1) Ulfric is already paranoid. While not insane, it might be a good idea for him to seek some help re his delusions of grandure and megalomania.
Source showing him paranoid? He's fighting a war, sure he seeks the throne to establish change. Is that such a bad thing? His motives to rule Skyrim are no less noble than the Empire's reason.
2) Tullius could snap, but what difference would that make? He's just one minor General in a huge Imperial army.
He's the Military Governor of Skyrim, and suggested by dialogue he's the go-to-guy for the Emperor himself. I wouldn't exactly call him minor. Imperial army can't even keep order in Cyrodiil, cities erupting into violence... If the Empire can't keep order where majority of their forces are stationed, how can they protect citizens of Skyrim. Well besides the Imperial soldiers who got drunk and slaughtered a woman's family...
3) Again, Ulfric is already paranoid so it wouldn't be out of nowhere.
Again, source? Or at least something to support him being paranoid?
4) Do you really think Galmar is going to be doing it "temporarily"? Really? It is not in Ulfric's character to ever trust anyone or give up control. BTW - don't you think it would be Ulfric who would determine if the Jarls were ruling "correctly"?
They're returning Skyrim to traditional Nordic Government, the Jarls will gain their own armies. They'll have authority over their lands, and the Moot will return to being a Kingmaker. Why wouldn't it be temporary, it is only for the new Jarls and their Governments. The Imperial Legion does the exact same thing, it's helping them establish themselves.
It is to determine the Jarls are building their armies, soldiers are being trained.
5) What is Skyrim's "true" self?
Without Cyrodiil exploiting resources, and manipulating Skyrim's governments to keep only Jarls of Solitude as High King/Queen. The Jarls depend on the Empire to rule effectively, and when Cyrodiil turns a blind eye to the other provinces, those Jarls pay the price. Markarth is an example, when the Cyrodiil turned a blind eye the Jarl lost the ability to keep their city.
6) "With us or against us" is not just a Civil War thing. Look at history. Anyone who has ever used that phrase has never just used it in the context of one event or series of events. It's their way of life.
Yet you see in from Blades, Imperial supporters, and Stormcloaks. With us or against us isn't about every citizen, it was towards the Imperial sided Jarls. The Empire was founded on with us or against us.
7) Sure, the empire may have you arrested or even killed for speaking out against them (hey, it's a savage place), but so would the Stormcloaks.
Many speak out against Ulfric in the capital... they're still walking around. Stormcloak supporter in Solitude is facing execution for talking out against the Empire.
Throughout the game, unless you actually join up with them (and even if you do sometimes), Stormcloaks will agressively confront you where-ever you are and often attack you (on my many playthroughs the certainly have me).
Then something is wrong with your game, or you have some kind of bounty in a Stormcloak hold. The Stormcloaks only attack you if you don't leave, the same as Imperials.
Now I would understand that if you were in the enemy army and/or even wearing one of their uniforms, but when you're just a layperson? Really? What's your issue dudes? I have yet to be attacked by any legionnaire, ever, even when I was with the Stormies. Sure they're a little surly when the have a prisoner (but then again, so are the Thalmor) and they may attack you if you have a bounty, but they don't just confront you and attack. As a matter of fact, they're rather pleasant if you don't interact. They just have conversations and acknowledge you as a citizen when you go past.
Same as above, both sides warn you away. The Stormcloaks greet you normally too, and are quite welcoming. But both sides don't want you hanging around them for too long, Imperial soldiers will attack you if you hang about, same as Stormcloaks.