 Well, thank you very much, hope you hear me well. It's very kind of you to be here on a Saturday evening, just arrived as is evident. You saw that today we had good negotiations in Iran. We were able to agree on a joint statement which is going to be guiding our steps for the next months. And I also had the opportunity to talk to the foreign minister, Amir Abul-Ahim, and the first vice president of Iran. So we had, I think, a very intense day over there. And so I'm ready to take your questions and satisfy your doubts, if there are any. Yes. Thank you, Director General Grossi. In your statement, you're referring to three sites. You're seeking information from Iran for three sites. What happened to the fourth site? Because in your previous report, you had mentioned four sites that you needed information on. And also, Iran had made promises to you before. Is there any guarantee that they will live up to it this time? Well, I don't know if what they did before were promises. I think what I would say is that I'm just doing my job. I'm negotiating. I'm keeping trying to clarify what I need to clarify. And I will continue doing so, the fact that we may or may not have been successful in the past and we have been successful in some instances and in some others not so much doesn't mean that we should stop. So we continue and we do as much as we can in the circumstances. Regarding your question about the locations, we are continuing with those locations where we believe we can continue with a process leading to clarification. Regarding the one, we don't think that we have more questions at the moment that could sustain a process. So it is as simple as that. There is no negotiation and keeping one or not. It's about real work, doing work where we can do it. We have been working on this particular thing, which refers to one particular aspect on metal and things that happened in the past, metal disc. Here we performed some verification activities in the past. We had some questions and we believe that at this point there is nothing more that can be done to shed more light about this. So there is no reason to include this issue in the program of work, if you want to call it like that, that we are going to be having for the next few months. Albert Otti, DPA, Chairman Press Agency. Besides these open safeguards issues, there is the question of your current safeguards monitoring activity being curtailed in Iran. Did you address that with your interlocutors? What is the status of that? And the other question, did the Foreign Minister indicate to you when he is planning to come to Vienna? Well, on the issue that you refer, this, as you know, is contingent to the negotiations on the return to the JCPOA. We did not discuss it this time because we are continuing with this interim sort of arrangement we have, which you are familiar with, which has allowed us to continue with certain monitoring activities pending the full return to JCPOA. So there was actually no need to consider that since our activities are continuing, they are uninterrupted within the format that has been agreed with Iran, which is, as you know basically, that they keep the information until there is a return to the agreement. I had, on the second part of your question, I had a very good conversation with the Foreign Minister. I think it is his intention, yes, to return, but you should ask him or the Islamic Republic of Iran about that. I think it is his intention, yes, to return for the conclusion of these JCPOA negotiations, but I'm not following it by the minute, so I don't know. Maybe you know more than I do at this point. Yeah. Thanks a lot, and welcome back, DG. A few questions, if I may. The statement talks about, just two, not four. The statement talks about a conclusion in June. Could that conclusion, if reached, if everything goes well, could it raise new questions that would persuade the board to keep the files open, and if not, how does it differ from the final assessment promised in the much criticised PMD process? And the second question, you implied in Tehran that it would be difficult to implement the JCPOA while the files remain open and you don't have an agreement with Iran. Is it your understanding that Iran would refuse to complete the re-implementation of the deal if these files aren't closed in June? Thank you. Well, as always, you don't disappoint me, Lawrence. Many issues in your question, I don't know how many questions are embedded in your question. But let me try to address it. And if I forget something, please let me know. Well, on the issue of what is in the wording and what may happen, I think the wording is a very careful one in that it says what we were ready to agree to do, which is to aim at trying to come to a conclusion or conclusions in June. This may or may not happen. The other day, somebody, maybe somebody here asked me, what does it take for you to close it for Iran to cooperate? If Iran cooperates, we have a good process, maybe we don't even need to get to June. If Iran does not cooperate, mind you, it's not the board. I would consider that, of course, the board has its competencies, and I don't dispute them. But I, as inspector, if I may say it like this, as director general of the IEA, would not cease to put questions and continue the process. I think this text has the virtue, if I may refer to virtue or to qualify it like that, of saying things in a very straightforward manner. We are going to be working for as much as we can aiming at finding a conclusion can be in different directions. Conclusion can be that you conclude that you have enough elements to consider that something has been clarified. And then, as in the case of