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

. . .

Q: It's no secret Venezuela is openly supporting the Iranian nuclear plan. In the event Iran gives a negative answer to the UN proposals, are sanctions against Venezuela being considered?

A: To take your second point, I can assure you there's nothing like that on the agenda. I'd like us to be quite clear. When you say that Venezuela is supporting Iran's nuclear program, I don't quite know what you're really saying. We on the European side, the French side, have nothing against Iran's civilian nuclear program. No one disputes Iran's right to civilian nuclear energy. What we want is to prevent [Iran] having nuclear weapons. I've not seen, unless I'm mistaken, Venezuela offering support to Iran for a nuclear weapon.

Venezuela and the Europeans are taking a somewhat different approach on the Iranian nuclear question.

Venezuela is one of three countries, with Cuba and Syria, which voted against the IAEA board resolution. The difference is one of means and tactics. But I don't think there is necessarily a difference on the substance.

We have political dialogue with Venezuela. President Chavez came to France last year, in October 2005, and there's no disagreement on the fact that there's a civilian nuclear program in Iran. We just want guarantees that the program will not be used for military purposes. That's the whole question really. We're waiting for Iran to reply. Measures might be taken against Iran if it doesn't accept these proposals.

Q: Today the Iranian president described the offer by the Six as a step forward. Are you optimistic about a resumption of negotiations? Will these negotiations focus more on uranium enrichment in Russia or uranium enrichment in Iran in the context of international cooperation?

A: We've made an offer to Iran. We're waiting for Iran to respond, which it will probably do through Mr. Solana. Until then we've decided not to comment on Iranian statements. (...)

As to your second point, as you know, we're still being very discreet on the content of the offer and we're going to continue to be. Before the negotiations can start, one of the important elements is the suspension of enrichment activities. That answers your question. Next, there's a questions of confidence. We've already spoken about this. Iran has to rebuild the confidence of the international community, and based on that and on the guarantees we get, the question you raised might one day be reconsidered. But for the immediate future, in order for negotiations to resume, there has to be a suspension of enrichment activities in Iran.

Q: Can you confirm that the offer made to Iran doesn't explicitly include sanctions?

A: I imagine you're referring to certain articles that appeared in the press. What's important, I think, is that when the ministers of the Six met, they agreed that an offer would be made to Iran with positive measures, that would be presented to the Iranians. They also agreed that if Iran didn't accept the European offer, then other types of measures would have to be envisaged. I believe that the Six agreed to follow this two-pronged approach.

Q: So there was no stick. There was only the carrot?

A: I wasn't at Mr. Solana's meeting with Mr. Larijani but I believe that Mr. Solana explained the approach as it had been decided by ministers. I'm not talking about carrot and stick but about positive measures and then if Iran doesn't accept the offer, there's the prospect of a return to the Security Council and of another type of measure that might at that moment be considered. I think Mr. Solana clearly confronted the Iranians with this choice. That's the whole idea. You've seen the statements by our minister and other political leaders. The whole idea is that there is a choice for Iran between accepting the offer and taking the approach of cooperation or rejecting the offer and taking the path to isolation. I don't think there's any ambiguity about this.

Q: The press has also been talking about the fact that there are two reasons Europe didn't put the question of sanctions in the offer. One, so as not to alienate Iran and also to preserve the coalition of the Six from the dissensions that exist. Can you comment on the absence of sanctions in the offer?

A: These are press speculations about a meeting that was confidential (..) Mr. Solana went to present the Iranians with the choice they're being offered. In that choice there are two elements: positive measures and then if Iran doesn't agree, there's the prospect of a return to the Security Council and other kinds of measures. (...)

(...)

Q: Can one still talk about speculation in the press and confidential document when the document in question has been published virtually in its entirety by a press agency for which I have the honor of working, published verbatim, and everyone can read that there's no mention of sanctions? Secondly, the comments that may have been made by Mr. Solana at meetings are one thing, in any case the document in question, which is hardly confidential any more, makes no mention at all sanctions. That's what we're wondering about.

A: First, it's the job of wire services to obtain this kind of information. In any case, for my part I will neither confirm nor deny what the wire services have published. We want to preserve the confidential nature of this matter.

Secondly, (...) whether the proposals were in written form or presented orally doesn't change very much. I repeat, I don't know what was conveyed in writing, nor what was presented orally. What's important is that the Iranians did receive the message that the Six sent.

(...)