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.
