In classified briefings to key members of Congress, the Bush administration has been stressing that the recently concluded 123 Agreement and the nuclear deal does not circumvent American law. However, "briefers conceded that some language is deliberately vague to help both sides save face", according to a front-page report in The Washington Times.
The report, citing unnamed Congressional officials and staffers on the Capitol Hill, said some Congressional officials were satisfied with the administration assurances but concerns and questions do remain on Iran's relationship with India.
According to The Times report, the agreement recently negotiated has been deliberately written in such a way that it can be interpreted differently by the two sides.
"The way the Indians are reading it is not correct from the administration's point of view," a congressional official, who attended the briefings has been quoted as saying by the daily.
It is being pointed out that India had protested from the very beginning the legal US requirements to automatically suspend nuclear cooperation if India conducted another atomic test; and to help New Delhi save face domestically, the administration agreed to consult with New Delhi before taking any action in response to a test, officials said.
According to the media report, the Indians presented the language as a major US concession, but American officials said consultations do not mean much in practice.
"So we'll consult with them 'big deal'. That doesn't mean we'll just sit and not do anything if they test. You can be sure that Congress will respond to an Indian nuclear test," an unnamed Congressional official has been quoted as saying by The Times.
The interpretations also apparently differ on yet another major issue - securing India's fuel supply in the event of a US cut-off.
US officials insist the language does not commit them to do anything specific. Rather, if there is an interruption of the Indian supply because of technical or logistical difficulties, they will try to do what is appropriate, said sources on the Capitol Hill.
"The idea that the Indians will test, and we'll help others circumvent our laws to send them fuel is ridiculous," a Capitol Hill staffer, who attended Friday's briefing has been quoted by the daily.
According to the report, administration briefers acknowledged they had agreed to allow India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, but only at a newly built facility with safeguards involving US participation.
Critics have argued that American law prohibits reprocessing, especially by a country such as India, which has not signed the Nuclear non-proliferation with Iran is a "major" problem, the newspaper reported.
"The Indians are foolish to think that their strengthening economic and military ties with Iran won't have an impact on the nuclear deal," one official said. "It could very well sink the agreement."
The White House is expected to announce that it is carving out an exception for India in a last-ditch effort to seal a civilian nuclear deal, the New York Times said.
Under the arrangement, the US has promised to help India build a nuclear fuel repository and find alternative sources of nuclear fuel in the event of an American cutoff, skirting some of the provisions of the law, the New York Times said.
Representative Edward J Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who opposed the initial deal and has said he would try to defeat the new arrangement, was quoted by the paper as saying, "It creates a double standard. One set of rules for countries we like, another for countries we don't."
Robert J Einhorn, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the paper that in "the first phase of negotiations with India, the administration made concessions that put the country on par with countries that have signed" the NPT.
"Now we've gone beyond that, and given India something that we don't give to Russia and China," Einhorn said.
In general, advocates of a far-stronger relationship between India and the US have favoured the nuclear cooperation deal, the paper said.
But those arguing that the administration has not made good on its promises to clamp down on the trade in nuclear fuel argue that Bush could be setting a precedent that will undercut his non-proliferation initiative.
Burns told the New York Times that he disagreed because "...this agreement is so very much in our national interest."
"It will further our non-proliferation efforts globally" by gradually bringing India into the nuclear fold, he said.
