{"id":14453,"date":"2026-05-02T09:00:22","date_gmt":"2026-05-02T07:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/?p=14453"},"modified":"2026-05-02T09:13:26","modified_gmt":"2026-05-02T07:13:26","slug":"syria-in-the-time-of-tom-barrack-a-market-without-politics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/syria-in-the-time-of-tom-barrack-a-market-without-politics\/","title":{"rendered":"Syria in the Time of Tom Barrack: A ‘Market’ Without Politics"},"content":{"rendered":"

The US envoy to Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, and ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, has become a notable phenomenon in American politics. A man who was running a production company in Hollywood just a few years ago now has a wide platform to speak at major political forums and media interviews, presenting himself as someone with a vision for the Middle East, perhaps comparing himself to the British politician Mark Sykes, who managed British policy in the Middle East in a largely personal manner and succeeded in transforming his personal impressions into a political program at the British Foreign Office.<\/p>\n

Tom Barrack, with his limited political culture and historical knowledge, unlike Mark Sykes, periodically becomes a media trend due to opinions that seem deviant from the norms of American politics and its traditional determinants. He speaks of peoples, states, parties, and political systems as if he holds a personal mandate to redefine the region. A previous reading by the Kurdish Center for Studies suggested that the source and root of everything he says about the Middle East is his hatred for the Middle East as a history and as societies, leaving nothing but to turn it into a market.<\/p>\n

The irony is that US President Donald Trump gave him this platform. Because of this direct connection, Barrack’s narrow intellectual boundaries sometimes appear as an executive tool of the American political establishment. However, the criticisms directed at him in recent days, especially in prominent American newspapers, reveal the opposite: Barrack appears, in the view of his critics, as a “person” rather than a representative of an American institution committed to the diplomatic traditions of the world’s greatest power.<\/p>\n

Who protects Tom Barrack? Does the American establishment protect him because he expresses a genuine shift in Washington’s policy? Or does his proximity to Trump protect him, because the Trump administration itself has come to prefer managing the Middle East with a deal-making logic?<\/p>\n

Three recent American media pieces clearly reveal this shift: The Wall Street Journal’s editorial on Tom Barrack, the Fox News report that gave him space to defend himself, and The New York Times investigation into the Khayyat family and Trump’s name in Syria. Despite the different subjects of each piece, they converge on one thread: Syria, in the eyes of the Trump administration, is no longer a political issue; i.e., a matter of political transition, justice, accountability, a constitution, institutions, and guarantees for political participation for all nationalities and sects in governance. Syria has become closer to an open market: a market for contracts, influence, reconstruction, real estate investments, energy arrangements, airport deals, and business corridors. The irony is that none of these deals have positively affected Syrians, because they are deals taking place in a world where no consideration is given to any peoples or societies.<\/p>\n

The Wall Street Journal on Tom Barrack: Who are you?<\/b><\/p>\n

The Wall Street Journal editorial<\/span><\/a> was titled: “Tom Barrack Has His Own Foreign Policy for the Middle East.” The newspaper treated Barrack as an envoy who speaks as if he has his own political line, separate from established American traditions in the region. The editorial accused Barrack, during his participation in the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, of presenting positions that undermine American policy: he argued that democracy is not suitable for the Middle East, pushed for a track with Hezbollah, downplayed the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, called for involving Iran in Lebanese talks, justified Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 system, and issued a warning to Israel on behalf of Turkey.<\/p>\n

This attack from The Wall Street Journal reveals discomfort within a part of the pro-Israel American establishment towards Barrack. In the newspaper’s view, the man no longer speaks primarily as an Israeli ally, nor in the language of absolutely isolating Iran and Hezbollah, nor in the language of democracy as a declared American value.<\/p>\n

The most prominent criticism in The Wall Street Journal’s editorial is that it placed Barrack in the category of those who exceed American policy. The American diplomat, according to the newspaper’s logic, should defend Washington’s policy with the host country, not defend the host country against Washington’s policy. This phrase encapsulates the essence of the objection to him, as Barrack appears to be a spokesman for a regional vision combining Turkey’s interests, Trump’s realism, and the ambitions of businessmen. Ultimately, the editorial reveals that a segment of the American elite sees Barrack as a political problem in his own right. Had he merely supported Ahmad al-Shara in Syria and described him as a great leader, it would certainly have passed without fuss, perhaps even with celebration. But he dared to violate Israel’s constants more than before, and this reveals the most limited aspect of his political knowledge, as the man does not adopt idealistic principles to defend; therefore, he presumably has no moral problem with Israel and everything it does, but this does not answer why he attacked Israel. Did Israel, as a result, sabotage a deal in which he was a party?<\/p>\n

Fox News: The Illusion of “Political Realism”<\/b><\/p>\n

It may be an irony of history that Tom Barrack speaks of “political realism” in describing his pronouncements about the peoples of the region\u2014that they do not deserve democracy\u2014and his role in causing major disasters in Syria, including the attempted extermination of the Druze at the hands of the Damascus government forces and its supporters. Political realism, which he referred to in his defense on Fox News against The Wall Street Journal editorial, is a political approach entrenched by former Secretary of State, and one of the most influential ministers of the 20th century, Henry Kissinger, about whom the Kurdish Center for Studies previously presented a critical reading in three parts regarding his political realism towards the Kurds. Kissinger himself was influenced by one of the most important politicians in Europe over the past two centuries, Prince Klemens Metternich. Tom Barrack believes that his words belong to a political line connecting him to Kissinger and Metternich!<\/p>\n

