In recent weeks a crisis between Turkey and Israel over Syria policy has turned a spotlight onto US Ambassador Tom Barrack. As both ambassador to Turkey and envoy to Iraq and Syria, he is in a unique position vis-à-vis US policy in the Middle East. Considered close to US President Donald Trump, Barrack’s position is part of the personal diplomacy belonging to the wider global Trump doctrine. This White House does not do policy conventionally; rather, it leans into personal diplomacy and a willingness to think outside the box.
The Trump administration has been thinking outside the box on Syria policy. It was quick to follow advice from Saudi Arabia, and also likely from Turkey, regarding embracing the new Syrian government after the fall of the Assad regime.
Trump met with the new Syrian President Ahmad al-al-Sharaa and took a liking to him.
In Jerusalem, the new government in Damascus was met with intensive skepticism and eventual hostility. When the Assad regime fell, Jerusalem appears to have been taken by surprise, and some believed that a new government headed by the former leader of Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) would not be able to unify the country.
Though the Trump administration believed Sharaa would succeed, Israeli officials called him a “terrorist in a suit,” and some even threatened to target him.
Israel embarked on a policy backing the Druze in Syria, and some floated the idea of backing the Kurds and Alawites. Israel also seized areas near the Syrian border and grabbed the summit of Mount Hermon.
While Aleppo’s new ruler believed he could reach an agreement with Jerusalem, initial contacts didn’t turn into a deal. Syria policy percolated through several crises in 2025, until the Trump administration was able to arrange a trilateral meeting in January 2026. However, this hadn’t ended Israel-Syria tensions or Israel-Turkey tensions over Syria.
Barrack has been vocal following Israeli airstrikes in Syria
This month those tensions exploded into view with Israeli airstrikes in northern Syria.
Barrack, who has been playing an important role in Syria for the last year, is now front and center. In the past, he has preferred to work a bit more behind the scenes. He has praised energy deals in Syria. He has helped pave the way for the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces to integrate into the new government’s security forces. He has likely helped guide US policy on Iraq regarding disarming the Iranian-backed militias and supporting the new prime minister Ali al-Zaidi.
However, Barrack is careful not to make these incredibly complex policies too personal.
Dealing with Iraq and Syria is a thankless job. Both countries are going through transitions, and both sit at the crossroads of the Levant. They have been centers of terrorist threats, the war on ISIS, and competition between Iran, the US, Russia, Turkey, and other countries. Even China is involved.
Other policymakers in Washington who played a role here, such as Brett McGurk and United States Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey saw how difficult this was.
In addition, Joel Rayburn, the former special envoy for Syria, and former US ambassador to Bahrain William Roebuck, who served as deputy special envoy for the Global Coalition Against ISIS, also saw this up close.
As such, Barrack took over his role in the footsteps of others who had seen the Gordian knot of US policy in Syria and Iraq up close.
Dealing with the new minefield of Israel-Turkey tensions is a difficult task. In part, this is because US policy on Israel tends to be separate from some other broader, regional policies.
Other US officials who played a key role in 2025 on Trump’s policy regarding Israel have already seen themselves critiqued in the media. Steve Witkoff, who played a key role in bringing the hostages home and in other US policies regarding Iran, Russia, and other places, is one example.
What are media accounts saying about Barrack now?
What are media accounts saying about Barrack now? “US working on deconfliction mechanism among Turkey, Israel, and Syria, US envoy says,” Al-Monitor reported.
Israel Hayom asked: “Is Tom Barrack’s job on the line because of Golan Heights comments?”
“A US envoy clarifies his comments on Golan Heights that contradicted Trump’s position,” the Associated Press noted.
Turkiye Today wrote, “Trump envoy says Barrack’s Türkiye role part of ‘larger policy’ amid Israel tensions.”
At The Jerusalem Post we recently had an analysis noting “US envoy Tom Barrack’s Israel criticism tests his credibility as a mediator.”
Israel’s Ynet went even further: “How US envoy Tom Barrack nearly ignited an Israel-Turkey war.”
After several days of a war of words regarding Barrack, there appears to be some climbdown on the rhetoric.
Ben Caspit wrote in Al-Monitor’s Israel Pulse: “Israel is rethinking its hard-line Syria policy and seeking to repair ties with US envoy and Donald Trump’s confidant Tom Barrack.”
Ynet also reported that Azerbaijan is seeking to mediate Israel-Turkey tensions. Baku is a close friend of both Ankara and Jerusalem. It doesn’t usually play a major role in Middle East issues, preferring to remain out of the spotlight and out of controversy. However, it wants to see Syria stable and has made this clear. North Press in Syria has also reported on how Israel and Turkey are trying to reduce tensions.
Barrack's role in US's Syrian policy
Barrack has played a key role in US policy. Combining the Iraq and Syria roles in the shape of the US ambassador to Ankara might seem like putting a lot of work into the hands of a single person. However, concentrating policy in the hands of one type of American proconsul may streamline policy. In the past, the US has run into problems when its policies were not aligned.
In the days of the Obama administration, the US played a Janus-faced role in Syria. One part of the US government was backing Syrian rebel groups. This largely dovetailed with what Turkey, a NATO ally, wanted. Jordan, another US friend, was happy to support the rebels alongside the United States and other Western powers. At the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), this seemed like a logical choice.
However, the Pentagon was tasked in the fall of 2014 with fighting ISIS as part of Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) had to go out and find partners in Syria. They began working with the YPG. In Ankara, this was greeted with surprise because it views the YPG as basically the Syrian version of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and thus a terrorist group. The YPG helped form the basis for the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in 2015.
Turkey now wonders how its NATO ally was working with “terrorists” to fight ISIS.
Outside observers might think that the US could streamline this. Get the State Department, CENTCOM, the CIA, and others in the same room at the White House and figure out what to do on Syria.
Instead, the SDF crossed the Euphrates River to liberate Manbij from ISIS in 2016. Turkey then invaded Syria during Operation Euphrates Shield to basically put a stop to the SDF advance. For a moment, it looked as if US-backed forces might run into other US-backed forces. How this would help defeat ISIS or topple the Assad regime was unclear.
Thus, putting American policy on Syria in the hands of one person, rather than having everyone doing their own thing, is probably best. Having a diplomat who has the trust of Ankara, as well as Damascus, and can speak clearly with the White House makes sense from a policy point of view.
Whether this can reduce tensions with Israel and Turkey remains to be seen.