metal, for example, either you don't have more questions or you are satisfied or you may come to the conclusion that what you have is not enough and more is needed. This is why, and I think that if you take this and you compare it with the roadmap in 2015, you will see in this regard, I think a very significant difference. Of course, that was another process, a different process, but since the comparison is made, I would like to say here we are not talking about a final report by such date, et cetera. Those were the conditions. I'm not judging whoever was negotiating this. All I'm saying is now I'm working. We are working. Iran has committed to work with us. And what I have committed to do is to aim at having a conclusion, a conclusion. It can be final. It can be partial. It can be whatever it can be. I hope everything will go well. This is my intention, honest intention. Did I cover everything? You did for the session. Basically, has Iran said to you that we will not fully re-implement the... No, not at all, Lawrence. No, no, not at all, not at all, no. Sorry, DG, two things. On the uranium metal disc, it was a little ambiguous the way you described the fact that nothing more can be done. Are you giving up on the issue? Are you suspending your investigation of the issue? No, no, you know how safeguards function. If we have more elements at some point that allow us to probe in a different way, what happens now is that what we are looking for is not there. And there is no possibility also for Iran to disprove that it is or it's not there, it may have been melted and recasted and being in the inventory. So there is no point in continuing. What you're saying is it's not closed. No, we never close things. We have our assessment at one point in time. At this point in time, there's no point in continuing this because it's going to be leading nowhere. OK, then perhaps on the extent to which this is connected to the JCPOA talks and the agreement that's taking shape now, how much can we interpret into the time frame that you've chosen? So by the June board, are we to understand from that that re-implementation day is somehow close to that? Would you take the time frame of the agreement each we count? There are a number of elements there. On the one hand, one could objectively say that... What is it today? March 5th? March 5th. So three months is a very reasonable time frame to at least know whether we have enough elements to reach some conclusions, one conclusion or a conclusion. And yes, there is not for me in the sense of making one thing contingent to the other, but it is obvious that for Iran it is important to try to have the processes, I wouldn't say running in absolute synchronicity, but there is a sort of a loose relationship. But this is a matter of interpretation. I think that for us, this issue is really not relevant. What we are saying is by June, we are aiming at trying to offer a conclusion to the board. And do you expect this process to be mentioned in the agreement itself, to be stipulated as a requirement that Iran has to meet, or at least in the JCPOA agreement? It's a question for the JCPOA negotiators, but personally, I don't expect that to happen. Kastronerji from BBC Persian, there seems to be the discrepancy between your timeline and what the Iranian side has just said. You seem to be talking about four months until June for everything to be concluded, and you'll report to the Board of Governors. The head of the Iranian energy agency today was saying that he mentioned the month of Hordat, which is two and a half months from now. So he is talking about a shorter timeline than you are. Maybe that's good news. Maybe they are preparing to be so cooperative that they expect me to have my conclusions earlier than that. But what we agreed is what you have seen in the joint statement. And how generally, having come back from your visit to Tehran, how hopeful are you that you can come to some kind of a positive conclusion at the end of this process? Well, you know, we have the best disposition, the best disposition. And this is what I told the Foreign Minister and the rest. We think we have to work well, we have to work with determination and work seriously. We know exactly what is needed. They know exactly what we need to know. We have provided them questions and things that we are expecting from them. As you have seen, the timelines that are included in this statement are quite demanding. Because, you know, by March 20th, they have to come with a first set of answers, and then we will have, what is it, a couple of weeks? Yeah, to give them our reactions on that, and then they will have... So what we are trying is to keep a pace which is sustained and aimed at, you know, having that. Hello, this is Mohamed Musavi from NHK. Surprisingly, my question is about Ukraine. I would like to know if there is any further communication about your suggestion about traveling to Chernobyl, or is there any update about any possible leakage in Ukraine? Yes, we are, of course, in parallel. We are continuing our work. We have been in contact with our Ukrainian counterparts on both... I would say on two tracks. On the one hand, we are following the situation very, very closely. We were always, but of course, after the events on the night of Thursday to Friday, we have been following that even more closely. I can say that we have, albeit modest, we have been able, for example, to obtain the shift of the staff at the nuclear power plant. So this is, I think, it's important. It's a sign that people are listening to us, or at least to the things that we are saying. Unfortunately, for Chernobyl, we haven't been able to obtain that, but