First, I am not much in favor of violent revolutions. I was too young to have played any role in what happened in Iran in 1978-79, except that my family did leave the country during the turmoil of that period. Second, there is a huge difference between the two situations. In 1978-79, rightly or wrongly, the people were largely united behind the movement to oust the Shah from power. We don't have that today at all. No one can deny that Ahmadinejad has a huge enough following with millions of supporters, the kind that are more than willing to take to the streets as well. At best, even if you give the benefit of the doubt to the other side (reformists et al), they have something like an equal following among the population compared to Ahmadinejad. However, the regime has the security aparatus behind it as well, which means a confrontation between the two groups is merely a recipe for disaster for the group which neither has more numbers nor any troops, throwing the country into chaos and ending with a result that will leave Iran less free not more. That is my view. Iran's road to positive change, which is not always synonymous with the changes advocated by reformists or opposition groups, is a long one and I don't see short cuts on that road. Nor do I see Ahmadinejad even a real hindrance to it but often the reverse. That is, of course, merely my view and others are entitled to their's.