Barak: Your Days Are Numbered

Dr. Dhib Al-Qaraleh

In a television interview marked by an abundance of “candor” and a shortage of “diplomacy,” Tom Barrack—U.S. ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria and Lebanon—detonated several rhetorical bombs in all directions, angering many and satisfying no one.

The interview, conducted by journalist Hadley Gamble for The National, lasted no more than twenty minutes, yet it carried a flood of provocative messages about the strategic objectives of President Donald Trump’s administration in the region, its stance on the Gaza war, the situation in Lebanon, relations with Iran, and Washington’s purely interest-based ties with Arab states—while describing the relationship with Israel alone as a “strategic” one of special value.

Barrack, the well-known real estate magnate and close friend of Trump, spoke in shockingly blunt language, asserting that peace in the region is nothing more than an illusion that will never materialize. He argued that the conflict is not merely over land but over legitimacy and dominance, with various actors struggling to preserve their identity and control. He even pointed to the growing Muslim population worldwide—claiming it would reach five billion by 2045—in a way that clearly linked cooperation and conflict, past and future alike, to demography and religious identity.

He spoke like a contractor rather than a politician, making it evident that his primary concern was pleasing President Trump rather than advancing the welfare of nations and peoples. He did not conceal his bias toward Israeli occupation, saying that while he does not fully agree with what Tel Aviv does, he respects it because “it tells you exactly what is going to happen.”

Barrack predicted that ceasefires would fail to resolve the crisis, stressing that previous attempts had never produced peace and that any solution must be rooted in long-term political and economic foundations rather than temporary arrangements. He adopted the Israeli narrative outright, claiming Hamas bears responsibility for the current situation by allegedly holding millions of Palestinians hostage—thus further complicating any political or humanitarian solution.

His remarks on Lebanon were overtly provocative. He called for disarming Hezbollah while showing no concern for the cost such a move would impose on Lebanon—unless Beirut receives something in return, namely the restoration of sovereignty over all its territory and Israel’s withdrawal from occupied lands and hills. It is precisely Israel’s continued occupation, he implied indirectly, that gives Hezbollah its justification for retaining arms.

Barrack was unusually frank when discussing “trust,” stating, “I don’t trust anyone in the Middle East—not even Israel,” and asserting that Washington has no allies in the region, only interests. He also revealed that Israel was behind the attack in Tunisia following controversy surrounding drone incidents targeting ships of the Global Solidarity Fleet at the port of Sidi Bou Said.

This bluntness stood in sharp contrast to the ambiguity that characterized his earlier statements during the events in Sweida, when he initially blamed the Syrian government, calling what happened “horrific and unimaginable” and insisting it must be held accountable—only to reverse course hours later by saying the new government had acted as best it could with extremely limited resources.

Barrack’s double-edged rhetoric over Sweida mirrors his contradictory stance toward the Autonomous Administration in northeastern Syria. He repeatedly asserted that Damascus is its only viable path—effectively backing President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s government—yet later issued statements supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces’ calls for decentralization.

This raises a key question: does Barrack’s position toward the northeastern administration truly reflect Washington’s real policy, or is it influenced by Turkey’s perspective, which views elements within it as aligned with the PKK?

Notably, Barrack recently made a sudden and involuntary decision to dismiss three diplomats from his Istanbul-based Syria regional platform team who were working on the Autonomous Administration file, due to their support for the Syrian Democratic Forces. Washington, however, reinstated them—clearly indicating a divergence between Barrack’s approach and that of the U.S. policy center.

It would not be surprising if his excessive bluntness, limited political experience in the region, and at times conflicting positions with the deeper strategic thinking in Washington ultimately lead to his removal—sending him back to the world of business, or perhaps into arms trading in a region perched atop a powder keg.