[Goose]

The thing is, even if the regime was to fall and be replaced by some sort of liberal democracy (which I think is pretty darn unlikely),

I absolutely agree that whatever "comes after" will not be a "liberal" democracy. I am certain Israel believes the same. Their goal is a regime whose view of its national interest is not dominated by Shia religious imperatives. They believe they can "do business" with such a government, as they have with Egypt. The Iranian successor government may not even be a "real" democracy for very long. The following article is IMO "interesting" https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ir...aba-video/ (Paywall) There several articles on the net that analyze the philosophies, leaders, and groups involved. Civil war does figure in some of them. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is a Shia cleric and Iraqi politician. He advocates a conservative religious philosophy coupled with a secular state. His philosophy is gaining traction in Iran. That could be a "way ahead" that is religiously acceptable to pious Shia Iranians that want regime change.

the Iranian people would probably still hate Israel,

Iran and its people have historically been less anti-Israel than most other Middle Eastern countries. During the Regan years the Israelis and the Iranian governments did "business" regularly, if quietly. The fact the Iranians aren't Arabs and are relatively far from Israel are also factors. The current Iranian government uses anti-Israel propaganda to 1) attract and control its Arab proxies and 2) establish their bona fides as a qualified leader of the Islamic resistance to Israel. How far that actually penetrates the local population is IMO (and others) questionable.

and their government would still have plenty of motivation to pursue a nuclear weapon, especially after these strikes.

Maybe. Israel hopes that, worst case, Iran will need to spend all its available revenue in reconstituting its conventional military. Israel also probably hopes Iran and its people will conclude that the "price" of obtaining nuclear weapons is way too high and will remain that way. You may be right about the Iranian government's future motivation. Probably it depends a lot on who actually takes over.

I'm pretty skeptical Israel can force a regime change with air power alone. And I'm pretty skeptical that whatever replaces the regime would be much better.

IMO Israel agrees that air power alone can't "force" regime change. What the do believe is that the desire for regime change in Iran is very high and that all that prevents it from happening right now is the iron grip of the Religious Police and the Republican Guard. If air power can weaken that grip Israel believes regime change might occur "naturally". Targeting the leader of the Republican Guard certainly does that, though there are obviously other good reasons. Is this wishful thinking by Israel? Maybe. Predicting events in Iran has not been intelligence agencies strong suit :-)

Israel's hope that a successor regime would be "better" is IMO also limited. They want a regime that is driven by "realpolitik" independent of blind theocracy. Israel thinks that would be a significant improvement. In that, they may be wrong. An Iranian regime that was "acceptable" to "the west" may be a much more formidable opponent than the current Iranian regime is. Israel obviously hopes being "acceptable" requires not being anti-Israel.

[Goose]

The thing is, even if the regime was to fall and be replaced by some sort of liberal democracy (which I think is pretty darn unlikely),

I absolutely agree that whatever "comes after" will not be a "liberal" democracy. I am certain Israel believes the same. Their goal is a regime whose view of its national interest is not dominated by Shia religious imperatives. They believe they can "do business" with such a government, as they have with Egypt. The Iranian successor government may not even be a "real" democracy for very long. The following article is IMO "interesting" https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ir...aba-video/ (Paywall) There several articles on the net that analyze the philosophies, leaders, and groups involved. Civil war does figure in some of them. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is a Shia cleric and Iraqi politician. He advocates a conservative religious philosophy coupled with a secular state. His philosophy is gaining traction in Iran. That could be a "way ahead" that is religiously acceptable to pious Shia Iranians that want regime change.

the Iranian people would probably still hate Israel,

Iran and its people have historically been less anti-Israel than most other Middle Eastern countries. During the Regan years the Israelis and the Iranian governments did "business" regularly, if quietly. The fact the Iranians aren't Arabs and are relatively far from Israel are also factors. The current Iranian government uses anti-Israel propaganda to 1) attract and control its Arab proxies and 2) establish their bona fides as a qualified leader of the Islamic resistance to Israel. How far that actually penetrates the local population is IMO (and others) questionable.

and their government would still have plenty of motivation to pursue a nuclear weapon, especially after these strikes.

Maybe. Israel hopes that, worst case, Iran will need to spend all its available revenue in reconstituting its conventional military. Israel also probably hopes Iran and its people will conclude that the "price" of obtaining nuclear weapons is way too high and will remain that way. You may be right about the Iranian government's future motivation. Probably it depends a lot on who actually takes over.

I'm pretty skeptical Israel can force a regime change with air power alone. And I'm pretty skeptical that whatever replaces the regime would be much better.

IMO Israel agrees that air power alone can't "force" regime change. What the do believe is that the desire for regime change in Iran is very high and that all that prevents it from happening right now is the iron grip of the Religious Police and the Republican Guard. If air power can weaken that grip Israel believes regime change might occur "naturally". Targeting the leader of the Republican Guard certainly does that, though there are obviously other good reasons. Is this wishful thinking by Israel? Maybe. Predicting events in Iran has not been intelligence agencies strong suit :-)

Israel's hope that a successor regime would be "better" is IMO also limited. They want a regime that is driven by "realpolitik" independent of blind theocracy. Israel thinks that would be a significant improvement. In that, they may be wrong. An Iranian regime that was "acceptable" to "the west" may be a much more formidable opponent than the current Iranian regime is. Israel obviously hopes being "acceptable" requires not being anti-Israel.