In general, popular revolutions against authoritarian governments only work in civilized countries (Russia, East Germany). They tend to fail in uncivilized countries (like China) where the troops have no problem with firing on their own people.
One wonders on which side of this fence Iran falls. I suspect the latter.
An excellent distinction. Anyone familiar with the history of popular uprisings knows there is a strong contrast between the two situations. Popular uprisings succeed because the rulers have some genuine attachment to the concept of liberty and human dignity. Those uprisings that are successful succeed because they are able to exploit the internal contradictions of the rulers. In the case of the Saddams and Hitlers and Stalins of the world, they are utterly ruthless, and there is no leverage to turn them back with their own morality because they have no morality.
Islamic regimes subscribe to a certain "morality", but it is so plastic and easily manipulated that vicious rulers have no problem manipulating the religion and "morality" of Islam, because it's shot through with exceptions. From the beginning Mohammed stated one thing Here, then endorsing its logical opposite There because it gave momentary political advantage, which satisfies the only basic "moral law" of Islam: "Seize and hold political power by whatever means necessary for the glory of Allah."
"Popular revolutions...tend to fail in...countries where the troops have no problem with firing on their own people."
This was evident in Moscow when the Russian troops were unwilling in the early 1990's to fire on the people when Yeltsin rallied their support. On another FR thread about this Mullah, someone reported that the Iranians are using Arab "mercenaries" in some of their security operations, so as to avoid this unwillingness to fire on fellow Iranians.