Anthony Loyd, Times correspondent in Baghdad, says that a day-time curfew kept a lid on the violence in Iraq today but the future is far from clear and civil war is a very real possibility:

"Things are much quieter in Baghdad today because of the curfew, that's been extended to 4pm. The security forces are more visible on the streets and beyond isolated incidents I've not heard of significant violence in the city so far.

"It's selective, not a 100 per cent curfew. In some areas like Sadr City, the Shia area northeast of Baghdad, people have been out in the streets and attending Friday prayers. Sunni areas appear to be in a state of lock-down though. The curfew is principally designed to keep the various neighbourhoods separated.

"So, it's calmer and I think everyone has stepped back a bit as they consider the next move. They're wondering what is to be gained from more violence or even from civil war.

"It's very difficult to see what is going to happen next. The leaders of influential Shia groups - Moqtada al Sadr, who heads the Mehdi Army, and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), whose militia wing is the Badr Organisation - have been urging calm, at least publicly. Yet it was the Mehdi army that undertook most of Wednesday's killing in Baghdad.

"Today power in Iraq lies in the hands of the clergy more than political leaders.

"There is a lot of regional interference here too: there are people out there who think that they want a pro-Iranian government, religious leaders to have more power in the new Iraq, and want to show their strength by sending their militias out again in their pick-up trucks.

"The problem with that is that Iraq could end up in a full-on civil war and the experience of other countries in this region that have been through civil wars, like Lebanon and Afghanistan, has been catastrophic. There's a huge amount of suffering for a very long time.

"There are interests served by the break-up of Iraq in some people's eyes. Some groups would lose out. Certainly the Sunnis, who are in the minority, would not stand to gain. Do the Shias think they can dominate the scene without carving up Iraq? Its the million-dollar question.

"Certainly for the foreign terror groups, people like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the anarchy would clearly suit him very well, allow him space to move, and help thwart the US strategy. The violence over the past 48 hours has been very organised though - it's not a question of mobs ransacking mosques, it's more well-briefed hit squads moving around, picking up Sunni males and executing them.

"So civil war is a possibility, but it's far from certain. The majority of Iraqis, Sunni and Shia, don't hate each other. If you look at the amount of provocation that Iraqis have suffered over the past three years, it would have catapulted most countries into a civil war ages ago.

"There are a lot of very positive influences in Iraq that are putting the brakes on war happening, but then civil war has never been the desire of the majority: it's something that happens when unbearable pressures on society coincide, and right now Iraq is in a very pressured state.

"I think most Iraqis still believe in a unified Iraq. The big question is what is the future for democracy here. Is it going to work? Is it what people even want? Democracy remains a fairly abstract concept for most people, who see things in more tribal, religious terms. There are millions of people out here, Shias, who would prefer to live in a theocracy like that in Iran."

Times Recommends

• Cairo women fight back against harassment
• Weapons-grade flirting for Hillary and David
• More at stake in Start talks than US and Russia