Tom Barrack and the Reproduction of Erdoğan’s Syria Policy
Such a policy approach has serious implications for minority rights, political pluralism, and long-term stability in Syria. The Kurdish-led administration in northeastern Syria has provided a relatively stable and inclusive governance model in a country otherwise fragmented by conflict.
By Shakhawan Shorsh، January 30, 2026
Turkey has consistently opposed the emergence of Kurdish self-administration throughout the Middle East, perceiving any form of Kurdish political autonomy as a direct threat to its national security and territorial integrity. This perspective has shaped both its domestic and foreign policies and has been particularly evident in Syria since the outbreak of the conflict in 2011. From the beginning of the Syrian uprising, Turkey has rejected any political recognition of Kurdish identity, autonomy, or self-rule within Syria, insisting instead on a centralized, unitary, and non-federal state structure. Ankara has also opposed the inclusion of Kurdish rights in any future Syrian constitution and has framed Kurdish political actors as illegitimate or destabilizing forces.
Central to this policy has been Turkey’s characterization of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the People’s Protection Units (YPG) as terrorist organizations affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). This framing has served as the primary justification for Turkey’s repeated military interventions in northern Syria, including the 2018 operation that led to the occupation of Afrin and surrounding areas. These operations were carried out largely through proxy Syrian Islamist militias and resulted in large-scale displacement of Kurdish civilians, demographic change, and widespread human rights violations. Although international pressure and shifting geopolitical circumstances prevented the complete dismantling of Kurdish self-administration, the strategic objective of eliminating Kurdish autonomy has remained unchanged.
In this context, the public statements and actions of the U.S. regional representative and special envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, have raised significant concern. His rhetoric closely mirrors longstanding Turkish positions, particularly in his rejection of decentralized governance models, his insistence on the disarmament of Kurdish forces, and his assertion that Kurdish self-administration has no place in Syria’s political future. This alignment risks legitimizing Ankara’s narrative while delegitimizing the Kurdish-led governance structures that have emerged in northeastern Syria.
Such a policy approach has serious implications for minority rights, political pluralism, and long-term stability in Syria. The Kurdish-led administration in northeastern Syria has provided a relatively stable and inclusive governance model in a country otherwise fragmented by conflict. It has offered protection to diverse communities, including Yazidis, Christians, and other vulnerable minorities, and has established a degree of local political participation rarely seen elsewhere in the Middle East context. The dismantling of this model in favor of centralized rule or control by armed factions would likely result in renewed displacement, sectarian violence, and systemic rights violations.
The security dimension of this issue is equally significant. The SDF served as the primary ground force in the international campaign against ISIS, sacrificing more than ten thousand fighters in the process. They continue to guard thousands of ISIS detainees at a time when many Western governments have declined to repatriate their own nationals. The stability of northeastern Syria, therefore, remains directly tied to the survival of Kurdish-led governance and security structures. Weakening or dismantling these institutions without a credible alternative would create a security vacuum that could facilitate the reemergence of extremist networks, with consequences extending well beyond Syria.
From a policy perspective, the alignment of U.S. diplomatic engagement with Turkey’s maximalist demands risks undermining American strategic interests, weakening a proven counterterrorism partner, and destabilizing one of the few relatively stable regions in Syria. A sustainable political settlement requires an inclusive approach that recognizes the political agency of minorities, protects decentralized governance where it has proven effective, and avoids subordinating local democratic structures to regional power politics. The current trajectory of U.S. mediation therefore warrants serious reassessment, as the long-term costs of marginalizing Kurdish self-administration may far outweigh the short-term diplomatic gains of appeasing regional allies.
سەرنج بنێرە