between the u.s. and iran. a rare agreement between two nations long at odds on nearly all fronts. does this signal a new dawn in relations, or is it just a one off? this is "inside story." ♪ hello and welcome to the program. i'm mohammed jamjoom. iran and the united states rarely agree on anything, so a deal to swap prisoners is a rare event. two years of delicate negotiations bore fruit monday

with inmates released by both sides. two of the iranians are staying in the yes -- in the u.s. and two went home. we will be discussing of all of -- first, here's a report on a rare day of cooperation between the u.s. and iran. reporter: emotional scenes as five americans held by tehran for years arrived at this airport in qatar's capital, doha. in exchange, washington police -- unblocked $6 billion in frozen iranian oil funds. the high-stakes diplomatic deal was negotiated by qatar over the years. >> at many points there was no light at the end of the tunnel. both sides went through a lot of difficulty to get the final language that was approved over

the financial channel and also over the prison exchange. reporter: the prisoner swap is the first deal in years between two longtime adversaries. iranian president ebrahim raisi called it a humanitarian move. >> in the issue -- when the issue of prisoner swap was raised, we announced we were ready to do the swap as a completely humanitarian work. definitely this humanitarian act can be a step between iran and america. reporter: u.s. president biden issued a statement saying he celebrated the return of the americans, but would continue to impose sanctions on iran for its provocative actions. his top diplomat antony blinken said the swap in negotiations on the nuclear deal are not linked. >> the freedom of these unjustly detained americans has always been a separate track of engagement with iran. irrespective of what was happening, or not happening, in

pursuing the effort to return to the nuclear agreement, we've been focused on working independently to bring these americans home. reporter: both sides have been hostile since the 1979 revolution in iran. washington has long opposed tehran expanding its nuclear program and its close ties with russia. and iran has been angered by u.s. support for israel, and involvement in middle east politics, as well as its imposition of sanctions. but tensions have escalated after 2018, when then-president donald trump pulled out of the internationally brokered deal for iran tos -- to scale back on its nuclear program. biden says he wants to return to the deal as long as iran complies. but a new agreement has not yet been reached. >> this could be a beginning for extended and further talks on the negotiations as well as lifting the sanctions against iran. but there's an issue whether the

americans will be able to do it before their election in the u.s. were not. reporter: the u.s. says iran's money will only be spent on humanitarian needs like food and medicine. that will be welcome in iran, that's in the grip of an economic crisis with soaring inflation and unemployment. but in the u.s., republicans are denouncing the prisoner swap as a ransom payment. mohammed: let's go ahead and bring in our guests. joining us from tehran is foad izadi, the head of the american studies department at the university of tehran, and a specialist in u.s./iran relations. roxane farmanfarmaian joins us from london. she is a lecturer in model middle east politics at the university of cambridge and a specialist on middle east security. and scott lucas joins us from birmingham.

he is a professor of u.s. international relations and founder and editor of the online news site ea worldview. thank you so much for joining us today. foad, let me start with you. iran and the u.s. have carried out a prisoner swap. experts believe that this prisoner swap may be a step towards the escalating tensions between the u.s. and iran. what do you think? is this just a one-off, or could this lead potentially to a thaw in relations? foad: i don't think it is going to be a major shift in u.s. policy towards iran. i think the biden administration either is unwilling or unable to correct the past mistakes of previous administrations and come to a policy that is actually working for the united states. but i think if you get this type of small agreement, you can arrange for the reach in a stage

where the confrontation is not something that both sides worry about on a daily basis. so it is not going to resolve any major issues, but i think it is one step in the right direction. mohammed: that is what i wanted to follow-up and ask you about next, because president raisi when he arrived in new york for the u.n. general assembly, he told media there that this could be the step in the direction of a humanitarian action between ostend america. at the very least -- between us and america. at the very least do you think this could lead to more dialogue? foad: iran and the u.s. have been talking to each other for many years. during obama administration, they broke records in terms of the number of hours they spoke, the ministers. iran and the united states have been indirectly talking for

many, many months now. so, that's not a major problem. the problem is basically the difficulties that we have in the u.s. congress. we have the republican to oppose any type of approach meant -- approaching with iran. and we have some powerful democrats like robert menendez, who is chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the u.s. senate. they are not in line with the biden administration's policies towards iran. he opposed the nuclear agreement in 2015. he opposes a nuclear agreement now. i think that level of confrontation is much more in washington than in tehran. in tehran, people generally want to see lesser tensions between iran and the united states.

