Ever since Tom Barrack entered the current U.S. administration as the United States Ambassador to Turkey and its Special Envoy to Syria and Iraq, he has not stopped raising questions and controversy regarding the true nature of his role, and the extent to which his positions and statements align with the foreign policy he is supposedly in the region to represent and execute. He is neither a traditional professional diplomat, nor a historian specializing in the Middle East, nor someone with a long career in American diplomatic institutions. The man essentially hails from the world of finance, investment, and real estate; he founded Colony Capital and was a prominent player in the realms of real estate investment and international deals, with extensive relations, interests, and business dealings in the Arabian Gulf region. He is also a longtime friend of President Donald Trump, chaired his 2017 presidential inaugural committee, and has remained close to Trump’s political and financial circles for years.
Tom Barrack’s Problem with Politics The Middle East is not a distressed piece of real estate that Barrack can buy at a low price and resell at a profit, nor is it a bankrupt company he can rescue with a financial deal, nor a political bazaar where states and peoples are managed through the logic of brokerage and barter. Politics in the Middle East—especially in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Turkey, and Iraq—requires a profound knowledge of history, geography, demography, civilizational and sectarian conflicts, and a precise understanding of the nature of competing regional projects. Herein lies Barrack’s problem: the most dangerous thing that can happen is for a senior American official to deal with this region through the mindset of a businessman looking for a “deal” rather than a statesman defending his country’s strategy, interests, and values.
When the U.S. Ambassador Becomes More Enthusiastic for Turkey Than for Washington The biggest problem with Barrack’s positions is not that he holds personal views; any official has the right to have views. The problem is that some of these views, when expressed in his capacity as ambassador and special envoy of the U.S. President, appear to contradict or confuse the policy he is supposed to represent. It is difficult, for example, to ignore the impression Barrack leaves through his frequent positions on Turkey and its President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan is not merely an ordinary Turkish president. Erdogan’s Turkey carries a clear regional project, utilizing its political, military, economic, and religious influence in an attempt to restore a dominant Turkish position in the region. It is a state with close ties to political Islam movements, foremost among them the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, and Ankara has massively expanded its military and political presence in Syria.
In this context, any American official who deals with Erdogan as if he were simply a natural regional partner—without factoring Ankara’s expansionist project and Turkish political Islam into the core of his calculations—is committing a major strategic error. More dangerously, this is happening at a moment when the confrontation between Turkish and Israeli interests in Syria is escalating. Barrack criticized recent Israeli strikes on the Syrian Abu al-Zohour airbase while Israel was moving to prevent the expansion of a Turkish military presence inside Syria. These developments clearly revealed that Turkish and Israeli interests in Syria are not congruent, but are rather heading toward an increasing strategic clash. Is the United States expected to act as a mediator to protect Turkish ambitions in Syria? And must Israel now accommodate Erdogan’s military interests inside Syria so as not to upset the U.S. ambassador in Ankara? These are legitimate questions, especially when such remarks come from an official representing the United States rather than a private political analyst.
Barrack and the Golan: How Can the Ambassador Say Something That Contradicts Trump’s Decision? Barrack’s most controversial statement came in his recent interview with activist and media figure Mario Nawfal. Barrack said that Israel “still occupies the Syrian Golan Heights,” referring to United Nations resolutions and the international order—phrasing that appeared to directly ignore President Donald Trump’s 2019 decision recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan. Here, we are not talking about a minor difference in wording, but rather an official policy announced by the U.S. President himself. The next day, Barrack was forced to backtrack and clarify, stating that his words were a description of the historical situation rather than an endorsement of the UN position, and affirming that the U.S. policy outlined by Trump in 2019 “has not changed.”
Yet the question remains: if Trump’s policy has not changed, why did Barrack say what he said in the first place? Diplomacy is not a talk show where an official can float an idea in the morning and say by evening that it was merely a “personal point of view.” When the U.S. ambassador and special envoy to the region speaks, his words are read as the voice of Washington, and any statement that contradicts the U.S. president’s policy causes confusion and undermines the credibility of the United States and its allies. The Golan is not a marginal detail; Trump’s 2019 decision was a historic turning point in American policy toward the Golan. Therefore, reopening the issue, even verbally, is not a mere slip of the tongue.