we are continuing in our conversations. And of course, as I said, I think it's imperative that we have a framework, and this is why I am prepared to come to Ukraine as soon as possible. This has a number of elements that need to be considered. I am in active consideration of those with the two interested parties. But yes, of course, we are following this permanently. Yeah, thank you for the question. Good evening, DJ Grosy. My question goes to PMD. Can you be a bit louder, please? Or maybe, yes, thank you. My question goes to the PMD issues in 2015. Some critics say it was resolved politically, and you are now DG. And the critics say, how do you convince them that the safeguard issue will not be resolved politically? Well, first of all, yeah, thank you very much. The safeguards issues will not be resolved politically because I will not go for that. This is why we are continuing our safeguards process to solve them. Politically, I suppose you mean that we decide to solve them because somebody is putting pressure on me or somebody and saying, you know, you should close this. No, this is not going to happen. And I think what you've seen today, this joint statement of today is proof of that. So there is no artificial deadline. There is no predefined outcome. There is no predefined name for what I am going to do, which is the right way to proceed. We have to be left alone in our professional work, and we will determine with the experts at the safeguards department, we are going to be evaluating what we have. And what it is feasible in that regard. So no politics here. Sorry, D.J., at first I forgot to introduce myself. But if you can, if you don't mind, because it's very difficult to understand behind the mask. Yes, totally understand. Thank you very much. Certainly. I apologize. I forgot to introduce myself at the beginning, Gita Aryan with Voice of America Persian Service. Very good. I would like to ask about the centrifuge facility that Iwan has moved from Karaj to somewhere in Isfahan. Do you have any further information on that? Is it clear where it is? Because some observers are saying that they are probably... It is a place we know very well. Mr. Aparo has visited that many, many times. And we have been able to successfully install our cameras there. As you know, since this is part of the type of arrangement that Mr. Otti was referring to a few minutes ago, we are recording. We do not get the information now. We expect to get that when the JCPOA... If and when the JCPOA is revived or reinstalled. Yeah, thank you. Thanks a lot. That actually touches on one of the two final questions. Do you only expect DG to receive all the footage and camera at the end of the process of implementation? And my second question is, have you asked for and will you get, if there is proper cooperation, an answer to what happened to the equipment that was at Turkish Abad? Thank you. Well, the last part of your question has to do with the process we are starting now. One of the things that we need to know is that. So we will see what happens. And the first part was on when. Yeah, on when we would get... Well, first of all, since this temporary arrangement that we have is, as opposed to other things, this one is contingent to the JCPOA, the exact date is not in my hands. What I arrange with them is that they would actually give us that information. This is a commitment that I obtained from them. Regarding the moment, this is something which, to my understanding, because, of course, there is no final agreement so far, in my understanding, is being considered by the negotiators when exactly within this timeline that they are working on when exactly this would happen. I suppose it should not necessarily be at the end. It should be somewhere in between. But I shouldn't go too much into that because the negotiators are preparing this document, you know, and it's very sophisticated and with many segments. So I don't know in which exact box it comes. Gigi, I remember until recently you've been talking about the fact that IAEA inspectors are flying blind because of the limitations that Iran has put on you. I presume you're going to be flying blind for another four months. Is that going to be a worry? Well, until we have all the capacities and the capabilities that we believe that we need to have, we are in a very difficult position. But I should say circumstances are evolving and I should not be blind to that. There's a better disposition. We are moving into, I hope, a more cooperative relationship. And this allows us from time to time and a technical level to have certain adjustments, have certain understandings, which I cannot get too much into detail because it's part of the confidential safeguards relationship. But things are moving in a better, I mean, or towards a sort of a better atmosphere. Just in the carer, Agence France-Presse, hello. Just picking up on that, when, so when you do get this footage, I assume there's going to be, I mean, because it's been a year now or more than. More recently. Yeah, so there's going to be a process of going through it, evaluating it. It's a huge amount of data. How long do you think it will take for you to... Well, it's going to be difficult. It's going to take a few, perhaps months. A few months. Maybe. As short as I can, as we can, I know Mr. Apparo is going to work very hard to try to, maybe, he's telling me now, maybe not many months, but it's not a matter of days, I would say. It will take, perhaps my answer was a bit misleading into making people understand that this might take a very long time, and Mr. Apparo was not very happy with my answer, as you may have noted. So I'm correcting that to say, but