Thomas Barrack, a prominent American businessman known for his close ties to former U.S. President Donald Trump, was appointed in April 2025 as the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara and Special Envoy for Syria. Since assuming the role in May, his public statements on the Middle East, Syria, and the historical legacy of the Ottoman Empire have drawn intense attention — and sparked heated debate — in both Turkish and international media.
1. Syria Policy – Echoing Ankara’s Stance
Upon his arrival in Turkey, Barrack declared that he had “returned to the land of his ancestors,” referring to his Lebanese heritage. From the outset, his comments hinted at a shift in Washington’s Syria policy, one that appeared to align more closely with Turkish priorities.
In multiple speeches and social media posts, Barrack declared that “the era of Western intervention is over”, criticizing historical arrangements like the 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement, which divided territories in the Middle East to serve colonial interests. He called on the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) — a Kurdish-led coalition backed by Washington but viewed by Ankara as linked to the outlawed PKK — to abandon their ambitions for autonomous governance in northern Syria and instead unify under the central government in Damascus.
When meeting with Syria’s interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, in early July, Barrack stressed that “Syria is a unified state” and asserted that federalism has no place in the country. Turkish officials welcomed these remarks, with Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan praising Barrack for understanding “the regional realities” and adopting a balanced approach that could earn the trust of multiple stakeholders.
However, Kurdish leaders and media outlets were far less receptive. SDF commander Mazloum Abdi cautiously acknowledged Barrack’s facilitation role but criticized his earlier statements linking the SDF to the PKK, accusing him of echoing Ankara’s narrative and undermining U.S. neutrality.
2. Praise for the Ottoman ‘Millet’ System – A Historical Flashpoint
Another source of controversy came when Barrack praised the Ottoman Empire’s millet system, which allowed different religious communities — including Armenians, Jews, and Christians — to govern their internal affairs under recognized leaders. In late June interviews, Barrack suggested that such a model had preserved cultural identity for centuries and could serve as a framework for modern coexistence, with Turkey at its center.
This drew sharp criticism from some Turkish commentators, who accused Barrack of adopting an “Orientalist” lens — a Western romanticization of Ottoman history often seen as politically manipulative. Nationalist voices went further, warning that reviving millet-style governance could be part of a broader “Greater Middle East Project” that might weaken Turkish national identity. Some media outlets even branded him the “new Lawrence of Arabia.”
3. Comments on Israel – A Delicate Balancing Act
Barrack also raised eyebrows when he condemned Israeli airstrikes in Syria, describing Israel as “a threat to strong states.” While attempting to distance Washington from direct involvement, these remarks stirred strong reactions in Turkey, with pro-government outlets seizing on the statements as evidence of a policy shift, while critics questioned their strategic wisdom.
4. Mixed Reactions and Political Ripples
Turkish government-aligned media largely celebrated Barrack’s approach, portraying it as a long-overdue correction in U.S. Middle East policy. Pro-Kurdish outlets, however, accused him of abandoning the delicate role of mediator and leaning too heavily toward Ankara’s position.
Some analysts doubted the practical impact of his words. Barçin Yenanç, writing in the independent T24 platform, called his Syria policy “contradictory” and questioned the feasibility of integrating the SDF into Damascus’s framework. Journalist Levant Kamal criticized Barrack for failing to address Israeli actions and tribal conflicts in Syria, arguing that “good words without real commitment will not bring results.”
Even within U.S. political circles, his role has sparked discussion. Right-wing commentator Laura Loomer recently called for his removal, alleging that he serves “Turkish and Islamist interests” over American priorities.
5. A Polarizing Figure in Ankara’s Diplomatic History
Sedat Ergin, a veteran Turkish journalist, noted in August that Barrack’s statements on sensitive issues — from Ottoman history to Kurdish autonomy and Israel — have made him “one of the most controversial U.S. ambassadors in Turkish history.” His willingness to speak directly on deeply divisive topics may have won him praise in some quarters, but it has also raised doubts about his long-term effectiveness as both a diplomat and a negotiator in a volatile region.
Comments
Post a Comment