...but presumably your policy in advance of the invasion of Afghanistan would've been that Afghan workers should form an "anti-imperialist united front" with them to resist imperialist invasion?
That was certainly Workers' Power's position at the time (and almost all PR members were WP members in 2001/2002); if your comrades have now broken with that perspective, great. Good for you. But since you're still using the formula of the "anti-imperialist united front", I'm far from convinced that you have. And if you've broken with that perspective over Afghanistan, why does it still apply for Iran and Iraq?
Although PR has embraced a healthy amount of libertarianism since the split with WP (again; good for you), it's still a democratic centralist organisation so I find the idea that you don't know whether you've got a minority position or not to be a bit risible. The problem is not with having minority views (I should know), the problem is with not knowing whether you do or not, and consequently not fighting for them.
The notion that we don't see "mobilising the working-class" as central to "fighting imperialism" is ludicrous. It's also deeply disingenuous to claim that PR's position doesn't have anything to say beyond this. As I've said (again and again and again, including twice already in this post), PR still use the AIUF formula which clearly implies alliances with non and anti-worker forces against imperialism. That is the disagreement between us; it's one of politics, not just of emphasis.