Key players in Congress -– Republicans and Democrats -- are skeptical of the Iran deal and want to see the fine print. 
 
 No one is ruling out a big push ahead on new Iran sanctions, or a measure to require President Obama to get congressional approval, two pieces of legislation the White House strongly opposes. 
 
 Iran Nuclear Deal: Tentative Agreement Reached 
 
 Iran Nuclear Negotiations - Your Questions Answered 
 
 Why Some Think 47 GOP Senators Broke the Law With Iran Letter 
 
 But there appears to be a willingness to hear the administration out in promised briefings on the framework when lawmakers return to Washington on April 13. 
 
 An aide to House Speaker John Boehner tells ABC News that the approach in the House is not a “wait-and-see until June 30th” posture, but that Republicans want the briefings, a chance to review the details and discuss possible next steps with members. 
 
 Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said today “it is important that we wait to see the specific details of today’s announcement” and that everyone “must remain clear-eyed.” He vowed an April 14 committee vote on a bill to require congressional review of a nuclear deal, but there is no plan yet to bring it up for a vote in the full chamber. (Corker has said he’d like to have a veto-proof majority before the bill is voted on by the full Senate.) 
 
 “We’ll know more in the days ahead, after April 14,” an aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told ABC News. 
 
 Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he was surprised so many details were revealed in the framework and said that Congress should “be careful not to scuttle the opportunity for a diplomatic resolution. 
 
 “I think there is sufficient detail that has been arrived at these negotiations that Congress needs to be careful not to scuttle the opportunity for a diplomatic resolution,” Schiff said in an interview. “The last thing we want is for the international community to think that we came this close to a negotiated end to Iran’s nuclear program and the United States Congress got in the way.” 
 
 Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, the author of the controversial open letter to Iran's leaders signed by 47 Republican senators, called the interim deal a "list of very dangerous U.S. concessions that will put Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon." 
 
 “I plan to work with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have already expressed disquiet about terms such as these, to stop this deal from going forward, to keep America safe, and to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East,” he added. 
 
 Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, who is likely weeks away from announcing a presidential bid, tweeted his skepticism of the deal, but said he is awaiting more information. 
 
 Awaiting more details on #Iran deal but early reports indicate this is Obama admin spinning diplomatic failure. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) April 2, 2015 
 
 The White House fired another warning shot this afternoon reiterating veto threats for any legislation that “undercuts our ability to get the deal done.” 
 
 “We think it’s best for members of Congress to take a look at the framework and then give the space to look at final details between now and June,” said deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes. 
 
 Congress needs to “wait and see what the deal is, and then we can determine the best way to support Congress playing an oversight role,” he said. ||||| WASHINGTON — Leading lawmakers from both parties in Congress responded cautiously on Thursday to the tentative framework for a nuclear deal between Western powers and Iran, demanding to review any final agreement but pointedly refraining from a vow to kill the accord. 
 
 Congress could still scuttle a deal if lawmakers move forward with tough new sanctions on Iran just as economic and nuclear penalties are supposed to be lifted. And Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the panel would continue with plans to formally draft bipartisan legislation on April 14 insisting on congressional examination of any agreement. 
 
 The committee’s leadership was looking for ways to shape a bill that would gain broad approval in both parties. 
 
 “We want the right to go through the details of the deal and to decide whether we believe congressionally mandated sanctions should be alleviated,” Mr. Corker said in an interview. 
 
 That sentiment was bipartisan. 
 
 Photo 
 
 “If Congress appears to be bypassed, that’s not good for the national debate and national unity as we move forward with Iran,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee. 
 
 President Obama made a pointed appeal to Congress to let diplomacy work, even as he promised consultation. 
 
 “If Congress kills this deal — not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative — then it’s the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy,” he said at the White House. “International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen.” 
 
 But a senior administration official hinted at compromise, at least on the review legislation. He reiterated the president’s promise to veto legislation imposing new sanctions on Iran, but said that a previous veto threat on the congressional review bill applied only to the measure as it was originally drafted. 
 
 Continue reading the main story Video 
 
 The jousting is likely to continue for months, and pressure could mount on Republican leaders to toughen their stand. Negotiators must turn a framework into a detailed agreement by this summer, and legal sanctions imposed by the United States will not have to be lifted anytime soon, possibly not for years. The agreement is not likely to require action from Congress until the next presidential administration. 
 
