Revolutions, while often believed to be anchored in some aspect of spontaneity, are actually much more intertwined with destiny in my opinion. Arendt describes the actual word “revolution” as being “originally an astronomical term” referring to the “revolving motion of the stars” (Arendt, 35). It is this description of revolutions that I find most intriguing. The idea that they are rooted in something much deeper—something much harder to control—than just an innate human desire for liberation not only renders revolutions more powerful, but it renders them nearly inevitable.
To have something controlled (or at least linked with) the cosmos is extremely influential. Whether you subscribe to the idea of this unlimited power of the universe is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is that many others in the world do. They have done so for centuries (for explaining earthly phenomena and godlike beings) and still do to this day (with the daily use of horoscopes). While it does seem a bit heretical to claim that all revolutions are imminent due to some sort of all-controlling force, I do believe there is immense power in belief. If those who are planning to start a revolution believe there is some larger power on their side—something that practically guarantees them success—they are inherently willing to fight much harder and give up way more in order to ensure victory.
Now, while revolutionaries do not base their plan in the cosmos’ backup, they do base it in something just as uncontrollable: the undying human aspiration for freedom. This drive is strong enough for people to put their lives at risk, oftentimes the argument being that death would bring about more freedom than their current, real-world situation (this reminds me of the example of the Haitian woman who killed over seventy unborn children in order to free them from their future shackles and burdens). Although this human characteristic seems to be very man-controlled, who is to say that the universe does not play at least a small part in this drive for liberation?
It seems there are a few implicit assumptions in your analysis of revolutions. The first being that there is a known and commonly held belief in the aspirations of the revolution and that that those involved know that not only are they in a revolution, but they are also deliberate in their attempts to plan a revolution. The second implicit assumption is that the aim of revolutions is a) freedom and that b) a yearning for freedom is an inherent part of humanity. I think throughout the readings, particularly those on Haiti, but also on Iran, it becomes evident that there was no clear and deliberate planning of a revolution by a coherent group of revolutionaries and that there was no commonly agreed upon vision for what freedom meant, for whom was there to be freedom, of even if freedom was the aim. And finally, the last assumption seems to be that a revolution will occur only when the probability of victory is near certain, something which I am not quite sure is a given considering the historical record. In some revolutions, these assumptions may very well hold true, but on the whole, they may make it difficult to expand such analysis to revolutions more generally.