U.S. officials step up pressure on Honduras coup leaders

Will leaders of the June coup that ousted Honduras' democratically elected leftist leader finally give in to international pressure and reinstate President Manuel Zelaya? That question took on increased significance this week after word that U.S. Secretary of State had telephoned the head of the interim government, former conservative legislator Roberto Micheletti, and Zelaya, prior to dispatching top officials to try to resolve the crisis. Clinton told Micheletti about "increasing frustration" in the United States and Latin America about the failure of months of negotiations to make any progress in returning Zelaya to power, according to the New York Times. Zelaya was removed from office June 30 by the Honduras military and forced into exile. Coup leaders accused Zelaya of plotting to change the country's constitution to extend his term in office beyond its January expiration, as his outspoken supporter in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, had already accomplished. National elections are scheduled in November. Zelaya secretly returned to Honduras on Sept. 21 and has been living in Brazil's embassy in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, under threat of arrest by coup leaders. The Obama administration condemned the coup in June but has since been accused across Latin America of failing to do enough to return Zelaya to power, the Times said. The interim government has been blamed for refusing to compromise and for repression of the press, human rights activists and supporters Zelaya, who hold daily demonstrations outside the Brazilian embassy, the Times said. But Micheletti has so far adamantly refused to agree to any deal that would return Zelaya to power. A U.S. State Department official told the Times that Clinton pressured Micheletti to resolve the crisis by the November election. “The purpose [of the call] was to remind him there were two pathways to the elections -- one where Honduras goes by itself and the other where it goes with broad support from the international community,” the official said. But the crisis also has led to friction in the U.S. Congress, where Democratic Party leaders have called for more U.S. pressure on the interim government to give up power and Republican Party leaders have demanded U.S. President Barack Obama reverse his condemnation of the coup.

United States shouldn't threaten war unless it means it

Was U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton serious today when she warned Iran that it would not permitted to possess nuclear weapons or even produce nuclear fuel for power plants? Did she really mean to threaten war against the Shiite country that had regarded Washington with emnity since the 1979 revolution that overthrew a U.S.-backed ruler who had imposed a monarchy on Iran? That's certainly what it sounded like Sunday when she told Iran's leaders on NBC's "Meet The Press" television show that the country's efforts to develop nuclear weapons was "futile" and said the United States would not permit Tehran to produce its own nuclear fuel, according to the New York Times. "We’re trying to affect the internal calculus of the Iranian regime,” Clinton said. "What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen.” Well, if something sounds like a threat, looks like a threat and feels like a threat, it's reasonably certain that it's a threat. Is the United States really going to attack Iran, or enlist its allies to, if Tehran continues defying international economic and diplomatic sanctions aimed at bringing an end to its nuclear research? For its part, the rest of the Obama administration immediately began backing away from Clinton's most-threatening comments. Senior officials said Clinton was offering her own opinion but also agreed with her statement that the United States was committed to defending its allies in the region, which presumably include Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq, and Turkey. “You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil, nuclear power,” Clinton said as if speaking to Iran's leaders. “You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control." But what if Iran continues to ignore the international community's demands, what then?