Iconoclasm was certainly not a dispute over doctrine that led to the Great Schism. It had been thoroughly excoriated at the end of the second iconoclast wave and both the Eastern and Western Churches adhered to (and still adhere to) the findings of the Second Nicaean Council. The controversy was over 300 years before the Great Schism and both churches were in agreement.

If you bothered to read the article you would see that at no point was it stated that the iconoclast heresy had any impact whatsoever on the Great Schism. The schism of Photius was completely healed, just like the Avignon Schism in the West. It was totally irrelevant at the time of the Great Schism except, as I have repeatedly said, insofar as it set a precedent of papal interference in matters of the Eastern Church, which is at best a tangential affect.

Which brings me back to my initial statement: everything you said in your initial statement was wrong. Rome, frequently headed by Greek-speaking popes who recognized Byzantium prior to the schism, was not menaced by pagans in the eighth century and had no more reason to find itself against iconoclasm than Constantinople, which was routinely attacked by pagan Bulgars and Russians during that exact period, and menaced by the Muslims in Syria and on the seas. Iconoclasm may have drawn inspiration from Muslim- and Jewish-influenced thinking, which was more prevalent in the East, but Rome was not drawn to a need to defend the images for any of the reasons you stated.

Just admit you're wrong. You not only look like a moron, but you post things that have nothing to do with the issue at dispute and string them together. On that note, may I recommend you read Matthew 27:5, Luke 10:37, and then Deuteronomy 13:18.