Only if you expect Tymoshenko or Yuschenko to be essential, which was clearly not the case. Yanukovitch had to make some hard choices about relationships with Russia and EU that had been kicked down the road for years (by Yuschenko and Tymoshenko, among others) and was shouldering the inevitable unpopularity due to a huge economic crisis. It was a very good opening. Somebody took it.
The Turkish regime was left absolutely free to use direct violence to stop the Arab Spring protests, with no repercussion whatsoever – because nobody in NATO can risk losing Turkey, end of. Same in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain: the US military cannot project across the Middle-East without the Saudis. In many, many ways, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are more critical than Israel, so they will be left alone to do as they please with internal protesters, as long as they allow the US military to hang around freely. This is undeniable. The same happened in Europe in the '70s: US couldn’t do without NATO countries, so NATO countries were left free (or even helped) to annihilate internal leftist movements with all sorts of dirty tricks and brutal repression.
By the way, the difference between Ukraine/Egypt and Iran is social control. The Iranian regime is extremely good at pervasive control and repression, in a way that most other countries are not. They can do this thanks to some indisputable ideological tenets (foreign support for the Sha, religious legitimacy, some degree of democracy and so on) which make the internal opposition structurally weak. The best they can hope for, is to criticise immediate tactical choices in order to elect softer leaders, and hope for some “glasnost” snowball happening at some point.
