 Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to this press conference. Did you give a few remarks of who you've been having trouble with? Thank you. Thank you, Fredrik. It's very good to see you, as always. Perhaps we should go directly to your questions on any of the items. Yes? Hi, Digi. I noticed you just tweeted that you hope that your technical meeting with Iran that's scheduled for later this month takes place. Obviously, you know that Mohammed Islami said earlier today that it's not on the agenda, so I'm just wondering, it seemed clear not so long ago that this meeting was scheduled and you had a date for it, so what is the status of it now? Has Iran told you it's off, or what's happened? Well, we expressed this in this way for the reasons you explained. There has been a public statement from an authoritative figure that is saying that there's no meeting, so we don't know if it's this meeting or another meeting. Maybe it's lost in translation or lost in tweeting, but we hope, as I said, we hope that this, of course, is a technical meeting, it's not a high-level meeting, it's a meeting that was supposed to continue the conversations we were having, so yeah, there is some doubt. I hope they will clarify. Sorry, just to be clear then. So you say maybe something got lost in translation, so they haven't told you this directly at all? No, no, no, just this tweet, but it's a tweet of the President of the EUI, so I should give credit to it. Thank you. Yes? Well, he would make things even worse than they already are. We are not making any progress, and if a modest technical meeting cannot take place, but I would like to speculate because it's not clear whether this is going to happen or not, but since you asked me, of course, it would be more of the same and we are not making progress. One, you know that there is this resolution being discussed on Iran right now. I just wondered whether you are worried that this kind of resolutions, this is the second in six months as we had a statement, this increase of pressure on Iran will make Iran to cooperate less and less and less and even sort of leave the MPT. Are you generally worried on the out front? What I want is, and we are asking for Iran to cooperate with us. I've said many times these things are not going to go away, resolution or no resolution. It's their obligation to provide us with the information we need and we are trying to look and try to find ways and mechanisms and we have been trying to do this for many, many months unsuccessfully. So whether resolutions may have an influence on this or not, it's not for me to say. So far we haven't been very successful. We continue addressing this issue and we address it directly with them independently of whether if there was no resolution I would still be asking them please cooperate with me. So it is speculation, what kind of impact a resolution may have. One more. Sorry about this. In your last report, what we have seen of it, reports of your report, there is an increase in the amount of Enbridge to Uranium to 60% and 20%. How worried are you that this is getting sort of out of control in a way? Well, I wouldn't say it's out of control but what I would say is that the programme continues to show a degree of, I would say, advancement, which is of course something that people are noticing and this makes it even more important and relevant that Iran cooperates. These are very high levels of enrichment. I have said it many times. So of course this is an activity that can take place but when you do it, you have to do it in full cooperation with the IAEA. Not with a reluctance or reluctance or limiting access with the things that we have been seeing. So it's part of a general pattern, I would say, that has continued for a long time now. So we hope that we can finally sit down with them, that we can reconstruct a dialogue with Iran as soon as possible. Hello, Diji. Hello. That's going out in the Ponthalabshan network. I have two questions too. Yes, please. So let me start with the first one on Iran. Since the camera data on the manufacturing factory is not given and then there was a discussion of the loss of the data and the difficulty of reconstructing. Now it's been quite a while and how sure would, what's the certainty of IAEA at this point or maybe by the end of this year to be able to really say that yes, we can reconstruct what had happened. That's number question one. It would be very difficult, not impossible but very difficult. You remember that last summer when this happened, I said this is going to be very serious. And I'm sorry to say we were right because we were hoping that the measure or the disconnection of the cameras would be temporary, that we would be able to have them again. This didn't happen. That doesn't seem to be a prospect of that again. So what, as you're rightly saying, what that prevents us is from having a view of things that have been ongoing for a very long time, for a very long time. Since February 2021 with data being registered and the cameras functioning and from this summer even without the cameras. So there is a mass of activity about which we don't know anything. So assuming being optimistic and assuming that there is some, there is a return to the JCPOA and we have to provide the assurances about the baselines, we would have to have an ad hoc arrangement with Iran. It wouldn't be possible on the basis of the information we had. First of all, we had to check whether the old information, the information that was still being collected by our systems is still around. And if that was the case, well, we should have to sit down and see what do we do about the gap that we've had for the past six months or so. So this, as we have said, would be technically very difficult, would require a number of partial and mitigation measures which would require us to sit down with them, to look into records, to talk to a lot of people and try to reconstruct the jigsaw puzzle in between. If it was impossible, we would have said it. It is very difficult. The second question is on Ukraine. You have been diligently working on this agreement of the protection zone. Can you give us a bit more updates on what's happening now and what's hindering you? Not you, but what's hindering the... Well, you know, it's a bit difficult and I would ask you to bear with me on this because it's an ongoing negotiation that involves military aspects as well, as you can imagine. But what I can say is that I have kept my channels of dialogue open, of course, with Ukraine. And naturally, I have to talk to Russia as well and I have been doing this. What I would say is that the main issues that are being discussed are those related to the military equipment and some related also to the radius of the zone. So you can imagine that for two countries at war, they