With zero external influence, I bet ;)

It wouldn't be the first time [1][2][3]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_Libya...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Ven...

> There is some truth to this insistence. But it is mostly disingenuous. The Constitution was meant to foster a complex form of majority rule, not enable minority rule.

Forming the United States also took a lot of compromise. If nobody was willing to budge on these archaic issues we wouldn't be here today. It doesn't change the vision that all men are created equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"I don't like where this is going so I'll just arbitrarily disqualify the line of argument even though it's logically valid."

> Situation in Syria or "democratic" Iraq is probably more illustrative

Cynicism is a hinder to progress. Reality is messy, but if we tell people to stop aspiring, things can only get worse. Tunisia after the revolution has had its problems but it's still freer than it was, for example; same for Algeria. Chances are even going from a theocracy to a secular dictatorship on the Egyptian model, for example, would be a significant step forward.

They are often externally helped, but considering the casus "belli" in this case was an extremely natural one (a popular reaction against a brutal abuse of power that resulted in the violent murder of a woman for not properly wearing the mandated veil), it's very doubtful the protests were started by foreign-affiliated/financed parties.

Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, Iran has a long and recent history of being a highly orderly society.

How democratic it would be is another question, but very likely it at least is not going to be as oppressive. Even if the resulting state were closer to Singapore than to Switzerland, it would still be a serious relief for the population.

Since then, Iraq was controlled by various foreign powers, as a colony: partly Persian, partly Ottoman / Turkish; since late 19th century, it was increasingly under British control, and since 1970s, under Saddam Hussein: independent but rather undemocratic.

Iran was independent and powerful since 1500s, and it even converted the previous waves of invaders to its culture (somehow similar how the Manchu invaders gradually converted to the Chinese culture). While obviously not democratic, Iran was not a cultural backwater, up until the Islamic revolution in 1979. Even under the power of ayatollahs Iran's urban societies feature strong citizen movements demanding more liberty and equality, e.g. women equality: women had much more rights under the last Shah regime, and people remember that.

In general, I suppose that Iran, had the current theocratic regime been overthrown, would not turn into a failed state, much like Russia hasn't become a failed state after the Communist regime fell. (Regarding perspectives of EU / US-style liberal democracy there, I'm much less certain, though chances are.)