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.
Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently used the World War II incident in Denmark (Operation Carthage and the bombing of the French school) as an analogy to discuss “collateral damage” specifically in the context of Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
He uses this historical example to illustrate that even when targeting legitimate military objectives, tragic civilian casualties can occur, and that such incidents, while regrettable, do not negate the legitimacy of the military action, especially when facing an enemy (like Hamas) that operates within civilian populations.
By the same token, it is common for Israeli news reporters and officials to highlight and imply that Iran’s missile attacks are targeting or indiscriminately hitting Israeli civilians.
Here’s how this is conveyed:
– Reporting on Civilian Casualties and Damage: Israeli media frequently report on the direct impact of Iranian missiles on residential areas, civilian infrastructure, and the resulting casualties.
For instance, The Times of Israel explicitly uses headlines like “‘Complete destruction’: Israelis describe fear, chaos as Iran’s missiles smash their homes” and reports on “three killed, dozens wounded” with a focus on “a residential building in Bat Yam was struck—killing seven people, including two children.”
FDD (Foundation for Defense of Democracies), often cited in Israeli media contexts, published an article titled “23 Wounded in Latest Iranian Missile Attacks on Israeli Civilians,” stating that missiles were launched “at civilian population centers.”
Reports mention strikes on a hospital (Soroka Medical Center), although Iran claimed a military target was intended nearby. Israeli sources, however, emphasize the civilian impact.
Describing Iran’s Intent as Indiscriminate: Israeli officials and media often characterize Iran’s attacks as “indiscriminate” or “terrorist,” which inherently implies a disregard for civilian lives or a deliberate targeting of them.
UN Watch, citing Israeli media, notes that “Israeli media reported that Khamenei personally ordered attacks against Israeli civilian population centers.” It also states, “The Islamic Republic has not declared any legitimate military aims and instead has targeted its strikes at Israeli civilians using weapons that are by nature indiscriminate.”
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has accused Iran of “war crimes of the most serious kind” after a missile hit a hospital, implying a deliberate targeting or criminal negligence that harms civilians.
Highlighting the Need for Shelters and Home Front Command Instructions: The constant reporting on air-raid sirens, the need for Israelis to run to shelters, and the damage to homes and civilian areas (even if intercepts prevent more widespread harm) all serve to emphasize the threat to the civilian population from Iranian missiles.
– 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.