have different objectives. And I guess they don't want to see these military objectives being affected. My message has been very clear in the sense that whatever military goals are on the table, they should not include shelling of a nuclear power plant. And on this, I'm very clear with both. Thank you very much. Bethany Bell, BBC. A follow-up question to that, if I may. Is there a kind of timeline that you think might be possible in terms of establishing this protection zone around Zaporizhia? And what are the biggest challenges that you see right now to that? Well, in terms of the timeline, I wouldn't say so, but I would say that time affects the whole situation there because we are there, what you see, you cannot measure exactly the degree of danger because any day you can have a shelling, you can have a bomb being dropped or the interruption of an external power source which cannot be repaired fast enough. So my impression is that it should happen as soon as possible. The way, of course, we are looking into the, this is not happening against a peaceful background. There is an ongoing battle. And of course, we are looking at that and what we see in general terms without getting into an area which is not my area of specialty. Which is not getting any easier or any, you know, more relaxed or with less intensity in terms of the conflict. So I am extremely worried about it and I'm trying to get it as soon as I can, as soon as I can really. And again, how realistic is it though still? I mean, is this something that you have hopes for very soon or is it something that is... I think it's completely realistic. We have proposed something which is very feasible. You may remember that there were debates about whether this would be a fully demilitarized zone or whether we could involve other agencies or the UN blue helmets or things like that. Since we knew that all of these alternatives would make it politically very, very difficult, we adjusted it, narrowed it down to purely nuclear safety security-based considerations with the IAEA as the interlocutor. That was, I believe, a reasonable way forward since Ukraine and also the Russian Federation said that they were prepared to work on the basis of this. They were not saying, forget about this, this is something that we cannot even contemplate. No one has said that, which gives me hope, gives me the impression that we have material to work on to get to this. I have a more general question. The relation between the IAEA and Iran has been steadily going backward over the last year, at least. Now, I know you're not a politician, you've said this several times, but I know also that you need the support of politicians in order to be able to fulfill your job. Yesterday, you were in Germany, we were not allowed to ask questions, so maybe now you can talk a little bit about how much political support you actually have, what did you hear yesterday from the Germans? Do you feel that there are some countries that are a bit more reluctant in giving you the full support you need in order to be able to... Excuse me, if I ask you something, are you referring to Iran or Ukraine? Iran, sorry, only Iran. Very good. When it comes to Iran, I believe that the support the IAEA has is really overwhelming. I cannot see anybody questioning what we are doing on the contrary. I think that irrespective of the debates that may be taking place even among the hitherto united front of the JCPOA, which has now some fractures, everybody recognizes that the work with the IAEA is indispensable. There wouldn't be a JCPOA without the IAEA who would verify, guarantee, and the still and clarified issues on which I have been pushing would still require the agency. So if there is an area where everybody agrees that there must be cooperation on the work with the IAEA, so I feel very supported and understood when it comes to my work with Iran, of course. We are not, we haven't reached a point where we see eye to eye with Iran still on these issues. I keep trying and I will still keep trying, you know. I only believe in a diplomatic solution to this based on the technical work of the IAEA. This is what we need to achieve, really. Sorry? Yes. Yes. I have two questions about the separation. Yes. As you know, the high-level employer or worker from this NPB was detained by the Russian forces. Yes. Do you have any information that you share with us? First question. Second question is about the save zone, the nuclear save zone. Yes. As you know, the issue of the staff is one of the most important ones for me. It is the protection of the staff, the ability to speak with the staff. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. The protection of the staff, the ability of the staff to work in normal conditions which of course, in the case of a war like this has gone through the window, must be in a way addressed. For example, my permanent mission in Zaporizia is one of the ways to do that. They are listening to the staff, they give advise, et cetera. etc. and we are doing the same here. What you referred to is a more delicate issue on which as you know the agency when it could play a role. There were cases of some experts or members of the staff of the plant which were detained and we were able to in a certain sense cooperate to assure their release. This happened over the past few months. There are still a couple of cases on which we are consulting and the situation is not entirely clear yet on that. As you know when it comes to these issues there are many factors involved that have to do with prisoners and the exchange of them but when we can we always try to play a constructive role and I have been trying to do that. In terms of of course we value very much Turkey. I have been seeing Russian counterparts in Turkey a couple of times. I discuss that occasionally with the Turkish government so we value very much their contribution. The contributions they have been making in general in this conflict above and beyond the nuclear. I think we have to exercise every possible means to stop this war and I think any effort and those efforts are very appreciated by the international community and including myself of course. Hello Diji. Hello. My question is two resolutions in the Board of Governors in six months means the US and E3 also international community are disappointed about the revival of the JCPOA also about the Iranian cooperation with IAEA but it seems you are personally optimist. Could you tell how much is the limit of your optimism about the Iranian cooperation with the agency? Thank you. Well I don't know if I would say I'm optimistic. I am determined to continue. I am not going to stop in my efforts. My effort is aimed at making Iran cooperate with us understanding that they have an obligation to do that. Of course they are a sovereign nation and