Yes, there’s a hint of that, but at least with Christians, we know there was a time of unity, and so there is at least a possibility of unity again in the future. I can’t say the same with political divisions.
I think it’s logical, on issues like this, to hearken back to that time before the division arose, and then try to trace the origin of the division. The first Christians, who were united, did not use images. Later, some began using images, while others did not. There were swings back and forth with Popes and Councils saying that images were bad, or images were acceptable, and then they settled on the current “compromise”, where they allowed the images, while admitting that at least certain uses of them were still sinful.
So, by my reckoning, the controversy didn’t arise from disputing the use of images, but rather began with the first acceptance of images. Before they were accepted, there was no controversy, and therefore, no division on this issue. It stands to reason, then, that we can’t eliminate the division without re-addressing the acceptance of images which contributed to it.
Only in hindsight. The letters of Paul deal with a lot of divisions, as does the book of Acts. From there through the Gnostics, Arians, Iconoclastics, Orthodox, Protestants, etc. the history of the church has been to a considerable extent the history its divisions.
In fact, I would suggest that the only periods in which the Church has not been divided has been in periods when it conspired with the State to crush divisions by force. Which I don't consider a particularly Christian way to handle anything.