 But beyond the leadership suites, a more hard-edge response came quickly. 
 
 “The Obama administration’s efforts to get a deal at any cost will have a greater cost than the world can bear,” said Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. “If this deal moves forward, the consequences for the U.S. and our allies in the region will be dire.” 
 
 Some Democrats hailed it. “We’ve set the stage for a paradigm shift in the country and in the region,” said Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon. 
 
 But other Democrats tried to find a middle ground between embracing the accord and undermining it. Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said that he wanted unanimity around Congress’s request for review, and that aspects of the legislation would have to be toned down. 
 
 The bill demands that the administration submit the full text of any agreement to Congress, including classified annexes. It would prohibit the removal of any congressional sanctions for 60 days after a final accord, and would require the president to certify Iranian compliance every 90 days. Without that certification, it mandates a quick return of sanctions. 
 
 The original version was written by Mr. Corker and Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, a hard-liner on the Iran talks. But Mr. Menendez’s indictment Wednesday on corruption charges, and his decision to step down from the top Democratic spot on the Foreign Relations Committee, elevated the more diplomatic voice of Mr. Cardin. 
 
 “The more unity we can have among Democrats and the White House, the stronger U.S. foreign policy will be,” Mr. Cardin said. 
 
 In general, the most senior Republicans, while cool to the deal, spoke in measured tones. “In the weeks ahead, Republicans and Democrats in Congress will continue to press this administration on the details of these parameters and the tough questions that remain unanswered,” said the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio. “We will stand strong on behalf of the American people and everyone in the Middle East who values freedom, security and peace.” 
 
 The biggest question is not about the congressional review legislation but about whether Republican leaders will try to resurrect House and Senate measures that would impose tough new sanctions on Iran. Both versions have had broad bipartisan support, but their passage could imperil a final deal. 
 
 “There will be a move to apply new sanctions or deprive the president of the ability to waive existing sanctions,” said Representative Brad Sherman, Democrat of California and a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. While that inclination is present in both chambers and in both parties, he said, “the tendency will be to vote for or against the president based on party.” 
 
 Mr. Obama, announcing the tentative accord in the White House Rose Garden, said the issues at stake were “bigger than politics.” 
 
 “These are matters of war and peace, and they should be evaluated based on the facts and what is ultimately best for the American people and for our national security,” he said. 
 
 But lawmakers in both parties asked pointed questions about the framework presented. Mr. Corker said that he believed sanctions would be lifted too quickly, and that he wanted to better understand what would happen to Iran’s fissile nuclear materials. Mr. Engel was pleased that Iran’s array of centrifuges would be reduced by two-thirds, and that inspections of uranium mining and milling would last 25 years. 
 
 “But tell me why Fordo remains open,” he said, referring to Iran’s underground enrichment site. “Why not just destroy it?” ||||| Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump plans to "decertify" the Iran nuclear deal next week, declaring the Obama-era pact not in US interests and launching a congressional review period on the accord, according to two senior US officials. 
 
 Trump is tentatively scheduled to unveil his plan during remarks a week from Thursday, though one official cautioned the timing could shift. 
 
 Trump said Thursday that Iran has not "lived up" to the spirit of the deal. 
 
 Speaking ahead of a dinner with military officers, Trump said it was imperative Iran not obtain nuclear weapons. 
 
 Trump said Tehran was a supporter of terror and violence, and indicated the deal would be a topic of discussion among the military leaders. 
 
 "You'll be hearing about Iran very shortly," he said. 
 
 The decision, which was first reported by The Washington Free Beacon and The Washington Post , stops short of completely scrapping the Iran deal, which Trump railed against on the campaign trail. 
 
 By decertifying the deal, Trump would kick the matter to Congress, which would then have 60 days to determine a path forward. 
 
 White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday the President had made a decision on the agreement and would announce it "soon." 
 
 "The President's team has presented a united strategy that the national security team all stands behind and supports," she said. 
 
 Trump will spell out a broader strategy for confronting Iran, including its ballistic missile program and support for terror networks in the Middle East, as he unveils his decision on the Iran deal, according to one senior US official. The official didn't specify what precise steps he may take. 
 
