IDF: "Iran seeks to change world order"

[Iranian Monitor]

Leaving aside some of the unfounded accusations and false charges, let me ask if trying to change the world order is such a bad thing to begin with?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961309870&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Head of IDF Reasearch: Iran seeks to change world order

"Wiping Israel off the map is just one step in Iran's attempt to create a new world order," said Brig.-Gen Yosef Cooperwasser, head of the IDF Military Intelligence's research division.

"Iran is interested not only in turning into a superpower, but also in changing the world order," Cooperwasser said at a conference on power projection at the Fisher Institute of Strategic Studies in Herzliya.

"Iran is at the forefront of global terrorism, and aids Hizbullah in Lebanon, al Qaida, and Palestinian terror organizations, and is behind attacks on US armed forces in Iraq," the general asserted.
...
Just hours before the UNSC votes on sanctions against Iran, Maj-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad said that he believed Iran was vulnerable to sanctions. "Iran is Not North Korea," Gilad said. "It's a country of intelligent, intellectual people."

Earlier Tuesday, Gilad had told Army Radio that Israel should place itself at the forefront of the Iran conflict, as the crisis over the country's nuclear program was "international."

Gilad said, referring to Vice Premier Shimon Peres' remarks Monday that "Iran can also be wiped off the map," that any threats Israel made should be "big" but not pointed.

[BenReilly]

I see a new world order with five equal powers:

(1) The Persian Empire
(2) The American Empire
(3) The Chinese Empire
(4) The Indian Empire
(5) The Bulgarian Empire

[Caesar]

I see a new world order with five equal powers:

(1) The Persian Empire
(2) The American Empire
(3) The Chinese Empire
(4) The Indian Empire
(5) The Bulgarian Empire
Why do you hate the Swedes so?

[BenReilly]

Why do you hate the Swedes so?

Sweden will retain its independence, but will fall under Bulgaria's sphere of influence. As usual, Swedes will look to Bulgaria for political and cultural guidance.

[Iranian Monitor]

I see a new world order with five equal powers:

(1) The Persian Empire
(2) The American Empire
(3) The Chinese Empire
(4) The Indian Empire
(5) The Bulgarian Empire

You got some of the answers right. You remember this article, don't you?

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=521fb1b77e806983c4d817341ee214e0

On World Stage, Four New Empires and One Sleeper Vie for Spotlight

SAN FRANCISCO--As he leaves the U.N. summit in New York amid his domestic troubles, President Bush might be mulling whether America is a declining empire. In fact, there are four other contenders for revival of empire waiting in the wings, and one sleeper...
They are China in the East, Russia in the North, India in the South and Iran in the West. The sleeper is Turkey.

[nicephoras]

Russia as a "new empire". Oh, Persians these days. So cute.

[sardus_pater]

Leaving aside some of the unfounded accusations and false charges, let me ask if trying to change the world order is such a bad thing to begin with?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961309870&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Words of love coming from IDF...

One thing is pretty accurate and it's all this crisis is about "Iran trying to change the world order" the rest is just a serie of "motives" why this should not happen coming from a country who wants to keep their role/position in the actual world order.
All the active countries in this crisis have the same geostrategical motivations (from different perspectives) even though I don't think all of them share the extent to which they are willing to go in order to stop Iran from joining the big guys club.

It's not about a nuclear Iran per se but the geostrategical implications coming from Iran becoming practically unattackable (and so far less prone to external forcings).

The "motives" listed by IDF are highly exaggerated IMO.

It is to be noted that this kind of statements (who didn't start yesterday nor after Ahmadinejad was elected) are as much aggressive as the ones made by Ahmadinejad if not even more given the different probabilty of the 2 possibilities (Iran actively trying to wipe off Israel as opposed to Iran being attacked by the current world order).
Even though IDF doesn't use terms such as "wipe off".

[Rostam]

I sense a great deal of weakness in the above article. Great time to exploit it ;)

[Scarecrow]

The "motives" listed by IDF are highly exaggerated IMO.

It is to be noted that this kind of statements (who didn't start yesterday nor after Ahmadinejad was elected) are as much aggressive as the ones made by Ahmadinejad if not even more given the different probabilty of the 2 possibilities (Iran actively trying to wipe off Israel as opposed to Iran being attacked by the current world order).
Even though IDF doesn't use terms such as "wipe off".

But really Iran is taking steps to "wipe" Israel off the map. Or do you call them paying, training, and supporting hezbollah, and hamas just acts of mercy?

[yasik19]

Words of love coming from IDF...

One thing is pretty accurate and it's all this crisis is about "Iran trying to change the world order" the rest is just a serie of "motives" why this should not happen coming from a country who wants to keep their role/position in the actual world order.
All the active countries in this crisis have the same geostrategical motivations (from different perspectives) even though I don't think all of them share the extent to which they are willing to go in order to stop Iran from joining the big guys club.

It's not about a nuclear Iran per se but the geostrategical implications coming from Iran becoming practically unattackable (and so far less prone to external forcings).

The "motives" listed by IDF are highly exaggerated IMO.

It is to be noted that this kind of statements (who didn't start yesterday nor after Ahmadinejad was elected) are as much aggressive as the ones made by Ahmadinejad if not even more given the different probabilty of the 2 possibilities (Iran actively trying to wipe off Israel as opposed to Iran being attacked by the current world order).
Even though IDF doesn't use terms such as "wipe off".


there are not enough :rolleyes: in the world to express the bias in your posts. When i thought you couldn't get anymore bias on this issue, you prove me wrong, for once, i might add. How in the world do you equate one country explicitly calling for destruction of another and another country discussing possible changes that could take place within a region.
Were you often beaten up in school by Jewish kids? Did they take your lunch money? How can a silly Sardinian be so blind and bias is beyond me. It's too bad i am not a psychiatrist, because i would love to get to the bottom of your insanity.

P.S. Where were your sarcastic "words of love" posts when Iranian president called for destruction of Israel? Um? Where? Just in case you start you moronic rant on how you are not bias, answer the above question first.

[odessit19]

IDF rules!!!!!!!!
http://www.kingralphsarmynavy.com/images/tshirts/idf.jpg

[BenReilly]

IDF doesn't use terms such as "wipe off".

I see no reason to give them any advance warning.