mohammed: roxane, i want to get your take on this. what do you say, is this prison exchange going to lead to more dialogue between iran and the west -- and the u.s.? they rarely agree on anything so this is clearly a rare event. how significant is it? roxane: it certainly was a prerequisite to then proceeding on possibly restarting the nuclear negotiations. i think it is indicative of the fact that they are going to be small the escalatory steps taken. i think both iran and the u.s. are seeing an advantage of undertaking transactional deals that are limited in scope and where both countries can claim a win. this definitely fell into that

category. i think there will be future smaller scale negotiations. there is possibly one already being discussed sitting in japan in one of these negotiations there are elements that both sides can win, or can gain from. and then both sides have a degree of compromise they can offer. so i think they are trying to reduce the temperature at the moment and i think what we are going to see is quite a few of these where both states are trying to get something out of it. particularly as biden moves into an election year. and in iran of course, the presidential election is only six months after the american election. so they, too, will be looking for specific areas of achievement in these

negotiations. mohammed: scott, u.s. secretary of state antony blinken seemed to leave the door open to potential diplomacy on the nuclear file going forward. he described it as perhaps the number one issue of concern, but he also suggested nothing was imminent. do you think this is the stance of the biden administration behind the scenes as well? scott: a reflection of reality. the ball is in tehran's court on the broader question regarding the nuclear talks. and i think dr. izadi gave us a very important clue here, which is they have no real willingness at this point to draw those talks forward. let's get some facts on the table that are very important here. first of all, the past. in early 2022 we were close to a settlement to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, getting the americans back in after the trump administration's withdrawal, beginning to lift american sanctions, and it was

iran who backed away. they backed away initially over the status of the revolutionary guard, then crucially, they backed away over the ti of inspecting nuclear facilities in september 2023. even as you are talking about thank goodness the release of these hostages from iran in exchange for the $6 billion in iranian funds, iran has stepped up the inspections -- restrictions on inspections of nuclear facilities. they are refusing to give up surveillance cameras. in the past few days they had withdrawn the accreditation from one third of the iea inspectors. in other words, they are taking a harder line on inspections as they continue to step up production of uranium in violation of the 2015 agreement. while the foreign ministry says we want to deal with the americans, they said that weeks ago. other elements in the armenian -- in the iranian leadership are

saying we are not giving any ground on inspections or verification of our nuclear program. and dr. izadi's stance not expecting a breakthrough is reflecting iranian leadership. mohammed: do you have any reaction to what scott was saying? he was saying essentially iran is taking a harder line to inspections. i want to get your take on this. when it comes to potentially getting around in negotiating table for the jcpoa, for the nuclear deal, is that something you can see happening? can progress be made? foad: i agree with scott. iran is taking a harder line. and the reason is the announcement for what iran has been doing in the last number of days came after european members of the jcpoa, france, the u.k., and germany, announced that

october 26 when a number of sanctions on iran under jcpoa is supposed to be lifted. they are not going to accept that part of the jcpoa. they are going to do with the americans did in 2018. in 2018, trump left the nuclear agreement and the europeans a few days ago announced that they are going to efficiently violate the nuclear agreement. it is not possible for iran to unilaterally follow a multilateral agreement. if the other side leaves the agreement, if they don't want to follow their part of the bargain, it is not logical for iran to follow what iran is supposed to do. the basic message is that if you cause difficulties for iran, if you violate the agreement that

was agreed upon in 205, that's going to have some cost. and the cost is you are not going to have as much access as you had before. and what scott said is correct. you don't allow one third of the inspectors to continue their work. that means to thirds -- two thir ds are continuing their inspection. so the coin has two sides. mohammed: scott, i know you want to jump in, but i need to get over to roxane first. getting to this point when it comes to the prisoner swap, it took two years of intense negotiation that were mediated by qatar. this has been a successful outcome for qatar but the second year of the negotiation saw mediators shuttling between hotels in doha. that means both sides of this, the americans and the iranians, never met face-to-face. i want to ask you just how

