Foreign Secretary David Miliband emphasised that the E3+3 countries, including the UK and the US, are 100% committed to a diplomatic solution in relation to Iran's nuclear programme. His comments were made during several media interviews with the BBC and Channel 4 after Iran admitted to the development of a new nuclear plant in the region.

Read the transcripts

BBC Radio 4 Today programme - Saturday 26 September

John Humphrys, presenter: Iran is under a lot of pressure now after being forced to admit that it's developing a new nuclear plant. The showdown, if that's what it turns out to be, will come next Thursday when Iranian officials meet representatives of the six big powers. And what if all this pressure gets nowhere? What if stronger sanctions are brought in and they get nowhere? That's the question I've been discussing with the Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Is he prepared to rule out the use of force?

David Miliband, Foreign Secretary: No sane person looks at the military question of engagement with Iran with anything other than real concern, and that's why we always say we are 100% committed to the diplomatic track. And I think it's very important that we stick to that, because the diplomatic track of engagement on the one hand and pressure on the other, has only now really been tried with the engagement of the Americans. Remember, for 30 years, since the Iranian revolution, we haven't had engagement between Iran and America. It's what Iran has always wanted. Now you have an American administration saying, 'Yes, we will respect the Islamic republic of Iran, but we need it to respect the international rules.' And I think it's very important that we focus 100% on the diplomatic resolution of this.

JH: So a strike, a military strike of any sort against Iran is, as far as you're concerned, inconceivable?

DM: Well, I always say to people, 'Look at what I do say, not at what I don't say.' And what I do say is that we are 100% focused on a diplomatic resolution of this question. It's vital that we remain so. It's vital in the very short term, with the meeting next Thursday, that the Iranians take practical and concrete steps to address the outstanding questions and the outstanding offer that's on the table for them, and that's what we're waiting to see. And the track that's been set, not just by the British Government or the American government, but by the six countries that have been leading on this, is very clear in a statement that we issued last Wednesday. It says that 'We will pursue the dual-track strategy, and in the light of next Thursday's meeting will then pursue it further, depending on the Iranian response.'

JH: I use the word 'inconceivable' because I invited Jack Straw to use it in this similar context, when he was Foreign Secretary, and he did so.

DM: Well, I think that the way I answer that question is always the same, and I've answered it in the same way for two and a half years. We are 100% focused on a diplomatic resolution to this, and…

JH: Indeed, but I'm struggling to make out the difference, to distinguish the difference between that, 100% commitment to a peaceful approach, and the use of the word military force is 'inconceivable'. Am I missing something here?

DM: Well, I don't… I don't know if you're missing something. I don't think so. I think I'm… it's absolutely clear what it means to say that you're 100% focused on a diplomatic resolution.

JH: Yeah, well, I'm puzzled why you won't use the word that military action is 'inconceivable' there.

DM: Generally, in this, when one start's changing one's line, it raises more [word unclear] than it deserves, and I think it's important…

JH: Oh, I don't know… it's pretty straightforward, that word.

DM: Well, I think 100% is pretty straightforward as a number as well, so we are 100% focused on a diplomatic resolution to this. It's a very serious challenge to the non-proliferation regime. Remember, 40 years ago, John F Kennedy, when he conceived of the Non-Proliferation Treaty said that by 1990, science and wealth would mean there'd be 40 or 50 nuclear weapon states. There aren't. There are less than ten. And it's essential that we learn the right lessons from the Non-Proliferation Treaty's success over the last 40 years, and the lesson is that the international community has to stand together and be very, very, clear. And when it's challenged in the way that it has been on North Korea or on Iran, I think that it's very important that it stands by the treaties which have kept us safe.

JH: And one of those ten, one of those countries that does have nuclear missiles, is Israel. Why can Israel have them, and not Iran?

DM: We've argued very clearly that a nuclear weapons-free Middle East is in the interests of the Middle East, as the drive for international nuclear disarmament is important as well. As it happens, Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I don't say that as a debating point or as a wholesale answer to it, but Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has responsibilities thereto. But if you're saying that the dangers of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East are particularly dangerous and particularly potent, you're right. And if you're saying that the clear and current danger is of an escalation from Iran that leads to a domino effect in other countries, you would be right in saying that as well, because if you talk to any of the Arab delegations here at the UN, as I have this week, it's true that their great hope is a Palestinian state that can live next door to Israel, but their great fear is Iran with a nuclear weapon.

