Women in Charge Could Mean Less War—And the Data Backs It Up

Let’s be honest: the world is on fire right now, and it’s mostly men holding the match.

Donald Trump just ordered one of the largest U.S. military strikes in decades, bombing three nuclear sites in Iran with over 125 aircraft and 75 weapons, including bunker-busting bombs, per The Guardian. He called it a “spectacular military success.” But with no clear evidence Iran posed an imminent threat and six in ten Americans opposing U.S. involvement, according to an Economist/YouGov poll, many are asking: Would this war even be happening if more women were in charge?

Would the war with Iran have happened if women were in charge?

The question sounds hypothetical, but it’s one the United Nations has essentially been asking for the past 25 years. In 2000, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1325, recognizing that when women participate meaningfully in peace processes, the outcomes are more durable and inclusive. In fact, peace agreements are 35% more likely to last 15 years when women are involved, according to a study cited by the Council on Foreign Relations.

And yet, in 2023, women made up only 9.6% of negotiators, 13.7% of mediators, and just 26.6% of peace agreement signatories, per UN Women. Even worse? Not a single peace agreement signed that year included a women’s group as a signatory.

The message is clear: Women are still being shut out of the room, even though they’re the ones often holding broken communities together.

The data says women are better at keeping the peace

This isn’t just about representation—it’s about results. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that countries with higher levels of gender equality are not only less likely to go to war. They’re more likely to resolve conflict without violence.

UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed put it bluntly at a recent Security Council debate: “Women remain starkly under-represented from peace negotiations and conflict resolution efforts.” Between 1992 and 2019, women made up just 13% of negotiators and 6% of mediators in major peace processes, she noted. Even in 2023, only 6 out of 18 peace agreements contained gender-sensitive measures.

Meanwhile, the consequences for women caught in conflict are growing more catastrophic. UN data shows the number of women killed in armed conflict doubled in 2023 compared to the previous year, and cases of conflict-related sexual violence jumped 50%. Over 600 million women now live within 50 kilometers of active conflict zones.

So, why aren’t more women in charge?

The structural barriers are everywhere. As of 2024, only 13 out of 193 countries had a woman in charge of government, according to Sky News. And in the nearly 80-year history of the United Nations? Not one female Secretary-General.

That matters because leadership shapes outcomes. According to UN Women, 113 countries have never had a woman serve as head of state or government. At the current rate, we’re 180 years away from gender equality in top positions of power.

The excuses for this glacial pace? Outdated stereotypes and systemic exclusion. In one UN-backed survey, 58% of young men aged 16 to 19 still believed that men make better political leaders than women.

But haven’t some women leaders been just as aggressive?

Yes—and that’s where the conversation gets complicated. Critics often point to figures like Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, or Indira Gandhi as proof that “women in charge” doesn’t automatically mean peace.

Research from Forbes and Sky News offers context: Female leaders often feel pressure to perform aggression in order to counter stereotypes that they’re “weak” or “soft” on security. According to political scientists like Christopher Blair of Princeton University, this leads many women leaders to adopt tough postures or even escalate conflict to appear competent in a system built by and for men.

And yet, when it comes to the bigger picture, the numbers don’t lie. According to the book Why Leaders Fight, male leaders were responsible for 694 acts of aggression and 86 wars from 1875 to 2004. Women? Just 13 acts of aggression and one war.

What happens when women are allowed to lead peace?

We actually have receipts.

In Colombia, women were instrumental in the 2016 peace deal between the government and the FARC guerrilla group—the most comprehensive agreement in Latin American history. It included over 130 gender-related provisions, like recognizing sexual violence as a ceasefire violation. According to UN Women, the participation of former FARC women fighters was critical in moving the country from conflict to reconciliation.

Then there’s Mali, where Mouna Awata Touré led 76 women’s groups to mediate with armed factions and increase women’s monitoring representation from 3% to 31%. Real results. Real peace.

UN Women’s Sima Sami Bahous put it best: “What remains is for us to make [support for women’s participation] a reality in practice, not least through our funding decisions.”

The truth? Women in charge doesn’t mean utopia—but it does mean change

It’s not about idealizing women or assuming they’re inherently more peaceful. As journalist Angela Saini told Sky News, “Which women do you mean?” After all, if the choice is between Jacinda Ardern and Marjorie Taylor Greene, the outcomes would look very different.

But the evidence shows that when women are involved—not just as figureheads but as negotiators, mediators, judges, and grassroots leaders—peace is more likely to hold. Stability is more likely to last. And societies are more likely to thrive.

As former Irish president Mary Robinson said, having more women in charge isn’t just nice—it’s necessary.

So, while Trump throws birthday parades with tanks and drops bombs on Iran, maybe it’s time to ask ourselves the real question: What would peace look like if women weren’t sidelined, but centered?

Because right now? The patriarchy is literally at war. And we’re all paying the price.