This study aims to comparatively examine the mechanisms of criminal law protection of wildlife in the legal systems of Iran and the United States, focusing on the relevant legal frameworks, criminal sanctions, and preventive and rehabilitative approaches adopted in both countries. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and a comparative legal approach, the study examines wildlife protection laws and regulations in Iran and six selected U.S. states: California, Florida, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Texas. The findings indicate that, in Iran, the Hunting and Fishing Act of 1967, along with its subsequent amendments, constitutes the principal legal basis for the criminal protection of wildlife species and natural habitats. By prescribing penalties such as imprisonment and fines, this legislation seeks to deter and punish conduct that threatens wildlife. In contrast, the U.S. legal system, operating through a combination of federal and state legislation tailored to the ecological characteristics of different regions, provides a more diverse range of wildlife-related offenses and criminal sanctions. In addition to conventional penalties, the U.S. framework incorporates measures such as mandatory educational programs, suspension or revocation of hunting licenses and privileges, and enhanced penalties for offenses involving endangered species. Furthermore, legal considerations concerning the rights of Indigenous communities highlight the need to balance wildlife conservation requirements with the cultural and subsistence rights of these populations. The study concludes that reforming Iran’s criminal policy toward wildlife offenses, with particular emphasis on diversifying sanctions, strengthening rehabilitative