti-patriotic” and launched a multifaceted peace campaign under the slogan “Peace and Freedom.” This initiative was unique. Ali Shamkhani, the regime’s former Minister of Defense, admitted on September 26, 2005:“No one, absolutely no one, other than the Mojahedin, exists inside the country who, after Khorramshahr, issued a statement… that the war must end… There is no document showing that any other political group demanded the situation that they claim today.” The NCRI’s diplomatic efforts led to a peace declaration with Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister in December 1982 and a formal peace plan in February 1983, which Iraq accepted as a basis for negotiations. These actions politically shattered Khomeini’s pretext for continuing the war. 4. A Decisive Iranian Factor: The National Liberation Army (NLA) With all diplomatic paths blocked by Khomeini, the conflict was ultimately decided on the battlefield. Between 1987 and 1988, the NLA launched one hundred military operations. The campaign culminated in June 1988 with Operation Chelcheragh, which resulted in the capture of the strategic city of Mehran, western Iran. This operation was a catastrophic military defeat for the regime. The NLA seized over $2 billion in weapons and equipment from two elite divisions: the 16th Armored Division of Qazvin and the 11th Anti-Amir al-Momenin Division. The victory gave rise to the slogan “Today Mehran, Tomorrow Tehran,” which, according to Khomeini’s own inner circle, became his ultimate “nightmare.” The prospect of the NLA advancing on the capital created a new balance of power. 5. The Collapse: Khomeini’s “Poison Chalice” Less than a month after the fall of Mehran, on July 18, 1988, Khomeini accepted UN Security Council Resolution 598. He described the act as drinking a “chalice more bitter than poison” and admitted that he “did not deem it expedient to publicly state the reason.” His son, Ahmad Khomeini, later described his father’s anguish: “The Imam repeatedly struck his fist on his thigh, crying out in pain… After accepting Resolution 598, for several days, the Imam could not walk properly.” High-ranking officials, including then-Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati and then-IRGC commander Mohsen Rezaei, later confirmed that the primary reason for accepting the ceasefire was the military threat posed by the PMOI after the capture of Mehran. Conclusion:The evidence demonstrates that Khomeini’s decision to end the Iran-Iraq War was not a strategic choice for peace but a forced capitulation. Faced with a collapsing military front, a viable political alternative championing peace, and the decisive victories of the National Liberation Army, his regime was left with no other option for its survival.

News

Iran: Horrific Torture in the Shah’s SAVAK Prisons – Testimony of Majid Moini

/

Introduction Was Iran a better place under the Shah’s regime? Did Shah and his notorious SAVAK avoid torture?  Simay-e Azadi presents an exclusive interview with a man whose body is a living testament to that era’s cruelty: Majid Moini. A member of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), known to his comrades as “Agha,” he is a hero who endured the infamous tortures of the Shah’s secret police, SAVAK. His harrowing testimony shatters these revisionist claims, revealing not only the depths of SAVAK’s brutality against those asking for freedom but also exposing a fundamental truth: All tyrannies use oppression as a tool to stay in power. His account demonstrates how the mullahs’ regime simply continued the Shah’s “unfinished job” to torture and kill freedom-loving Iranians, whose primary target has always been the members and supporters of the PMOI. Majid Moini is a senior member of the PMOI. He was released with the last group of political prisoners on January 20, 1979. Majid Moini, or as his comrades call him “Agha” is known for his heroic resistance under torture in the 1970s.   He was one of PMOI’s candidates for Iran’s first parliamentary elections. Yet, as other candidates, he was eliminated due to Ruholla Khomieni (regime’s founder) engineering the election result, preventing even one PMOI member to enter the parliament.  In his own words, Majid Moini takes us inside the torture chambers of Evin Prison, recounting a story of unimaginable pain and unbreakable defiance. Majid Moini: The comrades I was imprisoned with used to share stories. I witnessed many too. They said prisoners, after being tortured, were carried away in blankets. Now, what was the reason for the blanket? I experienced it myself in Evin Prison, a facility notorious for its brutality. When they beat us until we were completely broken, we no longer had the strength to walk on our own feet. You truly couldn’t move. The blanket was a crude tool used by the guards to transport prisoners who could no longer walk. I was under interrogation myself and in a terrible condition. When I couldn’t walk anymore they would transfer me using a blanket. Because after being whipped with cables, one cannot feel their feet—sometimes you could crawl, but the torturer was in a hurry, he would throw you in a blanket. One person would grab two corners at the head, and another would grab the other two. They would lift you like a sack, carry you to the cell, and just dump you out, as if they were unloading cargo. A 1980 interview from a SAVAK torture cell. @Mojahedineng's member Majid Moini (Agha),known for his heroic resistance under torture, details the horrors he faced under the Shah's regime. This proves that the Shah's cruelty and the mullahs' oppression are flip sides of the same… pic.twitter.com/tezcJZhcUO — SIMAY AZADI TV (@en_simayazadi) July 13, 2025 One day, when we were all broken and battered, our feet were mangled. They would whip us with kābel—electrical cables of different sizes, each causing a different kind of pain. One type would just burn you. Another, when it struck the sole of your foot, would send a shooting pain all the way to your brain. After our feet were wounded, a guard would come and call out, “Dressing!” Then the prisoners who needed their wounds treated—from cell five, cell seven, cell twelve—would be brought out. They would line us up and take us to a room where there was a butcher they called a “doctor.” He would tend to our shredded feet, our torn-off nails, and our broken toes. One day, in that line, I was there, and so was Kazem Zol-Anvar, a fellow PMOI commander. He was in the same condition. I saw him from under my blindfold—sometimes we just threw our jackets over our heads. I could see that his legs were bandaged all the way up. It pains me so much whenever I remember him. Kazem already had a metal plate in one of his legs, so the torture was especially agonizing for him. Kazem realized where I was. He made his way through the line, recognizing my voice. He came over and put his hand on me. He told me how they were torturing him, so that he would give up on his ideals. But he said he chose to resist. This was a strategic act common among resistance members. The very act of passing this message was a form of communication, a lifeline. This story shows that if these men had wanted to surrender, they wouldn’t have needed to endure such a fate. As Commander Kazem used to say, even in the cell, under interrogation, they communicated through Morse code. Through any means necessary, they had to maintain contact. As time went on, the point I want to emphasize is this: in the heart of that darkness, communication, somehow, had to be maintained. It was an act of ultimate defiance.

Scroll to Top