OBAMA'S "STRONG" POSITION ON HONDURAS.

It's all echoes of 1963 in Honduras, as the coup situation remains tense. Ousted President Manuel Zelaya has made clear his intention to return to the country tomorrow, ignoring the threats of imprisonment made by Roberto Micheletti, the leader of congress-cum-interim president. Meanwhile, the Organization of American States has unanimously decided to suspend Honduras' membership to the group if Zelaya is not reinstated as president within three days.

Some hash has been made over the aggressiveness of Obama administration's response to Zelaya's expulsion by the military. In her defense of the "Honduran patriots" earlier this week, Mary Anastasia O'Grady criticized the U.S. reaction and characterized it as aggressive. (She also repeatedly insinuated that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the same politics as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, which is an intentionally damning parallel when made on the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages.) Meanwhile, Daniel Larison is vexed by the "overreacting international condemnation" of the military overthrow. And at yesterday's White House press briefing, one reporter commented, "On Honduras you've taken a very strong position. On Iran you took a very weak position."

Frankly, I'm just not getting how the U.S. approach to Honduras' turmoil could be described as forceful. If anything, the administration seems to be acting with much of the same restraint demonstrated through Iran's unrest.

Obama followed the lead of other American nations, condemning the move only after it had already been insinuated that the U.S. may have actually helped the military overthrow Zelaya. It wasn't until Monday -- a full day after Zelaya had been shipped off to Costa Rica -- that Obama even used the word "coup." The State Department still hasn't settled on use of that term. The U.S. is the only country in the region that has not withdrawn its ambassador from Honduras, and it is still providing the country monetary aid. The administration also seems content to work with international bodies and allow them to apply the most pressure, rather than overtly insert itself into Honduran affairs -- a smart call, given our less than stellar track record when it comes to influencing these sorts of Latin American politics.

I can understand how some would bristle at any support of Zelaya. There's little question that his maneuvering for another term was unconstitutional. But overthrowing him was illegal, too. Just because you may not agree with the government's stance on the coup doesn't mean the stance itself is particularly hard line.

--Alexandra Gutierrez