I respect and admire IAEA head Muhammad El-Baradei for standing up to the warmongers.

But Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who called for El-Baradei to be removed as head of the UN nuclear watchdog, likes conflicts! 

He’s been shedding blood since he was eighteen and has enjoyed a long and controversial career in the Israeli special forces from 1966 to 2002.

So his efforts to silence a voice of reason does not come as a surprise to me.

Israel, which is estimated to have an arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons, has two options:

The first is to have an atomic bomb before the "enemy" acquires one, bomb unfinished nuclear plants (like what happened with Iraq’s Osirak), and impose economic embargo (like what’s happening with Iran now).

The other way is not to have a nuclear bomb, not threaten others, fight only when really attacked. As simple as that.

Israel has chosen its way, but could it change its policy?

Theoretically it could, but it seems that Israel, along with the U.S. and EU, prefer to pursue option number one.

The latest IAEA report is symmetrical to the report by a UN inspector on Iraq’s WMD.

The outcome of the report doesn’t matter; the United States and its allies will do whatever they like to do.

In the UN, the U.S. is going to lose its expected support and that can make Washington even more aggressive towards Iran.

The U.S., through deception and lies in the past, will fabricate another story to attack Iran.

In this chess game, Iran has a card that it can significantly play; 

There is dire competition between China and Japan on Iranian oil and Iranian markets for their products. If China does not help Iran effectively, then Tehran must shift to Japan, and there is no oil to China.