Tom Barrack: in search of a hegemon
Tom Barrack has been a trusted friend of President Donald Trump’s for decades. He has had a long career with years of experience in the Gulf, both as an attorney and an investor. He has Lebanese roots and an extensive network in the region. Because of these credentials, Trump has placed much faith in him and given him numerous important tasks. He is involved with Lebanon, Israel, and is the special envoy for Syria and the American ambassador to Türkiye. Therefore, it is important to know where he stands and what his views are for the region. Several interviews he has given this year can give a better understanding.
The Doha Forum
Qatar’s annual event took place earlier this month. Much of the sessions focused on Gaza, ranging from the issues concerning humanitarian aid to the second phase of Trump’s plan. In addition, other sessions focused on Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. However, the word “forum” is misleading. If we are talking about a forum in the classic Roman sense, then that would have meant challenging debates, people criticizing each other’s viewpoints. An intellectual match. Not much of that happened. The guest list seemed to suit Qatari needs, mostly. For instance, Qatar was repeatedly thanked by all of its guests and some even ventured into nauseating praise – hint, his name starts with Tucker. Also, several well-respected journalists succeeded in lowering their credibility. As an example, I would like to mention Patrick Wintour, the diplomatic editor for The Guardian, who had a one-on-one conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. The latter called his own country a “rose garden” in a volatile region. This alone would have invited a critical response. Does Ekrem Imamoglu believe his country is a rose garden, sitting in a prison cell? Do Turkish journalists who have fled their country for fear of being persecuted by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Ministry of Justice consider their country to be a rose garden? I would think that their opinion would be a little different. But Wintour did not address any of these issues. Instead his line of questioning could be summed up with one word: deferential. Wintour did not, however, mince words when talking about Israel. Indeed, he spoke of Israel’s presence in the buffer zone, while failing to address the continuing Turkish military presence in Syria’s north. And when Fidan left, he smiled and told him that he would allow him to return to his rose garden. In other words, Wintour had sunk to Tucker Carlson’s level.
While there was some debate, most sessions were attended by like-minded officials who continuously complimented each other – “you make an excellent point,” “I second that completely,” and “I agree with my esteemed colleague” were heard over and over again.
Tom Barrack made an appearance as well. He comes across as a man with a keen understanding of the region, but he made a comment about Israel that was surprising and eagerly repeated by various outlets. He stated that Israel claims to be a democracy. That begs the question: what does Barrack think about Israel, the region, and the United States’ role in it?
Is Barrack anti-Israel?
This comment alone would seem to indicate that Barrack is anti-Israel. Yet, based on several comments he has made during this year, I would argue that it is more complicated than that.
In several interviews with The National and Anadolu Agency, as well as his appearances at the Manama Dialogue, Doha Summit, and Concordia Summit, Israel was discussed. Based on these interviews it does not seem that Barrack hates Israel. He stated that he does not agree with everything Israel does, but he respects the country and its concerns. He has stressed that October 7th changed everything for Israel and that its security doctrine has changed, accordingly. He believes that Saudi Arabia will move closer to normalization with Israel, after the war in Gaza is concluded. In addition, he stated that he did not believe in the Greater Israel conspiracy and that the Jewish state was a valuable partner for the United States.
But his views on Israel are more complicated. At the Doha Forum he called Israel “confusing.” Israel is a democracy, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has not been resolved, despite several attempts in the past, leading to a complex situation based on the Oslo Accords. Recently, Donald Trump rejected the application of Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank but if Barrack sees the territory as part of Israel, then it explains why he would argue that Israel “claims” to be a democracy.
However, there are other issues with some of Barrack’s statements. In an interview with The National recently, Barrack stated that Hezbollah was gaining legitimacy, because Israel was attacking Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. While the situation in Syria is different, Hamas attacked from Gaza first; the Houthis decided to get involved of their own volition; and Hezbollah came to Hamas’ aid, as early as October 8, 2023. Presenting the situation this way might please many people in the region because it aligns with their narrative, but it is misleading.
And, despite stating that Israel was valuable, Barrack once argued that future demographics could cause the United States to shift its position, by stating that the United States would not keep antagonizing billions of Muslims, in favor of the Jewish state. This shows that Barrack is someone who has an interest in Realpolitik. His comments about Lebanon will prove this, too.
Lebanon: frustration and more frustration
His views on Lebanon are actually quite harsh. While Barrack has stated his admiration for Lebanese history and civilization, has complimented the Lebanese government for being led by “good people,” and consistently expressed his support for the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), he has not shied away from criticizing them. He called Lebanon a failed state, criticized the political system created by the French Mandate as ineffective, has scolded the Lebanese government for failing to follow up on its promise of disarming Hezbollah – he agreed that intelligence showed that Hezbollah is rebuilding – and stated that the Lebanese are great at talking, but not acting. Moreover, he warned Lebanon about the future. He stated that if the Lebanese government would not disarm Hezbollah, Israel would do it for them. Also, building on the premise that Lebanon is a failed state, he once suggested that Syria might annex the country. There are, of course, several factors that explain the reluctance of Beirut to act. One, LAF soldiers are paid much less than those employed by Hezbollah; two, Iran continues to supply Hezbollah with funds and their strongholds are more prosperous than other parts of Lebanon; three, the trauma of Lebanon’s devastating civil war; four, Hezbollah works for Iran, not Lebanon; five, rampant corruption in Lebanon. But it shows that Barrack simply argues that Lebanon is on its own, if it does not act. It is a cornerstone of this US administration’s foreign policy.
