. . .

Q: Can I ask right off the bat if it was -- there were constructive talks on Iran? How is it President Chirac, an hour or so after saying in the presence of President Bush that they were totally on the same on Iran, then went out and said that setting a timetable, any timetable -- suggesting even the August 31st timetable for sanctions is counterproductive?

MS. ANSLEY: They didn't have a discussion that talked about that timetable within the meeting, but they did agree on the need, or the desire to go with a diplomatic approach, if that's possible. President Chirac has historically not liked sanctions, he's very up front about that. He doesn't think that they're effective. However, he has not taken them off the table, including in the Iran case, if that's the option that ends up being the one that people choose if negotiations don't succeed. What he talked about is trying to see if there was a framework where negotiations could go forward.

As you know, Solana, with the EU, is in talks with Larajani to see if there isn't a way you can go forward on the basis of suspension for suspension. In other words, you start the negotiations, the Iranians agree to suspend their enrichment activities, and in exchange, the U.N. will agree to suspend activities at the Security Council as negotiations go forward. In assuming that negotiations can go forward on that basis, then we wouldn't have to deal with the issue of sanctions at this point.

Q: At the press conference, the French President seemed to be saying that all six parties should first start together. He didn't seem to buy into the President's formulation of, you know, talks by the EU, suspension and the U.S. comes in. He seemed to be setting out a slightly different kind of scenario.

MS. ANSLEY: The way he talked about it, I saw as being consistent with what was discussed in the meeting, which was discussion of the six, if the U.S. wanted to participate. And if the U.S. did not want to, then the EU3 and the other two if they chose to be a part of it -- this initial round of discussions to get the negotiations going, they do it that way. And the President made clear that he was not comfortable with being involved in the first part.

As we've said all along, we will join the negotiations when Iran suspends. So once you get to that point, we'll join the negotiations.

. . .

Q: Did the President ask -- did our President ask the French President about the comments that have been reported in the papers yesterday? Did he --

MS. ANSLEY: Oh, sure, yes.

Q: And what did -- how did Chirac explain it to the President?

MS. ANSLEY: They had a discussion about where they each were on the issue of Iran and whether any positions had changed on that. Yes, they did have a discussion, and I think that the way the things were reported in the press were not quite the way that Chirac had -- not quite what his position was. I think if you do a full reading of what Chirac said, even in his interview yesterday, you'll see that there was some quoting that made it look like there had been a change in position. But there really had been no change in position, which is why, at the end of the meeting, they felt -- and even during the meeting, they felt that they were still very much on the same -- on the same wavelength on how to proceed.

Q: Did the fact that they do seem to be of different minds over sanctions, is that an accurate way to see it? Chirac did not, today, mention the word, "sanctions" during his address to the United Nations. He's saying there shouldn't be a timetable. So are they at least at odds on the sanctions question?

MS. ANSLEY: No, I think that they -- there's an agreement that if you have to go to sanctions, then we'll go to sanctions, or if they talked about sanctions in the meeting today, as well. I think that Chirac's comments are -- he's more talking about what he thinks is the most effective approach, but I don't think there's a difference. I mean, we all want Iran to stop what it's doing, to suspend its enrichment activities and to get to negotiations. That's the preferred approach of everyone. Sanctions is only if that fails.

Q: Would it be accurate, though, to see Chirac as sort of saying let's wait longer for sanctions than, perhaps, the United States wants to wait?

MS. ANSLEY: No, I think that -- like I said, the -- Solana -- the EU through Solana is in talks with the Iranians right now to see if there can be a basis for proceeding with the negotiations. And, hopefully, that won't take very long. And I don't think Chirac would want to -- I shouldn't speak for him. That shouldn't take very long, and then hopefully we get into negotiations. But, obviously, we'd like it on a quick time line.

. . .