Don't take it badly, but I'm afraid your religious affiliation and a complete reliance on traditional Sunni literature has colored your post and resultedin a significant number of untrue statements.
Ismail was not born Shia: his family were Sufi (to be precise Shafi'i Sufi) and Haydar his father was the Shaykh of the Safavyya Sufi order and a direct descendant of its founder, Safi-ad-Din Ardabili. Haydar was killed in battle in 1488, and in 1494 his elder brother Ali Mirza Safavi was assassinated. Ismail was spirited away to Gilan,where he stayed hidden for 5 years (and according to Safavi propaganda was taught by renowned scholars and ulemas). He then returned to Azerbaijan in 1499, supported by Qizilbash Turcoman tribes.
Now the Qizilbash were Shia, and this would explain why Ismail claimed un his return to be the mahdi, i.e. the "hidden imam" of the Twelvers tradition.
The contradiction between his father being the head of a Sufi order and at the same time supporting a Shia tribal confederation is only apparent: IMHO politics trumped religion, and the support of these belligerent tribes was certainly motive enough to explain his ties with the Qizilbashi.
Incidentally, Azerbaijan was majority Sunni at the time, and most of the ulemas were coming from the Ottoman empire. The same is true for most of Iran: Shia were majority only in Southern Mesopotamia, and adiacent border regions in Khuzestan and Kurdistan. The Qizilbashi alliance was a relatively a new comer, having been started in the 14th century.
IMHO Ismail conversion to Shia was due to his formative years in the Shia stronghold in Gilan, aswell as by his hate for Sunni whom he held responsible for the death of his father and brother. Shia beliefs dovetailed pretty well with Sufi mysticism, and presented him with a nice piece of strong propaganda. Later on, he found convenient and necessary to further promote the Shia message, since it gave Persia a separate and distinct identity from his main enemies (the Ottomans and the Turcomans of Central Asia). For similar reasons, he also promoted the image of a separate Persian identity (although the religious message was always dominant, and easier to use for his attempt to penetrate in eastern Anatolia).
At present, the distribution of religious affiliation in Iran is a bit muddy: Christians, Jews, Chaldeans and Zoroastrians number less than 1% of the population, but the 99%+ of Muslim Iranians is a bit more difficult to break down. There is a significant likelihood that Sunnis are somewhere between 10 and 12% of Iranian population (mostly concentrated in Larestan and Kurdistan, and apparently their numbers are growing); Yarsanis and Baha'i may number together around 2-3%; Sufis are claimed to be 3-5%, but it's quite impossible to say if it is true, or even if they should constitute a separate group). There has certainly been a strong increase of un-religiousness: obviously the census does not consider agnostics or atheists (as well as the do not consider Baha'i or Yarsanis) but I would be really surprised if their numbers would be less than 5% (personal assessment, on the basis of my visits to Iran). IMHO Iran today is amuch more variegated and multi-faceted society than it is portrayed by the regime (or even believed in the west).
I said " I believe", when referring to Azerbaijan. I was unaware that it was majority Sunni at this point. Further, while I might be off on saying "100 % Shi'i" are any of the groups you mentioned in power? Do they have really any say? Thus in practice it is quite easy to say That Iran is extraordinarily Shi'i, it is like saying oh wait, Oman isn't completely Ibadhi, it actually has some silly 2% Shi'i populace in Masqat...
I of course am not an expert on the Safavids and am in fact learning more about Iran in general. My main area of knowledge is the the Caliphates and social problems during that time.
I knew Is'mail was Sufi at birth, but being a Sufi does not automatically mean no to Shi'i. But I understand your point.
Also other than Is'mail and my lack of knowledge on Azerbaijan (which I need to study more) where else did I slip up? Are you saying that contemporary accounts are universally false or that I don't look into Shi'i sources? I don't think you are calling into question the list of rebellions I put forward or my charecterization of the Safavids as what they were in comparison to previous Shi'i entities whether state or rebels.