Here's some dish on the behind the scenes machinations. I have to wonder, if this situation does have Iran's fingerprints all over it, and they are huge honking glowing fingerprints, does that really work to Iran's advantage? I would think if Iran were smart, Iran would have worn gloves.

Nibras Kazimi:

Iraq did not hold an election last week - it held a census. Shias voted for a "Shia" list, Sunnis for a "Sunni" list, and Kurds turned out for a "Kurdish" list. The margin for non-sectarian lists - all encompassing, issues-specific "Iraqi" lists - has thinned out since the elections last January. Almost three years after liberation and probably midway through a harrowing insurgency, Iraq's various communities are closing ranks unto themselves in anticipation of even more difficult times ahead, thus, the very act of voting has became an allegory for inter-communal civil strife.

The Shia community did not vote as a confident majority of the population: they followed the voting pattern of a ghettoized minority still scarred from many years of dictatorship. Rather than think for themselves and exercise their individual right to choose, they have abdicated this responsibility in favor of their behemoth communal shepherd: Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

This blog has some analysis, unfortunately his permalinks don't work so you have to scroll through the posts.

Two of his commenters:

The Sunni, Kurd, and unaligned parties will still likely have enough to turn the UIA into an opposition party if they hang together. If they don't, I doubt the UIA wants to see either the Kurdish or Sunni parties outside looking in. They can't rule if there is civil war.

Even if the numbers are real, lets see what government is formed. The government wants militias disarmed, so lets see if the UIA disarms their own. People alway get antsy about what a democratically elected government will do, and then (usually) they act wisely. It's all about the wisdom of large groups.

Too sanguine by far.

And this doesn't sound good:

ALthough I am a 555er, I am very happy to see people like Vahal putting their points across as that is what a democracy is all about. However, after having recently come back from a trip in Iraq all I can say that you are taking it too far with Iranian involvement.
It is true that there is involvement from Iran but it is benefitting us massively. Currently there are literally hundreds of Iranian backed charities across the country helping run down areas such as Sadr city. Politically as well, I agree they are involved but it does not compare with Arab involvement- the main funders of terrorism.

That's how Hamas infiltrates. It becomes the go-to organization for social services. And Iran is a huge funder of terrorism.

Over at ITM, this commenter says:

This fear of Iranistization based on poll results is unfounded. Do any of you understand how the Mullahs gained and maintained control of Iran? If Iraq becomes Iranistized it will be through the formation of the courts. The Kurds may or may not align with 555 on many issues but they will not toe the line if it comes to setting up an Iranian judicial system. In democracy it is less important who gains power than who can remove them. As long as the people of Iraq retain the power to vote any and all political paries out of power then the politicians will be forced to appease the people. The problem with Iran is that the courts prevent the people from voting hardliners out of office except to replace them with another hardliner.

Good point:

this is really sistani's loss not ours.
Millions of Iraqis have now interactied with kafir and lived to tell of it. The iraqi army will have spent enough time with the kafir army of america to be considered brothers in arms, so Sistani's position is a tough one to sustain.