Children do not analyze war; rather, they mainly experience it on an emotional level. In other words, what adults perceive as an external event becomes an internal feeling for a child—often a feeling of insecurity. In psychology, there is a concept called Basic Trust, which refers to the child’s fundamental assumption that the world is predictable and safe under normal circumstances. In wartime conditions, this trust is severely damaged.
The sounds of explosions, violent images, and even parental anxiety convey the implicit message to a child that danger exists, even if the child does not fully understand its source. Whether through repetition or intensity, this experience can cement fear in the child’s mind and turn it into part of daily life, a condition known in psychology as Hyperarousal.
Iran War: Escalating Drug Shortages and Disruption of Healthcare Services
The constant repetition of emotional images and narratives can also shape the child’s relationship with the outside world from the very beginning through a sense of vulnerability and danger, a phenomenon referred to in scientific literature as the Social Amplification of Risk. In this way, war does not merely create fear; it also transforms social relationships. In an environment dominated by insecurity, other people are no longer simply friends, neighbors, or classmates for the child, but may instead be perceived as ambiguous, unfamiliar, or even threatening figures. This stage demonstrates the profound impact of wartime conditions on the child’s social experience.
Returning to the main question, it must be said that children are often unable to accurately express or identify the roots of their emotions. As a result, accumulated emotional pressure may manifest in their behavior, including sleep disorders, nightmares, extreme dependency, substitute behaviors, aggression, withdrawal, reduced concentration, and even repeated questions about death or the safety of family members. These reactions can be understood as the child’s attempts to distance themselves from internal pressures, make sense of them, or create some form of control over circumstances that feel unclear and anxiety-inducing.
The Role of Families in Reducing Children’s Anxiety
Managing such circumstances is extremely difficult for families, and no fixed or predetermined solution can be offered. However, in child psychology, there is an approach called Good Enough, which refers to actions that are sufficient and less harmful within the limits of available resources.
In these conditions, the family acts as an emotional regulator, providing an environment in which the child’s emotions are understood, processed, and gradually balanced. In psychoanalysis, concepts such as Holding and Containment refer to this process, meaning that the parent can absorb the child’s anxiety, make it understandable, and then return it to the child in a moderated form.
Conversation with the child is highly important in this context, but not just any kind of conversation. Communication should be honest, simple, and appropriate to the child’s age. Concealment or denial of reality usually increases anxiety.
On the other hand, exposure to news must also be managed. Constant exposure to violent images keeps the child’s nervous system in a state of alertness and can lead to Chronic Anxiety.
Maintaining daily routines is also especially important because these stable structures help the child maintain a sense of predictability and continuity.
Another important point is that during crises, people’s reactions—especially those of adults—are not always the result of conscious choice but often emerge automatically in response to severe psychological pressure. If parents can understand this issue in themselves and others, the likelihood of harsh reactions decreases, and a calmer environment can emerge. In such a setting, Co-regulation takes shape, meaning that the child models the reactions of their parents. If parents can maintain relative calmness, that calmness will also be transferred to the child. In other words, accepting and managing one’s own anxiety creates the conditions for healthier behavioral modeling for the child.
Rulers Are Ultimately Responsible for the Condition of Children
Research in social psychology shows that war and its consequences are not merely temporary events with limited effects; rather, they often become cycles in which fear, insecurity, and other harms are reproduced for decades through psychological and social processes. This condition can be analyzed within the framework of Structural Violence.
This means that war is not limited to the destruction of physical infrastructure but also leads to the erosion of the foundations of human relationships. Social trust declines, the divide between “us” and “others” becomes more pronounced, and the possibility of peaceful coexistence is gradually weakened. These effects remain even after the war ends. From a psychoanalytic perspective, this process is explained through the concept of Internalization, meaning that external insecurity is transferred into the individual—especially the child—and becomes part of their lived experience.
Ultimately, it must be emphasized that although children play no role in creating wartime conditions, they often bear the greatest cost under such circumstances. They are not only affected in the present, but will also experience deeper long-term consequences in the future due to their heightened vulnerability and the fundamental role these experiences play in shaping personality.
Regarding the role and responsibility of governments, it should be noted that at the macro level, states are responsible for protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children under international agreements, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is a fundamental principle of international law.
In situations where children are killed or injured, or their access to healthcare and education is restricted, this condition is referred to in legal literature as a Violation of Children’s Rights. Therefore, clearly and explicitly addressing the role, responsibility, and accountability of the repressive and war-mongering Iranian regime in creating, sustaining, or intensifying such conditions and their consequences for the country’s children is both necessary and unavoidable.
