this is bbc news. the headlines: former israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu could return to power, according to exit polls, after tuesday's general election. they general election. give him a slim majority of they give him a slim majority of seats. he was ousted last year after 12 years in office. brazil's president, jair bolsonaro, authorises officials to begin the transfer of power following his narrow defeat in sunday's vote. in his first public address since the vote, he made no permission of defeat to his rival, luiz inacio �*lula' da

silva. now on bbc news, it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. russia's invasion of ukraine has generated all kinds of shock waves military, humanitarian, economic and nuclear. leave aside putin's dark hints about russia's readiness to contemplate first use of a nuclear weapon, russian forces still occupy europe's biggest nuclear power plant at zaporizhzhia. the situation there remains unstable. my guest, rafael grossi, director general of the international nuclear watchdog, the iaea, has been there in an effort

to avert disaster. with zaporizhzhia in mind, why is he pushing for more nuclear power right across the world? rafael grossi in vienna, welcome to hardtalk. thank you, it's good to be with you again, hello. it's great to have you on the show. i think we have to begin with the situation in zaporizhzhia, the huge nuclear power plant in ukraine.

you've spent months trying to stabilise the situation there. how high are your anxiety levels right now? unfortunately, they remain quite high because even, even though we've been making some progress now — i have, for example, the permanent presence of some of my experts at the plant, and we have a clear idea of what is going on exactly, every day — we continue to see shelling, we continue to see cut of the external power to the station. so in general, i continue to believe that the situation is very, very precarious, very fragile indeed. what is your number one concern in terms of safety there? is it the shellfire that you refer to and the fact that there could be a direct hit on a key part of the installation, or is it the sort of underlying fear of a long—term cut

to power, and all that could do to cooling systems inside the plant? it's all of the above. the cut or the interruption of the power lines, i would say, is more frequent. it's more frequent. therefore, you could say perhaps it's more of a preoccupation in this regard, because, of course, you lose you lose power, you lose cooling capacity. then immediately, you know, emergency generators have to kick in and you don't want to have the largest, biggest nuclear power station in europe functioning in that way. but at the same time, of course, shelling, by definition is unpredictable. you cannot know who and how and how big a shell or an impact a projectile will be. so i would say both, although the external power i continue to believe is the highest of the two, yes.

right — now, back in september, after you'd made your own visit to zaporizhzhia in the summer, and after you'd installed a permanent small team in the plant, you wrote a report saying that the situation there is, quote, "not sustainable". well, here we are in november, and the situation really, by the sound of it, hasn't improved. so frankly, rather than just saying, you know, you're still quite anxious, it seems to me the world still has a crisis which it has no idea how to solve. yeah, with one difference there. i'm saying i'm anxious, but i'm doing lots of things about that. i'm notjust expressing frustration from, from a cosy office here in vienna. we are out there and i'm working, i must say, with russia and with ukraine in order to establish a protection zone around the plant. of course, as you can imagine, this plant is, is at the front line. it's not near, it's not in the vicinity.

it's at the front line of between two countries at war, real war. so we have to see what the parameters — well, i know what the parameters of such a protection zone would be, but i have to make them acceptable for both. and this is not an easy thing. anyways, of course, we can do more. i'm pushing — i wasjust last week appearing before the united nations security council, pushing this. i have been, as you know, with president putin. i have been several times with president zelensky. so i'm frankly moving and i will continue doing that until i get this station to be protected. isn't the truth, though, that your biggest problem is that one side in this is behaving in an entirely illegal, illegitimate and unreasonable fashion? and i would suggest that one sign of that is that even as you have your own monitors inside zaporizhzhia, the russians — because we are talking about the russian side — they are still taking staff, ukrainian staff from that power plant hostage.

they're still kidnapping people, they did it on 17 october, just a few weeks ago, and only one of them has so far been released. how can you... that is a very serious thing. and let me tell you that we have also, the iaea has also been trying and even me personally to intervene so that these things come to stop. but if you allow me, this is a different problem. all these things that come associated with the occupation of the plant and all the staffing issues derived from this anomalous situation are very, very serious. i have addressed them and they have nuclear safety implications. you may have addressed them, bu you've done nothing to improve the situation for those people. they are still, in effect, working at gunpoint under duress with the risk that they or their families may be taken hostage. that surely is unacceptable to you.

