If we were to look at basic leftist theory they always regard liberals as non left. The argument is that liberals just protect the liberties of the priviledged class, typically the wealth owning class. They treat the workers like wage slaves, throwing them a bone to keep them quiet, but when historically being forced to choose between having the workers attain same level of liberties, the liberals always chose to surpress that, break unions or even multiple times directly allow fascist overtake.
you are right that in us this is presented as opposition, but any serious leftist will categorically deny that as absurd. One good indicator is for example how the genocide in gaza is bipartizan or even the war in iran. They protect same interests. They do not serve the voter.
the overthrow in syria in my view didnt install a democratic or popular socialist, or in fact a democratic popular leader per say. President is a former islamist militia commander. Meanwhile while the state deals with secrarian violence between alawites christians kurds druze, israel has expanded settlements in golan and does now regular strikes even further into syrian territory. framing potential iran or syria as socialist is just marketing, it shows no connection to either of the situations there. thats why i asked. If this is the sort of freedom you are “neutral” on then we disagree. in syria the popularity cannot even be argued on the same grounds because it wasnt toppled through uprising.
in iran the protests were followed by orders larger pro gvmt anti foreign influence ones. I can give source its on craddle for example