 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. Yes. In your story about this, in your last report, what we have seen of it, reports of your report, there is an increase in the amount of enriched uranium to 60% and 20%. How worried are you that this is getting out of control in a way? Well, I wouldn't say it's out of control. But what I would say is that the program continues to show a degree of 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 reluctancy or reluctance or limiting access or 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 dialogue with Iran as soon as possible. Hello, Diji. Hello. That's going to Akini Bontalafshan Network. I have two questions, too. So let me start with the first one on Iran. As 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 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 as you are 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 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 sort of 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. OK, the second question. Actually, the second question is on the 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, 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 a 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 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. We, 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. Hi, Raqida Bahnam from Al-Arabiya. 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, we know, 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 could 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 and to giving you the full support you need in order to be able to... Are you, excuse me, if I ask you something, are you referring to Iran or Ukraine? Iran, sorry, only Iran. Yeah, well, 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 says, everybody recognizes that the work with the IAEA is indispensable. There wouldn't be a JCPOA without the IAEA who would verify, who would guarantee, and the still and clarified issues that 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 is on the work with the IAEA. So I feel very supported and understood when it comes to my work with Iran. Of course, 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. 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. Hi, DG, Tukhshinivs Agency. Sorry, yes. Yeah, Tukhshinivs Agency, honorable. Yes. I have two questions about the Saporizhya. Yes. As you know, the high-level employer or worker from this NPB was detainee by the Russian forces. Yes. Do you have any information that you share with us? Yeah. First question. Second question is about the save zone, the nuclear save zone. Yes. I guess you meet some different countries or some different politician leaders. Would you like to speak this topic with Turkey? You know, the Turkey play a different role. Would you like to speak this topic with Turkey that can maybe help? I don't know. Yeah. Well, thank you very much for the suggestion. On the first was on the prison. Yeah, well, 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 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 Saporizhya is one of the ways to do that. They are listening to the staff. They give advice, et cetera. And we are doing the same here. What you refer 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. Sir. 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 their 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 at 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 some 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. My question is a little bit like his question. Has IEA any deadline for this situation? Sometimes yes, sometimes no from Iran, from IEA. And how long will this situation continue? I mean, 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 on end 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. There's a couple of questions, and one on Iran, 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 Iran to sort of start providing answers in this meeting, which suggests they need to show you like 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 hoped 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. 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 first part on the wording and what we expect. I think 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 think quite, in a very direct way, I characterize them as technically not credible. So we are talking with experts, among experts, and we are saying, well, what you are giving me, it's not possible. So please try again. And so the idea for me has always been because I'm trying to be optimistic, as the gentleman was saying here. And 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 happy to reflect. One of the things that I often hear is that from some Iranian counterparts is that we are not reflecting something positive. We'll say, well, start delivering something. For me, engagement is not simply that you sit down or that you, we tried that already. We tried having calendars, having periodical meetings, quarterly meetings, monthly meetings, bimonthly meetings, here, there, everywhere. It's not working. So we can sit here and in the space of one minute, I will realize whether this is meaningful and we are getting 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 really hope it will soon. Regarding Saporizia, in fact, maybe it's a black box, but it's a small box because what we are saying, what we are proposing is very simple, don't shoot at the plant, don't shoot from the plant. And the points of still of doubt are not that many. So I'm saying that it's small in the sense that you are not going to, if we can have 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 reflect a political commitment, very serious political commitment of both sides 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 necessary. And this is why we are discussing, I was discussing yesterday, as you were referring to 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 need that because of course, this is a conflict where there are alliances, there are alignments as well. And these count 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.