May 11, 2007

Mr. Peter Duveen
1341 Railroad Avenue
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06605

Dear Peter:

Thank you for contacting me expressing opposition to the United States using military force against Iran. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me, as well as your patience awaiting my reply.

Although I do not support U.S. military action against Iran, it is an option we must consider and a concern Iran needs to have. Given the hard-line rhetoric of Iran's President and mullahs, it seems to me negotiating a solution through diplomacy will be far more difficult if they do not believe their intransigence may be met with serious consequences. The United States must demonstrate that we take very seriously Iran's failure to cooperate with international nuclear regulators and its state support for terrorism.

I support the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group to engage Iran diplomatically. Despite the very serious concerns we have about Iran's state support for terrorism, threatening statements from its President and horrid human rights record, we won't solve anything by refusing to communicate directly with Iran's diplomats.

I am hopeful the ongoing discussions between the Iranians and the United Nations to craft a permanent nuclear agreement will be successful. Such an agreement should involve Iran's permanently suspending its uranium enrichment program in return for international agreements that allow Iran to gain access to research and technology under strict and comprehensive supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Iranians and the international community should also revisit a Russian proposal under which Russia would import nuclear fuel to an Iranian nuclear energy reactor and subsequently remove the spent fuel for storage in Russia.

If an acceptable agreement is not reached, the Security Council should enact comprehensive and multilateral sanctions against Iran.

When Iran will have a nuclear weapon is not the right question. Rather, we need to focus on when Iran will have the indigenous capability to produce nuclear fissile materials. This is the point of no return and should be our benchmark regarding the urgency of addressing Iran's behavior.

It is an undisputed fact Iran is pursuing nuclear capabilities. It is a fact Iran is the world's must egregious exporter of terrorism. The seriousness of these facts was made clear when Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" and when Ayatollah Khamenei in April told another one of the world's worst human rights abusers, Sudan, that Iran would gladly transfer nuclear technology.

On September 28, 2006, I supported H.R. 6198, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which passed the House by voice vote. This legislation, which was signed into law by the President on September 30, codifies current U.S. sanctions, controls, and regulations against Iran into law, and requires the President to report to Congress before they can be lifted. This legislation also strengthens the sanctions of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 and authorizes the President to provide financial and political assistance to eligible foreign and domestic individuals and groups that support democracy in Iran and that are opposed to the Government of Iran.

Military action, while not off the table, must be an absolute last resort. That is why it is so critical our government utilize the tools at our disposal including economic and diplomatic sanctions and the appropriate distribution of foreign aid as suggested in H.R. 6198, to deter the threat Iran poses to global security. It is also appropriate for us impose pressure on the other nations of the world who prop up the Iranian government and the extremists at its helm by investing heavily in that nation.

The bottom line is, in defiance of its assurances to the contrary, Iran remains committed to a nuclear weapons program. The United States must be unequivocal in its rejection of these ambitions.

Please do not hesitate to contact my office again. Because mail is delayed by Anthrax screening, e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and in-person visits are the most effective ways to communicate with my office. I also have a periodic e-newsletter and would be happy to send it to you. To request this e-newsletter, and for other information, please visit my website at www.house.gov/shays.


Christopher Shays
Member of Congress


Christopher Shays
US Representative from Connecticut

April 24 2007

Dear Mr. Shays:

Thank you for replying to my email letter on Iran by your reply of May 11, 2007.

Of course I am very pleased that you wish to engage Iran diplomatically. Military action there would be a disaster, not only for Iran and the region, but also for Americans, who would one again be forced to participate in a belligerant action, create a humanitarian crisis, and have the blood on its hands of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians as it has in Iraq.

The American people voted for change in the last elections. They do not want expensive and bloody wars to be carried out in their name by foreign policy specialists who have lost their love of humanity and think the only legitimate goal of America is to pursue power and money for the few that are crafting our policies.

The Iraq war bas been carried out on the backs of the middle class taxpayer, getting our nation deeper into debt and creating a legacy for America that will be like Germany's and Japan's after World War II.

I am alarmed by today's news that a fleet of Navy ships carrying 17,000 military personnel has just steamed into the Persian Gulf. I am alarmed as well by another news report that President Bush has authorized a new covert action against the Iranian government. This is not a way to forge a constructive peace. Short of Iran attacking us, military action should be OFF the table, and that you would entertain such action for any other reason is, I must say, a very unfortunate development in our congress and in the Bush administration's foreign policy.

Just recently, former President Carter has lambasted the Bush administration for its doctrine of pre-emtive war. This doctrine is not a post 9-11 phenomenon. The changing of the NATO charter to allow its member nations to mount an attack against other nations that have not attacked a NATO nation was already crafted in the 1990s, and led to the NATO bombing of Serbia.

9-11 was merely used as an excuse to expand this doctrine. Lies will no longer cover up for the incredible trail of lies that our foreign policy experts have crafted to justify the barbaric policies that have now been adopted by the Bush administration. People see through it and will vote against it.

I support the candidacy of Ron Paul, a conservative, and a fellow member of the House of Representatives. I hope you listen to what he is saying, and take note. Please support peaceful engagement with Iran, which is not a state supporter of terrorism--another lie concocted by the foreign policy estabishment that is driving destabilization in the Middle East via the Bush administration. Our congress should not be hi-jacked by the shennanagans of the few wealthy in this country that attempt to pull all the strings.

Please engage Iran peacefully and productively.

I look forward to meeting you personally, and working with you on creating a peaceful and productive policy toward Iran and the Middle East.

Kindest regards,

Peter Duveen
1341 Railroad Avenue
Bridgeport CT 06605

P.S. Please respond by email when the occasion arises,
as I am currently traveling abroad.