I cannot force them to do this but there is an objective international law obligation that they have to work with us. What we try to do when it comes to a certain area which is very technical where they need to provide some answers is we try to do it in a way that would facilitate they are coming forward with this information. I don't want to get into too much technical detail but there are different ways in which a country can provide information. We try to facilitate that by putting questions in a way that will allow them to cooperate. So I think it is in their best interest honestly to work with us. As I've said many, many times the IEA has no political agendas here. We are abiding by our mission and they have an obligation to do this. This is the basis of peaceful nuclear activities in the world when you conduct nuclear activities that Iran has a very ambitious program you have to go by the rules and if there is something that was found that should have not been there you have to explain. It's not a matter of a politicization of this issue as sometimes say. It is simply complying with the obligations and this will be the only way for Iran to regain the confidence that they aspire to get. Without that the confidence is not going to materialize out of thin air unfortunately. So I hope they will cooperate. Yes. My question is a little bit like his question. Has IEA any deadline for this situation? Sometimes yes, sometimes no from Iran and how will this situation continue? Do you have any deadline? No, I don't like deadlines. Deadlines have a repressive connotation that I don't like. I think we have to work with respect, with mutual respect. Of course taking the agency very seriously. You cannot continue for months and for years without giving explanations when explanations are due when you have an obligation to give them. So I wouldn't talk about deadlines but at the same time we cannot continue with this forever. It is obvious that for the international community as such if you add absence of cooperation with a nuclear program that is growing and growing and growing then the lack of confidence is absolute and this situation is not going to result in any positive atmosphere or any positive thing for Iran. I hope they can come to that conclusion as well. Thank you. Sorry, Francois Murphy from Reuters. Just a couple of questions. One on Iran and one on Ukraine. Let's assume for a moment that this meeting later this month does happen with Iran. Your NPT report has a kind of interesting wording on what you need to see from Iran at that meeting so I was just wondering if you could put it in perhaps slightly plainer English. I mean the report says you basically need to need Iran to sort of start providing answers in this meeting which suggests they need to show you a tiny little bit of something that would be the beginning of a process so I'm wondering how would you describe what you need to see from Iran and then on Ukraine it was about three weeks ago that you were on the doorstep of the UN Security Council and you suggested that an agreement could be reached within days. I mean you often put it in terms of what you hope rather than what you expect but you said it could be you hope there would be a deal within days and here we are three weeks later still no deal in sight on the protections on. I'm just wondering if you can give us some sense of how these talks have evolved because for us it's essentially a black box and we you know as long as we have no deal we have no sense of how it's going and you tell us we're not there yet so are we closer than we were are we further away than we were how is it going? I understand. So the the first part on the on the wording and what we expect I think you are you're right the wording reflects what it reflects and you understood perfectly well because what we have been getting is I mean it's like we are talking past each other we are asking questions and we are not getting answers or the answers we are getting are answers as I I think quite you know very direct way I characterize them as technically not credible so we we are talking with experts among experts and we are saying well what you're giving me it's not it's not possible so please try again and so the the the idea for me has always been because I'm trying to be optimistic as the gentleman was saying here and the the verb start I think has this meaning if we start to see that some of the technical answers point to the problem we are signaling well then it's something that I would be I would be happy to to reflect one of the things that I often hear is that from some Iranian counterparts is that we are not reflecting something positive was it well start you know delivering something for me engagement is not simply that you sit down or that you we try that already we tried having calendars you know having uh periodical meetings quarterly meetings monthly meetings by monthly meetings here there everywhere is not working so we we can sit here and in the space of one minute I will realize whether this is meaningful and we are getting into into an area that is related to the origin of the particles in these places and the information we are showing them and this hasn't happened I hope it will I hope I really hope it it will soon regarding Saporizia in fact you know maybe it's a black box but it's a small box because you know what we are saying what we are proposing is very simple don't shoot at the plant don't shoot from the plant and and the the the the points of still of doubt are not not that many so I'm saying that it's small is in the sense that you are not going to if if we can have the the zone which I really hope will be the case you will not discover all of a sudden 24 pages agreement with annexes it's a very simple thing which will allow for will will reflect a political commitment very serious political commitment of both sides to to stop doing something which is still taking place and I'm not attributing anything it's still taking place so we are having yet another series of consultations this week and the next week it's going to continue so I'm sorry if I cannot go much further but there will be much more than getting to yes really that is that is that is necessary and this is why we are discussing I was discussing yesterday as you were referring to with with Foreign Minister Beabock in Berlin about that there are countries that are very involved in this conflict and they have a stake in peace they want to know more they want to see how they can support us and I I need that because of course this is a conflict where there are there are alliances there are alignments as well and they they discount as I have come to learn very good I thank you for your interest and your questions and we will be seeing each other very soon I hope thank you very much