A column by Arthur Silverman on Aug. 17 posed the question whether Rep. Tom Allen succumbed to pressure in regard to his co-sponsorship of H.Con. Res 362, which focuses upon curbing Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.

Rep. Allen withdrew his earlier backing for this resolution because it could be read to authorize a “blockade” of Iran, which would be an act of war. Silverman suggests Rep. Allen bowed to “pressure” from peace advocates and “the far left of the Democratic party.”

I commend Rep. Allen’s reassessment of H.Con. Res. 362. That resolution includes a “demand” that action be taken to impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.” What could such a system of total control imposed upon a recalcitrant nation be called if not a “blockade” and how could it be maintained if not by force or the threat of force?

There has been too much bluster and loose talk about an attack against Iran from Bush-Cheney and their supporters. Tom Allen wisely chose to step back from a resolution that might intensify this momentum toward yet another calamitous war in the Middle East.

I strongly support Tom Allen’s position that puts him in good company with former secretaries of state Madeline Albright, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell who all urge direct U.S. negotiations with Iran, without crippling pre-conditions, as the best way to stem Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

James Matlack, Rockport