Ah, I see. I'm not a moderator, but as long as they're on topic I think everyone is free to express their views and opinions, yes? I get it - some threads go on forever, but we can't tell others to stop posting. Also, the Iran situation is continually unfolding, hence new posts addressing it. If certain posts bother you, you can always just hit the ignore button.
Revolution in Iran
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Ah, I see. I'm not a moderator, but as long as they're on topic I think everyone is free to express their views and opinions, yes? I get it - some threads go on forever, but we can't tell others to stop posting. Also, the Iran situation is continually unfolding, hence new posts addressing it. If certain posts bother you, you can always just hit the ignore button.
Every prophecy concerning Israel is fulfilled in either Christ, or his body.
Nobody not of faith is God's chosen people
There is no fire. It's a discussion forum, and discussions will be had, heated or otherwise. You don't have to agree with the discussion, but as long as they're within forum guidelines, everyone is free to post.
It does make one wonder how they can ignore the obvious.
Replacement theology is a term used by people who have to deny what is clear in scripture (to maintain their false dichotomy) and slander the person who makes it clear.... ...that is my point.
Prove it. I have proven otherwise, and you nor anyone else has made any legitimate Bible based refutation.
**You're spot on with your assessment—**
Iran's ability to move any meaningful amphibious force (whether to reinforce Kharg Island or to counter a potential US landing there or along the coast) is extremely limited, and the ongoing conflict has made it effectively negligible.
Here's the breakdown based on pre-war inventories, recent conflict damage, and geography:
Pre-war amphibious assets (very modest to begin with)Regular Iranian Navy (IRIN): About 23 amphibious units total, per standard references like The Military Balance. This includes:3 Hengam-class LSTs (small tank landing ships).
3 Farsi-class LSMs (medium landing ships).
6 Fouque-class logistics landing ships.
A handful of smaller LCTs/LCUs.
~8 hovercraft (Wellington Mk 4/5 and Tondar types, based on older British designs).
IRGC Navy (the more asymmetric branch focused on the Persian Gulf): Only ~5 dedicated amphibious vessels listed, plus a few converted logistics ships (e.g., Shahid Mahdavi or similar "mother ships" that can carry small boats, drones, or helicopters but aren't true assault platforms). They rely heavily on fast attack boats and a few hovercraft for short-range insertions.
These aren't US-style assets—no large LHDs, no LCACs in meaningful numbers, no capacity to land thousands of troops with heavy equipment in one wave. A single Hengam-class ship might carry a couple hundred troops plus a few vehicles at most. Hovercraft are useful for quick hops but carry even less and are highly vulnerable. Total lift for a coordinated operation? Probably a few thousand troops at absolute maximum, spread across multiple vulnerable ships—nowhere near what the US Marine Expeditionary Units (with their LHDs, well decks, Ospreys, and AAVs) can project.
Kharg Island specifics make it even less feasible
Kharg is only ~20–25 miles off the Iranian mainland (near Bushehr). In peacetime, Iran could theoretically shuttle small numbers of troops there via small boats, civilian ferries, helicopters (Mi-17s or similar), or even the island's own port facilities. No deep-ocean "amphibious assault" required.But that's the catch: under current conditions, it's still a non-starter for anything beyond tiny, high-risk groups:The short distance doesn't fix the equipment shortage or vulnerability.
Any movement would be in contested waters/airspace with US carriers, destroyers, and now-deploying amphibious groups (USS Tripoli, Boxer ARG, etc.) dominating the Gulf.
Ports, bases, and coastal facilities around Bushehr/Bandar Abbas have been repeatedly struck.
Iran's ability to move any meaningful amphibious force (whether to reinforce Kharg Island or to counter a potential US landing there or along the coast) is extremely limited, and the ongoing conflict has made it effectively negligible.
Here's the breakdown based on pre-war inventories, recent conflict damage, and geography:
Pre-war amphibious assets (very modest to begin with)Regular Iranian Navy (IRIN): About 23 amphibious units total, per standard references like The Military Balance. This includes:3 Hengam-class LSTs (small tank landing ships).
3 Farsi-class LSMs (medium landing ships).
6 Fouque-class logistics landing ships.
A handful of smaller LCTs/LCUs.
~8 hovercraft (Wellington Mk 4/5 and Tondar types, based on older British designs).
IRGC Navy (the more asymmetric branch focused on the Persian Gulf): Only ~5 dedicated amphibious vessels listed, plus a few converted logistics ships (e.g., Shahid Mahdavi or similar "mother ships" that can carry small boats, drones, or helicopters but aren't true assault platforms). They rely heavily on fast attack boats and a few hovercraft for short-range insertions.
These aren't US-style assets—no large LHDs, no LCACs in meaningful numbers, no capacity to land thousands of troops with heavy equipment in one wave. A single Hengam-class ship might carry a couple hundred troops plus a few vehicles at most. Hovercraft are useful for quick hops but carry even less and are highly vulnerable. Total lift for a coordinated operation? Probably a few thousand troops at absolute maximum, spread across multiple vulnerable ships—nowhere near what the US Marine Expeditionary Units (with their LHDs, well decks, Ospreys, and AAVs) can project.