difficult it was to get to this point. roxane: the iranians and the americans have made an art with negotiating without being face to face. the same thing was going on in vienna during the jcpoa negotiations, where it was the europeans who were shuttling between them. i think it is very difficult. i think it is when people do establish rapport personally that greater breakthroughs can take place. but i think this is the landscape and to go and address a couple of the points both of the other guests have made, it is a very toxic and extremely dangerous landscape. it is always easy for one side or another to point out what either iran or the united states has done. but it has just been a series of usually setbacks, and then the occasional breakthroughs. because another thing that happened of course right before the prisoner swap, 24 hours

before, was that the united states posed further sanctions on iran due to the situation, it happened to be the anniversary right at that point. and they imposed sanctions on further authorities in iran that are in the security area. so what just is not help very much in my view to look at it tit-for-tat. what is important is for us to look at it as a very high priority. blinken has made this clear for the united states to begin to help to reduce the amount of stockpiling that is going on. and i think iran sent a signal about that as the negotiations for the prisoner swap were wrapping up. it dropped its stockpiling of 60% enriched uranium for the first time. so, i think it's these subtle signals that need to be picked up that can be the indicator

that, actually, there is very much the chance of an extent. mohammed: scott, i saw you also reacting to some of what roxane was saying. scott: roxane put it very well in terms of reading the signals coming from both sides. dr. izadi's argument that this is all because the european powers said they were not going to lift all the measures come october is, quite frankly, a bit of nonsense. the fact of the matter is to expect europe let alone the u.s. to withdraw all provisions of the 2015 nuclear deal, given that iran has stockpiled 60% uranium, even though it has slowed the production down slightly in the last quarter, to expect everyone to effectively say that's it, there is no reason why iran should have any terms with which it has to comply, that's ridiculous. for iran to then put its fist

down and say, well that's it, we are going to restrict inspectors, we are going to continue to not allow any access to video of our nuclear facilities, you know, at some point because of the iranian economy -- although this will be assuaged a bit by the $6 billion they are getting under the terms of release of the political prisoners -- at some point they are going to have to come in from the cold and talk seriously about trying to get an agreement which, on the one hand, does begin to lift the american sanctions, does begin to remove those sanctions that have been in place for years, gets the u.s. back in the agreement, but also returns iran to the compliance of the nuclear deal, which says 3.67% uranium production is what you responsibly should be producing. now, at this point when they are producing 60%, that is a huge gap. and i'm afraid that is a gap that may not be easily managed

before we get into the u.s. and the iranian parliamentary elections in 2024. mohammed: scott, you mentioned something i wanted to ask you about next. the $6 billion in unfrozen assets. you also said something that made me think about that, you talked about signals coming from both sides. what i am getting at here is the fact that in the past couple of weeks you have heard different officials in the u.s. and in iran describing how this money could be used. so, you have u.s. officials maintaining that these funds can only be used for humanitarian needs. but there are also iranian officials over the course of the last couple of weeks have suggested the money could be spent wherever they want to spend it. which is it? is this up for debate, or is this something that has been clearly delineated in this agreement? scott: under the terms of the deal, that $6 billion is to be managed coming out of qatar. it is not being overseen by iranian officials. it is to be dispensed for food,

for medical items, for other items deemed to be humanitarian. so, as the head of the central bank of iran admitted a few weeks ago when this deal was being struck, no, iranian officials do not control that $6 billion. and for president raisi to say otherwise is misleading. probably for domestic consumption. now, it is the case, and this is something people are debating, that iran has some flexibility. because money is spent on food and medicine internally, now that it can draw from the $6 billion pot, they can use that money on food and medicine for other items. they can use it for other domestic programs or even the military, a point that critics of the deal have been pointing out. but no, on the fundamentals, iran does not have unrestricted access to that $6 billion when it is finally placed in qatar. mohammed: roxane, earlier you talked about the fact that president biden is heading into an election year in the u.s. in

