They were there first, Shlomo.
I mean, depending on who you are asking. That being said, since when does the term "Palestinian diaspora" imply favoritism to Israel? Are you aware of what the word "diaspora" means?
what exactly is there to stop them now?
International pressure. That's basically the only thing that can realistically stop Israel. Surprisingly, Saudi Arabia came out against the strikes against Iran, which is pretty shocking. Trump could support or lambast Israel depending on what side of the bed he woke up on today, so that's a coin flip. The EU likely will express deeb gonzern)))), and Russia will screech because that's what they do. As for actual, kinetic actions? The only one remotely equipped to do anything would be the Saudis, and despite the Saudis condemning the strike, they aren't remotely doing to volunteer to get their expensive American equipment turned into scrap (and piss off the Americans selling them the equipment, by extension). Turkey remains aloof in Arab affairs so long as nobody interferes in their genocide against the Kurds, so they're not going to do anything. It really comes down to international pressure.
NO ONE wants to the deal with the headache left behind.
You aren't wrong, but nobody wants to deal with a nuclear Iran, either. A nuclear Iran is a genuinely massive headache, because they would have the ability to choke the Hormuz while being able to threaten nuclear retaliation on anyone that tries to end the blockade, not to mention the massive headache in knock on effects it would cause. Overnight the Saudis and probably the UAE would go nuclear. Both nations have the money and the capabilities to go nuclear, they don't because they don't want to alienate themselves and because maintaining an nuclear program is expensive as shit, but make no mistake, they absolutely can, and if Iran became a nuclear state they wouldn't be far behind, likely by the end of the decade.
Iran isn't a shit stain like Iraq or Syria.
Debatable, but I get what you mean. Even Iraq and Syria are really interesting cases, and if you go back to 1948 and follow their entire modern history, there's a lot that gets glossed over as "lmao stinky Arabs," but I digress. Yes, Persian culture is inherently different from Arabian culture, I agree.
Iran collapsing is Syria Civil War x 50
Not really. There's a lot of cultural and political reasons that would prevent that. Syria and Iraq have always struggled with factionalism and sectarianism, primarily because both nations are lines-on-a-map artificial. There is no "Iraqi" or "Syrian" identity, which is why Pan-Arabism was such a big deal in the 50s and 60s, where we saw the rise (and rapid collapse) of the UAR, and later the rise of Ba'athism. In Syria and Iraq, there has to be either a big brain political movement to unite people or someone with enough military force and a cult of personality to keep it together by sheer force of will and repression, otherwise people will naturally align with their sects which have existed far longer than the idea of "Syria" or "Iraq" has. In Syria, that takes the shape primarily as ethno-religious or ethnic groups like the Kurds, Druze, Alawites, Assyrians, Twelvers, Ismailis... In Iraq, this is primarily sectarian, with the majority of the fighting being between the Shia majority and the Sunni minority, with the Kurds being caught in the middle seeking autonomy or independence, depending on the time period. The sectarian issues in Iraq also overlap with class issues. While Shiites make up a majority of the population (something around sixty percent iirc), before the US invasion in 2003, the country was ran by Sunnis for most of Iraq's history, with Shiites being primarily poorer farmers and laborers in the south, with the major cities of Baghdad and Mosul being primarily Sunni (until 2003). Saddam heavily favored Sunnis, before that was his cousin Bakr and a bit before that was Qasim, who's father was Sunni and mother Shia, and he tried (and mostly failed) to balance sectarian tensions, but props for trying, and before him was Abd al-Ilah, who was the regent for the king (and therefore held a significant amount of authority), who was a Sunni which heavily favored Sunnis.
All of this to say that in both Iraq and Syria, there's competing identities that people tend to put far above "Syrian" or "Iraqi." This is one of the primary reasons that these countries are so unstable. Iran, on the other hand, is significantly more homogeneous, culturally, religiously, and ethnically. Iran has a past, and people identify with "Iranian" or "Persian." They are real identities. The only groups that really don't buy into that identity these days are the Kurds and the Azeris living in the north. I find it significantly less likely to see a multipolar shit fest like we saw in Syria in the event of Iran collapsing.
