I fully supported, and continue to support, Obama’s minimal to nonexistent intervention in the Iranian situation last month. What I cannot fathom is why Obama would now think that intervention on behalf of Zelaya in Honduras is totally appropriate. While non-intervention was definitely the way to go in Iran, that situation involved a group of highly sympathetic protesters who were at least nominally less hostile to the US than the establishment. In Honduras, however, the situation involves intervening on behalf of a highly unsympathetic and unpopular wannabe dictator seeking to follow in the steps of Hugo Chavez, who also happens to be rabidly anti-American. Meanwhile, in intervening, the Administration seems to be following the lead of Chavez. Can someone please explain to me under what rationale intervention was not warranted in Iran but somehow is warranted in Honduras? The partisan explanation, that Obama is in fact secretly a big fan of Chavistas, is an explanation that I have a hard time believing… but right now, it’s the only explanation that seems to fit the facts. I have little doubt that a better explanation exists, but I haven’t heard one even attempted.
So can someone please offer up an explanation that explains this discrepancy without descending into conspiratorial absurdity? Because right now, I’m in Sherlock Holmes territory: “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” I can’t help but think that there’s an explanation that I just haven’t considered yet.