FG

Words that denote exactly the same thing can have very
different emotional overtones (connotations).  So when it comes to supporting a regime or turning against it, the words you use can make a big difference.

"Secular democracy" and "civil democracy" refer to exactly the same
thing--a religiously neutral government that doesn't side with any sect,
that treats one's faith as a private matter and provides no special
powers and priviliges for a clerical class, especially not the "right"
to a one-man dictatorship.  Theoretically, therefore, either term should
be equally acceptable to the public.  It's the emotional overtones or
connotations which limits the appeal of the first and makes the second
much more attractive.

The Iranian opposition should consider why Syrian protestors have deliberately chosen the second term--because many muslims inaccurately see the term "secular democracy" as favoring something godless and wayward.  
Any dictatorship--especially a clerical one--will enjoy considerable
success by encouraging that belief.   After all, who wants to support
the "godless?"  On the other to rage against "civility is like
condemning motherhood and rice pudding.  It backfires by making the
accuser look as bad as protestors claim. Khamenei's government is truely
as uncivil as Assad's.

I found this Syrian opposition tactic buried in a MUST READ article ("The Squeeze on Assad" 
from The Economist, reprinted by Joshua Landis in his Syria Comment site
(worth bookmarking).  See:

//www.joshualandis.com/blog/

The article's emphasis is on showing clearly the
many reasons why economic collapse is virtually inevitable so
long as the Assad regime remains in power and how rapidly that is undermining the remaining political support for Assad.  His regime cannot survive solely on the support of a small minority sect
alone.  It requires the support of the educated middle class.  The latter is desserting as it sees no prospects of economic stability.  You know panic is developing when people begin shipping money abroad by the basketfull.     

HOW MUCH TROUBLE WIL KHOMEINI BE IN WHEN (NOT IF) ASSAD FALLS?

Iran will exchange its only important ally in the region for a hostile regime.  No amount of lies can cause Syrians to forget all the
assistance Khamenei, IRCG generals and Al Qods gave to Assad's thugs--possibly including snipers.   Whether the latter is true, Syrians believe it and that's what counts.  Can you blame them?  Syrians firmly believe it now. 

Whatever the effects of Assad's downfall on Iran, I'd say they will be multiplied should Ahmaninejad and his inner circle be ousted first.   The regime will then consisted of hard-line ruling clerics (increasing
hated by all) and their security force intimidators (IRCG generals, the basilj or the religious police) beloved by no one.