Thomas Joseph Barrack, a Maronite Arab-American tycoon and the current U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, has emerged as a pivotal and controversial figure in America’s foreign policy in the Middle East. While serving in Ankara, he also acts as the U.S. Special Envoy for Syria and Lebanon, drawing regional media attention with his outspoken positions on armed groups in Syria, the Kurdish issue, and the Zangezur Corridor project.
With a complex background and views tied to the Ottoman legacy, Barrack is not only a U.S. representative in the region but also, in many ways, a voice of the Middle East in Washington—a wealthy, influential voice carrying a narrative distinct from traditional U.S. policy.
Life and Background
Born in 1947 in Los Angeles, Barrack hails from a Maronite Christian Lebanese family that immigrated to the U.S. from Zahlé and Baalbek in the early 20th century. Raised in a religious household steeped in Arab-Ottoman cultural traditions, he developed an early fascination with Middle Eastern languages and culture.
After studying law, Barrack moved to Saudi Arabia in the 1970s, where he served as a legal advisor to the Saudi royal family. He later became one of the largest investors in luxury real estate and hotels across the West and the Middle East. This immense wealth transformed him into a key player in transnational power networks, solidifying his position in political and economic circles.
Ties to Trump and Allegations
Barrack’s relationship with Donald Trump began in the 1980s. He played an active role in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and chaired his inauguration. However, his ties to the Trump administration were not without controversy. The U.S. Department of Justice accused Barrack of secretly lobbying for the United Arab Emirates, alleging he passed sensitive information to Abu Dhabi and contributed to speeches reflecting Emirati interests. In 2022, a New York court acquitted him of all charges.
Barrack also introduced Trump to Paul Manafort, the former chair of Trump’s campaign. The two had met in Beirut in the 1970s. Manafort, who left the campaign in August 2016, was later sentenced to 7.5 years in prison for federal crimes related to foreign lobbying. These connections underscore Barrack’s deep influence in political and economic networks.
Barrack’s Ambassadorship in Turkey and His Role in Syria
In 2024, with Trump’s backing, Barrack was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Turkey amid strained Washington-Ankara relations over NATO, energy crises, and the Syrian situation. Focusing on security, migration, and energy, he worked to redefine bilateral ties. As Special Envoy for Syria, Barrack plays a central role in America’s new diplomacy, particularly in reshaping the Kurdish situation, sanctions policy, and dialogues with Russia and Turkey.
His appointment as Special Envoy for Syria, following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, was a major change in U.S. policy. The Trump administration abandoned “nation-building” in favor of lifting sanctions, economic reconstruction, and stabilization. Barrack calls this approach “event diplomacy,” emphasizing practical actions and tangible outcomes.
On May 14, 2025, Trump issued an order to lift sanctions on Syria, followed by the Treasury Department’s 180-day waiver from the Caesar Act on May 23. Barrack’s meetings with Ahmad al-Sharaa, head of Syria’s interim government, in Istanbul and Damascus led to a $7 billion energy deal with Qatari, American, and Turkish companies on May 29. The reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Damascus symbolized the normalization of relations.
Neo-Ottoman Views
Barrack frequently employs concepts with neo-Ottoman undertones, criticizing the artificial borders drawn after World War I (Sykes-Picot) and advocating for the historical Ottoman order, the millet system, and localized solutions. His family background and pragmatic outlook tie him to these stances, known as “cultural Ottomanism.”
Viewing himself as an heir to Ottoman civilization, Barrack has defended the Ottoman Divan, its architectural legacy, and the inclusivity of the caliphate in his speeches. Rooted in his Maronite Lebanese heritage and Middle Eastern experience, these views have led some to call him an “unofficial ambassador of the Middle East in Washington.”
However, some analysts see Barrack’s advocacy for the Ottoman millet system as a dangerous solution to the region’s current challenges. Contrary to popular belief, he argues that the U.S. and Israel prefer weak, fragmented states in the region because they are easier to manage. This policy is evident in his support for Ahmad al-Sharaa and the reduction of Turkey’s influence in Syria.
Contradictions and Challenges
Barrack’s positions often appear contradictory. While championing the Ottoman millet system, he supports Ahmad al-Sharaa’s alignment with Riyadh and Tel Aviv, sidelining Turkey’s influence in Damascus. Al-Sharaa’s signals —such as meetings with Israeli official Eli Cohen in the UAE and Baku and assurances of non-confrontation with Israel’s military in the Golan Heights— suggest a power balance favoring Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Turkey, which expected a central role in Syria through its support for groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, has seen its concerns about the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Kurdish groups largely ignored, with border clashes in eastern Euphrates diminishing. Recent tensions in Druze areas like Daraa and Suwayda, fueled by Israel and involving clashes between Bedouins, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and Druze, have led to massacres akin to those against Alawites, ultimately benefiting Israel. These developments highlight Turkey’s declining influence in Syria and its failure to manage Damascus’ crises.
