A smashed monitor in a dormitory at the University of Tehran.

And to YouTube, and to Facebook. The crisis in Iran is still unfolding, and everyone is already proclaiming it to be the first revolution brought to you by the Internet. The Nation writes that “the outpouring of texts, tweets and video from Tehran has sparked a worldwide solidarity movement,” while Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic boldly pronounces that “Twitter will doubtless be cast as a protagonal technology that enabled the powerless to survive a brutal crackdown and information blackout by the ruling authorities.” Andrew Sullivan updates his blog constantly with new tweets, even changing his colors to green in solidarity; Meanwhile Jon Stewart makes light of the fact that the CNN newsroom has basically turned into a bunch of people logging into MySpace.

Yes, the discourse of these protests in Iran, mediated through social networks and the Internet, feels different than what’s come before. It’s chilling to read

I had so many long days without sleep, I did not find time to do more. …oh gun shots!!! I hope it is in the air only…10 minutes ago from web

and know that’s being typed in real time by someone on the ground over there, facing reprisals and police action. It’s brutal watching YouTube videos of masses of police rushing through the streets and knowing that some person, probably the same age as me, is huddled behind a crate recording it on their cell phone. It’s very different from how Baudrillard described the Gulf War, unreal and drained of its urgency by being mediated through technology. What’s happening in Iran definitely feels real and urgent—history being written in real time instead of after-the-fact; the events are being documented by the people they’re happening to, rather than outsiders privileged with the badge of journalism.

But is Twitter going to change the course of this crisis? How about YouTube or Facebook? Yes, but not in the way you think. These social networking technologies give everyone the chance to reach eyes and ears, a privilege that used to be reserved for the elites. But are those eyes and ears willing to listen and hear? Can you get people in America to care when there’s a scuffle between a talk show host and an ex-VP candidate over off-color jokes going on?  Shining light on the abuses and violence being committed in the name of the current Iranian regime is important and necessary.  But it’s a not a game-changer in and of itself.

The simple fact is that for authoritarian regimes, public image is often the last thing they care about. Knowing that Hezbollah operatives are riding in to beat protesters because some police refuse to, and seeing Tehran University locked down and ransacked minutes after it happens may make those of us following along at our computers feel connected, feel some sense of solidarity. But those things aren’t going to stop from some outside pressure at this point. All of us are just spectators, and these connections are just side effects of the real Twitter phenomenon.

The use of Twitter—a fully decentralized, real-time mass communications network—is a full realization of fourth generation warfare. When the monolithic state has a monopoly over traditional channels of violence and control, the only way for dissidents to respond is by acting in cycles faster and subtler than the state with its inertia can respond. This is facilitated by rapid communications between redundant and numerous cells of people which have no critical centers for the state to easily eliminate. Bad for us when al-Qaeda uses it, good when pro-reform dissidents in Iran use it.

When the U.S. Department of State asks Twitter to put a hold on scheduled maintenance of its networks, it’s not so Westerners can post more tweets to their blogs, it’s because of the in-country communications used to instantaneously organize people and coordinate action. This is a situation in which “shining a light on the situation” may feel like a moral victory, but it’s the dirty direct action on the ground that matters.