U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has sharply criticized Amnesty International after the human rights organization raised allegations that American military operations in Iran may have violated international law. During a press conference in Portugal on October 8, Rubio called the organization “a fraud” and argued that it should direct greater attention toward abuses allegedly committed by the Iranian government against its own citizens. He accused Iranian authorities of killing tens of thousands of protesters during crackdowns and claimed security forces had entered hospitals to execute wounded demonstrators. Rubio further alleged that doctors and nurses who treated injured protesters had also been murdered by Iranian forces. “Those are war crimes. Those are crimes against humanity,” he declared, arguing that the Iranian regime should be the primary focus of the organization’s investigations. His remarks turned the exchange into a broader dispute over accountability for alleged violations of international law during the conflict.

Amnesty International’s criticism focused on U.S. and Israeli military strikes in Iran, which the organization said may have involved indiscriminate attacks and potential war crimes requiring independent investigation. The group has also rejected Rubio’s suggestion that it is ignoring abuses by Tehran, pointing to its own investigations into the Iranian government’s violent suppression of protesters, executions, arbitrary detentions and alleged crimes against humanity. In an October 14 response, Amnesty International USA said it had published extensive documentation of abuses by Iranian authorities while maintaining that allegations against the United States and its allies also deserve scrutiny. The organization argued that human rights standards must apply to all governments, regardless of political alliances or adversarial relationships. Rubio, meanwhile, defended the U.S. position and redirected attention toward what he described as the Iranian regime’s treatment of its own population. The dispute highlights a central question surrounding the conflict: whether governments and international human rights organizations will pursue accountability consistently for alleged abuses committed by every side.