Possible Regional Scenarios
Barrack’s actions and U.S. policies, alongside those of Turkey, Israel, and Arab states, could lead to the following scenarios:
- Increased pressure on Hezbollah and escalating tensions along Lebanon’s northern borders are potential outcomes:
Barrack frames Hezbollah’s disarmament as an internal Lebanese issue, but diplomatic pressure on Beirut and Michel Aoun, coupled with conditional international aid, reveals a complex strategy. Damascus’s threats against Beirut, rooted in historical claims of Syrian dominance and sectarian divides, could benefit Israel. The situation creates an opportunity for Tel Aviv to escalate tensions along Lebanon’s northern borders, leveraging religious and political divides. With Hezbollah weakened post-Assad, this scenario could intensify internal conflicts in Lebanon, strengthening Israel’s position. Barrack, with his Lebanese roots, appears to pursue a dual policy—ostensibly supporting Lebanon’s stability while pressuring Hezbollah—potentially paving the way for indirect Israeli intervention. - Tensions in the Eastern Euphrates and the strengthening of Turkish-Israeli control are significant issues:
Barrack publicly supports integrating the SDF with Syria’s interim army, but in practice, U.S. military presence in oil-rich eastern regions like Deir ez-Zor and Bukamal has increased, and aid to the SDF continues. This contradictory policy could spark conflict between Damascus and Qamishli, especially given Daesh’s activities in the Badia and SDF readiness near the Euphrates. The SDF’s ground superiority over the interim army raises the likelihood of a major clash, potentially drawing Turkey into eastern Euphrates and Israel into southern areas like Daraa and Suwayda.
In this scenario, Barack’s support for al-Sharaa and marginalization of Turkey in Damascus have sidelined Ankara. Al-Sharaa’s meetings with Israeli officials and assurances regarding the Golan Heights indicate a power shift favoring Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Such an outcome could lead to a de facto partition of Syria: Turkey in the eastern Euphrates and Israel in the south. Long-term, this division might align with constitutional changes or referenda in Kurdish areas, reviving the millet system and possibly extending to Iraqi Kurdistan. However, the proposal risks backlash in Turkey, where Kurdish integration could fuel ethnic tensions and internal crises. - Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s Role in Syria’s Future:
Contrary to some assumptions, Saudi Arabia and the UAE welcome Syria’s integration and the reduction of Iran’s influence, severing Tehran’s links to proxies in Lebanon and Gaza. Their massive investments, like the $7 billion energy deal, aim to shape Syria’s future rather than maintain the status quo. Supported by the West, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi seek a weak but stable Syria under their and Israel’s influence. Jordan, by banning the Muslim Brotherhood and avoiding Syria’s conflicts, aims to shield itself from these tensions and limit Israel’s nation-building projects to Suwayda and Daraa, preventing Tel Aviv’s corridors from reaching Bukamal. - Iran’s Fragmentation and Redrawing Middle Eastern Borders:
A more ambitious scenario involves using Syria as a testing ground for Iran’s fragmentation. Barack and U.S. policies, targeting a weakened Islamic Republic, may aim to shrink Iran and cut its ties to proxies. Such an effort could involve cooperation with Turkey and Azerbaijan, particularly given tensions in Iran’s Azerbaijan region. Barrack’s critique of Sykes-Picot and advocacy for smaller states could lead to Iran’s fragmentation, especially amid new Israeli attacks and Iran’s deepening social, political, and economic crises. The intensification of opposition groups within Iran, fueled by these attacks and the potential reimposition of the JCPOA’s “snapback” mechanism, could further destabilize the country. Iran’s proximity to volatile regions like China’s borders, the presence of groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan, and potential future conflicts in Iraq could create conditions for Iran’s collapse, particularly if Tehran fails to adopt policies granting equal rights and freedoms to its citizens. Trade-offs in Syria, such as bolstering Turkey’s control over the eastern Euphrates, could accompany this scenario. However, significant obstacles remain: Iranian society, even in its weakened state, may resist fragmentation, and Turkey’s public could oppose Kurdish integration or neo-Ottoman ideas. Such a plan could also escalate ethnic tensions in Syria’s Arab and Alawite regions and Iraqi Kurdistan. Moreover, the stance of Syrian Kurds —whether they would align with a project led by figures like Öcalan— remains uncertain.
Analysis and Risks
Barack’s policies reflect an attempt to balance U.S., Israeli, Turkish, and Arab interests, but they carry significant risks:
- Instability in Turkey: Reviving the millet system or integrating Syrian Kurds could destabilize Turkey’s fragile society, already under political and economic strain. While dissolving the PKK and redefining citizenship rights could be positive, perceptions of foreign interference may provoke strong backlash. Political pressure on Turkey’s republican and opposition parties, combined with social fragility, could undermine these plans.
- Strengthening Israel: Barrack’s policies favor Tel Aviv, weakening Iran and Hezbollah and creating fragmented states around Israel. This could establish strategic corridors from Suwayda to Bukamal, boosting Israel’s regional dominance.
- Regional Tensions: Ethnic and sectarian conflicts in Syria and Lebanon, alongside Turkey-Israel rivalries, could push the region toward greater instability. The involvement of firms like Blackwater and Barrack’s full support for Israel suggest a focus on containing Iran and filling the void left by Tehran’s weakened proxies.
- Internal Regional Challenges: Barrack’s neo-Ottoman ideas may face resistance from Arab states wary of Turkey’s renewed influence. Kurdish integration or border redrawing could intensify ethnic and sectarian tensions in Syria, Iraq, and potentially Iran.
Conclusion
Thomas Joseph Barrack, with his intricate background and vast influence, is reshaping U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Through event diplomacy, criticism of Sykes-Picot, and advocacy for the Ottoman millet system, he seeks a new regional balance serving U.S., Israeli, and Arab interests.
Yet, these pragmatic policies risk greater instability. Weakening Iran and its proxies, reducing Turkey’s influence in Syria, and bolstering Israel’s corridors —amid Turkey’s internal fragility and regional ethnic-sectarian tensions— pose significant challenges. As a diplomat and tycoon with Middle Eastern roots, Barrack strives to satisfy all parties, but the question remains: Is he pursuing regional stability or weakening key players like Turkey and Iran to advance Washington and Tel Aviv’s interests?