[Please note that only the original French text issued by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be considered official.]

. . .

Q: The U.S. said this morning in Berlin that it wanted a Security Council meeting on a resolution on adopting sanctions against Iran. Do you support what the Americans are saying?

A: There was a meeting of the six in Berlin yesterday at political directors' level at which the question was reviewed and the next steps considered. As the Germans, who hosted the meeting, said the idea is to consider the next step, to consider possible measures under article 41 of the United Nations Charter since it's obviously something that had been envisaged in UNSCR 1696. So naturally there was an exchange on this question. I gather that the discussions among the six are going to continue. Telephone contacts are planned over the next few days. In addition we are still expecting a possible meeting between Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani. We'll see what comes out of that meeting, if it's held. To answer your question, I don't at this point have a date for a Security Council meeting on the issue.

(…) These next steps need to be prepared keeping in mind the unity of the international community so that everything takes place in satisfactory conditions.

Q: Without speaking of a definite date, it is clear the Americans want to act very quickly on this. Are you for, against or neutral?

A: In order to be able to act, we have to be united. The minister repeated this quite clearly yesterday. Going to the Security Council presupposes that we have the prospect of being able to reach a decision. If we're going to the Security Council to display our divisions, it doesn't make sense. We obviously favor the unity of the international community which is why it is important to continue these discussions, especially among the six, to see what our next step should be. (...) We need to prepare these next steps, keeping in mind the unity of the international community so everything happens under satisfactory conditions.

Q: Can you confirm that suspending enrichment is no longer a pre-condition among the six for serious discussions, as the Iranians are saying?

A: No, I cannot confirm that; I can confirm the opposite rather. Our position, that of the six and the international community expressed in UNSCR 1696 is that there has to be a suspension of enrichment activities in order for there to be substantive negotiations. That's the position that exists, and I can confirm it. In addition, we're listening to what the Iranians are saying, and we'll see what comes out of the dialogue between Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani. As the minister said yesterday, the issue of suspension is obviously a very important one. You can see that it's central to the whole question.

(...) Our position is clear. There has to be suspension in order for there to be substantive negotiations. The Iranians are saying something else. There's likely to be a dialogue between Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani. We'll see what the Iranians are going to say about this. The question of suspension is central to the problem. That's what the minister meant.

(...) The minister said that we were also prepared to have a dialogue with the Iranians and that we were ready to listen to what they have to say. He recalled that the question of suspension was a very important aspect of the issue troubling us.

. . .