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

. . .

Q: Is there to be a meeting on Iran in Europe next week? (...)

A: I can confirm-it's been announced already-that there's to be a meeting of the six countries involved in the negotiations on September 7. It is due to be held in Berlin at the level of political directors.

(...)

Q: What's happening between Iran and the EU?

A: Yesterday we had the IAEA report which broadly confirmed what we thought, that Iran has not suspended its activities and did not respond to the demands made in SCR 1696. There will be consultations among the six to see what the next step should be. As far as we are concerned, as the minister said yesterday, we regret that Iran did not respond positively. We also regret that a meeting wasn't held with the Iranians before August 31 as it would have been useful before that date to clarify the various points appearing in their document.

At the same time, as we've said, we're leaving the door open to dialogue, with a distinction between dialogue and negotiation. We are ready to have a dialogue with the Iranians to clarify certain things, to see where we stand. As for the resumption of substantive negotiations, that's something different.

(...)

Q: The Americans are calling for sanctions, for consequences, and the Europeans seem reluctant?

A: While I see the American statements, it's not for me to interpret them, but President Bush said yesterday that the consequences had to be drawn from the fact that the Iranians didn't respond before August 31. That's the reason for the meeting of the six next week. Judging from the State Department spokesperson's statements, there's an emphasis on US willingness to remain within the diplomatic framework and to work with the six to decide on the next step. So we're on the same wavelength. We'll see what the next steps are, on the basis of SCR 1696, which was adopted at the end of July. Based on that, we'll be deciding what to do.

Q: (...) Could you comment on reports in a US newspaper about consultations with the US on imposing sanctions on Iran?

A: I don't think you should build too much on that because we don't wish to go into details, as you'll appreciate. At the same time we've said all along--remember what we said before the summer--that we were working on positive measures, that's the offer we made to the Iranians, and that we were also considering "negative" measures even though the idea is not to punish the Iranians but to encourage them to return to the negotiating table.

Q: So there were recent consultations?

A: There are ongoing consultations on the Iranian question.

Q: So can you tell us about the type of sanctions?

A: No. I know I'm going to disappoint you but I don't wish to get into this debate because, for us, it's not an aspect we wish to elaborate on at this time. We'll be having this meeting of the six and we'll see then what direction we're going to take and also, I repeat the door remains open to dialogue.

Q: The door remains open, but do you think there's really a wish to reach a negotiated solution on this dossier?

A: If there's this meeting between Mr. Larijani and Mr. Solana, we hope it will lead to a number of clarifications, specifically with regard to the Iranian document, and we'll see then a bit better where we stand. But obviously we still think a negotiated solution is possible. Everyone says so, including the president of the United States who made a reference to the diplomatic approach.

Q: (...) Since France is emphasizing that it wants to re-establish dialogue so much, would it be ready to negotiate with Iran without complete suspension as the six have several times demanded? (…)

A: ...As I said just now, there's a difference between dialogue and negotiation. As we've said several times and I repeat again, dialogue can happen very quickly as in the case of the meeting between Mr. Larijani and Mr. Solana, which maybe one of the elements in this dialogue. On the other hand, negotiation on the substance is something different, and in that context suspension is of course an important element.

Q: We've all understand perfectly and even believed it was an essential condition. But on the French side the tone seems to have softened a bit. You're really emphasizing dialogue and later the condition. But what we'd like to know is if you're ready to drop that condition?

A: In order for there to be substantive negotiations, we've said repeatedly that the Iranians must suspend enrichment activities.

Q: Suspend them completely?

A: Suspend is suspend. I can't say more than that.

(...)

Q: The purpose of the September 7 meeting in Berlin is to prepare for another meeting, this one at foreign ministers' level?

A: A ministerial meeting hasn't been ruled out of course. There've been several already and, if necessary, there'll be others. But to my knowledge, so far nothing has been decided on this.

Q: Some time ago Mr. Douste-Blazy said that Iran had a military nuclear program. What's surprising is that in the IAEA report out yesterday the inspectors discovered no tangible proof that Iran's nuclear program is military. Was the minister correctly informed?

A: What's important is that we have doubts about the purpose of the Iranian nuclear program, as we've always said. We consider in fact, and it's in the IAEA report, that there are certain Iranian activities which cannot be explained simply for civilian ends. In particular we consider that Iran does not necessarily need to master the entire nuclear cycle in order to develop a civilian nuclear industry since we're offering it the means to develop one.

A: What the IAEA report says is that there is no irrefutable proof that Iran is developing a military program, but that doubts persist.

Q: What's your position regarding this very important element? Do you want to prevent Iran from having a military nuclear program?

A: Of course, that's the whole purpose of the debate and the negotiations. There would be no negotiations, no debate if we didn't have doubts about the purposes of Iran's nuclear program.

Q: Do you trust the inspectors when they say they didn't discover any tangible proof that Iran's nuclear program was military?

A: Yes, but in the report it doesn't say that the IAEA has every guarantee that the program is not intended for military ends. In this area we reverse the burden of proof. It has to be shown that there is no military purpose.

. . .