Military criminal law, by virtue of its inseparable connection with security imperatives, disciplinary requirements, and command hierarchy, has consistently stood in a position of tension vis-à-vis the fundamental principles of criminal law and citizenship rights. The present study seeks to elucidate the relationship between the specific necessities of the military institution and the general principles of criminal law by assessing the capacity of Iran’s military criminal law to move toward convergence with fair trial standards and comparative legal models. Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach and drawing on the comparative law method, this research examines the Iranian legal system in comparison with selected Romano-Germanic and common law jurisdictions. The central question concerns the extent to which Iranian military criminal regulations conform to the paradigms of fair trial, and the mechanisms for strengthening this convergence in light of the globalization of international criminal law. The findings indicate that while Iran’s military criminal law maintains relative coherence in its formal structure and specialized institutions, it faces structural challenges in areas such as guaranteeing judicial independence, limiting command influence, legislative specialization, and institutionalizing citizenship rights. By contrast, comparative experiences reveal effective models for mitigating the tension between military discipline and justice. Ultimately, results suggest that sustainable military criminal justice requires a redefinition of the relationship between sovereign imperatives and criminal law principles, moving toward convergence based on indigenous and national contexts