As far as we are concerned, Congress has no way of changing an executive agreement. In the United States, executive agreements are internationally binding when negotiated and concluded under the authority of the president in foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, or based on an earlier act of Congress. For example, as commander-in-chief, the president negotiates and concludes status-of-forces agreements (SOFIA) that govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces stationed in other countries. However, the president cannot unilaterally conclude executive agreements on matters beyond his constitutional authority. In such cases, an agreement should take the form of an agreement between Congress and the executive branch, or a treaty with the advice and consent of the Senate.  This article deals with executive arrangements between nations in general. However, under U.S. constitutional law, executive agreements are not considered treaties within the meaning of the treaty clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the Council and the approval of two-thirds of the Senate to be considered a treaty.
Other countries have similar provisions regarding the ratification of treaties. An executive agreement is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more countries that has not been ratified by the legislator when the treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from legally binding treaties. The proposed Iran nuclear deal is conventionally an executive deal and doesn`t need to be a treaty with Senate advice and approval, but Congress should be able to do so because the sanctions ordered by Congress would have to be lifted. However, under U.S. constitutional law, executive agreements are not considered treaties within the meaning of the treaty clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the Council and the approval of two-thirds of the Senate to be considered a treaty. .