Perhaps surprisingly I have stated almost every point you made a number of times on this site. So there is not the slightest difference in opinion. Even to the extent that each is dependent for reasons listed. What I did not say, and it should be a mute point as to my current admission, is I did not mean to elude to a situation where the Iraqi Shia would align with the Persians. Again. I had over the past two years tried in rather verbose desertations to explain to some the vast differences between them dating back many thousands of years and into the more modern epochs.
What my key point was, is if the Shia dominate the government they are not going to give the Kurds and Sunni a fair shake. And I presented some possible scenarios which obviously have gone around the circle endless times as potentially coming to past.
If your assesment of the tri-dependency holds true, then all will be well. If it does not turn out to hold ground, and that does not mean what you said is inaccurate by any means, then other scenarios could develop. And is essentially what I brought out in my dooms day approach. I surely hope what I wrote does not come to past. But I think it could given forces we may be overlooking. What they are, not sure. Because again, I can believe the Shia may not want to play a nasty game on the Sunni. Just keep them under wraps. For which one cannot blam them.
Let me conclude with just this note. We probably agree that both Sadr and Hakim are both in the sack with the Iranian Mullahs to some extent. To much has been written as how they cohort together, pay visits to Iran etc..
They are the goons that if in control I based my statements on primarily. Then I can go back to what I just admit I have studied over the years and are in agreement with you on, regarding a lot of deep differences between the Arabs and the Persians. Their enemies for the most part just like the Saudi and the Emirites totally distrust Iran in every way. They only are tied loosely because of their common yoke under the cult, and distaste for westernization etc..
So OK S. Lets go along with your latest assesment. I have no problem with it.
"If your assesment of the tri-dependency holds true, then all will be well. If it does not turn out to hold ground, and that does not mean what you said is inaccurate by any means, then other scenarios could develop. And is essentially what I brought out in my dooms day approach. I surely hope what I wrote does not come to past. But I think it could given forces we may be overlooking. What they are, not sure. Because again, I can believe the Shia may not want to play a nasty game on the Sunni. Just keep them under wraps. For which one cannot blam them. Let me conclude with just this note. We probably agree that both Sadr and Hakim are both in the sack with the Iranian Mullahs to some extent. To much has been written as how they cohort together, pay visits to Iran etc..." 
Right. Don't get me wrong, civil war is a possibility when you go blow up a strong central government that has been "keeping the peace" via military force.
What we have to ask is why the Kurds didn't immediately declare independence in April of 2003...why the Shia didn't go for Sunni blood by May of 2003, and why the Sunnis are finally voting in Iraqi elections.
...And when I answered those questions in the posts above, I saw that there are some very powerful carrots and some very grave sticks that are in play.
The Kurds want U.S. protection from the Turkish Army. The Kurds want Iraqi oil and Iraqi political power and a nearly-autonomous region of "Iraq" for themselves.
Well, by playing ball with the U.S., with the new Iraqi government, the Kurds get all of that while avoiding a war with Turkey.
The Arab Shia gain control of Iraqi politics, of global Shia politics/holy sites, Iraqi oil, a prestigious place on the world stage, as well as U.S. protection from Persian shia...all for playing along with the U.S. plan and the new Iraqi government.
The Sunnis in Iraq gain an over-representation of their numbers in the new Iraqi government, a share of Kurdish and Shia oil that they'd otherwise not have, and U.S. protection from Kurdish/Shia slaughter of their ranks for playing along.
These aren't just financial or prestige types of carrots...these are also life and death of entire culture issues. Sticks. Big sticks. Carrots. Rich carrots.
And this is why civil war hasn't broken out all across Iraq en masse. Well, that plus outstanding geopolitics by the Bush Administration and an amazing military presence on the ground and in the skies over Iraq.
President Bush is going for a long-term solution to terrorism. Root causes in Afghanistan, Libya, Lebanon, Liberia, and Iraq have been addressed both for the short term as well as for the long term in a variety of ways (e.g. national alignments, democratic republics, constitutions, military training, infrastructure rebuilding, educational and medical assistance, etc.).
There are over 1,000 UAVs flying over Iraq today. Iraqi ground forces can call for these U.S. aircraft to strike targets on the ground. This gives Iraqis control, yet also builds their trust and appreciation for the U.S.
It's not quite a dependency...it's more of a bonding much like what individual soldiers experience in their units after their first combat.
Saddam is jailed. The UN sanctions on Iraq are lifted. Military, economic, and infrastructure aid is being given. Individual Iraqis can hold political office without debts of blood and bribes. International trade is legal for Iraqis now.
These are massive developments that Iraqis couldn't experience prior to 2003, and I suspect that they'll be more grateful to the U.S. over the long term than that of several countries that we liberated circa 1944/1945.