DETROIT — Several members of Congress from Michigan said they are studying the nuclear agreement with Iran before making a definitive decision on it. While Democratic lawmakers appeared to be more welcoming of the deal, local U.S. representatives from both parties agreed that Iran should not be given a path to an atomic weapon. 

The United States and other major world powers reached a comprehensive agreement with Iran on Tuesday. The deal will lead to the lifting of economic sanctions on the Islamic republic, which agreed to alter its uranium enrichment levels and allow inspection to ensure that its nuclear program in not geared towards military purposes. 

President Obama has vowed to veto Congressional measures to hamper the deal. However, a two-thirds of the votes by the Senate can override the president’s veto.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Dearborn) was reluctant to either endorse or criticize the accord. She said she will carefully study the agreement and its implications before voting on it, adding that it will be one of the most important votes of her career.

“I believe one of the biggest threats to world peace is a nuclear Iran,” Dingell said in a statement. “I salute the hard work of many in this administration and past administrations in trying to address this difficult issue and constrain Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear arms. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable to the United States and the rest of the world.”

Rep. John Conyers (D-Detroit) praised the agreement, saying that it is a step towards achieving peace. He described the deal as one of “the great international agreements of our time.”

Conyers added that the American people are unambiguous in preferring diplomacy to bloodshed.

“Concluding an agreement will not only promote long-term security in the Middle East, but also remove the short-term specter of a destructive military confrontation,” Conyers said in a statement. “While I plan to meticulously examine the proposed deal and consult closely with administration officials and the intelligence community in the coming days, we have every reason to believe that this deal will make the Middle East and the broader world safer.”

Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Southfield) said she will also review the agreement before taking a stand. She criticized some of her colleagues for rushing to judgment about the deal. 

She added that she is sensitive in her approach to the nuclear accord because of her constituents’ concerns about the matter. 

“There must be no ambiguity regarding the United States’ readiness to enforce all options should Iran pursue development of a nuclear weapon,” she said in a statement. “This agreement must deny Iran any and all pathways to a nuclear weapon, while providing clear guidelines and enforcement mechanisms for removing any threat of such a weapon against the U.S., Israel, and our European and Gulf allies.”

Lawrence also thanked President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry for their diplomatic efforts over the past two years. 

“I congratulate all those involved for their valiant efforts to stabilize the Gulf region and pave the path for peace and prosperity for the United States, for Israel, and for the world,” she said.

Republican Rep. Candice Miller, who represents Michigan’s 10th district, which stretches across the Thumb, said she will oppose the deal if it does not ensure strict inspections and restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. 

She added that she does not trust Iran, describing it as the “lead sponsor of international terrorism.”

“In the upcoming weeks, I will work with my colleagues in Congress to thoroughly examine the provisions of this agreement and consider, very seriously, whether it meets the thresholds necessary to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons,” she said in a press release. 

Michigan’s senators, Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, both Democrats, have not commented on the deal. But the Washington Post counted them among senators whose take on the deal is as yet unknown. According to the Post’s count, 24 senators likely support the deal, 48 are leaning toward a “no” vote and 28 are unclear; 67 votes are required to override a presidential veto.