Gift From Iran

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s move to call the hostage release a “gift” to the British people was nothing less than a “sophisticated piece of political theatre, in which the president turned what had become a diplomatic disaster for Iran into something of a personal victory,” UK daily The Guardian wrote.

But just how effective was the “pardon” in the end?

“Ultimately, the larger issue is the effect of all this on the wider stage,” the paper mused. “Surely the real lesson to draw from yesterday’s theatre is that quiet diplomacy does work and that it can work in the future.”

Summing up, the paper argued: “There is no substitute for direct negotiation, especially with a revolutionary Islamic regime in Iran, for whom the popularly held grievance about past American and British interference in the Gulf is as important as the issue in hand.”

“Iran’s President is the uncrowned king of tragicomic political theater,” agreed the Basler Zeitung of Basel, Switzerland. “The way he announced the freeing of the 15 captive British sailors was as grotesque as it was masterful. … So, did Iran cave in to the angry reactions of the international community? Were they scared of a threatening liberation action by the British and Americans? Not a chance. From outside, at least, it looks like Iran once again played a perfect hand, and made its political point.”

But in Rome, the daily Il Messaggero wondered what London had to agree to in order to negotiation the sailors’ release: “The release of the the British sailors will no doubt relax relations between Britain and Tehran. … We don’t know yet what quid pro quo the government in London accepted, but it is sure that there was one. And it wouldn’t be surprising if there were a prisoner exchange. But that would only happen at such time when London and Washington could claim they are sticking to their stated principle of not accepting a quid pro quo,” the paper wrote.

“In any case, there is no reason to be shocked: There have always been prisoner exchanges, whether of soldiers or of journalists.”

Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant also mulled what, exactly, went on behind the scenes of negotiations.

“In the coming days we will doubtless find out the basics of what went on between London and Tehran when it came to arranging for the release of the British hostages,” de Volkskrant wrote. “But it is already clear that the affair cannot be seen without making a connection to the kidnapping of an Iranian diplomat and the arrest of five Iranian fighters in Iraq. On Tuesday, it was announced that the diplomat will be released, and an Iranian consul can visit the fighters. It is clear that the whole affair was not simply about Iran’s territorial integrity, or of pardons or shows of might. It was an exchange.”

Bulgaria’s Monitor newspaper saw the dealings as a major coup for the UK on the world political stage. “There is no doubt the sailors have perfect British diplomacy to thank” for their release, the paper wrote. “It was no secret that London started backstage negotiations two or three days ago. Clearly, the Brits could give all of humanity a break if they could quickly negotiate between Tehran and Washinton, like they did in the case of the sailors.”

Finally, Austria’s Salzburger Nachrichten said the risk of escalation was too big in the situation -- and everyone involved knew it.

“A new Ahmadinedschad; the heavily embattled Iranian president can celebrate an urgently needed victory. Both sides managed to reach their goals, including the release of Iranian hardliners captured by the British, without any loss of face. UK Premier Tony Blair did not need to apologize for supposed border violations, nor did the regime in Tehran need to tone down its loud threats. For both parties, the risk of escalation appeared too great. It has been a very calming experience for the rest of the world,” the paper wrote.