Prof. Nevzat Tarhan: “A major collective trauma has occurred in Israeli society”

President of Üsküdar University and Psychiatrist Prof. Nevzat Tarhan was a guest on the live broadcast of TGRT Haber. Tarhan shared his evaluations on the topic “Tensions Between Israel and Iran and Their Effects on Community Mental Health, Psychology of War.” He emphasized that wars today are not only physical but also psychological, economic, and theological. Stating that the lack of empathy legitimizes violence against civilians, Tarhan noted that societies must be resilient against war psychology and that such traumas should serve as lessons for humanity. He added that the current war is based not on ideology but on a theological foundation, and a major collective trauma has formed within Israeli society.

“From collective trauma to a strong security complex”

Speaking in the live broadcast, Psychiatrist Prof. Nevzat Tarhan said that a deep trauma has emerged within Israeli society: “There is a movie titled Freud’s Last Session. In that film, there is a line attributed to Freud. He passed away in 1938, just before the Second World War. He analyzed the war remarkably. Due to Hitler’s oppression, he had to migrate to the United Kingdom and said, ‘The financial dominance of the Jews in the world will benefit the Bolsheviks, but this situation will work against the Jews themselves.’ He said this around 1936. Looking at today, we observe a similar financial occupation on a global scale. However, the actors of this occupation have changed. With these new actors, the world is being dragged into another domain. On the other hand, it is important to understand the psychology of both Israeli society and its leaders. After the Holocaust, a significant collective trauma developed within Israeli society. This trauma was embedded with the sentiment of ‘Never again.’ It then transformed into a strong security complex. For example, someone who fears for their safety and walks through a forest with a weapon might unload all their bullets at the slightest sound. Israel’s state of mind is similar to this. In the past, they targeted Iraq under the pretext of 'chemical weapons.' Now, a similar narrative is being followed with the 'nuclear weapons threat.' The Israeli leader is using the public’s security complex. Perhaps he is doing so for various purposes, even under the influence of global capital. However, the long-term risks of global financial occupation have not yet been fully recognized.”

“Violence against civilians is being rationalized”

Tarhan stated that empathy has been completely lost: “There is a culture of pain and suffering that Iran has developed. As seen in the Shiite tradition, during their sacred days, they whip themselves to experience pain. It is a culture where suffering is glorified. The spirit of resistance is quite strong in Iranian culture. This culture has played an important role in their ability to survive for centuries without ever leaving the region. The historic reputation of Iranians for defense is rooted in this cultural foundation. They combine this culture with an ideological framework and create a spirit of resistance. On one side, there is a sociopsychological structure driven by a security complex; on the other side, there is a psychopolitical structure shaped by the spirit of resistance. In such situations, it is not difficult to foresee where mutual polarization will lead people. In such cases, the human mind naturally divides into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ When security concerns arise, the distinction between friend and enemy becomes sharper. The other side is demonized, turning them into a legitimate target. Unfortunately, civilians also become viewed as legitimate targets in this process. Currently, both sides are demonizing the other. This is why empathy disappears entirely, and violence against civilians becomes rationalized. This rationalization can now be clearly observed on both sides.”

“Fear of nuclear war restrains people”

Tarhan noted that the United States avoids direct warfare and instead engages in proxy wars:
“War-related stress creates serious effects, especially on soldiers. Because this is so common in the United States, many books have been written about the subject. In fact, the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder in psychiatry was first introduced after the Vietnam War. At the time, it was called war stress or combat stress. Currently, the most common type of hospital in the United States is veteran hospitals. This is because many soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder after war, and many become dependent on alcohol. These individuals struggle to cope with the deaths, losses, and traumatic events they experience during war. Therefore, the United States no longer wants to engage in direct wars and instead fights proxy wars. Due to past experiences, they now avoid direct confrontations because they fear war. This fear is actually widespread around the world. One of the main reasons why a major global war has not broken out today is the presence of nuclear warheads. I personally say I am glad nuclear warheads exist because otherwise, the Third World War would most likely have already happened. Fear of nuclear war restrains people to some extent. These situations also have serious effects on civilians. Collective trauma develops among civilians. People who are displaced, who lose their homes to bombings, women who lose loved ones, children, the elderly… All of these groups are defenseless. The purpose of bombings is not only physical destruction but also to increase the perception of danger and weaken people’s psychological resilience. However, in communities like the Iranians, who are raised within a culture of suffering, it is very difficult to break their psychological resistance with such methods.”