and yet your inspectors sit there and it seems can do nothing about it. well, i would disagree, i would disagree with that. first of all, the fact that we have a permanent presence there has improved the situation in many respects. these people have somebody to talk to. we have been acting upon testimonies and we also can tell you and the world what is actually going on there, technically speaking and in general. otherwise, what you have is, of course, as in any war, you have different narratives, a saying b did this, and b saying a did that, so and we not knowing what, what is happening... if you allow me, the problem that we have there is apart from that is to come to a place where we can say the plant is protected. yes, of course there is a war going on. if you are asking the iaea to stop the war, i wish i could. anyway, we are not staring at the show while throwing up our hands. we are really trying to get the plan to be protected. we are improving in this direction. we are providing safety and security advice and support at the plant. so to say that nothing has been influenced in any way by the presence of the iaea is simply incorrect. i would suggest to you that the very fact that you are involved in this

process, talking about your negotiations with zelensky, with putin, suggesting that, you know, you're trying to do a deal, it gives a stamp of acceptability from the iaea to the current situation when — to many people on the outside — the situation is entirely unacceptable, and the only thing you should be doing is demanding — when you went to see putin in saint petersburg — looking him in the eye and demanding that right now, he remove all russian forces from that plant and from the vicinity, and nothing else will be acceptable to you as the independent international watchdog. if you'll allow me, if you excuse me, i think what you're saying is exactly the mirror of impotence. i should be demanding,

i should be protesting, i should be criticising. and what does that do to change the situation? you have thousands of people around the world doing that. we are trying to change the situation on the ground. and this is the difference. and, yes, this takes me to talk to president putin, of course, and i will do it as many times as is necessary to get the results i need to get. and to president zelensky as well. so being a testimonial director general of the iaea would not bring any solution on the table. this is, of course, a bloody difficult situation, it's a war, it's a very serious war, and get any improvement is very difficult. we are trying very hard, yes. just one more practical point on the situation in zaporizhzhia —

the ukrainians have suggested that you are being used, to a certain extent, by the russians because the russians put on a show for you, but do not allow you to see every part of the plant. they don't allow you to see all their military equipment. they don't allow you to go into the emergency crisis centre, where their military headquarters is. i've heard that. i've heard that — that is utterly incorrect. nobody puts a show to the iaea, first of all, not to me. we know very well — first of all, we know this plant. we've been there forever. it's not yesterday or since september, when i came, that we visited this plant. we know the staff there. we know how exactly it's configurated. we inspect it regularly in peacetime, so nobody... this allegation that people could put a dog and pony show for the iaea is absolutely ridiculous. are you able... and we know exactly... hang on, one more question, are you able to speak...? let me finish. when i was there, i said,

"i want to see this. i want to see that," without those — with me knowing exactly what i wanted to see. and i was not stopped. so i would say, of course, it is not a normal situation, rightly so, and granted, but to say that we are being shown or not shown certain things and the value, and the value of us being there is that even in the circumstance that you are describing, that they would try to hide something from us, we would say it, as we say it in other things that you and i have discussed in the past, for example, iran or whatever, when somebody tries to hide something from the iaea, the iaea has the power of the pen. and we will say it, "you are hiding something from us and you should not be doing that." are they hiding things from you? they are not. i mean, they are not hiding... so you trust them? you trust the russians, do you? no, no, no.

you know, my principle is that i trust everybody, but i verify everything, all right? so, they tell me this, ok, then i go and see. then i go and check, and then, i can confirm whether this is correct or not. i'm not, you know, passing value judgement. i'm an inspector, you know? so i have my ideas, i have my convictions, but when it comes to inspecting, i set those aside and i inspect. the russians alleged a short time ago that they believed and had information the ukrainians were building a so—called "dirty bomb" using radioactive materials from a couple of their civilian nuclear facilities. yes. they presented no evidence, but you then sent inspectors to go and look at the installations that the russians appeared to be targeting with this allegation. indeed — what is the principle behind that? these allegations, this information was made as part of a narrative indicating, or being built, tojustify the possible use, possible use of nuclear weapons. so we felt this is very, very serious.

this is very, very strange. of course, the iaea does not inspect ala carte, or we go somewhere because somebody says something else. but since we are at war, or they are at war, or we are in the middle of a war, and these things are so serious, i discussed with my ukrainian counterparts and discussed personally with foreign minister dmytro kuleba and he himself said, "i mean, let's put these allegations to rest and let you guys come and inspect." and we sent, in fact, three teams, one team went to an r&d facility in the outskirts of kyiv. another one went to a mine. and there's a third one that is on its way to a missile factory where they were, the russians have said that these things are happening. so in this way, what we are doing, at the invitation of ukraine, what we are doing is clarifying entirely whether this is true or not.

