SINCE the moment of Roxana Saberi's release, pundits have been speculating about Iran's motives. Was it a response to Barack Obama's overtures? Did it show up the divisions in the Iranian leadership? Did international pressure do the trick? Michael Ledeen, who was involved in the weapons-for-hostages dealings with Iran under Ronald Reagan, says the answer is simple:

[T]o all those who are looking for subtle reasons for the Saberi release, take it from someone who has been there. Iran collected its ransom. The mullahs aren't subtle, they're mafiosi. We probably won't know for a while what they got, who delivered it, and who worked the deal. But anyone familiar with the workings of the Islamic Republic has to assume that there was a payoff.

I don't know of a single case in which the mullahs released a hostage for any other reason.

That's provocative enough in its own right, but coming from Mr Ledeen it carries other implications. One of Andrew Sullivan's readers picks right up on it:

He is saying—about as close to explicitly as possible—that Reagan gave Iran something in exchange for the release of the American hostages in 1980. Yes, his specific example is from Iran/Contra. But he insists there were no exceptions; Iran never gave up hostages without getting something in return. This is in obvious contrast to the mythology that the right has built up that Iran was afraid of Reagan; it is not inconsistent with speculation of an October Surprise that has been part of conspiracy theories on the left.

Tell us, Mr. Ledeen, what was that something that Reagan gave Iran in 1979/80? 

Of course, there's a reason why they call these things conspiracy theories. Most every investigation of the so-called "October surprise conspiracy" has shown it to be bogus. But since Mr Ledeen takes pleasure in spreading his own crazy theories, feel free to have some fun with this.

(Photo credit: AFP)