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

. . .

Q: Can we talk about the Iranian issue?

A: The Iranian issue was also discussed yesterday, but I can answer your questions.

Q: I'd like an explanation of the minister's statement yesterday that France would like a new resolution in the Security Council to continue the sanctions. (…)

A: Keep in mind that the IAEA director presented his report yesterday on Iran's implementation of its obligations under SCR 1737.

The report confirms that Iran at this point is not in compliance with the resolution unanimously adopted in the Security Council.

There are three points in it which we think are important.

First, Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities and its heavy water projects but on the contrary has expanded them.

Second, Iran is not cooperating satisfactorily with the Agency. In particular the refusal to admit 38 IAEA inspectors to its territory was a signal perceived as being particularly negative.

Third, Iran is not being transparent as required, as illustrated by its refusal to permit continuous monitoring of its buried plant at Natanz.

These three point clearly show that there is not the cooperation we wanted from the Iranians.

In the circumstances and in accordance with SCR 1737, we believe the international community must react. Talks will be held between Europeans, Americans, Russians and Chinese on the response to the IAEA report, including the adoption of new measures under article 41 of the UN Charter, in accordance with one of the provisions of 1737 since the famous paragraph 24 mentioned this option.

The meeting on Monday, which is still to be confirmed since the various political directors have to be available, will let us compare the various points of view and see what avenues of approach we're going to work on with a view to a second resolution that would deepen the existing sanctions.

Q: When you say "deepen," do you mean harden and expand the sanctions?

A: That's one of the things being discussed.

Q: What's your position at the national level?

A: We consider that it is appropriate to deepen the sanctions. You can do this by being more specific, more detailed, by looking to see if certain activities which weren't mentioned should be mentioned, if certain individuals not mentioned should be mentioned.

You've several ways of deepening the sanctions, but this will be decided in the talks we're having with our various partners.

As we've said, we want to see firmness since the commitments have not been respected but at the same time international unity, which is why there's a discussion among the partners to define the scope of the new resolution.

Q: There's talk of a French-British resolution. What is it really?

A: I can tell you there's no text, no draft resolution written by the British and French.

Ideas are being considered. All the capitals are thinking about the next step, I know, but there's no French-British draft resolution.

Q: Former foreign minister Roland Dumas is in Iran today. Is it an official mission or a private trip?

A: I've no knowledge of the former foreign minister's visit.

Q: You mentioned broadening the list of activities that might be targeted by sanctions. So far, these have been sensitive nuclear and ballistic missile activities. What other activities could be targeted by sanctions?

A: What I said was that in the framework of activities that are targeted, you can expand on the description included in the resolution. I'm not talking about new activities at this stage. It's just that, let's be clear, as I said, there are consultations with various countries, and everyone will come with his own ideas and lines of thinking to deepen these sanctions. So we'll see, in the framework of these discussions, if in fact we can talk about enlarging these areas of activities or if they should be spelled out in greater detail.

Q: But you say "enlarging these areas of activities," how can you do this?

A: In the framework of ballistic missile or nuclear activities, you can certainly select a number of subjects more detailed than that appearing now in SCR 1737.

Q: In practical terms, the effects wouldn't be significant in the end since we'd still be in the same general area of action.

A: I'll let you take responsibility for your comments.

I would add that when SCR 1737 was adopted on December 23, you remember that some commentators considered it was a minimal resolution that wouldn't have much effect. Today these same commentators recognize that it has had a number of effects and that there's a debate going on in Iran today about whether a change of attitude might be necessary, considering the direct and indirect effects of these sanctions.

It creates in the minds of investors and economic and commercial operators who deal with Iran the sense that they should at this point perhaps be more prudent and less enthusiastic. From this point of view SCR 1737 has had a certain effect and deepening the resolutions could produce others.

Q: In evaluating SCR 1737 and in addition to the greater investor caution, what information do you have about the effects of the resolution among the Iranians, in addition to the debate it has spawned?

A: It's still a bit too early to say, that's why I said indirect effects. It takes time for the sanctions to really take effect. First, they have to be transposed into community law in the case of the EU, for example, and that always takes a bit of time.

Also, to measure the effects we have to see the sanctions applied over a period of time. So it's probably premature today to tell you what the direct effects are in a very practical sense. We'll certainly let you know once we have sufficient information for a response, but I think it's premature to do so today.

Q: I thought Iran had proposed spinning the centrifuges empty. What do you think of this proposal?

A: There have been proposals floated. I'll say that for now the discussions haven't really progressed much in that these proposals have still not been confirmed. We're waiting to see if the Iranian side proposes anything concrete consistent with the demands made in SCR 1737. So far, we've not seen any official proposals from the Iranians consistent with 1737.

Q: Do you consider these proposals are not consistent with the resolution?

A: What I'm saying is that I've no knowledge today of official Iranian proposals that are a response to SCR 1737.

Q: I didn't see in the IAEA report that the experts have established that there's a military aspect to the Iranian nuclear program. Doesn't that weaken your intention to harden the sanctions?

A: What you have in the IAEA report is fairly clear as I said a moment ago.

I noted three points, but a reading of the IAEA report clearly shows the absence of the will to cooperate with the international community and in any case a failure to comply with the demands of SCR 1737.

The elements in this report show us that the fears which have been repeatedly expressed about the nature of the program haven't been dispelled by Iran's attitude. Consequently, even though the report doesn't mention a military program per se, we're still in the same situation in which the risks of establishing a military program linked to the development of these various activities persist. So the doubts have not been dispelled, and that's where we stand. We're no longer asking the Iranians to show through cooperation that their program is a purely civilian one. As you know, were that the case we should have no objection to the continuation of the program, but the fact is these doubts have not been dispelled by Iran's attitude.

. . .