Donald Rumsfeld once said Iraq could choose any government it wants, so long as it was not religious. Many Westerners have been worried for a long time about religion-based political movements in the Muslim world.
Frankly, I just don't see the particular problem with "Islamic theocracies," if that is really what is on offer.
Let's just recall the significant examples of "theocracies"--states built on explicitly religious principles--in the Christian world.
That would be the New England colonies of the US, maybe Utah, England under Cromwell, Geneva under Calvin, maybe Holland.
All these places have gone on to be both notably prosperous and notably democratic. Models, even the original models, of stable liberal democracy.
I think there is a connection. Establishing shared values and a shared commitment to civic morality is a vital part of establishing a functioning democracy.
Without it, you have Weimar Germany.
I find it difficult to conceive of the Muslim world moving to democracy without going through a similar phase, a process of validating liberal and democratic ideals and procedures through Islam, also involving a process of cleanng up and re-committing public life.
A lot of people might not like to hear it, but I suspect this may be what is happening now in Iran. After all, Iran is already one of the most democratic nations in the Muslim world.