Iconoclasm had nothing to do with the schism whatsoever. Of all the ignorant statements you have made, this ranks among your statements in my language post in terms of the grossness of the errors.

The absolute hands-down leading element of the Schism was the assertion of papal supremacy. The Eastern Churches always held to the position (and still do so hold) that matters of theology could only be resolved by Ecumenical Councils at which the Pope was, at best, primus inter pares. The refusal of the Popes to submit the Western Church to such councils led to a string of disputes.

The first of these disputes was during the papacy of Sergius I over the divergence of Latin usages from those approved by a series of ecumenical councils. None of the usages in question had to do with the veneration of icons, but rather, with matters of the clergy (celibacy vs. the Orthodox mandate that priests with parishes be married), the observation of Lent (Latin Lent was already relaxed from the strictures of the Eastern Great Lent) and the depiction of Christ as the Lamb of God, something that the Eastern Churches found repulsive.

The only dispute that was even remotely related to iconoclasm was the support by Pope Nicolas I of Patriarch Ignatius, who was anti-iconoclast. However, the acts of the Pope were likely encouraged by the Holy Roman Emperor, as the Pope and Patriarch reflected the temporal dispositions of power at the time. When Emperor Basil I assumed the purple, he reinstated Ignatius to improve relations with the West. The position of the Pope was not the deciding factor, and in any event the episode ended with relatively good terms. The only tangential effect that iconoclasm might be said to have on the Schism is that it set a precedent of papal interference in internal affairs of the Eastern Church. However, the reason for the interference had nothing to do with iconoclasm and everything to do with growing pretensions on the part of the Popes to plenary authority over all of the Church, including over the Patriarch and the Eastern Church.

Furthermore, after the iconoclasts were soundly defeated, Rome fell into the decadence of the pornocracy and the cadaver trial after that, and it wasn't until hundreds of years later that Leo IX decided to declare papal primacy and declare that the filioque was an official point of theology, in contradiction of the Great Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.

Even then, the issue was less about the filioque itself (even the present Pope, Benedict XVI, admits that the relationship between the Son and Holy Spirit is a "divine mystery" and it is difficult to argue with certainty about matters so far removed from human understanding) and far more about papal power. In particular, the Eastern and Western Churches disputed authority over dioceses in Southern Italy and the Balkans, and the divergence of usages was becoming very great (the calculation of Easter, choice of liturgical language, type of communion administered to laymen, type of communion bread used, means of making the sign of the cross, facial hair for priests, clerical celibacy in the West opposed to mandatory marriage of parish priests in the East, order of church services, etc.). The failure of the Western Church to understand Greek, and of the Eastern Church to understand Latin, made communication even more difficult and led to misunderstandings that the Pope capitalized on to drive home his position.

In short, iconoclasm had no direct bearing on the Schism and only a tangential influence by accident.