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

. . .

Q - Le Monde is saying today that France is preparing to send a high-level emissary to Tehran next week to talk mainly about Lebanon. Can you confirm this?

A - I have seen the Le Monde article.

I'd simply like to restate the principles which guide us vis-à-vis Iran.

The first is that we are totally at one with the international community on the Iranian nuclear issue and are very committed to the implementation of the resolutions of the IAEA and the United Nations Security Council.

Secondly, we expect Iran to contribute to the region's stability and consider that it may be useful to have a dialogue with that country on these matters.

The article refers to a possible visit by the minister who has apparently envisaged a possible period when he might go. On that I can say that no decision has been made and that such a decision would be taken only in consultation with our partners, particularly with the countries in the region.

As regards sending an emissary, this is currently being looked into. But here too, to my knowledge, no definitive decision has been taken. Consideration is being given to what tangible commitments could be obtained from Iran during such a visit.

At all events, a possible dialogue with Iran would involve reaffirming our positions on the regional issues. You mentioned Lebanon, but this applies also to Israel, Israel's right to exist and also to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

That's what I can say on that article and particularly on the possible sending of an emissary.

Q - With respect to the sending of this emissary and this type of dialogue, you don't appear to have adopted the formula used until now, i.e. a European troika, with the British, Germans and EU high representative. Tell me if I'm wrong, but this time things are being done bilaterally?

A - I repeat, there's no confirmation of the sending of this emissary. Secondly, on the nuclear issue, our position is perfectly well known, we are totally at one with the international community with respect to the implementation of the Security Council resolutions, including of course the last one, UNSCR 1737.

As regards contacts with the Iranians on the nuclear issue, for us these fall within the sphere of the procedures followed until now and particularly the remit of Mr. Solana who is responsible for these contacts.

The dialogue the article alludes to would be more on political and particularly regional issues. But that in no way calls into question the channels for the discussions and negotiations on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Q - If I've understood correctly, the nuclear issue is now at the UN. So it's the Six who were dealing with it before and now it's gone to the Security Council. So if Iran has to deal with someone, it's in principle with the Security Council, not with Mr. Solana, unless he is sent on a special mission to sound out the mood in Iran? But I don't understand a parallel French initiative on regional issues at a time when Iran is isolated from the Security Council?

A - There are several things in what you say. First of all, what's the channel on the nuclear issue? We mustn't forget that when the offer was made to the Iranians on the nuclear issue, it was made by Mr. Solana who was speaking for the three European nations and also for the Six and so, in a way, on behalf of the international community.

Secondly, if the Iranians decided to return to the dialogue and indicate some developments on the nuclear issue, this channel exists and can be used. Obviously there's also the channel of the Security Council and United Nations secretary-general, but so far, on the nuclear issue, Mr. Solana's has been the one mainly used.

As for the second point in your question, we are totally at one with the international community and consider the negotiating channel a multilateral one. As regards the dialogue on the regional issues, we think it can be useful to have a dialogue with Iran under certain conditions and, once again, provided this can lead to some tangible results and tangible commitments.

Let me remind you moreover that the minister had a meeting with Mr. Mottaki in Lebanon in August, and that they principally talked about regional issues. The minister also saw Mr. Mottaki again in September in New York on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly.

There is a dialogue with Iran on these matters and - and it's in the Le Monde article - a number of Iranian emissaries have also had meetings with senior French officials.

Q - With the increasingly strong US threats against Iran, the French emissary mentioned in Le Monde reminds me a bit of the emissaries sent to Iraq in 1991 and 2003. Does France think there's a risk of a confrontation today between Iran and the United States, not to say the international community?

A - I don't think one should draw that kind of parallel. What's clear, on the French side - and we've said this several times - is that we want a diplomatic solution, particularly for the nuclear issue. We don't want a confrontation. We want things resolved through the dialogue with Iran. We've said so several times, that's how we see things and we're sticking to it.

Q - But isn't there a risk of confrontation as things stand now?

A - It's not for me to say whether there's a risk or not. Obviously there is some tension, and our wish is not to lead to confrontation but to work for a dialogue with the Iranians on the nuclear issue through the existing channels and then also to discus regional questions.

