Jumping to conclusions.

Many have noted the apparent disparity between Obama’s muted response to the Iranian protests and his prompt repudiation of Zelaya’s exile from Hondurus.  Indeed, it’s puzzling and not a little troubling that the President is so quick to dismiss the ostensibly lawful actions of a foreign legislature and judiciary as a coup.

However, on reviewing his early statements on Iran, it is difficult to conclude inconsistency.  Though many summarize his stance as an aversion to “meddling”, his exact words are more nuanced: “It’s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling … in Iranian elections.”

He is clearly speaking to appearances in light of our prior involvement in regime change in Iran, and it isn’t a consideration to be taken lightly.   Whether one agrees with his approach, robbing it of an explicitely stated context is grossly disingenuous.

That still leaves open the question of why such a prompt and unequivocal support of the deposed leader, which many take as tacit approval of the man and his goals.  Though a consistent and at least marginally plausible explanation, it seems pat.  I suspect it actually reflects a broader emphasis on consequence over ideology; a politically cheap way of currying favour with larger powers.