The Osterley Times: Ahmadinejad plays it like a peach.

He got everything he wanted to say said, he refused to back down over who had violated whose waters, he proved to Bush and Blair that two could play at the kidnap game and then, when he had extracted all that was useful out of the situation, he played his fifteen Aces, laying his cards on the table with a flourish.

He then lined up the arrested 15 sailors and took part in a bizarre photo call, shaking each of their hands individually, smiling and appearing to exchange jokes with each, so that one could be forgiven for thinking they were leaving his house after a raucous weekend of debauchery.

Game, set and match to Ahmadinejad.

Wearing a suit, one of the male captives was heard to say to the Iranian president: "We are very grateful for your forgiveness."

Mr Ahmadinejad responded to him in Farsi: "You are welcome."

Another of the sailors said: "We appreciate it. Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much."

He then sought to portray himself as the very model of magnanimity, whilst stressing the little victories he had managed to take from Blair. For example, Ahmadinejad noted the letter in which Blair had promised that such an incursion would never happen again, whilst simultaneously insisting that this was not the reason that the sailors were being freed.

Of course, this decision was not related to that letter. When we think of Islamic kindness, we are not expecting anything in return.”

He really should have ended with a bow after a performance of that level of theatricality.

The British sailors were even dressed in smart grey suits, which I presume the Iranians must have bought for them, as they were all in uniform when they were arrested; so Iran had even employed a wardrobe department to make sure this PR victory was carried off without a hitch.

What's been fascinating to watch as this crisis has unfolded, has been the reaction of the American right wing. Their disappointment that the British didn't go in all guns blazing has been palpable. In the National Review they couldn't resist comparing the events of the past twelve days to Thatcher's stance over the Falklands, the twenty-fifth anniversary of which was celebrated recently, and of finding Britain's present stance wanting:

In view of Britain’s slavish diplomatic response to Iran’s seizure of 15 of its sailors and Marines, the Falklands debate sounds like a surreal tale of a nation that existed a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Having had great fun for the last two weeks insisting that diplomacy never works, the American right wing will now have to see their false argument through, insisting that this diplomatic success is somehow a failure.

And what has also been astonishing about the way the American right wing have rounded on Blair is that he has, up until now, been one of their champions, one of the few world leaders who "gets it" according to the pro-war Bush crowd. However, because Blair refused to instantly order an invasion a la Thatcher, Britain is deemed by the American right wing to be doomed.

As Diana West put it in The Washington Times:

When a civilization no longer inculcates an overriding attachment to its own survival, well, it no longer survives as a civilization. In peacetime, the disintegration appears more theoretical. In wartime, the holes really begin to show.

When the government of Britain recently responded to a recognized act of war against its military personnel by threatening diplomacy, a kind of emptiness to the whole British enterprise was exposed.

It's extraordinary. Any attempt to come to a diplomatic solution is regarded as anathema to these people. As an expression of the deepest cowardice. They want war, they literally live for war. And their fury is never more apparent than when they are denied a possible war.

And the minute Blair, who has been right at their sides in every single one of Bush's wars, decides to try a diplomatic route; well, Britain "no longer survives as a civilisation".

It's war or extinction. There is no middle way for these bampots.

One would hope the fact that the sailors have been released without an exchange of fire would be seen as a victory for diplomacy, but it won't be. The right wing don't care for diplomacy, which they see as the equivalent of Britain performing oral sex upon Ahmadinejad. They want all nations bowing before their Supreme Leader.

Indeed, US sailors have questioned why the British were even arrested without putting up a fight. As I noted earlier:

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'

As I said at the time:

I'm assuming that as he made these comments Lt-Cdr Erik Horner was in possession of the same facts as the rest of us, and if he was, this would certainly highlight a major difference between the approach of both of these allies.

The 15 British sailors were operating out of two small inflatable motorised dinghy's and were quickly surrounded by half a dozen large Iranian Republican Guard Corps Navy fast-attack speedboats mounted with machine guns. It's as clear a case of outnumbered and outgunned as I can think of, and yet the US Commander is expressing surprise that the British didn't try to shoot their way out of the situation?

Can there be any question that a diplomatic solution was preferable to yet another war in the Middle East? Not to the American right wing, who want to send other people's children to fight at every opportunity. Especially if it's a fight with Iran. Despite the fact that this is yet another fight that they would lose.

But then, the insane American right wing are still unaware that they are losing their war in Iraq, a war that people like Bush and McCain still insist has victory just over the next hill.

Let's be clear. Had Britain gone down the route that the American right wing demanded, there is every chance that these fifteen sailors would be dead, there is absolutely no chance that they would be preparing to fly home.

So Blair has had a victory of sorts, especially if compared to what the American right wing nutters would have preferred as his first course of action.

But there can be no hiding the fact that the victory here is overwhelmingly Ahmadinejad's.

He has remained largely silent for the past twelve days. He started his speech yesterday deliberately leading the audience to believe that he was going to take a hard line approach, and then he delivered an act of magnanimity that was as theatrical a thing as I have ever seen.

Could one even imagine Bush pulling off such a coup de tat? No. He lacks the grace and flexibility to do so with any conviction. He is simply too stubborn.

Ahmadinejad proved that he was the superior politician. He extracted as much as he could from the situation and, the moment he thought he had played it for all it was worth, he ended with a flourish that took all by surprise.

When one thinks of the leaden US foreign policy towards North Korea, Iraq, Iran and others, that level of flexibility is simply unimaginable.

So, Ahmadinejad bows out the game giving the 15 sailors their freedom as "a gift to the British people".

It's hard not to smile at that level of chutzpah. I certainly wouldn't want to play poker with the bugger.