“Military decision-makers must evaluate alternative scenarios”

Stating that alternative scenarios must be evaluated, Prof. Nevzat Tarhan said, “Currently, various scenarios are being developed. The worst-case scenario involves drawing Türkiye into this war. For instance, there is talk of a scenario in which a perceived threat is created through Syria to pull Türkiye into the conflict. This is one of the most dangerous scenarios, and I hope it does not come to pass. Türkiye should not be forced into such a necessity. These possibilities must absolutely be considered and assessed. These scenarios should be discussed in war academies and military strategy seminars. Military decision-makers must evaluate alternative scenarios, such as A, B, and C. These matters should be addressed not on television screens but in strategic decision-making authorities. Some of the recent news coming out of the United States genuinely surprised me. There were claims about a divine voice coming to Trump. This reflects a messianic mindset. According to this belief, a great war will erupt upon the return of Jesus, followed by a thousand-year period of domination. Some even see the American leader as a messiah and believe that the great state of Israel will be established. This is their belief, their plan. However, we cannot know how the divine plan will unfold. Still, as a society, we must be aware of such scenarios. These kinds of plans exist. Yet often, such grand designs end up failing in the hands of those who devised them. These people almost attribute divine powers to themselves. In history, those who thought this way have often faced disappointment and are remembered poorly. When we look at historical examples of those who saw themselves as little gods and perceived wars as divine missions, we frequently see outcomes marked by catastrophe. These people have often experienced great disappointments and even genocides. Today, they seem to be drifting down a similar path. In psychology, this is called narcissistic blindness. Leaders and decision-makers intoxicated by power, who see themselves as invincible, may become disconnected from reality and make inhumane decisions. This is something that has been observed repeatedly throughout history.”

“Iranian society may interpret war psychology not as a threat but as an opportunity for unity”

Discussing the need to properly analyze the psychology and ideological stance of the Iranian leader, Tarhan said, “Türkiye is currently acting with composure by drawing upon its past experiences and considering the advice of its security consultants. The calm diplomacy Türkiye has demonstrated during this period is noteworthy. At this point, Türkiye's possession of a strong army and its ongoing societal stability are important advantages. These factors place Türkiye in a more trustworthy and balancing position compared to other actors in the region. Of course, the possibility of falling into a war psychology cannot be completely ruled out, but under the current circumstances, the likelihood of resolving this crisis without escalation appears more dominant. On the other hand, the psychology and ideological stance of Iranian leaders must also be carefully analyzed. Iran’s security bureaucracy has been deeply affected by past traumas, which alters their perception of threats. Iranian society may interpret war psychology not as a threat but as an opportunity for national unity. In this context, the prevailing psychological stance in Iran suggests not an intention to expand the war, but rather an unavoidable retaliation. The current tendency seems to be a strategy of limited but determined response rather than a large-scale direct war.”

“Türkiye’s strong stance is a great advantage”

Emphasizing that Türkiye is a significant actor on the international stage, Tarhan said, “In the face of this war psychology, Türkiye’s calm conduct with the posture of a strong state is a great advantage for our society. Maintaining a secure position is highly valuable in this period. On the other hand, calling out wrongdoing and taking concrete actions is equally important. Another notable development during this process is the shared stance shown by segments in Türkiye with different worldviews. The fact that even opposing voices have remained silent on this issue and have not turned it into political material is very valuable. This will also reflect positively on Türkiye’s image abroad. Today, Türkiye is an important actor on the international stage, with a societal structure capable of acting collectively and a strong state intelligence. However, it is also necessary to be mentally resilient against exaggerated perception management campaigns carried out through media and propaganda. For example, phrases such as ‘we hit him in his home’ or ‘we targeted him in his room’ are frequently heard. These are not very difficult tasks with today’s technology. The concept of digital dictatorship was already introduced in 2018. In today’s digital control age, even your car can be locked remotely while you are driving. So, it is not surprising that such propaganda exists. However, the decisive factor in wars is ground warfare. Air or naval superiority may be important, but victory always comes through control on land. It must not be forgotten that as long as one side says, ‘I do not accept defeat,’ the war does not end.”

“This war is not only ideological but also theological”

Stating that the war is not only physical but also financial and economic in nature, Tarhan said, “A dimension even more important than weapons is the trade war. In this trade war, the stance of the two global powers, China and the United States, carries great significance. The psychology of the leaders of these countries, their personal histories, narcissistic tendencies, and the approaches of their advisors directly influence the course of events. We cannot know exactly which direction these actors will take. However, it is very important for societies to remain calm in the face of such global crises. There is no need for fear or panic, but it is essential to be alert and cautious. We see that the decision-makers in Türkiye are taking necessary internal precautions against the worst-case scenarios. This is reassuring from the perspective of societal psychology. At this point, it is crucial to maintain the psychological resilience of society. However, expecting a solution from a war environment is a very primitive approach considering the level of progress humanity has reached. In my opinion, this war is not only ideological but also theological. It is a conflict based not on rational explanations but on religious and sacred beliefs. This situation completely contradicts the ethical and intellectual level humanity has achieved. Today’s universities, the current state of science, and the modern understanding of human rights cannot deem such a war as legitimate. Humanity will question why it is experiencing this war and will discuss what can be done to prevent similar disasters in the future. At present, many thinkers, academics, and opinion leaders are trying to draw lessons from this war. In psychology, there is a concept called post-traumatic growth. It refers to individuals becoming more resilient and gaining greater awareness after experiencing hardships. This concept also applies to social domains. Humanity can overcome such a great trauma by growing through it. This is the hopeful side of the situation.”

 

 

Üsküdar News Agency (ÜNA)