JH: So I take from that answer that you… that there is some concern on your part that Israel might launch some sort of strike against Iran.

DM: Well, I'm not going to speculate on that. Israel has spoken about its own intentions and its own concerns on this. What I know is that no sane person can look with anything like equanimity at the prospect of a military encounter between any country and Iran, especially one respecting its nuclear programme. That's why it's particularly important that diplomacy is decisive and effective. We have a…

JH: So it would be insane for Israel to attack Iran, is what you're saying.

DM: I said it would be insane for anyone to look at it with anything like any equanimity at all, and that's why it's vital that we get the diplomatic, the decisive diplomatic breakthrough that we've been waiting for for a long time. I chaired the meeting in London in May 2008, nearly 16 months ago, which made the offer to Iran which said, 'Look, you can be treated like a normal country if you behave like a normal country on nuclear matters.' On the table for them is not just civilian nuclear co-operation but political and economic co-operation as well. But it can only take place if Iran comes into compliance with its international nuclear obligations and is a force for stability rather than instability in the Middle East.

JH: Is the Middle East… is the world a more dangerous place tonight than it was last night?

DM: Well, you could say that the exposure of the Iranian programme, first of all in their letter of Tuesday, and now in the further details that have been provided to the IAEA, makes it rather less dangerous because anything that is covert is almost by definition… or clandestine… almost by definition more dangerous than something that is overt and understood. I hope that today there is, however, much greater understanding of why people are so concerned about Iran's programme and why there is such lack of confidence in Iran's protestations about its innocence. If indeed Iran only has intentions towards a civilian nuclear power programme, than it can find favour and engagement from the international community. But it has to come clean, and that is the basic test of the meeting next Thursday.

Newsnight BBC2 - Friday 25 September.

Emily Maitlis: So was the timing of this announcement because Iran had rumbled the US intelligence operation? I put the question to Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

David Miliband: I'm not going to comment on the whys and wherefores of the intelligence side of this. We've known about it for some time, we've monitored it very carefully. It's now being delivered to the IAEA and they need to investigate it very carefully. And we have a critical meeting next Thursday, because for sixteen months an offer from the international community has been on the table to Iran. Civil, nuclear, economic, political co-operation as long as they restore confidence in the purely peaceful nature of their intentions.

EM: Iran keeps telling us that this plant is not operational and the US has confirmed that. So where has international law actually been broken?

DM: No one is claiming that the plant is operational yet, but there are requirements under the rules of the International Atomic Energy Authority and under those of the UN Security Council resolutions that have been passed for a notification to the IAEA of any such facilities and that notification hasn't happened. It's very serious that it hasn't happened over the last few years and now the Iranians did write on Tuesday about it. We've provided further details to the IAEA of what's been going on there and now they need to investigate.

EM: Okay, so where next? 'Cause Russia and China certainly haven't talked of sanctions today. Would you be prepared within a coalition of the willing, if you like, to act unilaterally, or at least outside the UN?

DM: We have a multilateral coalition. I chaired a meeting of the six key countries, including Russia and China, on Wednesday here at the UN; the Foreign Ministers of China and Russia were there. We are in complete agreement that this programme must prove its purely peaceful intentions. But if it doesn't prove its purely peaceful intentions the sanctions track comes in to play again.

And I think it's very important that people realise that we have a very clear offer to Iran including supported by the United States, which has never happened before over the last thirty years, that they can have, not just economic and political co-operation, but civil nuclear co-operation, but not until they show the international community that they, that they don't have any military intentions for the uranium enrichment. It's a very simple point.

EM: Just, just to clarify then, you will wait for China to agree to sanctions before you make any material steps?

DM: No, China has agreed with us, with Russia, with America and with Germany and France …

EM: To sanctions?

DM: they've agreed that the dual track, the second track of which is sanctions, the first track of which is engagement, needs to be fully played in as a result of the meeting that happens on Thursday.

EM: The problem of Iran seems to embody something that is increasingly going to become a big issue, disparate countries with very separate agendas all trying to work together with a shift of power. I'm talking of course of, of the move if you like away from a G8 to a G20 now which has been recognised. Can it work?

