When America Joins Iran on the Atrocity List

What do 1,313 police killings in America and mass executions of protesters in Iran have in common? According to new research from human rights experts, both qualify as government-perpetrated "atrocities" — a classification that challenges our assumptions about which countries belong on such lists.

In January 2026, thousands died when Iranian security forces crushed protests in the streets of Tehran. That same month, two more protesters were killed by police in Minneapolis, adding to America's tally of over 1,300 civilian deaths at the hands of law enforcement in 2025. Most observers would instinctively classify Iran's crackdown as an atrocity while viewing American police violence through a different lens entirely.

But researchers studying government brutality argue this distinction reveals more about political bias than moral clarity.

The Science of Defining Atrocities

Human rights scholars have developed a systematic method to identify what they call "brutality-based atrocities" — removing political considerations from the equation. Their definition requires widespread extrajudicial killings by government agents, combined with at least one other systematic violation of physical integrity rights like torture, political imprisonment, or enforced disappearances.

Applied consistently across 40 years of data covering every country, this method reveals uncomfortable truths. The research identifies 47 cases of government atrocities in 2022 alone — the highest annual count on record.

India and Iran top the four-decade list with atrocities in 38 years each, followed by Colombia and Iraq at 36 years. But the methodology also flags countries that rarely appear on such lists: the United States, Brazil, and Israel.

America's Uncomfortable Position

The U.S. classification stems from stark numbers. The Mapping Police Violence project documented 12,121 civilian deaths by law enforcement over the past decade. In 2025, only six calendar days passed without a police killing. Black Americans comprised nearly 22% of victims despite representing just 13% of the population.

These killings occur alongside what researchers classify as widespread physical integrity violations: aggressive immigration enforcement, due process violations, restrictions on protest rights, and documented police brutality that courts have recognized as torture in some cases.

The researchers classify this as a "medium-level atrocity" — less severe than Iran's "high-level" designation, but an atrocity nonetheless. Iran's higher rating reflects systematic violations across all four physical integrity categories, including disappearances, alongside mass killings.

The Politics of Moral Judgment

The disparity in public perception reveals how political allegiance shapes moral judgment. Americans readily condemn Iranian brutality while rationalizing domestic police violence as necessary law enforcement. Iranians likely view their government's actions as maintaining order against foreign-backed agitators.

This selective blindness extends to international institutions. The UN Security Council remains paralyzed by the veto power of its five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Each protects itself and allies from accountability. America shields Israel from Gaza-related resolutions; Russia and China protected Syria's Assad regime and Myanmar's generals.

The result? Powerful democracies escape the systematic scrutiny applied to weaker nations, creating a two-tiered system of moral accountability.

Beyond Binary Thinking

The research doesn't equate all atrocities as equally severe. Scale matters. Iran's systematic disappearances and mass executions represent a more intense level of state violence than American police killings, even if both qualify as atrocities under the definition.

But this nuanced approach serves a crucial purpose: early warning. The data shows most atrocities don't emerge suddenly. They grow from recognizable patterns — widespread torture, political imprisonment, attacks on worker rights, and restrictions on basic liberties typically precede large-scale killings.

Brazil's inclusion reflects this pattern. Extrajudicial killings by police and military forces, combined with systematic violations of indigenous rights and political imprisonment of activists, meet the criteria despite the country's democratic institutions.

The Prevention Imperative

Recognition matters because prevention requires acknowledging risks before violence escalates. Every government can improve — through courts, civil society, elections, independent media, and public accountability. But warning signs demand honest assessment, not political rationalization.

The research suggests atrocities are becoming more common globally, whether due to better reporting or genuine increases in state violence. Either way, the trend demands attention from policymakers and citizens alike.

Democratic institutions provide tools for course correction that authoritarian systems lack. American courts have constrained police departments; civil rights movements have driven policy reforms; investigative journalism has exposed abuses. These mechanisms offer hope for improvement that doesn't exist in places like Iran.