2024. and i want to ask you how this deal might impact him politically in the u.s. going forward, and how worried the biden administration might be when it comes to the ramification of it. because we've kind of seen the biden administration via little bit on the defensive about this, saying this was not a ransom, talking about how they are still taking a tough stance towards iran. so, is there a lot of concern privately among biden officials about how this could impact him, and could it have negative ramifications on him domestically in the u.s. going forward? roxane: well, of course the opposition, the republicans, are going to make this case. but the fact is this is iranian money, it is not a ransom. and in fact, my understanding of the terms is that, should there be any abuse or lack of transparency, that the united

states can restrict the further use of whatever funds remain. so, it's got a safety latch on it. and in terms of where biden is going with this, i think the humanitarian side is a big plus for him, and he is that kind of president that emphasizes that kind of thing. and so, it was a big pr day for him, and played well in that situation. and i think, yes, the concern on the part of the republicans is that there will be expenditures possibly in areas now that the iranians can direct these funds to, where in the past they were buying food and medicine. but if you look at the iranian budget, the defense and security community sectors have been extremely well-funded. so, it's more likely that these funds will be used to relieve some of the pressures on the

rising poverty and the extenuating circumstances brought about by a declining economy, for no other reason than to improve the atmosphere by the public towards the government, and to help reduce the amount of grievances that are, at the moment, sloshing around in iran. mohammed: foad, we were talking about what impact this deal might have on president biden in the u.s. i want to ask you about how this deal might potentially help president raisi in iran. what has the reaction been thus far from the general public? from your point of view, do you think this is something that will strengthen him among his supporters? or do you think this is something that could potentially cause him political peril in iran? foad: i think the agreement yesterday, the exchange is going

to help president raisi internally. he's shown he's able to achieve these type of agreements. it is going to help iran with its finances. so iranians are happy, americans are happy, with the exception of some republicans, and some professors that are missing the points on iran. and south koreans are happy because they can have normal economic relations with iran, given the fact that this issue is off the table. israelis are not happy, for obvious reasons. the israeli supported iranian opposition is not happy. but overall, i think this was a good agreement. and if biden wants to have cor rect policy towards iran, he could return to the agreement today. i teach american government at the university of tehran.

under the american system, the new president can nullify the executive orders of the previous president. so what biden could do on the first day of his presidency, and what he could do today, is to return to the agreement, give iran two or three months to go back to compliance, and iran would do that in probably just a few weeks. the fact that we are having this conversation is because of the chaos in washington, and because of the wrong recommendations that people in the u.s. government are getting from the so-called iran experts that seem to know nothing about iran. mohammed: scott, we only have about 1.5 minutes left but i see that you wanted to jump in. scott: i think at the end of the day, trying to blame one side or just the other, that's just a bit of posturing. we can put that aside. the fact of the matter is that there are two fundamentals here. one is that we have got a very limited deal which iran struck

because he needed money for its economy. we need to have good faith measures on both sides to advance on the nuclear program. but secondly, the equally important story this week was the fact of the ongoing protests in iran. the rights for reform, for justice. iranian leadership in part tried to use this story to deflect from the protests, which they have brutally tried to repress going into 2024, as important as the nuclear deal is as a topic of discussion, equally as important are those social discussions within iran to not be repressed. so we will be watching both stores of the same time. mohammed: foad, i saw you wanted to jump in. foad: stop sanctioning iranian people if you're interested in human rights. stop sanctioning them. scott: i know iranian people. i taught at your institute in

tehran. my friends are at your institute entire run -- in tehran. foad: that was a mistake. scott: don't lecture me about the iranian people. foad: iranians don't like to be sanctioned and supporting sanctions against the iranian is unjustified, it's immoral, and corrupt. scott: they want rights, and social freedoms as well, don't they? foad: they have social freedoms. we don't need any recommendations from people like you. mohammed: we have run out of time so we are going to have to leave the conversation there. thank you so much to all of our guests, foad izadi, roxane farmanfarmaian, and scott lucas. and thank you for watching. you can see the program again at any time by visiting aljazeera.com. for further discussion go to our facebook page, facebook.com/ajinsidestory. you can also join the conversation on twitter, our

handle is @ajinsidestory. from me and the whole team here, bye for now. ♪

- [bridget] hi, mom. hi, dad. - i'll have to do this. - [bridget] i don't trust people like i once did. - i made it! - [bridget] oh, your boy's gonna be safe there. you believe things like that. - clearly, things went wrong. - [gabryell] i call it solitary confinement, they might not, but when you get one hour a day, that's solitary confinement. - i don't know if i would ever let go of him. ♪