is that you've read somewhere or certainly assumed that the AIUF is the bedrock of our politics or some other formulation- you then assume a certain version of it based (presumably) on readings of Trotsky (certainly Sacha quoted Trotsky from the 20s earlier)- something you bring up not me (for example Brazil in the 30s). But the world in the 1930s was quitw a different place and even one of the main examples used historically- supporting Haile Selassie, the Ethiopian emeperor (or Negus as Trotsky refers to him using the Amharic for king) against the fascists is in hindsight not that useful or rather is to show that Trotsky may have got it wrong.
Certainly against the fascist occupation socialists should have been for raising solidarity and aid for the Ethiopians as Sylvia Pankhurst did (and indeed several hundred African_Amercians went to Ethiopia to fight). It may well have emant forming a united front with those workers, peasants and petit bourgeois willing to fight the fascists. The leaders including Haile Selassie fled the country. Actually the fact that Pankhurst became an apolgist for the Ethiopian aristocracy and Haile Selassie's ruke should prove as a warning in itself I think.
Of course even now it may well be that tactics of a united front under specific situations arise.
The difference though is that I argue that we should try to apply our tactics to concrete whereas you seem to be for some kind of algebraic substitution reading off from reality which bits fit into forumlas. That can be useful at times but in this case comes across as rather scholastic I'm afraid and certainly irrelevant to the bruning needs of the working class in Iraq or here for that matter.