Answers to counter-factuals are never more than speculation, but with that proviso: sure.

All that had to happen was for Mirabeau not to die at an inconvenient time. Mirabeau -- Honoré Gabriel Riqueti- was a moderate, a key supporter of a constitutional monarchy along British lines. He was very much the center of political gravity in the early days of "the Revolution" -- when it was far more evolutionary than revolutionary. He had the support of nobles like Talleyrand and his friend the Comte de Narbonne, other collaborators included Etienne Dumont and Lamourette.

Not long before his death he collided with Robespierre, and got the better of the argument; Mirabeau could be fairly said to have been the one moderate who was genuinely popular with the Jacobins. You might call him a parallel to Sun Yat-Sen, a moderate whose death left an unfillable hole in the center.

I do have to add that against that picture of Mirabeau there are other less flattering portrayals. His relations with the King, not known at the time, became known long after his death, and leave him looking like a less admirable character. Still, judged by his own deeds in his own time, he looks to be a man whose absence was keenly felt.

And of course, there's the awkward clumsiness of la nuit de Varennes -- the attempted flight in 1791 of the King to join Royalist armies which tipped the revolutionaries from guarded suspicion to full blown paranoid fury. That moment, when the King was revealed to be not "of France", but rather of a larger European monarchist movement was part of a brew of counter-revolutionary insurrections and defections, a continuing ratchet of insults to the Revolution which culminated in the Vendée uprising and the defection of General Dumoriez, at which point the Committee of Public Safety was formed . . .

The French Revolution was, to the people who participated in it a web of conspiracies and aspirations, passions, crowds and accidents. The men at the center of it all truly "didn't see it coming", and if they didn't you can hardly call anything about it inevitable. The men who made the Terror were all unknown in 1789. Of the Committee of Public Safety, none were much more than minor bureaucrats, Robespierre and Danton were lawyers of no great acclaim, Collot d'Herbois an actor, none of them prospectively "men of destiny".

Talleyrand, who was there, remarked later

If historians strive to find the men on whom they can bestow the honor or the reproach for having made, or directed, or modified the French Revolution, they will have gone to unnecessary trouble. [The Revolution] had no authors, no leaders, no guides. It had been sown by writers, who, in an enlightened and enterprising century, wanting to attack prejudices, had overthrown religious and social principles, and by incompetent ministers who have increased the distress of the treasury and the discontent of the people.

We can never really properly test a counter-factual "If X didn't happen, would Y have happened" -- that's never a provable conjecture: all it really is, is a platform on which to discuss how we think events go together. On the evidence, the French Revolution as it happened was not sought as such by anyone at the time-- there _were_ men with plans, but their plans were for something like England's "Glorious Revolution", a rebalancing of power between the King, Parliament, the nobility and the bourgeois, men like Mirabeau.

​

Sources:

The Jacobins Clubs in the French Revolution The First Years

Mirabeau and The French Revolution: A Reappraisal

EVALUATION OF MIRABEAU'S ROLE IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

The Foundation of the Jacobin Clubs and the Development of the Jacobin Club Network, 1789-1791

Twelve Who Ruled: The Year of the Terror in the French Revolution -- R.R Palmer's classic, not the most modern scholarship, but still a great introduction