Q - Since there's to be a ministers' meeting, do you plan to brief us on it?

As I said earlier, there was a meeting in London on Wednesday, as you know, and that meeting was held at the level of political directors to conduct work that ministers had requested. It's a meeting which was constructive and useful. We are encouraged by the progress that was made at the time. The political directors studied the two key elements in the common approach, namely the measures on cooperation and the measures to be taken in the event the international concerns are not taken into account by the Iranian side. They've begun to report to their capitals and will continue working closely. As I said, a ministers' meeting is expected be held in due course.

Q - What are the sticking points still?

It's difficult for me to go into details since, as I've just said, political directors are continuing their work today on both elements, the positive elements and the more coercive aspects of the common approach. That's the whole purpose of the discussions which are taking place which, we hope, will lead to a common approach at the ministers' meeting.

(…)

Q - At an earlier briefing there was talk of security guarantees for Iran. Your idea was to see this in the regional context. Well, the American secretary of state categorically refused to engage in the discussion on security measures. Is this a point of dispute with the US or have you not harmonized your approaches yet?

I think her spokesman has already answered that question.

(...)

Q - In what sense?

As we've said, we had a number of proposals and there was an American reaction. You were invited to go to the Americans directly for their reaction.

Q - Moscow has confirmed its agreement to sell anti-air missiles to Iran. Do you have an opinion on this decision?

We've no particularly reaction on that point.

Q - The stumbling block in the negotiations, for the Americans, seems to be the sale of sophisticated weaponry to Iran before the end of 2006. Where does France stand on that issue? Secondly, is it possible to divide the block of six into two blocks, that is to say, the Chinese and Russians, and the four others. Or is there a separate problem with the Chinese, a problem with the Russians and a problem with the Americans and the Europeans?

With regard to your first point, I've no particular comment. An offer was made which, so far as I know, does not raise questions regarding arms specifically.

Regarding your second question, I believe we've been encouraged by the frame of mind at the London meeting. In other words, what's important to see is that we are discussing both aspects of the common approach, both the positive aspects and the more negative aspects, and that everyone agreed to get into this discussion. Now, the political redirectors have gone back to their capitals and are assessing with their authorities, taking into account the eventual reactions, the extent to which they can accept all the elements that were discussed at the London meeting. So I don't believe that you can say that this or that country is on one side and this or that group on the other-it really is a common approach by the international community, bearing in mind, too, that other partners are being kept informed and are being consulted. The negotiation is sufficiently important for us to examine carefully the ins and outs of the proposal that we're preparing to hand to the Iranians.

. . .