No, it is not. Jerusalem in the 1st century A.D. was a small, sleepy outpost that was not even a seat of the Roman's provincial administration. Throughout the year, it was patroled by 50 or so Roman soldiers, whose number reached about 500 during the Passover as the number of pilgrims increased the population. Once the Passover was over, the Roman administration recalled its troops. Jerusalem was outside major Roman routes, it was not even the largest Jewish city in the known world. It had about 30,000 people, while Alexandria was world's metropolis with 500,000 people from which 1/3 were Jewish. Rome had about 1 million people. Athens, Corinth, Aquilea, Antioch, Ephesus, Syracuse had 250,000 people Jerusualem was not control of anything, it was not even a capital of independent country since 6th century BC. Therefore, to conclude that Jerusalem was the Harlot having reign over nations does not matches. Even for Jews at that time it was a distant ancestral capital; they prefered to leave were was business and commerce as did any other nationalies of the vast Roman Empire.
The identification of Jerusalem with Harlot is nothing new. I read it decade ago and it comes back with a regular intervals among frindge Christianity. Although I do not conclude that the Harlot is Rome. John wrote his Revalation some years after Jerusalem was devasted and ruined, but still inhabited.