Despite Crane Brinton's claim of universality in explaining revolutionary processes, its varying degrees of alignment with the revolutions of Iran and Egypt raise a fundamental question regarding the logical and cultural efficacy of this theory when confronting religious-identity revolutions. This article aims to assess the global applicability and validity of Brinton's Thermidor theory by measuring its correspondence with the patterns of post-revolutionary developments in Iran and Egypt. It further demonstrates that, in dealing with divine-identity revolutions such as the Islamic Revolution of Iran, conceptual reconstruction and the development of an indigenous analytical framework are necessary for studying contemporary revolutions. This study employs logical-argumentative analysis as its primary research strategy.

Comparative analysis reveals that Brinton's theory exhibits unequal logical coherence in explaining the two revolutions. In the case of the Egyptian revolution, Brinton's four-stage model demonstrated 85% alignment, and his Thermidor theory was applicable with 78% correspondence. In contrast, only 35% of the stages in the Iranian revolution aligned with Brinton's model, and the Thermidor theory, with 22% alignment, has limited utility. Brinton's Thermidor theory showed 78% alignment for Egypt, while for Iran it demonstrated only 22% alignment.

The findings indicate that Brinton's theory lacks the claimed universal validity and requires substantial revision when confronting revolutions arising from religious identity (such as the Islamic Revolution of Iran). However, in the case of the Egyptian revolution—particularly regarding post-revolutionary processes and the Thermidor stage—it demonstrates considerable efficacy. This study suggests the necessity of developing indigenous analytical frameworks for the study of contemporary revolutions.