Rather than taking a "holier than thou" stance and refusing to engage with governments that have committed atrocities, it is more effective to build bridges. Cooperation invites them into the 21st century and aligns them with your values, whereas isolationism is counterproductive.

Despite widespread protests, Iran's repressive state apparatus is highly effective and has shown no signs of cracking. The probability of the regime collapsing from internal pressure alone is extremely low. Niall Ferguson argues that only external intervention, a form of 'regime alteration,' can realistically topple the Islamic Republic.

Prominent Western left-wing intellectuals were initially supportive of Ayatollah Khomeini. They were drawn to his anti-imperialist rhetoric about "the disinherited of the earth," mistakenly projecting their own ideals onto him and predicting he would usher in a "humane" form of governance.

A clean, external removal of Iran's leadership, similar to what occurred in Venezuela, is unlikely. Iran's population is nearly four times larger, it is geographically distant, and the American political psyche associates the Middle East with costly military entanglements, creating a much higher barrier to intervention.

The West's reaction to oppression is often dictated not by the severity of the human rights abuses, but by the skin color of the oppressor. The left often enters a state of "moral paralysis" and muted outrage when oppressors are brown, saving its primary condemnation for white or Israeli actors.

Holding out for morally perfect leaders is naive and paralyzing. The reality of geopolitics is a "knife fight" where leaders inevitably make decisions that result in death. Progress requires working with these flawed individuals rather than disengaging over past actions.

The hosts argue that progressive media and activists are morally paralyzed, failing to adequately cover human rights abuses in places like Iran. This happens because the oppressors are not white, leading to a disproportionately muted response.

Sam Harris suggests the suspicious lack of media coverage for Iranian uprisings may be politically motivated. A successful regime change could be seen as a foreign policy victory for Donald Trump, an inconvenient narrative for his many detractors in the media and on the left.

Proponents of engaging with regimes like Saudi Arabia often pivot from specific moral criticisms (e.g., murdering journalists) to comparative flaws in Western democracies (e.g., gun violence). This "whataboutism" is a rhetorical strategy to reframe the debate and justify actions by implying moral equivalence.