"He will continue to fulfill his duties" Trump says of Washington's current ambassador to Ankara. He will also be a special representative for Syria and Iraq. Secretary of State Rubio adds that "Barack is an indispensable member of President Trump's team and is one of the people who best understands Washington's "America First" program. And it was for "imposing global hegemony".
Rubio's assessment is eloquent - "he played an invaluable role as our representative for Syria and his experience, connections and understanding of the "America First" program will continue to benefit our great country".
For Washington, Tom Barrack is an indispensable expert who enjoys the full trust of the White House and is a central figure in regional politics, but in Ankara there are angry reactions and indignation. Because of the arrogant remarks of Ambassador Barrack during the Diplomatic Forum in Antalya, when he emphasized "the constitutional monarchy of Turkey and Eastern civilizations". Moreover, in Syria he is counted on for "strategic cooperation with the Syrian government, as well as our work with the new government in Iraq". Chosen, by the way, under pressure from the United States.
But it is clear that Turkey's interests regarding Syria and Iraq do not always coincide with Washington's strategies. Ankara cannot swallow Ambassador Barak's use of scandalous expressions at the Diplomatic Forum in Antalya, and that with "neglecting the historical, cultural and political heritage of Turkey and Eastern civilizations by describing the region as a constitutional monarchy". "An example of diplomatic impoliteness" according to some Turkish commentators. They even claim that he spoke not as a diplomat, but as a "colonial governor".
Usually, such a tone is not used in Turkey regarding statements by Washington. But "neglecting diplomatic boundaries" is in connection with Barak's declaration of democratic conquests and republican systems in West Asia as "failures". He offered a way out through "constitutional monarchy" for the countries of the region, which is assessed as a "strategy of imposition". It is perceived as a "blatant interference in the sovereign rights of the countries of the region". Whether Ambassador Barak admires the "monarchy" or is simply an "operational lobbyist for global capital" is not clear, but the concern is there.
He comes from a family that immigrated from Lebanon to the United States in 1900 and is a lawyer by profession. He served under Reagan in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, heads a huge portfolio of a company that operates energy projects and real estate. But he is not just a businessman, but a close associate of President Trump. They say that he leads behind-the-scenes foreign policy. Defined as a figure with influence on the "gray area" between politics and business.
He has been accused of lobbying the US administration on behalf of the UAE and is a vivid example of the diplomacy of the so-called "business deals". They say that for him, foreign policy does not mean human rights or democracy, but "protection of investments and security of the regime". Quite Trumpian. But in Ankara, they believe that the statements in Antalya are a reflection of the US plan to keep the region in a state of "managed chaos".
They react mainly in the so-called independent Turkish media, but this is how it is done when it is not convenient for rulers to express dissatisfaction with the policies of a key ally. And whether Tom Barak's statements are "a continuation of colonial projects aimed at reviving feudal structures" is a question that will develop in the future. If it is a desire for "corporate states that work with one leader" in order to control themselves from the outside, this cannot but worry whoever is ruling in the region. Turkey, however, constantly reiterates that it defends its national sovereignty and works for regional unity with its neighbors.
And this with the "imposition of monarchies by operational lobbyists", as well as the "colonial thinking" can be considered as anticipating information with the aim of carefully monitoring processes and suggestions.
After the new appointment of Tom Barrack as special representative for Syria and Iraq, he stated that "it is an honor for me to serve President Trump, who has achieved what no one of his predecessors has achieved in the Middle East". The "paradigm of American foreign policy in the region" has been changed.
Ambassador Barak's positioning of Turkey, Iraq and Syria as parts of the same strategic axis is perceived in Ankara as a risk of being torn away from its European perspective and making it part of the crises in the Middle East. And Turkey was not "some country in the Middle East" analysts in Ankara believe. The use of the name Anatolia under the title Levant is perceived as an attempt to sever Ankara's ties with Europe and link it to the equations for the Middle East. A broader regional order centered around Israel was being prepared.
Rumors indicate that such a policy relies on linking material and political support for Erdogan and adherence to the Abraham Accords. As for other Arab countries. This certainly does not suit Turkey. The construction of a Turkey-Syria-Iraq axis only through President Erdogan meets with the undisguised disapproval of serious commentators in Ankara. Questions are being asked whether Turkey's foreign policy will be conducted within this Middle East-centric framework outlined by Trump and Barack. Would Tom Barack dictate Turkey's direction? Because he defined Anatolia as the Levant?
And it is precisely in this direction that comments are growing in Ankara about the trap Trump has fallen into - caught between the hawks and the negotiations with Iran. He has found himself under pressure from local and foreign hawks and his characteristic political pragmatism. From signals of a return to war and information that a new deal with Tehran is being formed, one comes to the conclusion that the maximalist attitudes of the hawks in foreign policy in Washington are influencing Trump. Senators like Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton, together with media outlets like Fox News and WSJ, are influencing the shaping of American foreign policy. Let's not forget Netanyahu with his influence on Congress. They are afraid that Trump will not make concessions to Iran. That he will not make a "controlled reduction in tension". To this end, Netanyahu is increasing attacks in Lebanon.
This is preventing a deal with Iran, which has a ceasefire condition only if the attacks in Beirut stop with the excuse that Hezbollah is being attacked. Even if Trump calls him a "fucking crazy" and a "fucking lunatic", Netanyahu clearly has his own leverage. He is not deterred by the statement that "everyone hates you". Completed with "if it weren't for me, you'd be in jail". But after 3 months of campaigning in Iran, it seems that the realities of asymmetric warfare are finally penetrating the Pentagon's thinking.
Trump has never been in a situation like this. In business, if Trump can't make a deal, he declares bankruptcy /6 times!/ and leaves. But declaring bankruptcy in war is not an option. If you don't make a deal in such a situation, then you lose. The question is whether Trump is now the one without cards, as he said some time ago about Zelensky. In practice, Iran "holds an insurmountable escalation dominance". It is causing enormous damage to the global economy compared to the pain that the US military can cause Tehran. But Trump cannot simply leave. Because Iran will retain control of Hormuz, and this cannot but destroy Trump's legacy. Are there any levers of influence? If not, concessions will have to be made in the negotiations.
For Turkey and Foreign Minister Fidan, it remains to play their cards in the Middle East and find a place after the countries that are laying out the cards. The Ankara-Damascus-Baghdad axis is a topic for another period and after the end of the war with Iran. In Turkey, they will insist that they are not a random country and that there is no way to establish a new order in the Middle East without Ankara. We will watch.