Contrary. This is exactly what Democrats need to challenge if they don’t want to become apologists for Islamist authoritarianism like you two. You embrace “Iran’s sovereignty” as though you speak for 90 million Iranians, many of whom have spent decades resisting the very regime you’re shielding from criticism from the same weight of criticism you extend to your Israel fetish. If sovereignty means respecting the right of nations to govern themselves free from outside interference, then apply that principle consistently. Where is your concern for Lebanon’s sovereignty when Hezbollah operates as an armed proxy? Where is your concern for the destabilization of Gaza, Iraq, and other states affected by Iran’s regional interventions? Sovereignty is not a blank check to repress your own population or export instability to preserve an authoritarian ideology. Yet when it comes to Islamist regimes, many on the modern left suddenly abandon the liberal values of “sovereignty.”
You can oppose war and still condemn a regime’s human rights abuses and regional interference. What you cannot do is preach self-determination for Iranians while dismissing the voices of Iranians who have suffered under that system and the people across the region who have paid the price for its ambitions. Democrats don’t let these two men fool you. Dig deeper than fluffy talks that sound good. Never accept input from people whose principles are one directional
That isn’t principled liberalism. It’s selective outrage.