Last week, a group of Senate Republicans introduced a resolution laying down their stringent expectations for a nuclear deal with Iran. One of those conditions was a so-called “123 Agreement” with the United States, after “the complete dismantlement and destruction of [Iran’s] entire nuclear program.”

A source familiar with the state of the talks confirmed to Jewish Insider that a 123 Agreement is a part of the ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations currently being led by U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

Those agreements refer to Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, which lays out conditions for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United States and other countries, and sets out a series of safeguards and procedures such countries must have in place to ensure they do not pursue nuclear weapons. Section 123 does not inherently require a signatory country to forego nuclear enrichment. Twenty-five such agreements are currently in place — but in most cases they pertain to U.S. allies and partners.

Asked about a potential 123 Agreement, a Witkoff spokesperson said, “The sources don’t know what they’re talking about.”

A 123 Agreement was not part of the original 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — such an agreement is only required in cases in which the U.S. is going to be sharing nuclear material or technology with a foreign country, directly or indirectly.

Robert Einhorn, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute specializing in arms control and nonproliferation issues, explained to JI that 123 Agreements are “often a prelude to the building of U.S. reactors and U.S. equipment support for nuclear equipment activities in the cooperating partner.”

A nuclear deal with Iran “does not require a 123 Agreement between the United States and Iran,” Einhorn emphasized. “It’s conceivable that a new nuclear deal with Iran would involve some civil nuclear cooperation. Politically, it would not be very popular.”

He said the 123 Agreement involves some “non-sensitive, from a proliferation point of view, U.S. cooperation with Iran,” such as the U.S. buying some of the highly enriched uranium that Iran has already produced.

Under the original nuclear deal, Russia continued to build nuclear power reactors in Iran and China was expected to convert a reactor to make it less suited to producing nuclear weapons, but the U.S. was not involved in either of those processes.

The prospect of inking a 123 Agreement with Iran is meeting with surprise and heavy skepticism from experts.

A 123 Agreement “actually require[s] that the president submit a certification that there are no proliferation concerns with the country. So I can’t really see how one would reach such an agreement with the Iranians, given that fact that they’re under [International Atomic Energy Agency] investigation for nuclear weapons,” Andrea Stricker, the deputy director of the nonproliferation and biodefense program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JI.

Such an agreement would “suggest that Iran is now a responsible nuclear state, and the U.S. typically has these types of agreements only with its close allies and partners,” Stricker continued. “It would send a very negative message about U.S. willingness to tolerate Iran’s two decades-plus of nonproliferation violations. And it would give a benefit that we reserve, typically, only for our close partners in the form of nuclear cooperation. I think that should be an idea that is dead on arrival.”

Einhorn said he believes “there’s unlikely to be the kind of future U.S. nuclear cooperation that would require a 123. You can imagine a new deal that was very restrictive of Iran, but that does not require a 123 Agreement.”

There would also be additional congressional obstacles to overcome in finalizing such a deal — outside of those pertaining to an Iranian nuclear deal specifically. Under the law, there are multiple waiting periods before 123 Agreements take effect, during which Congress can vote to block an agreement.

“It’s one thing for the U.S. Congress and the U.S. public to support a Trump-negotiated agreement restricting Iran,” Einhorn said. “It’s another thing to get their approval for nuclear cooperation with Iran.”

But the resolution introduced last week by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) — two of the most vocal Iran hawks in the Senate — joined by Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL), indicates there could be a base of support among congressional Republicans, under certain conditions.

The resolution demands that the 123 Agreement also include Iranian adoption of the IAEA’s “additional protocols” — foregoing any domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing and agreeing to additional safeguards. Such a deal matches the “gold standard” 123 Agreement signed by the United Arab Emirates in 2009.

Jewish Insider congressional correspondent Emily Jacobs contributed recording.