Are we against the slogan "troops out now", because of what it represents in terms of its common usage in the anti-war movement, and because - abstracted from a programme of working-class power - its consequences would be reactionary? Yes. Does that mean we positively support the presence of occupying troops in Iraq, or would oppose their withdrawal (immediate or otherwise) and would counsel Iraqi workers not to fight for it? No. If you can't get your head round that, Jason, then I'm sorry. It doesn't seem to me that one would require a PhD in political science to understand the idea that just because you don't choose to make shrilly demanding (in the abstract) a particular outcome in a given conflict, you're necessarily in favour of its opposite.
The stuff about an Israeli attack on Iran is just a lie; Sean Matgamna has his views, I have mine. There is no AWL policy declaring that we would refuse to condemn an Israeli attack on Iran. In the event of such an attack I am entirely confident that we would be involved in mobilisations against it - opposing both the attack and the poisonous, pro-Tehran, anti-Israeli (rather than anti-Israeli ruling-class/state) politics of the forces that would inevitably hegemonise such a movement.
On the Mahdi Army, the stuff about them not being sufficiently anti-imperialist/part of the resistance came from you, not me. If you don't consider them (or the Iranian ruling-class) suitable partners for your AIUF, then who exactly are you talking about? If the best armed, best funded and best organised forces capable of simply "resisting" US imperialist hegemony (as the Iranian ruling-class and the Mahdi Army certainly are) aren't to be approached, then who is? Who exactly do you envision constructing this mythical "united front" with?