State Department spokesman John Kirby responded: “There are no secret agreements between Iran and the IAEA that the P5-1 has not been informed of in detail” and said, “This type of technical agreement with the IAEA is a matter of standard practice, whether it is not published publicly or in other states, but our experts know and know the content. we would like to talk to Congress in a secret setting.  The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation wrote: “The agreement sets out procedural information on how the IAEA will conduct its investigation into the history of Iran`s laminated nuclear program, including the mention of the names of the informants who will be interviewed. Disclosure of this information would compromise these informants and the information it contains.  Mark Hibbs of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Thomas Shea, a former IAEA security officer and former head of defence non-proliferation programs at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, wrote that the accusations of “secret haircut” by opponents of the agreement were an “established controversy.”  Hibbs and Shea wrote: “The IAEA has a security agreement with 180 countries. All have similar information protection provisions. Without this, governments would not open their nuclear programs to multilateral surveillance. On 5 August, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano negotiated the book when he told members of Congress that he could not provide them with the details of the [verification protocol] negotiated by the IAEA with Iran as part of a bilateral “roadmap”.  David Albright, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security and former IAEA nuclear inspector, said calls for more transparency regarding the Iran-IAEA agreement were “not inappropriate” and that “Iran is a great cry for more confidentiality. However, if the IAEA wanted to make it more open, it could do so.  Albright also proposed that the United States “clearly and publicly confirm, and Congress should legislate that if Iran does not address the IAEA`s concerns about the previous military dimensions of its nuclear programs, U.S. sanctions will not be lifted.”  The consequences of withdrawing an agreement and whether renegotiating the agreement is a realistic option are an area of disagreement between supporters and opponents of the JCPOA.  Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, who opposed the agreement, urged the U.S. government to maintain sanctions, strengthen them and “rebuild the hard path of diplomacy, no matter how difficult.”  Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said he thought it was “hyperbole” to say that the agreement was the only alternative to war.
 President Obama, for his part, argued that renegotiating the agreement was unrealistic and said in his speech to American University that “there is a better deal. … Relying on vague promises of hardness” and said: “Those who make this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society or they are not exactly with the American people. … Neither the Iranian government, nor the Iranian opposition, nor the Iranian people would accept what they would consider to be a total surrender of their sovereignty.  Obama also argued, “Those who say we can just walk away from this agreement and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy.” Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, the rejection of Congress would almost certainly lead to the lifting of multilateral sanctions, because “our closest allies in Europe or Asia, let alone China or Russia, will certainly not enforce existing sanctions for five, ten, fifteen more years, according to American diktats.