Youth view: U.S. actions over Iran are limited

June 26, 2009 07:18 pm

— As protests and violence continue on the streets of Tehran over a recent election, American citizens have plenty of opinions about what the United States should do.
President Barack Obama has been pressured to act ever since Iranian citizens started a protest of a June 12 presidential election. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won that election in a landslide.
But we don’t think there’s much Obama or the United States can do.
Obama did steepen his talk on Tuesday against the Iranian government for imprisoning, beating and firing at protesters. He said “the world was appalled and outraged” by the violence and urged country leaders to allow free speech.
Future U.S. actions seem to depend largely on whether the elections were run badly.
Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad’s challenger, has alleged voter fraud and called himself the true winner of the election. Mousavi has promised to publish election violations at a future time.
But Iran’s ruling clerics have made it clear that there won’t be another election.
If it was a legitimate election — and until proof surfaces otherwise, we have to assume it was — then the United States should respect who won.
In the future, perhaps the United Nations can serve as an election watchdog for worrisome countries such as Iran, which is allegedly pursuing a nuclear program. The U.N. is a good choice to ensure that votes are accurate and fairly counted.
Iran is a volatile nation. When it comes to the threat of nuclear power, the United States should be prepared to intervene. And, when it comes to condemning actions that prevent people from speaking freely, the United States is right to speak.
But we must respect the right of a country to hold its own elections and handle complaints of fraud. Because of that, there is nothing Obama should say.