Legislative and judicial criminal policy in the law of the United States of America has been drawn up based on criminological teachings and ideologies with a precise and systematic harmony that agrees with each other. This consensus has led to the excellence and success of this legal system. However, on the contrary, in Iranian law, legislative and judicial criminal policy are in conflict with each other with minimal attention and scrutiny, which ultimately leads to failure to achieve the inherent goals of punishments and inefficiency of judicial criminal policy. The results of the present study, which was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method, show that the United States criminal policy in the field of armed forces crimes is a strict policy. It is noteworthy and thought-provoking that the basis of the policies adopted in both the Criminal Codes of the Armed Forces of Iran and the United States of America is similar, with the fundamental and essential difference that this strict policy stems from the ideology that governs the legislation of the two countries. In the Criminal Code of the Armed Forces of Iran, the determination of punishments based on Imami jurisprudence has in most cases been intensified and crystallized in the sentence of Moharebeh without being consistent and proportionate with the nature and definition of the crime of Moharebeh from the perspective of jurisprudential rules. While in the Hungarian law of the United States Armed Forces, based on criminological ideologies and the principle of legality, the intensification of punishments has been intensified in proportion to the severity of the crime, its dangerousness, and the characteristics of the offender. This distance and difference in perspective is as great as the difference in the thoughts and perspectives of the political rulers of the two countries.