Excuse the pedantry but it's probably more accurate to describe Iran as a military dicatorship more than a theocracy. Yes, there's a Supreme Leader but the day-to-day government is really run by the IRGC. Not that one is necessarily better than the other, mind you. It's a bit like describing the UK as a monarchy (yes the British monarch is more of a figurehead than the Ayatollah is).

But look at all our self-proclaimed enemeies (eg Cuba, North Korea, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran) and all of that end of becoming a varying degree of autocratic. None of these countries ends up wanting to be a US puppet. I can't think of a single example where foreign inteference (or war) has had the citizenry welcome foreign powers as liberators or otherwise increased freedoms or conditions in a country for those citizens.

You might be tempted to say apartheid South Africa but there's a key difference. South Africa wasn't an enemy. It was an ally. Sanctions don't work on enemies. They only work on allies.

However unpoular the IRGC or the Supreme Leader are in Iran, the US and Israel are less popular. We should never forget that the Ayatollah is a direct product of US inteference as we couped their democratically elected government to install a brutal regime under the Shah. Look up the history of SAVAK some time.