A glimpse into US foreign policy
Once, Barrack stated that he does not trust anyone in the Middle East. In fact, the United States has no allies, not even Israel. For Barrack, the United States seeks partners in the region, who have interests that align with theirs. So, Iran is an enemy, which creates a bond with Israel and the Gulf states. But this statement makes sense from the “America First” perspective.
Barrack has articulated US foreign policy repeatedly. He has invoked the problems created by European colonial mandates and the failing regime changes enforced by the US; he has warned that the United States would not deploy the American military to fight local wars – that is perfectly understandable, considering the collective memory of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – and he wants to expand normalization between Israel and countries in the region. However, the US will encourage local input, practice non-intervention, and slowly retreat from the region.
After the ceasefire was concluded, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hosted Trump in the Knesset and shouted enthusiastically that “America was back.” Perhaps I am grossly mistaken, but I did not believe it then and I do not believe it now. Interestingly, Trump did not confirm Netanyahu’s statement in his own speech, because it does not fit within his worldview. Trump wishes to reduce American involvement, not increase it. He is willing to supply Israel with the tools it needs to defend itself and he will confront common enemies, such as Iran. But his main focus is on China. The Middle East is not a priority, which is why the US is looking for a way out, as it seems to be searching for a successor. And that brings me to something very troubling for Israel.
Benevolent monarchies and strong leadership
When Thomas Hobbes wrote about the benefits of an absolute sovereign in Leviathan, he was heavily influenced by the devastating civil wars in England. In my opinion, Barrack’s views are rather similar to his.
Repeatedly, Barrack has spoken about the West’s continued failures in the Middle East. The one success story, in his mind, is “benevolent” monarchies, which he already mentioned at the Manama Dialogue. When he speaks of these, he refers to the Gulf states: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Their political systems are internal affairs and if monarchies are supported by their peoples, then they derive their legitimacy from that. The Gulf states certainly are stable, however, Barrack seems to ignore the many failed monarchies in the Middle East: Libya, Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen. There were different factors that led to the failures of all of these examples, but the point is that monarchies do not guarantee success. Also, his concept comes ironically close to the European nineteenth century concept of “enlightened despotism.” In other words, benevolent monarchies – no monarchy would claim to be malevolent – are not the only thing that has worked in the region. Israel, with a democracy that can be criticized just as any other, has provided an alternative.
But in a region where violence is so common, Barrack is looking for a strongman who can bring order and stability. I can accept that he wishes to believe that to be the solution. However, he seems to be interested in having one country take over the United States’ role as hegemon and that is a serious cause for concern: Türkiye.
Türkiye should not replace the US
Barrack often speaks with a sense of nostalgia about the Ottoman Empire. If you listen closely, he believes the tragedy of the Middle East started, when that empire fell. Instead of efficiency, chaos; instead of order, Western meddling that led to disaster. Yet, he fails to notice that the decline of the Ottoman Empire had already started in the nineteenth century, exemplified by Greece fully regaining its independence in 1832.
But an interview with Anadolu Agency showed Barrack’s fond appreciation for Ottoman history. He spoke of Izmir as an example of coexistence, referring to the fact that Jews, Christians, and Muslims live in peace together. There is one issue with this assessment: out of Izmir’s population of 3.1 million people, less than 2,000 are Jews. Moreover, how does he think people in Israel, the Netherlands or the United States coexist? In those countries, you will find diverse communities living side by side, too. It is not exceptional in the case of Türkiye. But more importantly, he argued that Israel needed to be “redefined.”
Israel is a regional power, in a military and economic sense. But, as Barrack stated, there are no government designs for Greater Israel. Türkiye, according to Barrack, is an important power, that has not been given the legitimacy and relevance it deserves. He is correct, historically, as the Ottoman Empire and its successor Türkiye are important players in the region. But, here are my issues with his love for Ottoman nostalgia and the idea of Türkiye serving as a stabilizing force in the region and counterweight to Iran.
In Israel there is no discussion of considering Türkiye an existential threat; no claims on Ankara or Istanbul. But in Türkiye these threats have been issued about Israel and they go back years. On numerous occasions Erdoğan himself has claimed that Jerusalem belongs to Türkiye; in 2020, he claimed that Turkish conquest was guided by spreading the justice of Allah; in November 2023, he predicted Israel’s death; he claimed that Israel has designs on Türkiye, while he has entered neighboring countries; after the Nagorno-Karabakh War, he boasted that Türkiye would do the same to Israel one day; and he hosts and supports Hamas. In my opinion, Erdoğan senses that the United States has grown tired of the Middle East and is trying to present himself as the one who will take over its role. But no one in the region has asked for this hegemon and Erdoğan has openly threatened and tried to isolate Israel, ever since October 7, 2023. Indeed, the Moshe Dayan Center’s Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak, an expert on Türkiye, recently warned that Turkish rhetoric was bringing Ankara into ideological confrontation with Israel.
Barrack might disregard this and consider it empty rhetoric, as he hopes to find a hegemon to take over from the United States. The ambassador has repeatedly mentioned Western failures in shaping the region, but if he lobbies for Turkish troops on Israel’s border and supports the sale of F-35s, then he is again trying to reshape the Middle East. The United States does not share a border with Erdoğan’s Türkiye. But Israel, which finds itself in close proximity to Ankara, cannot afford to disregard Türkiye’s hostile rhetoric and open threats.
Barrack might consider Türkiye the key to stability in the region. But being sympathetic to Türkiye’s desire for more influence in the region, does not mean that he has to be its advocate. Moreover, Erdoğan’s hegemonic aspirations and threatening rhetoric towards Israel express a desire for stability in the Middle East on Ankara’s terms. Therefore, Türkiye should not be America’s successor. While Türkiye is an important part of the region, the latter’s future should not be decided by the former.
