It was the right thing to co-sponsor a House resolution against Iran.

Many Americans overwhelmingly consider Iran the world’s principal supporter of terrorism and principal threat to peace and the vital security interests of the United States and the Western world.

Unless stopped, Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. On July 26, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated the country, with 6,000 uranium enriching centrifuges, plans to move toward large-scale enrichment through the use of 54,000 centrifuges! Iran already has demonstrated capability to deliver such weapons to targets in Europe, Africa, and, of course, the Middle East.

This summer, 60 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives co-sponsored a non-binding resolution imploring the president to strongly lead an international effort to increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to suspend nuclear enrichment. The steps urged are:

• Prohibition of the export of refined petroleum products to Iran. (With vast deposits of crude oil, Iran is highly dependent on imported refined products);

• Imposition of “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes [etc.]…entering or departing Iran;”

• And a prohibition on “the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”

But most important, the resolution states “nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.”

Rep. Tom Allen was an early co-sponsor of this resolution. Then, in a surprise about-face that received little press coverage in Maine, he withdrew his co-sponsorship on July 23.

Allen then issued a statement saying “there is language in this resolution that may imply Congressional approval of a blockade of Iran,” and “I do not support the idea of a blockade.”

There must be more to the story. Nowhere does the resolution mention “blockade.” Blockades are acts of war, but the resolution is explicit: “Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force.” The resolution urges international efforts regarding “economic, political and diplomatic pressure.”

“Military” is absent. Blockade? It is a red herring.

Allen must know what the resolution says and does not say. In light of the prohibition against the use of force and the limitation to “economic, political and diplomatic pressure,” where is the “implication” of “Congressional approval of a blockade of Iran?” It simply does not exist.

What is really going on? Why did Tom Allen withdraw the support he had originally given?

Perhaps it was concern about whether he would continue to receive strong, national financial support from the far left of the Democratic party to unseat Sen. Susan Collins, who, with Sen. Olympia Snowe, has been a co-sponsor of a similar resolution in the U.S. Senate.

It is well known that prior to Allen’s withdrawal of support, activist peace and other political groups in the United States mounted – and continue to maintain – strong attacks against the resolution.

Among these groups, which have reportedly sent “tens of thousands of messages asking lawmakers to oppose the legislation,” are Peace Action, United For Peace and Justice, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Code Pink, Just Foreign Policy, Madison Institute for Peace and Progressivism, J Street, Voters for Peace, AfterDowningStreet and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran.

Did Allen succumb to pressure?

In his statement withdrawing support, Allen said “sanctions should be part of that strategy” of “dismantling” Iran’s “nuclear weapons program.” Allen says he wants “tough diplomatic talks.”

What can be “tough” about toothless words backed with nothing? Lip service to sanctions is meaningless without significant “economic, political and diplomatic pressure,” which is all the resolution states or implies.

Allen knew what was right in originally co-sponsoring the resolution. In so doing, he joined Rep. Mike Michaud and more than 100 other House Democrats. Michaud has remained steadfast in his support. Thereafter, however, Allen possibly caved to pressure that might have affected his campaign funding.

If so, this questions whether he’s the steady and principled person who should represent Maine in the Senate.

Arthur C. Silverman, an attorney, is a partner in the New York firm of Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner. He is a 1956 graduate of Lewiston High School and lives in South Casco.

Editor’s Note: According to Federal Election Commission records, Silverman has donated $2,300 to the re-election campaign of Sen. Susan Collins.