A Man And A Meeting Equals 15 Brits?

News of the release of the 15 kidnapped British soldiers comes with plenty of speculation over the behind-the-scenes work that led up to an exhausted and nervous looking Mah- "I'm in the moud for dodging disaster" Ahmadinejad's (rhymes with "one gal and 14 lads") decision to let them go.

One possibility: The concurrent release of one detained Iranian diplomat and granting of permission for Iran to visit 5 other detainees was ransom enough. No diplomats are citing this as a reason.

Another: Syria found and yanked some magic string. Yes, it's almost impossible to believe that Syria could suddenly be an international player beyond it's noted skill at squashing Lebanon, but for the record Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told a Kuwaiti newspaper his country was serving as a diplomatic go-between in the crisis. Gee, maybe that's why NanFran visit Syria, to help seal this deal of "I've got a bridge for sale" proportions.

Or it could just be that goofy mix of Islam and Stalinism that fuels Ahmadinejad's cells; after all, he said in announcing the release:

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Muhammad) ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people — with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial — forgave those 15."

One catch: Mohammed's birthday was a week ago.

So those are the stated reasons, as far as I can see. A swap, a Syrian, a sacrifice. All hogwash.

More likely: Iran, seeing it was getting absolutely no traction from its action -- no backing off the anti-nuke resolutions, no rallying cries from other Islamic states, no nothing -- and probably receiving details about just how swift and harsh their punishment would be if they screwed this thing up further, looked for the first door they could walk through.

Mohammed and Christ showed them their out, and they took it.

Yes, this debacle showed the weak, chaotic, irresponsible nature of the Iranian regime, but more significantly, it showed the Brits that their military is now officially a joke. As has been pointed out recently, if Argentina attacked the Falklands today, Britain would not be able to assemble a credible military response.

What will the Brits do about this? Blame America, of course. As one commenter (among many) posted on BBC:

... the reason why this has happened because the US allowed access to the Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Iraq since January. As a result we were caught in the crossfire... TYpical our people suffer for Bush's stupidity..

We should be grateful BUSH kept his mouth shut and did not inflame this situation any more than required.

You think that's bad? Try this one from Paul in Manchester, that was actually recommended by three other readers:

I think it proves the Iranians are actually very nice and kind people and no threat to any country at all. Now the US should release the Iranian officials it captured in Iraq 2 weeks ago and has probably been torturing since. Its the US who are the evil war mongerere in the world

Aha! A news flash! Bush Hatred Found To Cause Blindness, IQ Loss!

Today's Must-Read: Steyn On Brit Sailors

Leave it to Mark Steyn to simultaneously take apart a subject so all its moving parts are clear, while blowing it up so its true significance is perceived. Such is the work he's done today on the British-Iranian standoff over the kidnapped Brits.

Lest I keep you from reading the whole thing, here are just a couple highlights:

The British ambassador to the U.N. had wanted the Security Council to pass a resolution ''deploring'' Iran's conduct. But the Russians objected to all this hotheaded inflammatory lingo about ''deploring,'' and so the Security Council instead expressed its ''grave concern'' about the situation. That and $4.95 will get you a decaf latte. Ask the folks in Darfur what they've got to show for years of the U.N.'s "grave concerns" -- heavy on the graves, less so on the concern.

And:

So we live today in a world of one-way sovereignty: American, British and Iraqi forces in Iraq respect the Syrian and Iranian borders; the Syrians and Iranians do not respect the Iraqi border. Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab at a time of war, the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of "international law": If you're in a ''warship,'' you can't wage war. If you're in a ''destroyer,'' don't destroy anything. If you're in a "frigate," you're frigging done for.

There are even better snippets than those, and the sum total is more than the combined snippits. Mark Steyn continues as the benchmark for those of us who can't read news without our fingers aching for a keyboard.

Iran Threatens Death For UK Sailors

An Iranian Web site linked to Mah- I'm in the moud for a bloody confrontation Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "I've got your swabbies and you want 'em bad") has this to say about Iran's intentions regarding its captured UK sailors, according to the Times of London:

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

Not surprising in a paranoid police state, Iran pretty much kills everyone convicted of espionage.

That's nothing more than ante-upping, I hope. We've got 300 or so of theirs; they've got 15 Brits. Sounds like a fair enough trade. Threatening death penalties, as they did when they siezed, then released 8 detained British servicemen in 2004, gives them a bargaining edge ... even if it loses them any remaining credibility as a nation worth dealing with.

The Iranian government keeps demanding respect, like a brat demanding a toy. What do they have to justify respect? Kidnapped US diplomats, attempts to close the Straights of Hormuz, bloody (not in the British slang sense) repression at home, arming terrorists in Iraq and globally, defying the UN on nukes ... and now crossing into Iraqi waters to sieze Brits.

Perhaps they're hoping for some limited military actions against them, in the hopes that an attack will shore up fading domestic support.

Perhaps they're just brats.