Most telling is Barrack’s stance on democracy. He tends to say that the Middle East does not operate according to ready-made Western templates, and that “strong leadership systems” or centralist models have been more successful than imported democratic experiments. Here, his talk about Syria becomes understandable: what is required is not necessarily a democratic Syria, but a stable Syria. What is required is not a political contract, but an authority capable of signing agreements, controlling the ground, and reassuring investors.<\/p>\n

The New York Times: An Investment Scandal<\/b><\/p>\n

After The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, The New York Times<\/span><\/a> investigation comes to give this picture its explicit economic dimension. If Barrack provides the political language for this shift, the Times investigation reveals its financial structure. Syria has become a major open market for businessmen, especially those capable of moving between the Gulf, Washington, and Trump’s circle, and has effectively ended as a political issue (the Times did not mention this conclusion that Syria is politically over).<\/p>\n

The investigation dealt with the Khayyat family, a Syrian-origin family residing in Qatar, which, according to the report, obtained massive contracts in Syria, including the redevelopment of Damascus Airport, the construction of power plants, and projects related to energy, tourism, and real estate. However, these projects required a basic condition: the permanent lifting of US sanctions, so that international banks and investors would be assured that entering the Syrian market was no longer a fatal legal risk.<\/p>\n

The essence of the investigation does not rest on proving a direct bribery deal, but on something politically deeper: in the Trump era, businessmen seeking a decision from Washington can create a financial or symbolic intersection with the Trump family, making this intersection part of the engineering of influence. No explicit request is needed. It is enough for everyone to know that the name Trump opens doors, that his family is not far from the investment world, and that foreign policy is no longer separate from the surrounding network of private interests.<\/p>\n

One important element in the investigation concerns Republican congressman Brian Mast, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who was reserved about completely lifting sanctions without a mechanism to reimpose them quickly if the new Syrian authority engaged in violations against minorities. The reservation was linked to fears that lifting sanctions would cause Washington to lose an important pressure card on Damascus.<\/p>\n

Here, Trump’s name appears. According to the investigation, Mohammed Khayyat offered Joe Wilson a project to develop coastal real estate in Syria, including a port for cruise ships, a polo club, a Bugatti showroom, and a world-class golf course. In a striking moment, Wilson suggested naming the course “Trump” to attract the president’s attention. Khayyat replied that he had already planned to propose a resort bearing the Trump brand. The investigation also linked these moves to a broader partnership in Albania with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump on a massive resort project.<\/p>\n

Syria: From a Cause to a Market<\/b><\/p>\n

What unites these three examples is that they present Syria from different angles, yet all end with the same conclusion. In The Wall Street Journal, Syria appears as part of a confused American policy led by an envoy who exceeds norms. In Fox News, it appears as part of a new “realism” that prefers stability, deals, and engaging with de facto powers. In The New York Times, it appears as a vast economic opportunity crowded by businessmen, Trump family associates, and lawmakers in Washington.<\/p>\n

Hence, the question “Who protects Tom Barrack?” becomes a question about the Trump administration itself. If Barrack were merely a reckless diplomat, he would have been reined in quickly. But if he continues to speak in this manner, defends himself with this confidence, and appears at the heart of sensitive files from Syria to Lebanon and Turkey, that means the man does not operate outside the climate of Trump and his family. He may not represent the traditional American establishment, but he does represent Trump’s circle.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, Syria faces a double danger: the first danger is remaining hostage to ruin, poverty, isolation, and massacres. The second danger is emerging from this isolation as a market being re-engineered from the outside through tools including Tom Barrack. Implementing these deals may require justifying or engineering genocide massacres inside Syria to empower the party most capable of signing the deals. Herein lies the danger that reconstruction could turn from an opportunity to save Syria into a new way to confiscate, possess, and sabotage it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The US envoy to Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, and ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, has become a notable phenomenon in American politics. A man who was running a production company in Hollywood just a few years ago now has a wide platform to speak at major political forums and media interviews, presenting himself as someone […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":961,"featured_media":14454,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crdt_document":"","jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":[],"jnews_primary_category":[],"jnews_social_meta":[],"jnews_override_counter":[],"jnews_post_split":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,61],"tags":[566,40,1214,964],"ppma_author":[814],"class_list":["post-14453","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis","category-slider","tag-donald-trump","tag-syria","tag-tom-barrack","tag-united-states"],"authors":[{"term_id":814,"user_id":961,"is_guest":0,"slug":"the-kurdish-center-for-studies","display_name":"The Kurdish Center for Studies","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/315055790_1372439633161196_1832456394594784694_n.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/315055790_1372439633161196_1832456394594784694_n.jpg"},"0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14453","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/961"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14453"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14453\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14455,"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14453\/revisions\/14455"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14454"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14453"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14453"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14453"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nlka.net\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=14453"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}