 Under the new Iran strategy the current deal will stay in place, with efforts being made within the framework of the existing agreement to try and strengthen inspections and plan for what happens when it expires, a senior US official told CNN on Thursday. 
 
 But a senior Democratic aide told CNN on Thursday that lawmakers on the other side of the aisle "believe the President should make the certification, full stop." 
 
 "We are not participating in preemptive negotiations, with no text, based on the assumption that the President is not going to make the certification," the aide said. "The maximum point of leverage to address Iran's nefarious activities is now, before his expected terrible decision -- not after, when he undermines America's credibility to uphold its commitments with our allies and partners." 
 
 How will European nations react? 
 
 European diplomats, anticipating Trump's move, have already been meeting with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to take lawmakers' temperature and lobby them on the merits of the agreement. 
 
 They're seeing little appetite to reopen the deal, but say that some in Congress worry that hawkish Republicans may introduce legislation to force the issue. 
 
 The message these diplomats have gotten from administration officials is that they were "looking for a middle way" and didn't want to "kill the deal," one envoy said. Amending the US law provided a way out, but the envoy said there is little appetite in Congress for the hot potato Trump had handed them. 
 
 Once Trump decertifies the pact, Congress has 60 days to re-impose sanctions, but that is something only the majority and minority party leaders can initiate. 
 
 Democrats back the deal and even the few who voted against it, including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, have now said they will support it, the envoy said. 
 
 What's in the Iran nuclear deal? Stockpiles & centrifuges: The deal has curbed Iran's nuclear program, reducing its stockpiles of enriched uranium by 97 percent and cutting the number of its centrifuges by two-thirds. Uranium enrichment: It still allows Iran to continue enrichment -- enough for civil use to power parts of the country, but not enough to build a nuclear bomb. Inspections: Iran is required to provide inspectors from the UN's nuclear watchdog access to monitor its declared nuclear facilities. Compliance: Every 90 days, the US President must certify to Congress that Iran is keeping up its end of the deal. If the President does not certify the agreement, Congress has a statutory 60-day period to decide whether to reimpose sanctions. Sanctions: If Iran doesn't comply, US, European Union, and UN nuclear-related sanctions on the Iranian economy would be reinstated. A number of non-nuclear-related sanctions currently remain in place. Sources: White House, State Department, Congress, CNN 
 
 And most Republicans aren't interested in re-opening the Iran debate either, the envoy said. "The majority of the GOP aren't excited about this," the envoy said, comparing GOP attitudes toward the pact to the unwanted card in the game Old Maid, which players try to get rid of as quickly as possible. 
 
 Conveying what Republicans are saying, the envoy said, "they want to avoid a crisis and they don't want to kill the agreement" and be saddled with the blame for that. 
 
 European diplomats are seeing no appetite in the GOP leadership for a fight to reopen the Iran deal, either. Referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the envoy said they "aren't going to do anything dangerous." 
 
 The wild card, the envoy said, is whether hawkish Republicans, such as Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, or Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, will introduce legislation on Iran to force the issue, "and whether McConnell will be in a position to derail" them. 
 
 Last month, foreign ministers representing countries that are party to the deal -- Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and Iran -- argued that the agreement was designed to address issues solely related to Iran's nuclear program, according to several diplomats who attended the meeting that took place on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. 
 
 By all accounts -- even that of the United States -- Iran had lived up to its commitments under the agreement, and European leaders signaled they were not interested in expanding the scope of its implementation, they said. 
 
 "Not certifying would pass the decision on the JCPOA over to Congress, with the risk that they decide to re-impose nuclear sanctions leading to US abrogation of the JCPOA," one European diplomat told CNN on Thursday. 
 
 "If not certifying is part of a larger plan with Congress to stay within the deal, this would not be a direct breach. However, all the evidence to date is that Iran is in compliance with the terms of the JCPOA," the diplomat added. 
 
 "The JCPOA is a hard-fought international agreement that is vital to our security and that of our allies; our priority is working with the deal and making it deliver for our shared security interests," the diplomat said. 
 
 What will Congress do? 
 
