Former sanctions. Think about that. Thats something we ought to talk about. A similar scenario could be observed at the u. N. Security council. A unanimous vote by all 15 u. N. Security councilmembers would be need for sanctions to be put back in place. How many of us in this room believe that will actually happen . Do you believe that would . I dont. China and russia, both permanent members of the u. N. Security council have the most to gain from having unfettered access to iranian markets. Its been widely reported that russia is selling weapons to iran that makes the potential for israeli or american air strike just that much more difficult to carry out. Russia whorks own economy is hurting as a result of the sangs is looking to diversify its investments in other economies that show strong potential for growth. China is always looking for new sources of energy and with the elimination of internangs international sanctions, theyll have the ability to sell more oils on the internationa
Reproductive health at georgetown millions of dollars to look at the efficacy of fertility beads for Family Planning purposes and there has been evidence now that those do work, they are efficacious and we can fund those as a tool to use to reach our goals in Family Planning. Obviously were going to have a whole lot of other tools. But that particular tool is acceptable by many religious groups opposed to the other tools. And so i think that is one positive story that we might look at replicating. Do we have other questions from the audience . Right here in the middle. Hi. My name is jana carp, im hear from the state department. And it has come up a couple of times in terms of the ebola crisis in west africa but i was wondering if you could speak more generally about the role that faithbased groups could play in pandemic preparedness and response and sort of Lessons Learned from ebola in the past year, two years. Other questions . Again, my name is rosemary, i just go back to the coope
Will unlikely to ever. And well continue to stand alongside them. The may 2015 joint statement following the u. S. And Gulf Cooperation Council or gcc meetings at camp david provided a road map for how the administration plans to proceed. Critics of the vienna agreement point to flaws related to irans missile capability and support of terrorist proxies across the region. The camp david statement outline ours commitment to enhancing Ballistic Missile defense capabilities of the gcc and improving their operability to enhance defense. It sates well be increasing training and exercise engagements with gcc special Operation Forces developments to better defend against iran. These are important efforts i look forward to hearing about today. One final point. These negotiations focused on denying iran a pathway to a Nuclear Weapon. A nuclear iran would be a more Formidable Force in the region. And as it has repeatedly demonstrated, not a force for peace and stability but one that invokinge ing
Agreement. They dont square up how do you those statements were very clear clear. First of all, the aim is not to go to military sites. Its not us. Its iaea, of course. The aim is to go to where there is suspicious or suspicion of nuclear relevant activities. If they are in a military site, doesnt matter. They are still the iaea access to those sites. I only have a few seconds left. I would hope that you would reconcile those statements for the public. Youve stated the 24day waiting period for International Inspectors wont allow the regime to conceal any illegal activity, but as i read the agreement and many other people have pointed out to the inspectors request to visit those sites could be delayed much longer than 24 days. I know that youre not concerned about the 24day period. Do you believe that we would that iaea would be able to handle that . But if you look at different parts in section q of the agreement, i think we have the potential that were looking at an 89day delay. You t
So i wanted to also ask about this idea, weve heard a lot about sanctions. And sanctions as i understand, iran has written the United Nations on july 20th about the sanctions regime. And one of the issues that has concerned me about this agreement is that once the sanctions, the long list of mainly congressally mandated sanctions that will be lifted under this agreement are undertaken if iran for example, engaged in terrorist activity, which is known to do, separate from the Nuclear Program, iran seems to have taken the position in its letter to the u. N. And ive actually read the agreement, and ive been concerned that the agreement provides the same that in fact, iran says it has understood that reintroduction or reimposition including through extension of the sanctions and restrictive measures will constitute significant nonperformance which would relieve iran from its commitments in part or in whole. So my question is as i read this, im deeply concerned that if we want to reimpose t