U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack is forcefully defending his recent remarks on the Middle East, refusing to back down to critics and arguing that his works have been mischaracterized by the fake news media.
In exclusive written responses to Fox News Digital, Barrack outlined a foreign policy approach rooted in realism and aligned with President Donald Trump’s doctrine of “peace through strength.” Barrack rejected accusations that he equated Israel with Hezbollah or softened U.S. opposition to the Iran-backed militant group. Instead, he described his comments as a candid assessment of conditions on the ground.
“When I described the Israel–Hezbollah ceasefire as a ‘time out’ and said that ‘everybody has been equally untrustworthy,’ I was simply stating the obvious reality on the ground,” Barrack said. “This is realism, not criticism of any side.”
Barrack emphasized that his remarks do not alter longstanding U.S. policy. “This characterization in no way softens our ironclad position: Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of Americans and countless acts of destabilization,” he stated. “We have never trusted them.”
The ambassador framed his approach as consistent with the administration’s broader strategy. “Durable peace requires confronting that mistrust head-on, not pretending it does not exist,” he said, adding that current efforts combine “maximum pressure plus smart diplomacy” to weaken Hezbollah while strengthening Lebanese sovereignty.
Addressing criticism over his comment that the goal is “not killing Hezbollah,” Barrack argued that military force alone cannot resolve deeply rooted conflicts. “After decades in the region, you cannot eliminate an embedded militia solely by kinetic means when a sovereign state like Iran continues to arm and fund it,” he said. “Pure ‘mowing the lawn’ has never worked.”
He added that the objective is to “degrade Hezbollah’s terrorist infrastructure to the point where diplomacy and a sovereign Lebanese government can take over,” while continuing to back Israel’s right to self-defense.
Barrack also drew attention for calling the dispute over Turkey’s removal from the F-35 program “insane,” but defended that characterization as a push for strategic clarity. “It highlights exactly why the administration is right to pursue a resolution: NATO unity against Russia and China is a core U.S. national security interest,” he said.
Turkey was removed from the program after purchasing Russia’s S-400 system, raising concerns about intelligence risks. Barrack insisted any resolution would meet strict legal requirements.
“That means verifiable cessation of possession and operability of the Russian S-400 system… There will be no shortcuts on American security standards,” he said, while signaling that “real breakthroughs are imminent.”
Beyond immediate policy disputes, Barrack underscored a broader philosophy guiding U.S. engagement in the region. Reflecting on his controversial statement that “powerful leadership regimes” have been the most successful in the Middle East, he clarified that the comment was observational, not ideological.
“When I said that ‘powerful leadership regimes… are the only structures that have actually worked in the Middle East,’ I was speaking from decades of hard-earned observation, not ideology,” he explained, noting that rapid attempts to impose Western-style democracy have often led to instability.
Barrack ultimately framed his positions as a direct extension of President Trump’s foreign policy vision. “We believe in peace through strength, candid assessment of realities and delivering results that protect U.S. interests without dragging America into endless conflicts,” he said.
In that sense, Barrack’s defense of his record reflects a broader argument: that effective leadership in a volatile region requires both hard power and pragmatic diplomacy—an approach he argues is already producing results as the Trump foreign policy doctrine comes into view.
