War and armed conflicts leave deep and multi-layered consequences on the families of victims, and compensating for them is an inevitable task for governments. Due to the experience of long and extensive wars, the countries of Iran and Iraq have housed a significant population of martyrs' families, and their legal systems have tried to provide support for this social group by formulating laws and establishing responsible institutions. However, the effectiveness of these structures and the obstacles they face have raised serious legal questions. This research, using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, seeks to answer the main question: "How has the difference in the philosophical foundations of these supports led to a difference in the legal structure of support for martyrs' families in these two countries?" The research findings show that the philosophy of support in Iran is more influenced by the ideological discourse of sacrifice and martyrdom, while the Iraqi legal system defines support under the principle of social justice and compensation. This difference in discourse has led to structural differences, such that the Iranian system has a centralized and integrated institution called the Martyr Foundation, while the Iraqi system is based on multi-agency cooperation and a plurality of institutions. However, both systems face common challenges such as ambiguity in defining martyrs, conflict between civil laws (especially in the field of custody and compulsory guardianship) and protection laws, and inefficiency of administrative procedures in paying pensions and social security. The result is that although both countries have taken different paths institutionally, in order to achieve effective support, they need to review civil laws and create transparent executive mechanisms.