Kharg Island specifics make it even less feasible
Kharg is only ~20–25 miles off the Iranian mainland (near Bushehr). In peacetime, Iran could theoretically shuttle small numbers of troops there via small boats, civilian ferries, helicopters (Mi-17s or similar), or even the island's own port facilities. No deep-ocean "amphibious assault" required.But that's the catch: under current conditions, it's still a non-starter for anything beyond tiny, high-risk groups:The short distance doesn't fix the equipment shortage or vulnerability.
Any movement would be in contested waters/airspace with US carriers, destroyers, and now-deploying amphibious groups (USS Tripoli, Boxer ARG, etc.) dominating the Gulf.
Ports, bases, and coastal facilities around Bushehr/Bandar Abbas have been repeatedly struck.
Bottom line on countering a US move
No credible amphibious counter-force:
Iran couldn't land or reinforce thousands of troops to contest a US seizure of Kharg (or any coastal foothold). US planning explicitly includes options for exactly this—Marine/82nd Airborne elements, air-mobile insertions, or sea landings after degrading defenses. A US battalion-sized force (800–1,000 troops) on Kharg is repeatedly described as feasible.
Any Iranian attempt would be spotted immediately, attrited en route, and overwhelmed. Their remaining small craft might harass, but not sustain a counter-landing or serious reinforcement.
The equipment gap (and the war's attrition) makes it a very low-risk scenario for US forces. The Marine/amphibious deployments you referenced earlier are precisely to lock this down. Iran’s best remaining play is asymmetric disruption, not a conventional troop movement.
No credible amphibious counter-force:
Iran couldn't land or reinforce thousands of troops to contest a US seizure of Kharg (or any coastal foothold). US planning explicitly includes options for exactly this—Marine/82nd Airborne elements, air-mobile insertions, or sea landings after degrading defenses. A US battalion-sized force (800–1,000 troops) on Kharg is repeatedly described as feasible.
Any Iranian attempt would be spotted immediately, attrited en route, and overwhelmed. Their remaining small craft might harass, but not sustain a counter-landing or serious reinforcement.
The equipment gap (and the war's attrition) makes it a very low-risk scenario for US forces. The Marine/amphibious deployments you referenced earlier are precisely to lock this down. Iran’s best remaining play is asymmetric disruption, not a conventional troop movement.
Ask Jesus what the hermeneutics was when he told the Pharisees IS29 was spoken concerning them; when Isaiah's original target audience was the pre-babylonian exile Priesthood/leadership.
The Pharisees lived hundreds of years later; but in essence they were the same people doing the same things in the same place; just in a different time frame.
From worthy news on telegram:
I willing to bet that Iran is lying about there having been no talk.
BREAKING: Iran Denies Trump Claims About Possible Deal Impacting Israel (Live)
(UPDATE 20:11 UTC/22:11 Jerusalem Time)
WASHINGTON/JERUSALEM/TEHRAN (Worthy News-Telegram)— Iran on Monday denied claims by U.S. President Donald J. Trump that Washington and Tehran were engaged in “good and productive conversations” toward a potential agreement that could bring “longtime peace” for Israel.
Iran’s state-run broadcaster said no such discussions had taken place.
“No conversation has taken place between Iran and the U.S., and Trump’s claim about having these talks is false,” the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting said in a statement monitored by Worthy News.
In video footage reviewed by Worthy News Iran’s military headquarters also warned it would keep controlling the Straight of Hormuz, a vital global oil supply waterway.
Trump suggested to reporters there may be a deal that would lead to “longtime peace” for Israel.
(This is fast moving BREAKING News update; Stay with Worthy News for more coverage.)
I willing to bet that Iran is lying about there having been no talk.
BREAKING: Iran Denies Trump Claims About Possible Deal Impacting Israel (Live)
(UPDATE 20:11 UTC/22:11 Jerusalem Time)
WASHINGTON/JERUSALEM/TEHRAN (Worthy News-Telegram)— Iran on Monday denied claims by U.S. President Donald J. Trump that Washington and Tehran were engaged in “good and productive conversations” toward a potential agreement that could bring “longtime peace” for Israel.
Iran’s state-run broadcaster said no such discussions had taken place.
“No conversation has taken place between Iran and the U.S., and Trump’s claim about having these talks is false,” the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting said in a statement monitored by Worthy News.
In video footage reviewed by Worthy News Iran’s military headquarters also warned it would keep controlling the Straight of Hormuz, a vital global oil supply waterway.
Trump suggested to reporters there may be a deal that would lead to “longtime peace” for Israel.
(This is fast moving BREAKING News update; Stay with Worthy News for more coverage.)
No. YOU don't know...."really".
However I DO in fact know...."really".
The truth is that ANYBODY can know...if they "really" truly desire to know.