so, two of the teams have, i believe, completed their inspection work. so you tell me... there is one that is finishing right now. right, tell me what the initialfindings are. i will be able to do that in the next few hours. it would be incorrect for me to do it now because they haven't returned. i mean, they haven't reported back to me. does it fill you with alarm, mr grossi, that the russians are making these allegations? because we've seen a pattern of behaviour... of course! this is exactly why we decided to take this unusual, extraordinary steps to send inspectors in an unplanned and programmed — not programme inspection to a place that, by the way, we have visited just a few months ago. you know, the first one, this r&d thing, we had visited in the month of september.

but nevertheless, we said, ok, there are these allegations. we go, we clarify this thing, we put it to rest. i guess, but you've got other very important work on your plate, as well. so let's quickly turn to another arena, highly contentious arena, and that is iran. you are not a direct participant in the negotiations to try to revive the deal which control — or should control — iran's nuclear activities, the so—called jcpoa agreement. but you're the sort of guardian or custodian of that agreement. correct. so you look at it very closely — would it be fair to say that right now it looks, after some hopes that a deal might be done, it looks as though a deal is not going to be done? in fact, hopes may be dead? well, i think your description is quite accurate. ithink... i was in washington a few hours ago, and the feeling i get is that there is an impasse

or a moment of waiting time. as you're rightly saying, we're not part of the negotiation. the important thing for me, i mean, the nuclear aspects of this package were, by and large, clear. as you know, the sticking points are not nuclear in nature, are rather political. and they have to do with certain concessions that the islamic republic of iran wants from the united states and whether the united states is ready to go that way or not. my concern, and i've discussed this also with my iranian counterparts, is that, of course, the iranian programme is a very big one, developing one, is an ambitious nuclear programme, and it requires a level of inspection and presence by the iaea, which is commensurate with these activities. you know, they are enriching uranium at 60%. you need 90% for weapon—grade material.

they are doing all sorts of things. they are adding cascades, the machines that have the centrifuges in cascades to enrich more material. so all these things require some answers from them. yeah, of course they do, and it's highly complicated. you say that primarily the sticking points have been political, but there's one sticking point which is very germane to you and your teams in iran. that is, although there's no direct linkage, the iranians are saying they won't agree to thejcpoa being revived unless and until you and your teams stop a different investigation, which is an historic investigation, looking at traces of enriched uranium found in three different sites in iran, which the iranians have kept secret. you're absolutely right. but i have told them, to use your own expression, that unless and until they give us the necessary explanations, we are not going to drop anything we are doing.

we do not have any agenda against them. we just want them to answer. it's a very straightforward, non—political issue. we found traces of enriched uranium and other things in places that, in principle, had nothing to do with nuclear activity. so you're not going to back off then, because the president of iran says unless you back off and halt and end your investigation, then the whole deal is off. but you won't bow to that pressure? i hope they will revise that line, respectfully. since you are mentioning a precedent of a member state of the iaea, i should say respectfully that they should review this position because the iaea does not stop any activity just because somebody says that it should. of course, always when it is within our mandate. well, what if the americans, because they view, and the french and the brits as well,

what if they all said to you, you know what, rafael, ease off on this, because thejcpoa deal is more important than an historic investigation of some uranium found, you know, 20 years ago? i don't think they ever will, because they understand what the mandate of the iaea is and that i have to do the right thing. i have to follow my mandate and to continue this probe until we have good answers. so these countries that sustain the iaea, as any other member states, we are 175... just a final quick thought on iran. you are not a politician, but politics has a major impact on your work. and right now, one key fact about iran is that it's become pretty clear, although the iranians and the russians deny it, but it is clear the iranians are sending the so—called kamikaze drones and may be about to send ballistic missiles to russia. that changes the dynamic because in the us and in britain, they say that breaks

another key part of thejcpoa. in your view, number one, does it violate the agreement? and number two, does it make your work in iran even more difficult? it makes our work more difficult, true. but, you know, when it comes to nuclear non—proliferation, nuclear material, especially at a situation of war, nothing comes easily our way. so, we are used to this and we must find a way around it. and we will, i'm sure we will. a final point — and arguably, it's the most important question of all for this interview — you are, in many ways, seen as a missionary, a crusader for spreading civil nuclear technology around the world, for getting more and more and more countries to buy into the idea that they can solve their energy crises

by adopting nuclear. given everything we've said about the insecurities and the alarm and the danger in ukraine right now, given the unknowns and the suspicions around a possible dual—use programme in iran, do you really want more and more countries around the world to go nuclear? well, i would say that your characterisation of me as a crusader would not go down well in many parts of the world, i suppose. and i don't see myself as that. well, i can give you the quotes, if you like. you go on the record saying... i know, if it's my quotes, i suppose i know what i said. so, listen, it's very simple — the problem in ukraine and russia is they are at war. the problem is not nuclear energy. the problem is that they are at war. sure, but the problem also is that if you have a big civil nuclear programme, it can become vulnerable at a time of conflict. what's happening with nuclear energy, as you know, we have another big problem, perhaps even a bigger problem.

