Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria, embodies much of what pro-democracy advocates in the Middle East oppose. He is fond of the region’s authoritarian leaders and admires its strongmen.
Speaking on April 17, 2026, at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum in Turkey, he reinforced that perception. His remarks emphasized pragmatic engagement with existing power structures, rather than support for grassroots democratic movements.
“If you look at the region … the only thing that has worked are these powerful leadership regimes, either benevolent monarchies or a kind of monarchial republic. Everything else in the Arab Spring has just faded away, evaporated,” he said, acknowledging that he would be criticized for saying this because it is undemocratic.
Monarchies and “monarchial republics” in the Middle East have long fostered corruption and repression at home.
While some may argue that Barrack’s statement is partially valid, it is also simplistic. Monarchies and “monarchial republics” in the Middle East have long fostered corruption and repression at home and, in many cases, contributed to instability and terrorism across the region and beyond. To say that they have worked is only a partial assessment, because they appear durable until they are not.
From Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Assad dynasty, the Qatar sheikhdom, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the examples are plentiful of strongmen, dictators, and powerful emirs who have become sources of regional instability. People who have lived under, or continue to live under, these regimes, as well as those affected by them, have a different assessment than Barrack’s.
Barrack may believe his grandparents’ Lebanese background gives him insight, but they arrived in the United States more than 125 years ago. Their experience does not translate, nor is it genetic. Barrack does not appear to understand the region or, at the very least, to appreciate the aspirations of its peoples.
The United States historically has aligned with many authoritarian regimes across the region. That strategy has consistently backfired. Those partnerships often crumble precisely because they depend on the whims of a single individual rather than stable, shared institutional values. Turkey, where Barrack serves, is an example. Erdoğan’s increasingly authoritarian rule over the years has been accompanied by a steadily deteriorating relationship with the United States. And while U.S.-Turkish relations seem to be improving during President Donald Trump’s presidency, Turkey no longer resembles a treaty ally. It is, in many respects, more aligned with U.S. adversaries such as Russia, Iran, and China.
At this point, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey appears to be adopting a narrative that is closely aligned with Erdoğan’s own policy framing. He is no longer merely engaged in standard diplomatic engagement with his host country. In fact, his actions vis-à-vis Syria and the Kurds and his views on Israel’s regional policies demonstrate his alignment with that narrative.
[Barrack’s] efforts have contributed to the dissolution of the Kurdish forces, a one-time reliable U.S. ally against the Islamic State.
In Syria, Barrack is a backer of former jihadist Ahmed al-Sharaa’s regime. His efforts have contributed to the dissolution of the Kurdish forces, a one-time reliable U.S. ally against the Islamic State. Because of that, the Kurds had no choice but to accept an integration deal with al-Sharaa’s Islamist regime to survive massacres that occurred against other communities in Syria like the Alawites and Druze. This consolidation of power has allowed Al-Sharaa to become a strongman, further narrowing prospects for a democratic transition in Syria.
Barrack also disagrees with Israel for not including the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah in talks with the Lebanese government. Ironically, such talks could represent one of the few remaining opportunities for Lebanon to move toward greater stability and sovereignty.
Barrack frames power as essential in a rough neighborhood such as the Middle East, but he contradicts himself when he then argues that Israeli policies toward Syria and Turkey are counterproductive. What appears consistent is not philosophical grounding, but rather, a desire to conform to Erdoğan’s outlook.
