Let’s see if you can follow the bouncing diplomatic ball. In order to justify his timid early words regarding the Iranian suppression of liberty, Barack Obama based his argument on how important it is for the United States to not “meddle” in the internal affairs of Iran. But today Obama said that the weekend ouster of Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya was “not legal” and that he remains the country’s president.
In the first instance, Obama was clearly trying to pacify the theocratic leadership of the repressive, terror-sponsoring Iranian regime. In the case of Honduras, Obama is “meddling” in order to protect the legitimacy of an authoritarian president who is acting as if he were above the law, is violating Honduras’s Constitution, and is supported by Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Fidel Castro (see this Wall Street Journal column for more).
As a general matter, I’m not in favor of military coups. On the other hand, I’m not in favor of Zelaya doing to Honduras what Chavez has done in Venezuela. In any event, there doesn’t seem to be any consistency on when Obama decides to meddle, beyond his tendency to take actions that make life easier for those who do not wish America well.
This is all getting rather confusing, isn’t it?