Abstract Introduction Armed conflicts create devastating psychosocial consequences for civilian populations, particularly when housing destruction results in displacement, material deprivation, and prolonged uncertainty. During active hostilities, mental health care is often delivered under crisis conditions in which mental health needs must compete with urgent survival concerns. Following the short but intense Iran–Israel cross-border conflict in June 2025, Iran’s Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MoHME) launched a coordinated national mental health response, providing a unique opportunity to examine frontline psychological care during an acute phase of armed conflict. Methods This qualitative study employed reflexive thematic analysis to explore psychologists’ experiences in providing mental health care to civilians whose homes were destroyed during the June 2025 Iran–Israel conflict. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 psychologists involved in MoHME-coordinated crisis services, including helplines, mobile mental health teams, and temporary care settings. The analysis focused on patterns related to clinical practice and contextual challenges. Results Five interrelated themes emerged: housing destruction as psychic collapse; prioritization of material needs over psychological care; institutional constraints shaping clinical work; pervasive uncertainty as chronic stressor; and perceived limitations of conventional crisis-focused interventions. Participants described distress as deeply rooted in structural instability rather than isolated traumatic events. Conclusions The findings highlight the limitations of short-term, symptom-focused interventions in contexts characterized by mass displacement and housing loss. Effective crisis responses require integrated mental health strategies that are closely aligned with social, material, and institutional support systems. The findings also underscore the importance of strengthening community-based mental health infrastructure and intersectoral coordination in national emergency preparedness policies.
Zarafshan et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: