For decades, the Middle East has been a stage for both careful diplomacy and costly miscalculations. The region’s complex interplay of politics, identity, and security requires patience, cultural awareness, and credibility. Tom Barrack, longtime US envoy and business figure, offers a case study in how high-profile approaches can carry both opportunities and risks.
Barrack approaches Middle East diplomacy like a business deal. As Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy to Syria, he has sought quick announcements and visible results. That style may work in real estate, but in Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey, it risks deepening instability. Prioritizing optics over messy realities, he overlooks local dynamics, and communities like the Druze in Sweida pay the price.
As Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy to Syria, Barrack has sought quick announcements and visible results.
Last month in Beirut, Barrack stunned journalists with an outburst: “The moment this starts becoming chaotic, like animalistic, we’re gone. So, you want to know what’s happening? Act civilized… because this is the problem with what’s happening in the region.” Such sharp rhetoric reflected the impulsiveness that has marked his tenure. Intended to advance US interests, it has instead fueled tensions across Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey.
The violence in Sweida in July 2025 illustrates the danger. Over 1,500 Druze civilians were killed when regime-backed militias, including Bedouin fighters and ISIS remnants, attacked the governorate. Thousands more were displaced, women and children abused, and services collapsed. Amid this, Barrack urged President Ahmad Sharaa to be “quickly inclusive,” warning him not to “lose the energy of the universe that was behind him.” A headline-friendly soundbite, it was no substitute for guarantees to restrain militias and protect civilians.
A Reuters investigation found Syrian authorities interpreted Barrack’s rejection of federalism and silence on troop movements as a US “green light” to storm Sweida. When Damascus moved in, Israel struck Syrian military sites in defense of the Druze, escalating tensions. Barrack’s desire to look like a peacemaker had fanned the flames of conflict.
This was not an isolated misstep. In Lebanon, Barrack negotiated a phased plan for Hezbollah’s disarmament with Beirut but failed to consult Israel. The Lebanese cabinet endorsed the plan expecting Israeli restraint, but the same day Israel struck a Hezbollah operative, unaware of promises made on its behalf. The disarmament process collapsed, exposing Barrack’s lack of coordination and undermining US credibility.
To contain the fallout, Washington dispatched Barrack and Deputy Middle East Envoy Morgan Ortagus to Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered cautious support, pledging to reward Lebanese steps toward disarmament. But his limited statement fell short of Barrack’s sweeping promises, enabling Hezbollah’s ally, Speaker Nabih Berri, to accuse the US of duplicity. Rather than ease tensions, Barrack’s efforts deepened mistrust.
Ruling out alternative solutions isn’t pragmatism, it’s denial
Even more troubling is Barrack’s dismissal of federalist or decentralized solutions in Syria. By insisting only centralized sovereignty can bring stability, he ignores societies fractured by war and sectarianism. For the Druze and other minorities, autonomy may be the only safeguard. Sweeping such options off the table is not pragmatism; it is denial. Durable diplomacy requires patience, accountability, and grappling with uncomfortable truths, not praise for regimes’ “energy” or slogans about unity.
Barrack brings access, urgency, and optimism to a complex region.
Barrack’s record extends further. When Damascus demanded Kurdish militias surrender arms, he aligned with the regime instead of negotiating, even threatening to withdraw US troops who had been key partners in the fight against ISIS. That risked alienating one of the few functional allies on the ground.
In Turkey, where he serves as ambassador, Barrack has lavished praise on Ankara and romanticized the Ottoman Empire - despite his own Christian grandfather having fled Ottoman oppression. For Syrians and Lebanese, former Ottoman subjects who broke away in 1918, such rhetoric reopens colonial wounds. His insensitivity to these grievances has strained relations with local populations, who see his comments as dismissive of their struggles.
The pattern is clear: Barrack equates fast agreements with progress. But rushing to project momentum has led him to downplay atrocities, embolden regimes, and push formulas that collapse when tested against reality.
Barrack brings access, urgency, and optimism to a complex region. The problem is mistaking style for strategy. His “fast peace” delivers fragile deals, and for the Druze of Sweida, Lebanon’s fragile institutions, and US partners like the Kurds, the toll has already been significant. Real peace in Syria and Lebanon will not come from a dealmaker’s quick fix but from long, disciplined engagement rooted in local realities. Anything less risks more tragedies like Sweida, where optics triumphed over outcomes and left communities more vulnerable than before.