Have Hezbollah and Iran Become Parties to Lebanese-Israeli Negotiations? Then came an even more dangerous issue regarding Lebanon. In the same interview, Barrack spoke about the absence of Iran and Hezbollah from the equation concerning Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, remarks that were understood as a push to introduce them into discussions about the future of the situation between Lebanon and Israel. Following a wave of criticism, Barrack walked back his statements to say that he was not proposing the creation of a new negotiating table that includes Iran and Hezbollah, that Hezbollah’s weapons are funded and supplied by Iran, and that his remarks addressed the complications posed by Iranian support to the file.
Once again, the simple question arises: why does the American envoy need to backtrack and explain himself after every major statement? Does Barrack truly not know that his country classifies Hezbollah as an international terrorist organization, and that it is not an ordinary Lebanese party that can be treated as a normal political actor in a diplomatic dispute? It is an armed militia organically linked to Iran, and its leaders have for years declared their allegiance to the Wilayat al-Faqih project and the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Consequently, any attempt to normalize the existence of Hezbollah’s weapons as merely a “Lebanese problem” or to treat Iran as a normal party in rearranging Lebanon practically means ignoring the root of the problem: Lebanon cannot build a fully sovereign state as long as an armed organization tied to a foreign regional power retains the decision of war and peace.
From Iran to Turkey: Is One Tutelage Being Replaced by Another? Here we reach the core of the dilemma. Iran has retreated in Lebanon and the region, Hezbollah’s influence has suffered massive blows, and regional balances of power have begun to shift. However, Iran’s exit or the retreat of its influence does not mean that the vacuum should be filled by Turkey… This is precisely the danger that Washington must realize. Lebanon is not a prize for Iran, nor for Turkey, nor a zone of influence for any regional power. If Washington truly wants to end Iranian influence in the Levant, it must not simultaneously permit the emergence of alternative Turkish influence based on an Erdoganist project rooted in Muslim Brotherhood origins and neo-Ottoman ambitions and illusions. Replacing Iranian tutelage with Turkish tutelage is not the liberation of the region; it is merely a change in the guardian’s name. Erdogan’s Turkey is not a 16th-century Ottoman Empire returned to life, no matter how hard Erdogan tries to invoke the symbols of the Ottoman Empire and rebrand Turkey as a central power in the Islamic world. The Ottoman Empire has ended, and with it a long history of wars, invasions, and tyranny that cannot be recycled under new slogans. It is a historical and strategic error for Washington to treat Turkish ambitions as mere good-neighborly policy.
Ahmed al-Sharaa: From al-Golani to the President of Syria Then there is Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Golani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Washington is not expected to ignore the new political reality in Syria, but dealing with the man and his new regime requires the utmost caution—not an emotional or political rush, as is the case with Barrack, who is entirely ignorant of the region’s history and the sensitivities of dealing with its complexities. History cannot be erased by changing a name; changing a suit and a title does not wipe away the past. The question that any American official must ask is: What is the nature of the new Syrian state? What are the limits of its independence from Turkey? What is the future of minorities? What is the position of political Islam within it? And will Syria transition from a zone of Iranian influence to a zone of Turkish influence? These questions are far more important than the handshakes, smiles, and press conferences staged by Barrack—a dealmaker before being a statesman—which is why his personality cannot be understood without examining his career.
Barrack wealth and fame Barrack built his wealth and fame primarily in the world of investment, real estate, and international deals. He founded Colony Capital, dealt in projects, hotels, real estate, and distressed assets around the world, and maintained extensive investment relations with Gulf parties, including the UAE and Qatar, alongside his long-standing ties in Saudi Arabia. Press reports indicate that Emirati funds invested hundreds of millions of dollars in his companies during the first Trump administration years. His name was also linked to major deals with Gulf investment institutions, including partnerships and deals with Qatar—such as the Miramax deal—in addition to transactions with Emirati and Saudi investors. And here we must be fair: when U.S. authorities accused him in 2021 of acting secretly as an unregistered agent for the UAE, he stood trial, and a jury acquitted him in 2022 of all nine counts. Therefore, from an American legal standpoint, he is not “convicted” nor an “Emirati agent.” Yet the case itself reveals the profound sensitivity of the overlap between the financial world, Gulf relations, and American politics throughout his career. This precisely raises a legitimate question regarding his suitability for a diplomatic post of such sensitivity and peril.
