A slight sleight of hand there, Martin. You said this article is an example of "PR upholding Iran's "right" to nuclear weapons" The article actually says, "Permanent Revolution had argued that taking a position on this question was not necessary in the campaign’s founding statement" which is quite distinct.
It argues that taking a position on this question is not necessary as a precondition of supporting the campaign. I can understand this argument- on balance however I think it is good that HOPI did take a position on this. Perhaps I do have a different opinion from some therefore in PR- so? I think it's good to have a range of opinions and debate on all sorts of matters.