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

. . .

I will read Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy's statement.

"I condemn the unacceptable remarks made today by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling into question, once again, the existence of the State of Israel."

Q: The minister was commenting on the Iranian president's statement, but do you have any comment on statements by the Israeli prime minister after he returned from Moscow yesterday, threatening the Iranians that he would take the initiative in the event Iran did not halt its nuclear program?

A: I confess I didn't see those statements exactly. I saw Mr. Olmert's statements about a red line that Iran shouldn't cross. I've not seen exactly what consequences were drawn from it. In any case, our position is well known. On the Iranian nuclear question we have clearly preferred the diplomatic approach. We've said so repeatedly. As the French prime minister said, for us, there is no military option.

Q: Where are you exactly in the talks on a draft resolution on sanctions? Who's leading the dance?

A: All the pertinent information was given in New York. Consultations are taking place among the Europeans first to see what kind of draft resolution we could table. Then, as usual, the consultations will be expanded to the other Security Council members.

We're engaged in this process. You're certainly going to ask me when we're going to present the draft. I can't say at this point. It will depend on the contacts we'll be having in the next few days, with the Russians and Chinese in particular. We'll see how the draft is received and then we'll know at what point we can present it.

Q: The two countries you mentioned have agreed to the idea of imposing sanctions?

A: Given what happened here in Paris on July 12, given resolution 1696 which was adopted at the end of July, and the recent meeting in London and also the contacts between the political directors, we feel that there is agreement among the Six to move on to this stage. As I said, that doesn't mean that there's agreement among the Six, at this very moment I'm speaking, on all the details of a draft resolution.

Q: But in the statement that followed the EU foreign ministers' meeting in Luxembourg, there's no decision about moving on to sanctions; it says sanctions will be studied, which isn't the same thing.

A: What you need to remember is that nothing is automatic in this matter. The Security Council keeps control of decisions at every stage. That's something that France and several countries wanted. We don't want to engage in a sort of process that would get out of control.

As the Security Council keeps control, one has to be relatively cautious, obviously. It's not the European Union that decides, it will be the Security Council, which explains the prudence you mentioned in drafting the conclusions of the general affairs council.

Q: Is France in favor of moving on to this stage?

A: Yes, the minister made that clear at the last general affairs/external relations council. He said we had no other choice, given Iran's attitude, than to move towards this option. Even though, as we keep saying, the door to dialogue always remains open. It's important to recall that.

Q: Don't you think all this is taking a lot of time? Is the time being used to used to hone the details on sanctions or are we to expect something else? It seems to me to be taking a lot of time to draw up p a list of sanctions.

A: No, it's part of international and multilateral life. It takes time to achieve results. We've seen it in other cases and undoubtedly we'll see it again in the future. It's not always easy to get to a resolution quickly. Sometimes, it happens, it did in the case of North Korea, and in other cases it goes slower. There's no hidden explanation behind this.

Q: But is there disagreement among the Security Council members?

A: No. I understand it's your role to emphasize disagreements rather than points of agreement. In the case of North Korea, for example, at one point I read in the press that there was disagreement among the Security Council members and in the end we achieved a unanimous resolution. With Iran it's the same-there aren't necessarily the same sensibilities, but one shouldn't immediately deduce there are disagreements.

Q: If there's agreement, the resolution should be ready quickly, right?

A: No, not necessarily. These are highly technical points, you have to understand. We have to see what sort of cooperation we're aiming for, what type of equipment, what sort of individuals and financial assets. These really are very specific questions which take a bit of time, obviously. As the Germans say, the devil is in the details.

Q: What objectives are you going for in imposing sanctions?

A: We've always been clear. We're not punishing Iran. The idea is not to take punitive action against the country; it's to have a strength of conviction, backed by measures that show the Iranians that we're ratcheting up the pressure to persuade them to return to the negotiating table. That's been our idea from the start, and we haven't changed.

Q: But Iran says it is open to dialogue?

A: As you know, we gave dialogue a chance. We even went beyond the timeframe we'd given Iran in resolution 1696. We set a deadline for the end of August. We went over it so as to give the discussions between Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani a chance. We then observed that Iran really had no wish to make the requisite gesture to enter into negotiations. We always get back to that. I recognize that the Iranians have a fairly good communications strategy which is designed to publicize the fact that they're open to dialogue. But at the same time when you put it the test in a way, this willingness is not confirmed.

People can't accuse us of rushing things either. We went over the deadline that had been set and we really did wish to explore all the options. And once again, I repeat, we're not closing the door to dialogue, that's perfectly clear.

Q: Will these sanctions persuade Iran?

A: I don't know. In any case we are using the means available to us in the multilateral framework, i.e. the instrument we have in the Security Council, the instrument of Article 41 in Chapter 7. These are fairly strong in the international community. We don't use this type of instrument every day. Then we'll see what conclusions Iran draws. I can't make conjectures as to what it will do.

(…)