The Middle East Is Not a Real Estate Deal The problem with the dealmaking mentality represented by Barrack is that it constantly seeks quick settlements, whereas the Middle East is not governed by deals alone. There are centuries-old history, occupations and wars, minorities and peoples, borders, ideologies, imperial projects, political Islam, terrorism, and great power interests. They cannot be approached and managed with such logic: “You get this, I get that, Turkey takes this, Iran takes that, Israel makes a concession here, and Lebanon makes a concession there.” This is not strategic diplomacy; this is political brokerage, and the United States is not a real estate investment firm.
Required: A Clear American Policy, Not Personal Interpretations If Tom Barrack represents President Trump, he must represent Trump’s policy. If he holds personal views that differ from the president’s policy, they have no place in press conferences and interviews perceived as expressions of the United States’ position. President Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan in 2019, and this policy—according to Barrack himself after his recent backtrack—remains in place. The United States has repeatedly stated that Hezbollah’s weapons constitute a fundamental obstacle to the establishment of a sovereign Lebanese state. It is unacceptable for the Lebanese, Israelis, Syrians, Turks, and Iranians to simultaneously hear contradictory stances from a single American official, as U.S. foreign policy requires a single voice, not multiple contradictory ones.
Barrack Is Unsuited for the Position He Holds President Trump has the right to choose those he trusts, and Tom Barrack has the right to hold his views. However, the American people, U.S. allies, and the peoples of the Middle East have the right to ask: Is the right man to manage the files of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon a businessman, investor, and real estate player with broad personal ties to the president, or a strategic diplomat possessing deep knowledge of the region’s history and entanglements? In my personal view, the answer is clear.
Barrack is an appropriate statesman to manage the Middle East’s most dangerous files Tom Barrack may be a successful businessman, a skilled negotiator in the world of deals, and a loyal friend to President Trump, but that does not automatically make him the appropriate statesman to manage the Middle East’s most dangerous files. More dangerously, his recent positions have begun to suggest that he is not content with merely representing American policy, but is sometimes putting forward his own vision for the region—a vision that in some aspects appears closer to Erdogan’s Turkey than to the interests of U.S. allies, opening the door to serious questions regarding the Turkish role and the future of Syria and Lebanon. Therefore, what is required is not more justifications after statements, nor more claims that “this is my personal opinion”; what is required is a clear American position. If Barrack is unable to separate his personal views from the official policy of the United States, and if his presence in this position causes more confusion for Washington’s allies than it serves them, President Trump possesses a simple and clear solution: dismissing him and replacing him with a professional diplomat who knows the region’s history, understands the danger of political Islam, realizes that Turkey is not the legitimate heir to the Ottoman Empire, that Iran is not an alternative to the Lebanese state, that Hezbollah is not a “Lebanese resistance,” that Israel is not merely a negotiating chip, and that the Middle East is not a distressed property that can be saved by a deal.
Conclusion
It remains that the Middle East needs an American strategy, not a deal broker. Lebanon specifically needs a sovereign state, not a replacement of Iranian tutelage with Turkish tutelage. This is the truth that Tom Barrack must understand before giving lessons on the region’s history or charting its future from behind interview screens.
Summary of Tom Barrack’s biography (GPT) He is: A Lebanese-American businessman A lawyer by education A former Reagan administration official A major real-estate investor Founder of Colony Capital Former chairman of Colony NorthStar An investor with extensive Gulf relationships A longtime friend of Donald Trump Former chairman of Trump’s inaugural committee A person prosecuted in a major UAE foreign-agent case and acquitted of every charge And now a senior American diplomat dealing with some of the most complicated political conflicts in the Middle East. His supporters can legitimately point to his decades of experience in the region, his Arabic-language skills, his relationships with Arab leaders, and his ability to communicate directly with powerful people. His critics can legitimately ask whether the same business relationships and transactional style that made him successful as an investor are appropriate for the conduct of American foreign policy. That is the real issue. The question is not whether Tom Barrack is a successful businessman. He clearly is. The question is whether the Middle East should be approached primarily through the mentality of a businessman searching for deals, or through the disciplined strategy of a professional diplomat who understands history, sovereignty, national interests, and the long-term consequences of American decisions. For Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iraq, and Turkey, this is not an academic question. It is a question of national survival and regional stability.