it's not a matter, it's more than a month, for sure, for sure, and it could take a bit of time, because, and actually, we are going to see things that may lead him and his team, the Safegast team, to ask more questions. We may see gaps. We may be confronted with situations where we really need to take a few more days. And just quickly, on that fourth site, you're saying there's nothing more that you can do now, but do you have a satisfactory explanation that you can present to the board? About? About what happened at that site, about what happened with that metal? Well, yeah. Number two. Well, I would say it's not a satisfactory explanation, because we would like, we would have preferred to have a perfect, clear answer to that. We know that it is impossible in life to prove a negative. It's not there, but we cannot exclude either that this has been melted and recasted, and it's part of the inventory that Iran has. So it is a situation that I would not qualify as satisfactory and satisfactory. It is what it is. So it may be that at the end of this whole process, for all of these sites, you might have to say the same thing. You might have to say we've had these exchanges with Iran. There's nothing more that we can do. There are still open questions. I don't think so. No, I don't think so because of the nature of things. First of all, this issue that we are referring is an issue that is not related to a location, right? It is referred to a discrete and small amount of material, which is difficult to trace or perhaps even impossible to trace back because it has been or it was what we know is what happened to it almost 20 years ago or what was done with it almost 20 years ago. Completely different from that is when you find traces of enriched uranium at a place where no enriched uranium should have been found and when you have information about equipment, et cetera. So I don't know how this, I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know how this will end, but quite clearly, I cannot foresee that you would be in the same kind of situation. You have a more definite. Absolutely, it's a different subject matter, it's a different issue, it's a different story. Hi, Digi, it's Stephanie Liechtenstein, freelancer. Yes. Digi, just so that I understood you correctly, you said again on your joint statement from today, while there are some deadlines mentioned in there, if your questions are not resolved by those dates, then the process will continue. The process will always continue until we can say that we are satisfied or we have reached a conclusion or different conclusions. Right, okay. So until that happens. So that's what you mean when you say there's no artificial deadline. It just means that it can go on. Artificial deadlines in terms of saying you have to conclude by Easter. Right. Or you will conclude by Easter. By Easter, you will conclude. No, that's impossible. We cannot know. I wish I could, but how can I say that? I cannot say it. Sorry, just again, getting back to this issue of the extent to which this is intertwined with the agreement, you've said that your conclusion that you have to reach by the June board is an open one, it can be positive, negative, whatever. But if it's anything other than issues resolved, case closed, where does that leave implementation of the deal as far as you understand it having spoken to the Iranians? The implementation of which deal? The agreement that's being negotiated now, the JCPOA add-on agreement. Well, that would be for those in that deal to judge. My impression is that it would be difficult to imagine that you can have a cooperative relationship as if nothing had happened if the clarification of very important safeguards issues were to fail. But to be honest with you, this is pure speculation. It's pure speculation. So I think what's important is to start the process now, to start working, we are going to see how it goes and then hopefully have something more concrete in a few months. Sorry, DG, to keep pressing on that, but your answer to François's question. I mean, you have spent weeks, in fact, months talking to the Europeans, the Americans, the Iranians about exactly this issue. You must have some idea of what they will think and what they will do if you say Iran has not satisfactorily answered the questions. I mean, they've been here for days. Islamic was here for days pressing you on this and then he went over to the JCPOA. So when you say it's difficult to imagine going ahead with the implementation if this file is not closed, surely that is based on what you've heard from the P5 plus one and Iran? And? Or is it not? I think my ideas of what may happen do not add any value to the process at this point. I have a mission, I know what I need to do technically and my impressions, my subjective feelings about what others could be doing. This is like a billiard sort of scenario that, of course, may be interesting and I think you and the analysts are the ones that can do that much better than me, frankly speaking. So I believe that what's important is to concentrate on our job and we will continue the conversation with you and see how we go. I mean, I'm gonna sharpen that. If there is no end, if you cannot say the files are closed, I'm happy, should the JCPOA be implemented? Re-implemented. It's a question for the JCPOA participants, not for the Director General of the IAEA, frankly. Very good, I thank you so much. I promise we will not have a press conference tomorrow. Thank you. Monday, yeah, otherwise I'll miss you guys. Yes, I'm trying to get better, I'm a diplomat. I like to learn the languages of those I negotiate with. Thank you very much. Bye. So nothing.