The Obama administration's efforts to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran were already contentious. But they got more so - if that's possible - on March 9, 2015, with the release of a letter by 47 Republican senators.

A key portion of the 286-word letter says that the undersigned senators "will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.

The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.""Congress doesn't have the power to alter the terms of international arrangements negotiated by the executive," State Department spokeswomen Psaki said at a briefing.

"The letter is incorrect when it says that Congress could modify the terms of the agreement at any time." Treaties with foreign countries are negotiated and signed by the executive branch, but ratification only occurs after the Senate gives its approval in a two-thirds vote. But there's another kind of agreement beyond treaties - indeed, they represent a growing share of agreements in recent decades. They are known as "executive agreements." The downside of an executive agreement, however, is that it's easier to reverse.

"It is clear, constitutionally, under internal law, that a future president could do this," said Jeffrey S. Peake, a Clemson University political scientist.

The process isn't so simple.

The possible agreement with Iran is being negotiated between the five permanent United Nations Security Council members plus one: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China, plus Germany. So for the agreement to be truly modified, the other signatories would have to sign off.

Congress could pass legislation that conflicts with the agreement, effectively "modifying" it. But Congress' ability to carry this out is more difficult than the senators' blithe language sug-gests. It would take presidential acquiescence or a supermajority - two-thirds to override a veto - for Congress to act independently to stiffen sanctions.

Going back on an executive agreement may violate international law.

Going back on an executive agreement could have significant, if intangible, consequences for the nation's diplomatic credibility. Retreating from one executive agreement would be a pretty radical step historically and could endanger the nation's ability to both ensure that old agree-ments stand and to strike new agreements. It could call into question America's commitment to the vast majority of her international agreements.

Blessed are the peacemakers

Stating that "their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace," Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, made the offer one day after Iran received what he called a "worrisome letter" from Republican leaders, which suggested to him that "the relationship between Republicans and Obama has deteriorated dangerously."

"Tensions between these two historic enemies have been high in recent years, but we believe they are now at a boiling point," Khamenei said. "As a result, Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker. He said that his nation was the "logical choice" to jumpstart negotiations between Obama and the Republicans because "it has become clear that both sides currently talk more to Iran than to each other."

He invited Obama and the Republicans to meet in Tehran to hash out their differences and called on world powers to force the two bitter foes to the bargaining table, adding, "It is time to stop the madness."

I hope you find this satire humorous; this fact checker did!

Chip Tuthill lives in Mancos. Websites used: www.politifact.com and www.newyorker.com.