Recent reports confirm that Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi, a prominent Iranian cleric, has issued a “fatwa” (religious decree) against Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu on June 29, 2025.
The fatwa reportedly labels them as “enemies of God” or “mohareb” (one who wages war against God). According to Iranian legislation, individuals deemed “mohareb” can face severe penalties, including execution, crucifixion, amputation of limbs, or banishment.
This decree follows a period of heightened conflict between Iran and Israel, with the United States also involved. Reports indicate that:
– A 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel recently concluded with a US-brokered ceasefire on June 24, 2025.
– During this conflict, Israel launched airstrikes inside Iran, reportedly causing damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities and resulting in the deaths of high-ranking military officers and nuclear scientists.
– Iran retaliated with missile strikes on Israeli cities.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed significant damage to multiple Iranian nuclear facilities following recent US-led airstrikes, coordinated alongside Israeli forces.
Donald Trump had publicly claimed he saved Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from “an ugly and ignominious death” and stated he knew Khamenei’s whereabouts during the conflict.
Netanyahu had also hinted at Khamenei’s life being in danger, saying he was not ruling out eliminating the Supreme Leader.
Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi’s fatwa calls for global Muslim action and unity against Trump and Netanyahu, stating that any support or cooperation with them by Muslims or Islamic states is “haram” (forbidden). He emphasized that Muslims worldwide must make these “enemies regret their words and mistakes.”
It’s important to note that while a fatwa from a senior cleric like a Marja holds significant religious and political weight within Shia Islam, it is not necessarily legally binding outside Iran. However, such decrees are often taken seriously by followers globally.
– Calls for De-escalation and Restraint: Chinese President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi have repeatedly called for all parties, especially Israel, to cease hostilities and exercise restraint to prevent a wider conflict. They emphasize that military conflict is not a solution and that dialogue and negotiation are the only way forward.
– Diplomatic Engagement: China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi has held phone calls with both his Israeli and Iranian counterparts, conveying China’s willingness to play a “constructive role” in de-escalation. China’s Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, Zhai Jun, is also involved in negotiating with various concerned parties.
– Condemnation of Actions Violating International Law: China has explicitly condemned Israeli actions that it views as violations of international law, such as attacks on Iranian diplomatic facilities. While Beijing has strong economic ties with Iran, it generally avoids directly blaming specific actors, instead focusing on the principle of upholding international law and promoting dialogue.
– Emphasis on Non-Intervention and Neutrality: China aims to position itself as a neutral mediator, distinct from Western powers. Its approach prioritizes non-interference in internal affairs and the peaceful resolution of disputes. This stance is seen as part of its broader “Global Security Initiative.”
– Protecting Citizens and Interests: Amid escalating tensions, China has also focused on evacuating its citizens from both Iran and Israel, highlighting its concern for the safety of its nationals in the region. China’s deep economic ties, particularly its reliance on oil imports from the Middle East and its Belt and Road Initiative investments, underscore its pragmatic interest in regional stability.
– Limited Leverage and Appetite for Direct Involvement: While China has successfully brokered other regional agreements (like the Saudi Arabia-Iran rapprochement), analysts suggest its direct influence over Israel, in particular, may be limited. Some experts also believe China has no appetite for direct military involvement and prefers to act as a facilitator for negotiations that originate within the region.
Reasons for Potentially Avoiding Direct Strikes on Jerusalem:
Religious and Political Sensitivity:
Holy Sites: Jerusalem holds immense religious significance for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is home to the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque (third holiest site in Islam) on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, as well as the Western Wall and numerous Christian holy sites. A direct, intentional strike on Jerusalem, especially its holy sites, would likely be seen as a grave provocation by Muslims worldwide, including those who are otherwise sympathetic to the Palestinian cause or critical of Israel. This could backfire on Iran, alienating potential allies and drawing widespread condemnation from the international community, including from other Muslim-majority nations.
International Status: Jerusalem’s status is highly contested internationally. Many countries do not recognize it as Israel’s capital. A direct attack could be perceived as further destabilizing a deeply sensitive political landscape and complicating any future diplomatic efforts or the city’s eventual status.
Strategic Restraint and De-escalation Management:
Controlled Escalation: Iran’s declared intention in its retaliatory strikes has often been framed as a “proportionate” response to Israeli actions. While the current escalation in June 2025 is more severe than previous exchanges, Iran may still be trying to manage the level of escalation. Striking Jerusalem, particularly civilian areas or holy sites, would be a massive escalation that could trigger an even more devastating Israeli response, potentially leading to a full-blown regional war that Iran may not desire or be fully prepared for.
Avoidance of Unnecessary Provocation: Iran’s primary targets during these recent attacks have been military installations, intelligence sites, and economic infrastructure (like the Haifa oil refinery). While civilian areas in Tel Aviv and other cities were hit, these were often near military or strategic targets, or were a consequence of missile defense penetration. Directly targeting Jerusalem, especially without a clear military objective that could not be achieved elsewhere, would carry a disproportionately high political and symbolic cost.
Military Effectiveness and Risk Calculation:
Air Defense Concentration: As Israel’s capital and a major population center, Jerusalem is likely to have very robust air defense systems, including layers of Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow interceptors. Attempting a direct strike on Jerusalem might be seen as militarily less effective and risk wasting valuable munitions compared to striking targets with clearer military relevance or those potentially less defended.
