Aletho News

Diplomatic Scandal: Why Did the U.S. Recall Its Ambassador to Turkey?

By Alexandr Svaranc – New Eastern Outlook – August 28, 2026

The U.S. State Department has abruptly recalled its ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, who also served as the President’s Special Envoy for Syria and Iraq. This sharp personnel pivot has raised numerous questions: was this decision a consequence of pressure from the Israeli lobby?

An Unconventional Diplomat

The appointment of Tom Barrack as ambassador to Turkey on May 14, 2025, was an atypical move, even by the standards of Donald Trump’s personnel policy. Barrack is not a career diplomat, but a major real estate investor. As a close associate of Trump and a key fundraiser for his campaign, he secured the post largely due to his personal loyalty to the President.
It was assumed that his proximity to the head of the White House would serve as a “safe conduct” for Barrack in the complex Middle East region. However, it turned out that Trump’s own political unpredictability does not extend to his inner circle: in Washington, the right to be eccentric remains a privilege of the President, not his appointees.

Reason for Resignation: The “Golan Question”

Journalist Laura Loomer was the first to report the ambassador’s recall on August 25. According to her information, the reason was Barrack’s imprudent remarks, which directly contradicted the official course of the U.S. administration. In an interview, the diplomat referred to the Golan Heights as “occupied Syrian territory” and criticized Israel for its “illegal settlement activity.”

These words sounded like a political démarche, especially since Donald Trump had officially recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan back in 2019, during his first term.

Lobby Influence and Political Consequences

Barrack’s position triggered an immediate reaction not only in the White House but also among influential Republicans. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Senator Rick Scott, whose positions are closely tied to the interests of the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., made it clear that such statements were unacceptable.

Barrack’s attempts to justify himself—claiming his words were “taken out of context” and that he was merely discussing the historical aspect of the issue—had no effect. It became clear that clouds were gathering over the ambassador: his views on Middle East policy had diverged from the vector dictated by Washington’s strategic allies. Ultimately, the career of the “real estate diplomat” was sacrificed to interests that carry far more weight in American politics than personal friendship with the president.

In Tel Aviv and Washington, dissatisfaction is mounting over the stance of U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack following recent IDF airstrikes on the Abu al-Duhur airbase in Syria. Initially, Barrack labeled Israel’s actions an “unnecessary escalation” on X (formerly Twitter), and later, in an interview, accused Jerusalem of attempting to provoke a conflict with Turkey on the eve of the U.S. midterm elections. According to the diplomat, only Recep Erdoğan’s restraint prevented a full-scale war.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government viewed these remarks as support for Ankara’s ambitions. The State Department, for its part, acknowledged that Barrack’s statements only deepened Israel’s perception that the U.S. is distancing itself from countering the Turkish threat. Further irritation was caused by the ambassador’s comments regarding negotiations with Lebanon on the disarmament of Hezbollah, which involved Iranian representatives.

Such coordinated criticism of Barrack is the result of efforts by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and intelligence services, leveraging the influence of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. These methods are not new: in his book By Way of Deception, former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky described how, in 1979, Israeli intelligence orchestrated the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the UN Andrew Young due to his contacts with the PLO. At that time, with the sanction of Menachem Begin, a leak was arranged through Newsweek magazine. It is evident that for Mossad chief Roman Hoffman, removing the “inconvenient” diplomat Barrack was a matter of routine.

Consequences of the Ambassador’s Recall: A Shift in U.S.-Turkish Relations

The appointment of businessman Thomas Barrack as U.S. Ambassador to Turkey initially sparked skepticism within the State Department. A barrage of criticism from the political establishment and the expert community, culminating in the emergency recall of the diplomat “for consultations,” effectively sealed his resignation. Currently, the duties of the head of the diplomatic mission in Ankara are being temporarily performed by the U.S. Chargé d’Affaires.

The name of Barrack’s successor has not yet been announced, but experts believe that Marco Rubio will opt for a career diplomat to lower the political temperature surrounding the position. It is expected that the new ambassador will adhere to a firm pro-NATO and pro-Israel line, seeking to balance U.S.-Turkish relations while accounting for Israel’s interests.

Implementing such an agenda amid the acute crisis between Ankara and Tel Aviv appears extremely difficult. Washington will likely resort to harsh pressure on President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, despite his previous personal ties to Donald Trump.

For the Turkish leader, Barrak’s recall was a painful blow. Ankara saw the businessman as “its man” in the Trump administration, whose commercial background allowed for a flexible and pragmatic dialogue. Erdoğan had counted on Barrak’s support in establishing a safe zone in Syria. Now, Turkey is deprived of the unofficial US “umbrella” that protected it from Israeli airstrikes near its borders, and the prospects for modernizing the Turkish army and strengthening Ankara’s military with Washington’s support are becoming extremely uncertain.

The situation clearly demonstrates the risks of relying excessively on fickle American policy. Ankara should reconsider its diplomatic priorities. Playing a game of “giving in” to American “hawks”—for example, on the issue of arms supplies to the Kyiv regime—is fraught with serious consequences for relations with Russia. Such a course threatens Turkey not only with a weakening of its defense potential but also with significant economic losses. Specifically, the question arises: Who will compensate Ankara for the loss of Iran’s $7 billion gas market if the US imposes new anti-Iran sanctions? Given the West’s inconsistency, Turkey is unlikely to escalate relations with its northern neighbor for the sake of dubious foreign policy adventures.

Alexander SVARANTS, Doctor of Political Science, Professor, Turkologist, and expert on Middle Eastern countries

August 28, 2026 - Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | Israel, Syria, Turkey, United States, Zionism