Let's step through these one by one:
> Western governments do not want democracy in Iran.
This is purely speculation, and is not generally true based on statements from Western governments. What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation. If the current leaders in Iran were not sponsoring terrorists across the world, weren't actively pursuing the most dangerous military weapon in existence, and hadn't run their country into the ground, I don't think Western governments would spend much time thinking about Iran or its form of government.
> They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs.
The second part of this is true (the Shah was a poor ruler), but the first does not appear to be true.
> The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME.
I suspect your definition of "dominate the ME" is not very mainstream if you accept this at face value. Iran (along with some other ME nations) has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, which Israel strongly disagrees with.
> Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavites because they are moderate muslims.
How did Western governments replace Assad with Jolani? Do you want the leader of Syria to oppose Israel, or should they attempt to normalize relations with a neighbor? Have you considered that he realizes that he can't win that fight and is attempting to cling to the power he seized during their civil war?
> The revolts in Iran are backed by US/Israel.
Any evidence of this?
> They openly brag about it on every channel.
Any evidence of this?
> They don’t care about Iranian‘s freedoms.
Any evidence of this?
> They are the same who support every dictator in the region if and only if that dictator accepts Israel‘s dominance.
Any evidence of this? Again, Western governments are really looking for stability first, and will accept it if a dictator can provide it based on past behavior.
In short, these are a bunch of highly biased and polarizing statements of opinion, some of which might be backed by a shred of truth but then warped to fit a very specific viewpoint.