Q - Is it possible to discuss the region's political problems with Iran without raising the nuclear issue?

A - Once again, it's not a question of ignoring the nuclear problems. Everyone considers the nuclear problem to be a very serious issue which has led to several resolutions being adopted in the Security Council.

I would remind you that there is a time-frame in resolution 1737-an IAEA report after 60 days. So there's no question of ignoring the nuclear issue which is of course very important but is being handled in a multilateral framework, through the Security Council and Mr. Solana.

It's not up to us French to negotiate or discuss this question in depth with the Iranians. But in addition there are other questions on which we think a bilateral dialogue with the Iranians can be useful in certain conditions and if there is the prospect of obtaining tangible results.

Q - Iraq for example?

A - Iraq and other regional questions.

Q - But the major concern of countries in the region is the Iranian nuclear problem.

A - As I said, it's certainly not a matter of relegating that issue to the background, nor of ignoring it. That must be clearly understood.

Q - Can you tell us when it was discussed for the first time? What was the Quai d'Orsay's position? Will it be discussed at tomorrow's Cabinet meeting?

A - This kind of thing is rarely discussed at Cabinet meetings. Iran and our relations with that country are being studied all the time.

Q - And sending an envoy?

A - That will largely be up to President Chirac to decide. It's outside my remit. All this is being done in consultation with the Foreign Ministry, and I can't say precisely when the consultations will continue nor what they will lead to.

Q - Do you have any reaction to the section in the article [in Le Monde] mentioning the lack of agreement between the Quai d'Orsay and the Office of the President?

A - I'm no knowledge of any lack of agreement between the Quai d'Orsay and the Office of the President. It is the president who decides the main lines of foreign policy, and it's obviously done with the full participation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Q - You said that before an envoy is sent you'd have talks with the countries in the region. Aren't you discussing it also with the US and the Six at the same time?

A - We have regular consultations with our partners, of course. There's the nuclear issue which takes certain channels for discussions and negotiations, and there are the other aspects.

Q - If you engage in this kind of dialogue with Iran on the regional question why not also consider a dialogue with Syria which also has views on a number of regional problems-Iraq, Lebanon and others?

A - I don't think one should necessarily draw a parallel between the two countries. Each case is different. In Syria's case, it's well known what we expect from Syria, we've said so many times. It will be judged by its actions. We don't rule out the idea of dialogue with Syria in the future. As the president and minister have said, Syria has to comply with a number of very specific commitments which are known.

Q - Iran also has to comply with a number of very specific commitments.

A - Yes, but we consider that Iran has perhaps a rather special role for regional stability. Once again, this doesn't bring into question the commitments expected of Iran on the nuclear aspects-that's perfectly clear. It doesn't bring into question our position on Israel which would be very clearly reaffirmed in such a dialogue. Bu we think that this dialogue can be useful, with the prospect of obtaining certain tangible results

Q - What results do you expect?

A - It's not for me to detail them here. The idea is to see how Iran can make a positive contribution to the development of a number of regional issues.

Q - It would be a political contact or will there also be an economic aspect?

A - We're talking about decisions that haven't been taken. It's difficult for me to say. The main objective in such a dialogue would tend to be political.

(…)

Q - Does the initiative aim to get around the Iranian authorities' boycott of the French embassy in Tehran or not?

A - No, that would not be the purpose of such a visit. It would be to have a dialogue on political issues. Also we would like our embassy there to be able to work in satisfactory conditions, as does the Iranian embassy in Paris.

(…)

Q - You showed the Iranians the stick in the Security Council. What carrot do you want to offer them or deliver through the envoy who might be going to Tehran?

A - I told you, no decision has been taken. The carrot was shown some time ago already. The offer from the Six also had a political component for regional cooperation. It was a comprehensive offer covering nuclear, economic and political aspects. Once again, the offer wasn't taken up by the Iranians, and we regretted this, but it's still possible for them to revisit their position and enter into a dialogue about the offer.

Also, as I said, what we can envision is the prospect of dialogue which, we think, is something that might also be interesting for the Iranians because they have the choice between isolation on one hand and possibly new measures by the Security Council in the next few months, or the resumption of dialogue on the various issues, including political questions.