Q. - Do you think that Iranian hegemony is growing in the region in the wake of the American war in Iraq? Do you fear a Sunni-Shia confrontation in the region, in Iraq, Lebanon and the Gulf countries?

THE PRIME MINISTER - It's natural for a country like Iran to aspire to a regional role. For this she has some assets: her identity deeply rooted in history, her size, her large young and well-educated population, and her wealth and economic potential.

But influence isn't automatically conferred: it has to be recognized and accepted. And today Iran is arousing concern, both in the international community and on the part of some of her neighbours, with her uranium enrichment programme which isn't economically justified. Similarly, in Lebanon, in Iraq, on the Palestinian issue, Iran must reassure the international community and her neighbours by working for stability.

On relations between Shias and Sunnis in the Middle East, let's avoid simplifications. The perception of a "Shia threat" which some people have often brandished in the past doesn't reflect political and social reality: the Shia communities, particularly in the Gulf, have for a long time been integrated into their respective nations.

However, let's avoid creating, through dangerous ulterior motives or clumsiness the conditions for a genuine clash between communities, with consequences which are hard to quantify.

France doesn't take either domestic or foreign-policy decisions based on a community belonging to one religion rather than another. Our choices are governed solely by political considerations driven not only by the quest for stability and peace, but also by respect for identities.

. . .

Q. - Do you believe that the United States or Israel will carry out an ad hoc military operation on the Iranian nuclear installations as was done in Iraq? What is France's position on that possibility?

THE PRIME MINISTER - Here too, let's be clear: for France, a military intervention isn't the solution. Let me add that a military strike against Iran would have unpredictable, profoundly destabilizing consequences for the whole region. We must arrive at a political settlement of this crisis.

The United States today recognizes that the strategy which France and her European partners have initiated, combining readiness for dialogue and pressures in a multilateral framework, is yielding results. The fact that last December the Security Council unanimously passed UNSCR 1737 testifies to this. It's a major achievement of the process we've been conducting since 2003.

So our objective is clearly a negotiated solution in the framework of the multilateral system. The American authorities have several times at the highest level spoken along the same lines. UNSCR 1737 was passed under article 41 of the Charter which rules out resorting to force.

I also note that a debate seems to be surfacing today in Iran on the cost of a confrontation with the international community.

So I call on the Iranian authorities to opt for dialogue and return to the negotiating table. If Iran makes the gesture of suspending her enrichment activities, the Council can in return suspend the sanctions: the proposals presented in summer 2006 on behalf not only of the European Union, but also of the United States, Russia and China remain on the table; Iran has everything to gain by taking them up and, on the contrary, everything to lose from an escalation. In the latter case new restrictive measures can be adopted. This is the thrust of the current discussions on a new Security Council resolution.

. . .