it's been called an existential problem and it's called climate change. and when it comes to climate change, you don't have two million solutions, you have just a few. and the fact of the matter is that already now, as we speak, nuclear energy is providing 25%, more or less, of the clean energy which is produced, you know, all over the world. so, countries need to decarbonise. and the sad reality, the sad truth is that even countries who profess that they have environmentally clean policies, they are flaring up coal stations. so, rafael, before we end... we believe we are not crusaders of anything. what we believe is that nuclear has a place at the table. nuclear can provide, as it is doing, for example, in the united kingdom and in many other places of the world, can provide a safe, clean source of energy. and this is why many countries in africa and in other places are turning to nuclear. let me ask one more question, rafael,

based on a quote from henry sokolski, former us defence official, who says, "i doubt that rafael grossi is going to have "any more success than his predecessors "did in making sure that nuclear power doesn't "perform as a bomb starter kit in some "of the world's hot spots." that's the danger. you say you're addressing climate change with nuclear. you say it's safe, but there's always a risk. listen — risk, in my opinion, is inherent to life. what we need is to manage risks. and that quote you mentioned, i completely disagree. when you look at the historical record, you will not see many cases, indeed, maybe with one exception, the peaceful use of nuclear energy has never triggered or facilitated a nuclear weapon programme. so we have, you know, there are 440 nuclear reactors

in the world. more than 30 countries are using nuclear energy. many more want it. and this is in no way a pathway to nuclear weapons. in any case, this is why this agency that i have the privilege to lead was created back in 1957, to make sure that you have the nuclear energy and you don't have proliferation. rafael grossi, it's a real pleasure to talk to you again from vienna. thanks forjoining me on hardtalk. always a pleasure, always a pleasure. hello. well, the met office have confirmed

that it was another very warm month across the country, and october in england was the fourth—warmest october on record. but quite alarmingly, we're now seeing some of the warmest conditions on record, taking the year as a whole to date. as for rainfall, well, we needed the rain, but it's only northern ireland which was significantly above average. but for the first few days of november, our rainfall accumulation chart shows that all of us will see some pretty wet weather. the darker colours in the south show some welcome rain to come here. but it's notjust wet, some windy weather, and especially during the next 2a hours. widespread gales across the country, and in this hatched area, we could see potentially damaging and disruptive gusts of wind of 50—70mph, all tied in with this approaching and deepening area of low pressure. now, before it arrives, the little ridge there which indicates a quiet end to the night. a few mist and fog patches, a lot of dry weather, just a few showers in the south and the west, but a rather chilly start compared to what we've been used to — 2 or 3 degrees in some

sheltered glens in scotland. lots of sunshine, though, through scotland, england, wales to begin with. northern ireland cloudy, already turning windy, increasingly wet through the morning, some heavy rain at times sliding into western scotland and through the afternoon to wales and western parts of england. much of eastern england, though, will stay dry until later in the day, with some sunny spells. temperatures here around 15, 16 degrees in the south—east, but it will feel cooler than that in the north and the west as those winds pick up. in fact, it's going to get windier as the day goes through. just an example of some of the gusts by mid—afternoon, 40, 50, close to 60mph, maybe a little bit more as we head into the evening. heavy rain sweeping across all of england. strongest winds overnight to take us into thursday across central and northern parts of scotland. winds easing a little bit later. and the clearer skies that some will see to the north and west into thursday morning, again down into single figure temperatures. milder in the south—east. and this is where the big question mark for thursday will be. the weather front may just drag its heels, bringing bursts of rain northwards and eastwards as we go through thursday, east anglia, the south—east, and the channel islands. away from that,

though, more likely to see sunny spells develop, a scattering of showers, some of those heavy towards the south and west, and the temperatures 10 to 13 degrees. feeling cool compared to what we've been used to, but that's where we should be for this stage in november and the sort of temperatures we'll see through friday and into the weekend. friday, the driest day of the week most widely. saturday, of course, bonfire night, rain will be pushing its way in, and some strong winds too. bye for now.

this is bbc news. i'm sally bundock, with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. rising tensions on the korean peninsula after the north launches ten missiles — including one that crossed the maritime border with the south former israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, could return to power — according to exit polls after tuesday's general election. a new high—tech anti—terror weapons scanner. and elon musk�*s shake—up of twitter. if you want the coveted blue tick — you'll have to pay for it.