[...]

3. Foreign policy - Interview given by M. Jean-Noël Barrot, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, to LCI (excerpt) (Paris, 28/06/2025)

(...)

Q. - It's only a few days after America's targeted strikes on Iranian territory. Donald Trump says Iran's nuclear programme has been totally destroyed. The IAEA is a little more doubtful. What's the French position? Do you have a clear opinion about the situation this evening?

THE MINISTER - The United States and France believe that resolving the problem of Iran's nuclear programme in the long term will come through negotiation and an agreement, like the one we secured 10 years ago, which will make it possible to restrict nuclear activities, ballistic activities relating to missile production and also Iran's activities to destabilize the region. In the negotiation that's getting under way, France is ready to provide its expertise, its experience and its consistent approach to the issue, which it has been following very carefully, from the Quai d'Orsay, for 10 years.

Q. - And get intelligence about the damage caused on Iranian territory?

THE MINISTER - Well, on that point, it's essential and even vital for Iran to allow the inspectors from the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to continue their work. A decision was taken by the political authorities yesterday to suspend cooperation with the Agency. It's crucial for cooperation to be resumed, because it's the only way we can engage in discussions in good faith.

Q. - The Americans are saying they're ready to take over from the IAEA. Are you in favour?

THE MINISTER - I think it's essential nevertheless for the IAEA to be involved, because it's highly knowledgeable about Iran's nuclear programme, which it has been following for very many years. And the IAEA is designated as a verification body in the framework of a treaty which is broader than the one we secured with Iran 10 years ago, the so-called Non-Proliferation Treaty - the treaty that was signed at the end of the 1960s, that prevented the world from engaging in a nuclear arms race, that provides for five nuclear-weapon nations - including France - and that bans other nations from having access to these weapons, but in return they benefit from the expertise of the five nuclear-weapon countries in terms of access to civilian nuclear power. The IAEA is, if you like, the watchdog, the guardian of the treaty. So it's essential for Iran to be able to maintain its cooperation with the Agency.

Q. - Emmanuel Macron has said he fears Iran will withdraw from the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Is this a genuine fear of the Quai d'Orsay too?

THE MINISTER - Yes. We urge Iran not to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, I repeat, is one of the pillars of what's called collective security, the security of the world. Weakening the Non-Proliferation Treaty would lead to many other countries in the world considering the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons for themselves. And we'd then enter a much more unstable, much more uncertain, much more dangerous era. This is why we believe Iran must remain in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, that it must engage with us in a very frank, in-depth discussion about the strict, long-term supervision of its nuclear and ballistic activities, as I was saying, in return for a lifting of the sanctions applied to its economy today.

Q. - With a few days of hindsight, would you describe the threat to Israel posed by Iran, by its nuclear programme, as existential?

THE MINISTER - As we've always said, Iran can't acquire nuclear weapons. It's a general principle of compliance with the treaty, which I've just mentioned. But it's also linked to our unfailing commitment to Israel's security, to our desire to see the region progress towards peace and stability. It's also linked to our own security interests. The strikes carried out over the 12 days of conflict most likely destroyed, most likely set back the nuclear programme...

Q. - So they were necessary.

THE MINISTER - ..., but they most likely haven't prevented Iran from rebuilding a nuclear capability tomorrow which, again, would pose a danger to Israel, the region and ourselves. This is why it's essential for us to be able, as we did 10 years ago, to find the way to a very demanding negotiation with Iran, which will allow us to avert the danger.

Q. - But were these strikes necessary? The Israelis would tell you: "It's allowed us a period of respite", i.e. to gain time on Iran's nuclear programme. What would you reply?

THE MINISTER - The President has provided our reply, namely that these strikes weren't in line with international law and that carrying out strikes, as was done over the past few days, always raises significant risks of regional conflagration. At which point I want to spare a thought for the civilian victims - civilian victims in Israel and Iran - of this military escalation, which was fortunately halted 12 days after it was started. But what we say - and we regularly talk about this to our Israeli interlocutors, who know France is the most demanding interlocutor when it comes to the Iranian nuclear programme, they have full trust in us - we say to them that it's through very strict regulation that we'll manage to resolve this problem in the long term.

Q. - Donald Trump said facing the camera: "We don't need the Europeans in these negotiations." Is he right?

THE MINISTER - In these negotiations, the Europeans have an extremely powerful lever. Let me explain. If Iran - which hasn't complied with the commitments it made 10 years ago, when we reached that agreement with it - refuses to negotiate in good faith a strict and long-term regulation of its nuclear programme, then France, along with its European partners, can, quite simply and through a simple letter in the post, reimpose on Iran the global embargo on arms, nuclear equipment, banks and insurance companies that was lifted 10 years ago. We have that power. That's why, one way or another, we'll be playing a central role in these negotiations, as we've also demonstrated, because 10 years ago I myself was in Geneva at the French President's request, with my German and British counterparts, to begin those negotiations face to face with the Iranian Foreign Minister.

Q. - You said you were in Geneva, at a time when Donald Trump had already prepared his intervention on the Iranian nuclear sites. Do you get the impression of having been duped, in a way?

THE MINISTER - Not at all, because experience shows me that France is often the first to pave the way for peace negotiations. That's what we saw last year in Lebanon, where France was the first to put a ceasefire plan on the table, in April, which wasn't initially adopted by the parties. We had to wait for the military escalation, and in November last year the United States and France guaranteed the ceasefire agreement that prevented Lebanon collapsing. Likewise, the meeting held in Geneva 10 days ago is the first step towards what will, I'm certain, be a negotiated settlement of this crisis, guaranteeing Israel's security, the region's security and our own security interests.

Q. - Why were the retaliatory measures you talked about just now - the "snapback" mechanism - not adopted before?

THE MINISTER - Because, a year ago now, we embarked on talks with Iran. Why? Because this mechanism for reimposing the global embargo, which was lifted 10 years ago, expires on 18 October. So last year, in October and even before, we made contact with Iran to detail what we expected of Iran to prevent us reimposing the embargo. A few months later, the United States chose to embark on direct or virtually direct talks with Iran; that's what has happened in recent months. At that point, rather than increasing the channels of dialogue, I wanted us to be able to give not only Iran but also the United States the parameters of what we consider to be a balanced agreement protecting Israel's security and our own. Only after the strikes began did my European colleagues and I want to engage again in direct talks, even though it's obviously essential for the United States to take up this issue. The United States but also, in a way, the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the five nuclear-weapon countries, which 10 years ago agreed to restrict the Iranian nuclear programme and which, one way or another, are going to have to agree again to achieve the same result.

Q. - As you say yourself, there's an expiry date, 18 October 2025. What do you do if it expires?

THE MINISTER - We mustn't wait for it to expire. That's why the coming days and weeks are so critical, because they must lead us to secure a negotiated, long-term, strict regulation of Iran's, the Iranian regime's activities, which pose major difficulties and dangers for Israel, the region and ourselves. We're ready for that, because we've been working on this issue for 10 years, with the Quai d'Orsay teams among others, because it's an issue President Macron is perfectly familiar with, and because we've known for the past year that this expiry date is approaching. Iran, Israel, the United States and all those involved are perfectly aware of our demands. We'd like dialogue to begin between Iran and the United States. We'd like it to take into account our demands, which will really shape our decision to reimpose or not reimpose the global embargo that was lifted 10 years ago.

Q. - When was your last call with your Iranian counterpart?

THE MINISTER - A little earlier this week. We exchanged a number of messages only today. He's an interlocutor France knows well, because he was already there 10 years ago during negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme. (...)

[...]