Tom Barrack in Baghdad in an Official Capacity, A New American Story Stirring the Iraqi Street

On May 31, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump appointed the American ambassador to Turkey as Special Presidential Envoy for Iraq and Syria, in addition to his post in Ankara. The Lebanese-American businessman Thomas Barrack, commonly known as Tom Barrack, is one of the wealthiest figures in the United States and among President Trump’s closest friends. He also has long-standing ties to the Middle East, having worked in Saudi Arabia for years and maintained relationships with several Gulf states.

Why Barrack?

Barrack is not merely another envoy to Syria or Iraq. Rather, he appears to represent a different theory of how the region should be organized, how conflicts should be managed, how relationships should be built, and how demands should be imposed.

Barrack’s rise reflects a shift in regional policy under Trump—from focusing on smaller or less capable actors to concentrating on strong central states and influential decision-makers, engaging with them directly, as he stated in a post on X. At the same time, Barrack has effectively established a policy of “disregarding less influential, less wealthy, and less central actors.” The Trump policy that Barrack is implementing places great emphasis on close cooperation with Ahmed al-Sharaa’s government in Syria and the new Iraqi government led by businessman Ali al-Zaidi, while largely overlooking smaller political actors.

It is impossible to discuss Tom Barrack without addressing the situation he personally helped shape regarding the Kurds. Barrack sidelined Syria’s Kurds when he declared that the role of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) had ended with the defeat of the Islamic State (ISIS) in January of this year, bringing into question a partnership that had lasted for years. His predecessor, Joel Rayburn, had focused on maintaining cooperation with the SDF despite strong Turkish opposition, whereas Barrack shifted his attention toward strengthening the central government in Damascus.

As in Syria, the American envoy appears to be pursuing a similar path in Iraq, particularly regarding Iran-aligned armed factions and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

In recent months, Washington has urged Iraq to disarm factions close to Iran that carried out military operations in support of Tehran during the recent war. Most of their members fall under the umbrella of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). The United States has also linked continued American support to excluding these factions and their political wings from the new government.

Regarding the Kurds in Iraq, Barrack made critical remarks suggesting that the Kurdistan Region does not wish to be part of a federal Iraq, alluding to aspirations for independence and arguing that the region has consistently created obstacles for the central government in Baghdad rather than cooperating with it.

Recreating the Syrian Model in Iraq

Much like in Syria, Barrack appears to be following the same path in Iraq, albeit with different tools. While he advocates integrating the Syrian Democratic Forces into Syrian state institutions and rejects any form of autonomy or federalism, his approach to Iraq seems to stem from a similar idea: strengthening the authority of the central state while reducing the influence of armed or political actors that possess sources of power independent of Baghdad. From this perspective, both the issue of Iran-backed armed factions and the relationship between the federal government and the Kurdistan Region become part of a broader vision aimed at re-establishing central state authority.

Barrack’s recent statements are consistent with this approach. Commenting on the decision by armed factions to hand their weapons over to the Iraqi state, he described the move as the “cornerstone” of renewed Iraqi sovereignty and lasting stability. He presented it not merely as a security measure but as the beginning of a broader process of rebuilding the Iraqi state itself.

This position reveals a vision that prioritizes the state’s monopoly on arms and the strengthening of central institutions as the primary pathway to stability and to reducing the influence of Iran-linked armed groups.

The key question may not be whether Barrack supports or opposes the Kurds. Rather, it may be whether the vision he carries for the region leaves sufficient room for the continuation of the autonomous and federal models that emerged over the past two decades.

His comments regarding federalism and the relationship between Erbil and Baghdad have generated considerable debate. In one interview, Barrack argued that centralization, decentralization, and federalism are all “illusions” created by governments. He also suggested that the Kurdistan Region does not appear willing to be part of a federal Iraq as envisioned by the constitution. Although these statements do not necessarily indicate direct opposition to the Kurdistan Region’s existence or a call to reduce its powers, they do reflect a political outlook that prioritizes strong central states over decentralized governance arrangements or political projects built upon substantial autonomy.

Barrack’s remarks suggest that he views the relationship between Erbil and Baghdad through a lens in which the Kurdistan Region has not been a sufficiently cooperative partner with the federal government, and that Kurdish aspirations for independence have remained an obstacle to building a more centralized Iraqi state.

From this perspective, the real question is not whether Barrack is pro- or anti-Kurdish, but whether the regional vision he promotes leaves enough space for the survival of the autonomous and federal systems that have developed over the past twenty years.

While Washington today sees strengthening Baghdad as a means of limiting Iranian influence, it remains unclear how this can be achieved without reopening longstanding questions about the balance between central authority and the powers of the Kurdistan Region.

A Single Package

Another crucial point is that Barrack views the Middle East as a single package that should be managed collectively, regardless of the different states or groups involved. This is reflected in his dual responsibilities: overseeing the U.S. Embassy in Turkey while simultaneously serving as Special Presidential Envoy to Syria and Iraq. Through these roles, he seeks to counter Iranian dominance and regional interference through a unified strategy.

Barrack sees the Middle East as “a collection of tribes and villages that were artificially divided into nation-states after the Sykes-Picot Agreement” of 1916, and believes that managing such diversity requires a strong central authority.

This perspective is also evident in the way he views the region itself. In one statement, Barrack described the Middle East as “nothing more than a collection of tribes and villages artificially divided into nation-states after the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.” This reductionist view closely resembles a traditional Orientalist reading of the region, one that tends to explain political conflicts through tribal and ethnic divisions rather than through the development of state institutions and modern national movements.

From this standpoint, Barrack’s repeated preference for strong central authorities can be understood as a belief that they are the only effective means of managing diversity and preventing state fragmentation. His skepticism toward federalism and self-rule stems from this same line of thinking.

Tom Barrack’s views—interesting as they are, and coupled with his highly practical and outspoken personality—may lead to rapid new developments in the Middle East. Some may even describe him as a new Lawrence of Arabia. His Orientalist outlook suggests that he finds it easier to deal with kings, princes, or powerful rulers than with independent, diverse, and pluralistic social groups.

Ultimately, Barrack is just another American official responsible for the Iraq file. Yet this time he differs from his predecessors through the bluntness of his language, his criticism of ideas that the United States itself spent decades promoting to the peoples of the region, and the fact that he operates under a president who is equally unconventional. After all, Donald Trump—a leader who criticizes wars while also launching them, and who often makes contradictory statements—is difficult to compare with any of his predecessors.