Critics of the deal argue that there is no mention of the agreement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Bush about assured uninterrupted supply of fuel in exchange for IAEA safeguards in the amended legislation. They say that by not including this statement leaves an avenue for the US to stop supply of uranium at its pleasure.
As mentioned before, India needs to carefully negotiate the " 1-2-3 Agreement" to ensure that its obligations are clearly spelt out so as to eliminate avenues where the US may unilaterally halt supply of fuel. As of now the major leverage points adopted by the US to halt fuel supply at will is the annual Presidential certification process. If the terms for this is clearly spelt out in the " 1-2-3 Agreement," both nations can easily reduce the risk for such unilateral measures or necessities. Besides, the halt of uranium supply from the US does not mean that uranium supply from other would cease as well.
There seems to be some confusion on the language of whether India is still required to get an IAEA approval in light of this lack of guaranteed supply. The argument is that because the original deal said that the US President can implement the amendments only after the IAEA has approved the safeguards while it is not required by the amendment itself is fastidious. It is in India's interest to separate the civilian and military facilities and introduce internationally recognized safeguards that can be independently verified, monitored, and audited. If not for any other reason, it will help the nation get another safety check to eliminate the possibility of a Chernobyl-like incident which could have a disastrous affect on thickly populated and agriculturally dependent India.
