Is it a *real* revolution?

In no way do I mean to downplay the very, very large significance of what is happening in Iran, however, it almost certainly is not a revolution, at least as far as the word is construed in world of political theory.

Revolutions are, in the scheme of history, very very rare things, and incidents of revolution can be counted on one hand - French, Chinese, Russian, Iranian and - for some - American. There are a handful of others that might be considered revolutions, depending on who you talk to.

What distinguishes a "true" revolution from a popular uprising or widespread movement? A revolution is aimed at regime change. By regime, I am not speaking in the popular sense; that is, I am not referring to a government. In the west, the word regime is a loaded term, often used to refer to a government or a leader that the west feels lacks legitimacy (consider: the Iraqi "regime" led by Saddam Hussein). However, properly used, regime has a very specific meaning. It refers to the various modes, orders and institutions of that a state uses to govern itself.

I have been paying a great deal of attention to what's going on in Iran, and I do not see that what the Iranians want is regime change, in the narrow and proper sense defined above.

The righteous anger of Mousavi's supporters is directed at Ahmadinejad and Khameni not as representatives of the Iranian governing institutions, but for the crimes they have perpetrated as individuals. The leader of the protesters, Mousavi, is a reformer, but he is not a revolutionary leader. Mousavi does not have as his aim full scale regime change, and he is not aiming to deconstruct and then rebuild the Iranian state. Mousavi is a creature of the Iranian state with a long history of supporting the current regime.

Mousavi, then, is not a revolutionary leader in the strict and proper sense of the word. He is not aiming to remake the Iranian regime. He is aiming to control the Iranian regime.

What is happening in Iran is not a revolution in the proper sense of the word. It is best described as a popular uprising. If Mousavi and his supporters are successful - and I hope they are - I do not think that we are likely to see a full scale reconstruction of the Iranian state.

All of this being said, I do believe the potential exists for a truly revolutionary movement to arise. There is no question that Ahmadinejad and Khameni have precipitated a wider crisis of legitimacy in the Iranian state. If Mousavi were to become radicalized, he could become a revolutionary leader; or a leader who is a true revolutionary could arise. It remains to be seen, however, if such a leader would have a wide following in the Iranian population. It is certainly possible given the crisis the Iranian state finds itself facing.