DM: Well that's an interesting point. President Obama addressed it directly on Wednesday when he spoke to the UN, to the United Nations and he said that no one country can dominate the world any more. Britain used to in the Nineteenth Century, America did for parts of the Twentieth Century, but we do live in a world where a coalition has to be built and I think the striking thing about the Iranian nuclear programme is that it awakens real fear not just in the West, not just in China, but also in the Arab world as well as of course amongst Israelis. And I think that that sort of coalition is the sort of alliance that people want to see where great powers are coming together to defend our shared interests against shared risks.

EM: David Miliband thanks very much indeed.

Channel 4 News - Friday 25th September

Krishnan Guru Murthy: Well just before we came on air I spoke to the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and I began by asking him how long he'd known about this secret enrichment facility.

David Miliband: We've known about the work that's been going on for some time, we're obviously not going to go in to any details. But we've been working internationally with our colleagues on this very significant and very serious development.

KGM: What's the minimum they need to do to avoid sanctions?

DM: Serious engagement with the proposal that's on the table from the international community, a freeze in the programme leading to a suspension and ultimately to the development of a civilian nuclear power programme in Iran in which the international community has confidence. We need concrete, practical steps towards that goal and I think that it's very important not just that there is substance at next Thursday's meeting but also that there is a further process afterwards, an intensive process, by which the international community can be convinced that Iran only has peaceful intentions for its programme.

KGM: What if they don't cooperate?

DM: Well the international community, the six countries, were absolutely clear about that at our meeting on Tuesday and in the statement we published. If, if they're not serious then we will have to get more serious on the sanctions track because we are pursuing a dual track policy; engagement, and President Obama has led that since January, real engagement with Iran, recognising and respecting their rights in the international system but demanding that they accept their responsibilities too. If they don't accept their responsibilities then they'll face greater pressure from the international community and greater unity against their actions.

KGM: Well neither Russia nor China have used the word sanctions today, are you sure that the threat is as big as you suggest it is?

DM: Yes it is because I was a the meeting on Wednesday, I actually chaired the meeting of the six countries; the US, China, Russia and the three European countries, and the statement is absolutely clear, we have a dual tack policy of engagement on the one hand and pressure / sanctions on the other. We want the engagement to work. Iran has said for some time that it wants to be respected in the international community, here is a chance to show that it deserves that respect not through secrecy and subterfuge but through openness and transparency that will convince the international community of their intentions. It's a very simple proposition; Iran can be treated as a normal country if it behaves like a normal country.

KGM: But you know there will be many people who today conclude that it is Israel that has got the right policy on Iran and the only way to deal with Iran properly is militarily.

DM: Well no sane person wants to have a military engagement with Iran over its nuclear facilities, that's why I always say that we are one hundred per cent committed to the diplomatic track. I believe that the diplomatic track can work. The Iranians have said they want a civilian nuclear power programme that fulfils their rights under the Non Proliferation Treaty, they can have that as long as they accept their responsibilities not to have a covert or overt military nuclear programme.

KGM: Won't you end up strengthening Ahmadinejad if you, if you talk like this, you'll strengthen him at home?

DM: Not at all. I think that we've seen that Iran is a country where there is passionate debate and even disagreement about their future. I think it's very important that we say clearly to the Iranian people as well as to the Iranian Government that they, that we have a simple demand of them that they play by the rules. And in that sense we've got a very simple offer too; we will treat them and respect them in the way that they deserve as a country of enormous civilisation and culture and education. But while their Government tries to evade the rules of the international system they can't be treated like a normal country and I think that's the sort of principled and consistent stand that the people of Iran will understand.

KGM: The Foreign Secretary talking to me from the United Nations in New York.

BBC News Channel- Friday 25th September 2009

Clive Myrie: Let's go back to our main story now and the condemnation by world leaders of Iran's announcement of a second uranium enrichment plant. The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, joins us now from the UN.

Thanks very, very much indeed for joining us.

David Miliband: Good to be with you.

CM: … what was your reaction to this news of a second plant being built in Iran?

DM: Well obviously we've known about this for some time. I think it's a serious and significant development. Clandestine activities of this kind are contrary to the statutes of the International Atomic Energy Authority and requirements of that authority as well as contrary to UN Security Council resolutions.

I think it brings in to sharp focus the importance of next Thursday's meeting between Iran and the group of six countries, including Britain, that have been leading the negotiations on this front. Iran has a very clear offer on the table for us. It can be treated as a normal country if it behaves like one. But it must show that its nuclear power programme has only peaceful purposes. That's a simple test for them next Thursday.

