I would first of all like to raise Iran. Not so much because this is a subject of fierce debate in Washington, Paris and elsewhere - but it is. But because this is the crisis the most pregnant with threats for the future. Without exaggeration, I would say that our responses to this situation today will shape the world in which we live tomorrow, far beyond the bounds of the region itself.

President Sarkozy clearly stated his opinion to French ambassadors meeting in Paris at the end of August. His firmness and determination have not escaped you: I have long shared them. An Iran with a military nuclear capability is, for us, unacceptable.

For the security of the region, including - but not only - that of Israel, for our security as Europeans, for credibility of the Non-Proliferation regime and for the credibility of the UN Security Council, in other words the future of the multilateral order - and we are in favor of a multilateral order. And don't forget the risk that a nuclear-armed Iran would create in terms of regional proliferation. Its neighbors would be tempted to follow the same path.

This is why the Europeans, through the action of Germany, France and Great Britain, with my good friend Javier Solana, first supported and then joined by the United States as well as China and Russia, have launched a process to find a political solution. And we are still on this path: a political solution. The three Europeans spared no effort to negotiate after the October 2003 Tehran agreement. They did so wholeheartedly.

In response, what did Iran do? Iran resumed conversion, then enrichment. Despite this, the Six presented an ambitious and substantive offer in June 2006; with American support. I know that this required a brave move by American diplomacy, which agreed to change a policy of nearly three decades.

Despite this, the Iranian authorities have been playing for time, refusing any compromise and rejecting our offers. After three Security Council resolutions, including two sanctions resolutions, after increasingly ambitious and generous proposals, Iran has chosen to stick with its policy of fait accompli and to continue with uranium enrichment. In other words, Teheran has chosen to confront the international community, by ignoring its central demand: suspend your enrichment-related activities and your reprocessing activities. This choice forces us to increase the pressure.

To those who say that we should handle Iran with kid gloves, since it could destabilise the region, I say this: look at its adventurism today and imagine what it would be like if Teheran thought itself one day protected by a nuclear umbrella. In a region that is already so tense, so fraught with danger, allowing a country to move forward on the path to a nuclear weapon would be irresponsible. Without forgetting that, while the whole world concentrates on the nuclear issue, its missile programmes are moving forward in leaps and bounds.

With its European partners, with the United States, Russia and China, France is therefore determined to explore all avenues to prevent the worst. That was my sentence. I was asked: "what would be the worst?". The worst is war. I was not looking for war. We have to calm the tension in the region. Dialogue, dialogue and dialogue again, therefore, despite rebuffs, while keeping our heads cool. As much as we can do; as far we can go. Bearing in mind that, in this case, if sanctions without dialogue can only lead to confrontation, dialogue without sanctions is unfortunately tantamount to weakness.

Needless to say, my priority, my greatest hope would be to obtain robust sanctions in the United Nations Security Council, a fourth resolution. I will meet with my colleagues of the E3+3 in New York next week. We will see. But the clock is ticking, and we cannot afford, given the risk, to exclude other avenues, including that of further European Union sanctions.

At the national level, the French government has asked French firms to show the greatest restraint in their investments in Iran, especially in the oil and gas sector. It is important here to maintain as much of a shared approach as possible: bear in mind that Iran would come out triumphant from a transatlantic rift. This is why the bills in preparation in Congress seem to me particularly unhelpful. Their effect would be exactly the opposite of what we jointly seek.

Yet for all that, we have absolutely no intention of giving up on dialogue. The door remains open. We must, time after time, explain to the Iranian regime that its current policy can only lead it to isolation, insecurity and economic stagnation. That if it can seize the opportunity that is presented to it by the international community, Iran and its people will have a chance to find the place that they deserve in the region and the international community, given their great history, their unique civilization and their potential. And that, in this case, Iranian youth will enjoy the future it deserves.

To sum up, we will do everything in our power to avoid the dreadful alternative laid out by President Sarkozy : the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran. We will do our utmost for that.

. . .