We don’t have the means to engage in gunboat diplomacy with Iran, and any special forces operation would be fraught with risks both for the hostages and their rescuers.
The author writes: "Yet the best the UN itself can do is pass a weak-kneed resolution describing its 'grave concern', rather than a tougher one calling upon all nations to 'deplore' Iran’s behaviour..."
Either way, it's just mincing words. There is no substitute for military confrontation with the terrorist powers, however unpleasant and devastating all-out war will be.
Britain and the US have operated on the notion that we can fight a militarily limited and qualified war on "Terror" instead of totally engaging the actual countries that use terrorism/kidnappings as an assymetrical warfare tactic.
We continue to come up against the limits of that strategy.
Yes, it sounds like either a wimpy editor added that, or the headline writer was more gung-ho than the article writer.
The last line:
"For, at some stage, Iran’s lethal contempt for the rule of international law is going to mean war."
seems to back up the headline.
Cheers.