>But there is nothing democratic about today's Iran. Theocratic fascists on the other hand need an enemy to distract from complete failure of internal politics and collapsing economy due to spending all their resources on war and funding criminals and terrorists abroad.

I explicitly said they weren't. You're preaching for the choir.

>Not really. They have nothing to quarrel about.

Democratic states still have geopolitical interests. The interests of Israel are vehemently opposed to those of Iran. Thus, Iran and Israel will be in conflict. In fact, foreign policy-wise, democratic states are barely different from dictatorships.

Democratic Iran won't have interest in spreading war and chaos all around unlike what IRG (that basically runs Iran today) is doing now. So what kind of interests will they have conflicting then?

Countries pursue war to advance their interests. Iran funds proxies and political parties abroad to be able to maintain sufficient influence on its neighbours to prevent the advancement of US interests and to prevent them from attacking Iran, as well as to destabilize some gulf states.

Democracies are just as warmongering as any other. The US and most European countries didn't see any issue in bombing Syria and Libya back to slavery, so why do you think democratic Iran will be any better?

Simple reason - constant war mongering isn't something politicians will be supported for because the price for that is going on the people. That is, if politicians have to answer to anyone (thus democracy).

Dictatorships on the other hand don't care about squeezing their own populations to the bone for their war mongering. Well, until the point there is an uprising of course and they are burned down by the angry mob.