TEHRAN — In remarks to a Carnegie Endowment event on Monday, the United States’ Special Envoy for Iran and its top negotiator for the talks to revive the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA), Robert Malley said that the U.S. does not intend to “waste time” on reviving the deal.

The nuclear talks are "not our focus right now," Malley said.

"It is not on our agenda. We are not going to focus on something which is inert when other things are happening…and we are not going to waste our time on it… if Iran has taken the position it has taken," Malley said.

This comes while the Biden administration has declined to formally declare the nuclear talks as dead, Malley's comments to Carnegie’s Aaron David Miller were the closest the U.S. has come to admitting there's no path forward.

In an article on Axios website, Barak Ravid, an Israeli reporter, claimed, “There has been no movement in the talks with Iran since Iranian officials rejected an EU proposal and presented more demands in late August-early September,” attributing the remarks to Malley.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Iran never rejected the EU proposal. It offered slight amendments to clarify the ambiguities in the text and prevent a single paragraph from gaining different interpretations.

A norm in writing the text of an agreement is aligning the text in a way that could be interpreted in various ways and to the benefit of all parties to the agreement. The U.S. used this tactic to gain more concessions in the JCPOA revival talks.

In an interview with IRNA’s correspondent in New York on September 29, Iran’s Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian shed some light on the matter.

He said the American side took more than eight days to review the text and provide their comments.

“After we received the opinions of the American side, we saw that in some issues that are key and fundamental for us, the text of the American side can be interpreted and create some ambiguity in the text in those issues,” Amir Abdollahian said.

The foreign minister noted that in its response given to EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, Iran tried to “strengthen” this text in a way that the balance in the text won’t change.

“We tried not to change the balance and the content. The framework of the agreement that we have should be maintained, but this text should have been strengthened by maintaining our red lines. One of the dimensions of this strengthening was ‘clarification’ so that when the text is published, 10 interpretations of a single text would not come out, but at least, the majority of the readers of that text should feel that they have a single understanding of that text. Moreover, more important than that text for us is the implementation of agreements,” Amir Abdollahian clarified.

What the Americans had done to the text was to make it interpretable, Iran’s top diplomat noted, stating that multiple interpretations were extracted from the text.

“They took the text and, according to that text, in some clauses, added conditions and provided more explanations. In some cases that I cannot reveal the details, their additional explanation was exactly in conflict with the first two lines of the same paragraph. We tried to bring this to a point where everyone has a single understanding of this text, based on what was done in the exchange of messages between us and the American side with the coordination of the European Union,” he noted.

Setting this aside, it seems that the U.S. has taken off its mask and revealed its true intention: a futile attempt to topple the political system in Iran.

It is no secret that the U.S. is the main culprit in inciting riots in Iran before and after the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

In 1953, a U.S.-led coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosadeq as Iran’s Prime Minister. The U.S. then used its influence over Mohammad Reza Shah to appoint a military general named Brigadier Fazlollah Zahedi as prime minister. After the victory of Islamic Revolution, one could easily notice Washington’s trace in every riot that broke out. The 2009 “sedition” is a clear example.

In his comments to the Carnegie Endowment event, Malley noted that protests have broken out in Iran over the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who fainted in police custody, and growing evidence has emerged about Iran's support for Russia in Ukraine. The Biden administration is now focused on these two issues, Malley said.

The U.S. has tested various approaches when it comes to Iran, and now has reached one simple conclusion: Overthrowing the Islamic Republic from inside is their only viable choice.

Needless to say that this option would be fruitless as well. This is yet another miscalculation by the White House officials.

Betting wrongly on Iran’s riots would cost the U.S. and EU a fortune, but they seem eager to take that bet. The officials at the White House are being misguided by advisors who don’t have enough knowledge of Iran and its people.

Military threat is another option that the U.S. has, but it has become an old trick that Washington has overused. “All options are on the table” is a famous remark that has been ridiculed by the Iranian people time and again.

The recent events and the positions of the American government showed that regardless of the differences between the two American parties, namely the Republicans and Democrats, they do not have a single difference of opinion about Iran and they are partners who follow the same goal.

On the other hand, it seems that the United States has resorted to the old tactic of taking unconventional stances to get Iran to a hurry and make it give post-nuclear concessions in the agreement to revive the JCPOA.

Whatever Washington intends to do, it is safe to assume that its efforts would not bear fruit.