CM: Well that's going to be a very interesting meeting isn't it? I mean what are you expecting the Iranians to say?

DM: Well I very much hope that Iran will realise that it can have its rights under the Non Proliferation Treaty as long as it accepts its responsibilities. For sixteen months our offer to respect their rights, to promote economic and civil nuclear as well as political co-operation has been on the table and it hasn't had an answer. There's been the hiatus of the American election, then the Iranian election. Now the excuses are off the table and Iran needs to come to that meeting with a clear and concrete proposal to show that they will engage with the concerns of the international community. I think it's very, very important that they do so. Today's news just heightens that importance.

CM: But are we moving inexorably it seems towards the route of a fresh round of sanctions? Even the Russians seem to be willing to say that they'll sign on to that.

DM: Well that depends on what the Iranians do. I think that nothing is inevitable in this. The ball is very much in the Iranian court. They have a very clear from us on the table. It's well founded, basis for economic and civil nuclear and political co-operation. They have to decide whether they want to choose confrontation or co-operation. Today's news shows that they cover clandestine activities for which they're in the dock for their pre 2003 activities are, are still there. But I think that today's news should heighten their realisation that the world is serious and we want them to be serious too.

CM: Given this revelation, I mean do you think this is a good time to be giving up Trident?

DM: The British commitment to continuous at sea deterrence remains. Trident is an important part of our defence posture, but we are convinced multilateral disarmers and if the international disarmament talks that are being led by America and Russia which after all have more than ninety per cent of the warheads in the world, if they make progress then in due course Britain will become part of those discussions and I think Britain's right to have reduced its arsenal of warheads by about seventy five per cent since the end of the Cold War. We maintain the minimum deterrent as the Prime Minister has always made clear, but we also are determined to fulfil our responsibilities under the Non Proliferation Treaty which after all are to seek multilateral disarmament of a serious kind.

CM: I mean moving on to the G20, I mean are you convinced that there's consensus now on how to move forward in dealing with the global economic crisis, bankers' bonuses, that kind of thing?

DM: I think there is a very substantial degree of consensus, remarkable really if you think about the diverse positions of the twenty countries. A new piece of international diplomacy and decision making has come in to play following the London summit which was chaired by the Prime Minister, now the Pittsburgh summit chaired by President Obama. This isn't just a talking shop, there's real decisions being made and I think that must be a good thing, because in the modern world if we don't get international co-operation then we're going to have national decline.

CM: But there are divisions aren't there, surely? The French and the Germans have made it clear that they would like much tougher action on bankers' bonuses. America and the UK have made it clear that there are other ways around this.

DM: I don't really accept that characterisation of sort of tough and tender on bonuses. The Prime Minister has just said I think on the clip that you played, that there can be no going back to the enormous rewards for short term speculation. That must be right. I've heard President Sarkozy say exactly the same thing. I think that equally these are leaders who want to show that they can have practical deeds as well as strong words and I think that's what you're seeing today.

CM: And what about this suggestion from President Sarkozy floated last week that perhaps there should be a tax put on trades made by bankers to try and keep them in line. Is that a non starter?

DM: I think that's a proposal that's been made to something called the innovative financing streams working group. We've, we're participants in that group, we've actually got an alternative proposal for the issuance of a bond. This is all about trying to deliver money for health projects in the developing world. I think we should be seeking innovative financing mechanisms. President Sarkozy's proposal is not actually the same as ours. We've got a different one. But we certainly shouldn't be afraid of new thinking.

CM: Regardless of the details of a possible snub by President Obama of Gordon Brown, given all the headlines relating to that, do you think the Prime Minister's prestige has suffered a little bit?

DM: Not at all, no. I think that people round the world are scratching their heads at the self flagellation of the British media. What they've seen over the last three days is Prime Minister Brown, President Obama, working intensively together, first of all on climate change, then on issues to do with Iran, now on economic issues.

I've been in the same room as them, I've seen them. They are very, very close, they're working closely together and I think that the determination of the British media to find national decline where in fact there is national influence is something that really shouldn't, really leaves people flummoxed. The truth is that the relationship between the UK and the US is enormously close. With this administration we share values and priorities and we're working intensively together.

CM: Okay, the relationship is as strong as ever. David Miliband, Foreign Secretary, thanks very much indeed.

DM: Thanks very much.