Accuracy Concerns: While Iran claims its missiles have high accuracy, the range and complexity of a strike on Jerusalem (especially if attempting to avoid holy sites) might be too challenging to guarantee precision, increasing the risk of unintended and highly provocative impacts.
Significance of Not Hitting Jerusalem:
The decision (or failure) to directly hit Jerusalem carries significant implications:
Signals Intent to Control Escalation (to a degree): It suggests that Iran, despite its strong rhetoric and the severity of its recent attacks, still seeks to avoid an uncontrolled, all-out war with potentially catastrophic consequences. It indicates a degree of strategic calculation and an attempt to limit the religious dimension of the conflict.
Maintains a Path for Future Diplomacy: By avoiding Jerusalem, Iran keeps open a door for potential de-escalation or future negotiations, preventing a red line that might make any diplomatic off-ramp almost impossible.
Focus on Retaliation vs. Annihilation: The targeting of military and economic infrastructure, and even civilian areas in other cities, aligns more with a strategy of retaliation and demonstrating capability rather than aiming for complete destruction or the triggering of an irreversible religious war.
Religious and Political Leverage: Not attacking Jerusalem allows Iran to continue presenting itself as a defender of Palestinian rights and Islamic holy sites, without being seen as a desecrator of those sites or alienating a broader Muslim population.
In summary, while the current conflict is highly volatile and has seen unprecedented direct attacks, the apparent avoidance of Jerusalem as a primary target by Iran reflects a complex interplay of strategic calculation, religious and political sensitivity, and an attempt to manage the escalation within certain perceived boundaries.
Watch for it, if Jerusalem gets hit, it is the final red line.
June 14, the SCO, comprising ten member states, issued a statement strongly condemning Israel’s military actions against Iran, specifically highlighting attacks on civilian targets and infrastructure as violations of the UN Charter and international law.
Trans-Eurasian Rail Connectivity: The China-Iran Route and the Emergence of the Six Nations System
Introduction
The strategic importance of overland trade routes between Asia and Europe has seen a significant resurgence, driven by China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the evolving geopolitical landscape. Two key components define this burgeoning rail connectivity: the established China-Iran railway corridor (via Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) and the recently formalized “Six Nations” rail system. Both initiatives aim to create resilient, efficient, and geopolitically significant alternatives to traditional maritime trade routes.
The Existing China-Iran Rail Route (via Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)
Present Status and Progress:
The rail corridor connecting China to Iran, predominantly via Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, is fully operational and has recently marked significant milestones. In late May 2025, the first cargo train from the eastern Chinese city of Xi’an officially arrived at Aprin Dry Port near Tehran, carrying goods such as solar panels. This journey significantly shortens delivery times, cutting transit from an average of 30-40 days by sea to approximately 15 days by land.
This route involves trains departing from Chinese hubs like Xi’an, traversing through Xinjiang (specifically via Horgos Port), then entering Kazakhstan, continuing through Turkmenistan, and finally reaching Iran. Data from January-April 2025 indicates substantial progress, with container traffic on the China-Iran route via Kazakhstan increasing by 2.6 times compared to the same period last year.
Strategic Importance and Role:
This rail line holds immense strategic value for both China and Iran. For Iran, it offers a crucial land-based artery for trade, enabling it to bypass and circumvent maritime blockades and USeless sanctions. It facilitates direct oil exports to China and imports of essential goods without reliance on sea routes influenced by USeless naval presence. For China, the route provides a direct land corridor for oil imports from Iran and allows goods to reach the Middle East and potentially beyond, reducing dependence on chokepoints like the Strait of Malacca. It is seen as a secure trade route, less susceptible to geopolitical disruptions and maritime risks in congested waterways like the Red Sea.
The Future “Six Nations” Rail System
Formation and Participants:
A pivotal development occurred on May 12, 2025, in Tehran, where railway officials from six nations formalized an agreement to advance a new transcontinental rail network. The participating countries are:
China
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Iran
Turkey
This alliance signifies a concerted effort to create a more integrated and direct Eurasian rail backbone.
Plans and Objectives:
The primary objective of the “Six Nations” system is to establish a more competitive and reliable transport corridor connecting China to Europe through Central Asia, the Middle East, and Turkey. Key planned initiatives include:
Competitive Tariffs: The nations have agreed to impose competitive tariffs on rail services to make the corridor economically attractive for international freight.
Harmonized Delivery Times: Efforts will be made to coordinate and standardize delivery schedules across borders to ensure faster and more predictable transit.
Simplified Logistics Processes: The agreement aims to streamline customs procedures and other logistical hurdles to enhance efficiency and reduce border clearance times.
Inclusion of Uzbekistan: Notably, this expanded system formally integrates Uzbekistan into the main route, potentially offering more direct pathways within Central Asia compared to routes that previously bypassed it.
Enhanced China-Europe Connectivity: The overarching goal is to slash transit times for goods from eastern China to Europe, with estimates suggesting a reduction to 18-25 days (compared to 30-45 days by sea and 15 days on the current China-Iran route).
Future Outlook:
The “Six Nations” system represents an ambitious plan to bolster Eurasian connectivity, offering an alternative to the Northern Corridor (through Russia) and the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (Middle Corridor), which has faced its own challenges. By strengthening cooperation, harmonizing standards, and optimizing routes, this initiative aims to significantly increase the volume of container traffic and reduce overall transport costs between Asia and Europe, further cementing the role of land-based trade in the global economy. Its full implementation will require continued investment in infrastructure, technological integration, and sustained political will among the participating nations.
