Some conflicts unfolding in the Middle East have crossed the revolutionary threshold, while others still remain on its verge. In looking at the diverging results in Jordan and Syria, I assert that the social structure in Jordan allowed for the monarchy to neutralize mobilization and deflect opposition, while the social structure in Syria forced the regime to confront the opposition directly and violently. This direct confrontation eroded the Syrian regime’s legitimacy and fueled the conflict’s escalation. The Jordanian monarchy never faced calls for regime change, and was able to maintain its legitimacy when using force to stymie protests. I further argue that the authoritarian regime in Syria was forced into this position by the Syrian people’s demand for regime change, which was caused by a conjuncture of events related to economic reforms, political division, institutional illegitimacy, and regional political upheaval. The failure of this same conjuncture of events to materialize in Jordan explains why the protest movements in Jordan never reached the revolutionary mode of discourse discussed by Mansoor Moaddel. In this study, I use the typology developed by Matthew Shugart, Moaddel’s concept of episodic discourse, and organizational theory to provide an analysis of the differing political conditions in Jordan and Syria. This paper’s findings elucidate the Syrian uprising as well as the recent wave of mass protest movements and revolutions globally. It also addresses the question of why some protest movements become revolutionary. Using Shugart’s typology allows for these countries to be placed in a global context so that their popular movements can be compared to appropriate movements in countries from outside the Middle East. I analyze the effects of social networks on the movements’ progressions employing Moaddel’s concept of Episodic Discourse in combination with organizational theory. Finally, I assess the attempts by both regimes and opposition movements to protect and gain legitimacy through controlling the discourse around reform and stability. The cases of Jordan and Syria offer insight into the long-standing debate over what circumstances convert general discontent into turbulent revolutions. This paper employs three contrasting but complimentary models to explore this topic in the hopes that the findings will shed light on studies of revolutions and popular movements around the globe.