By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj

Sulaimani, Iraqi Kurdistan — Kurdish Policy Analysis

Could Tom Barrack's vision for Iraq reshape the country along Syrian lines? As Washington recalibrates its Middle East strategy, critics warn that Iraq may be facing a dangerous political crossroads with far-reaching regional consequences.

On May 31, 2026, US President Donald Trump announced the appointment of the US Ambassador to Turkey as Special Presidential Envoy to Iraq and Syria, in addition to his post in Ankara. The American businessman of Lebanese origin, Thomas Barrack, known simply as Tom Barrack, is one of the wealthiest individuals and a close friend of President Trump. He has longstanding ties to the Middle East, having worked for years in Saudi Arabia and maintaining connections with several Gulf states.

Why Barrack?

Barrack is not simply another envoy to Syria or Iraq; rather, he appears to represent a different approach to organizing the region, managing its conflicts, building relationships, and asserting demands. The rise of Tom Barrack reflects a shift in regional policy under Trump, from focusing on independent or small actors, whether in size or capability, to focusing on powerful central states and decision-making actors through direct cooperation, as he stated in his tweet on the X platform. Barrack himself established a policy of "neglecting other, less influential, wealthier, and less centralized actors." Trump's policy, implemented by Barrack, prioritizes close cooperation with the Shar'a government in Syria and the new Iraqi government led by businessman Ali al-Zaidi, while ignoring smaller political actors.

In any case, it is impossible to discuss Tom Barrack without addressing the situation he himself created regarding the Kurds. Barrack disregarded the Syrian 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, after a partnership that lasted for years. During this period, his predecessor, Joel Rayburn, focused on partnering with the SDF despite strong Turkish opposition, while Barrack concentrated on strengthening the central government in Damascus.

Similar to Syria, the US envoy appears to be pursuing a similar approach with Iraq, particularly regarding the armed factions close to Iran and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

In recent months, Washington has urged Iraq to disarm the Iranian-backed factions that carried out military operations in support of Tehran during the recent war, most of whose members are part of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). The US has also linked continued support to the exclusion of these factions and their political wings from the new government.

Regarding the Kurds in Iraq, Barak made critical statements indicating that the region does not want to be part of a federal Iraq, alluding to its aspirations for independence, and how it has consistently created obstacles for the central government in Baghdad and has not cooperated with it.

Repeating the Syrian Experience in Iraq

Similar to Syria, it appears that Barak is following the same path in Iraq, but with different tools. While he pushes for the integration of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) 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 government and reducing the influence of armed or political entities that possess sources of power independent of Baghdad. From this perspective, the issue of pro-Iranian armed factions, as well as the relationship between the federal government and the Kurdistan Region, become part of a broader vision for re-establishing the authority of the central state.

Barak’s recent statements are consistent with this approach. Commenting on the decision of armed factions to return their weapons to the Iraqi state, he described the move as the “cornerstone” of renewed Iraqi sovereignty and lasting stability. He not only welcomed the security measure but also presented it as the beginning of the process of rebuilding the Iraqi state itself.

This stance reveals a vision that prioritizes the state’s monopoly on weapons and the strengthening of central institutions as the main gateways to achieving stability and reducing the influence of armed forces linked to Iran.

The real question may not be whether Barak is for or against the Kurds, but rather whether his vision for the region will leave enough room for the continuation of the models of autonomy and federalism that have emerged over the past two decades.

Regarding the Kurdistan Region, Barak's statements on federalism and the relationship between Erbil and Baghdad have sparked considerable controversy. In one interview, he described centralization, decentralization, and federalism as "illusions" created by governments, and indicated that the Kurdistan Region does not seem willing to be part of a federal Iraq as stipulated in the constitution. While these statements do not necessarily constitute direct opposition to the region's existence or a call to curtail its powers, they do reflect a political perspective that prioritizes strong central states over decentralized governance arrangements or political projects based on a significant degree of autonomy.

Barak’s statements suggest that he views the relationship between Erbil and Baghdad from the perspective that the Kurdistan Region has not been a sufficiently cooperative partner with the federal government, and that Kurdish separatism has remained an obstacle to building a more centralized Iraqi state.

From this perspective, the question may not be whether Barak is for or against the Kurds, but rather whether his vision for the region will allow sufficient space for the continuation of the models of autonomy and federalism that have emerged over the past two decades.

While Washington currently sees strengthening Baghdad as a tool to curb Iranian influence, it remains unclear how this can be achieved without revisiting old questions about the balance between the central government’s authority and the powers of the Kurdistan Region.

One Package

Another crucial point is that Barak views the Middle East as a single, integrated package that must be dealt with collectively, regardless of the various countries or groups involved. This is evident in his appointment as head of the US embassy in Turkey and his renewed role as US Special Presidential Envoy to Syria and Iraq. Through these roles, he also seeks to undermine Iranian hegemony and manipulation in the region, all within a single, comprehensive plan.

Barak sees the Middle East as “a collection of tribes and villages artificially divided into nation-states after the Sykes-Picot Agreement” of 1916. Managing this diversity requires a strong central authority.

This vision is also reflected in Barak’s own view of the Middle East. In one of his statements, 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 is close to the traditional Orientalist reading of the region, which tends to explain political conflicts through tribal and ethnic divisions rather than focusing on the development of state institutions and modern national movements.

From this perspective, Barrack’s repeated preference for strong central authorities as the only instrument capable of managing this diversity and preventing the disintegration of states can be understood, and his skepticism of federalism/autonomy stems from this thinking.

The interesting views of Tom Barrack, whom some might call the new Lawrence of Arabia, and his highly pragmatic and outspoken personality, will lead us to rapid new developments in the Middle East, especially given his Orientalist perspective, which suggests that it is easier to deal with kings, princes, or strong rulers than with independent, diverse, and unique societal groups.

In conclusion, Barak will be just another American official in charge of the Iraqi file, but this time, he is an official who differs from his predecessors “in the intensity of his frankness,” in his criticism of proposals that his country has been marketing to the peoples of the region for decades, and in having a different president behind him, since it is impossible in any way to compare Trump, who criticizes wars and wages them, and makes statements and their opposites, with any of his predecessors.

#Iraq #Syria #TomBarrack #MiddleEast #Geopolitics #USForeignPolicy #Baghdad #Damascus #Kurdistan #Iran #RegionalSecurity #MENA #PoliticalRisk #IraqPolitics #ForeignAffairs