 On Tuesday, CNN reported that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Corker were spearheading efforts to amend US legislation regarding Iran to shift focus away from the nuclear issue -- a move that could allow the US to stay in the multilateral nuclear deal forged in 2015 and also push back against Iran's other destabilizing behavior, officials and diplomats said. 
 
 "Tillerson has said the problem with the JCPOA is not the JCPOA," one senior administration official said, using the acronym for the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 
 
 "It's the legislation," the official said. "Every 90 days the President must certify and its creates a political crisis. If the administration could put the nuclear deal in a corner, everyone could happily get back to work on dealing with everything else that is a problem with Iran." 
 
 Instead of certifying that Iran is meeting its technical commitments under the nuclear deal, the administration would report to Congress regularly about broader aggressive Iranian behavior -- such as support for terrorism and its ballistic missile program -- and what the administration is doing to counter it. 
 
 This approach could allow the US to stay in the deal but help Trump avoid the political headache of having to re-certify it every 90 days. 
 
 It might also keep the Europeans, who want to keep the deal, on board with administration efforts to fight Iran's other destabilizing activities. 
 
 HR McMaster, Trump's national security adviser, invited a small group of Democratic senators to the White House Wednesday to discuss the President's plans on the Iran deal, and hinted that he did not think decertifying is the right way to go, according to two sources familiar with the meeting. 
 
 The sources said the meeting was clearly intended for McMaster to get ideas from key Senate Democrats on how to avoid decertifying the Iran deal, which many in both parties think would destabilize relations with allies and make it harder to confront foes well beyond Iran. 
 
 These sources said McMaster never explicitly said he disagrees with the President, nor that he wants the President to certify that the Iran deal is in America's national interest. But the sources say McMaster repeatedly responded to Democratic Senators entreaties not to decertify Iran and instead look for bipartisan alternatives by saying that he is not the one they have to convince, suggesting they were preaching to the choir. 
 
 McMaster's apparent unease with decertifying the Iran deal puts him on the same side of other top members of the Trump national security team. 
 
 During a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Defense Secretary James Mattis said that he believes it is in the US national security interest to remain in the agreement. 
 
 Sen. Angus King asked Mattis: "Do you believe it is in our national security interest at the present time to remain in the (agreement)? That is a yes or no question." 
 
 Mattis replied, "Yes, senator, I do." 
 
 "The point I would make is if we can confirm that Iran is living by the agreement, if we can determine that this is in our best interests then clearly we should stay with it," Mattis added. "I believe at this point in time absent indications to the contrary, it is something the President should consider staying with." 
 
 But Mattis went on to explain that he also supports a rigorous review of national security issues related to Iran that may fall outside the exact terms of the agreement. 
 
 "The President has to consider more broadly things that rightly fall under his portfolio of looking out for the American people in areas that go beyond the specific letters of the JCPOA -- in that regard I support the rigorous review that he has got going on right now," he said.
– A blueprint outlining the path toward a final deal between Western countries and Iran on its nuclear program was drafted yesterday, and Politico notes "there was much for Obama officials" and their partner countries to "be happy about," such as more centrifuge disassembling than previously anticipated. But there are still tenuous points that need to be fleshed out and an American public that needs convincing, and a congressional committee intends to create a bipartisan bill on April 14 that would demand congressional review of any deal, the New York Times notes. An aide for Speaker John Boehner tells ABC News that "a wait-and-see until June 30" (the deadline for a full agreement) approach isn't in the cards, while Sen. Bob Corker tells the Times "we want the right to go through the details of the deal and to decide whether we believe congressionally mandated sanctions should be alleviated." Keeping the agreement's framework shaky is the lack of detailed schedules and logistics on certain key points, including nuclear R&D and a uranium-reduction program, Politico notes. The bill would insist on a full review of all agreement text, ban the removal of sanctions for 60 days after a final deal is reached, and mandate that the president check up on Iran's compliance every 90 days, the Times notes. But while lawmakers on both sides are touting compromise, there are still the hardballers. "I plan … to stop this deal from going forward," Sen. Tom Cotton, author of the recent open letter to Iran, tells ABC. Meanwhile, Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff says, "The last thing we want is for the international community to think that we came this close to a negotiated end to Iran's nuclear program and the United States Congress got in the way."