Connect with us

Middle East

US Ambassador Barrack outlines Trump’s new approach to Syria, US-Türkiye ties

Published

on

Tom Barrack, the US Ambassador to Ankara and Special Representative for Syria, gave an interview to NTV channel after assuming his post.

In the interview broadcast yesterday, Barrack made critical assessments regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, the situation in Gaza, Syrian policy, and Türkiye-US relations.

The Ambassador stated that President Donald Trump’s patience, particularly concerning the Russia-Ukraine issue, has reached its limit and that Türkiye could assume a central role in the resolution process.

‘Türkiye plays a key role’

Referring to the peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, Barrack highlighted Türkiye’s significance in this process.

Barrack said, “Yes, I believe Türkiye plays a key role. All these senseless wars are a disaster for all of us. Türkiye has traditional cooperation with both Russia and Ukraine. This enables you to establish a crucial dialogue.”

Noting that President Trump’s efforts to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin have not yet yielded the desired outcome, the Ambassador addressed reports that the Russian leader, in response to Türkiye’s proposal for a quadrilateral meeting, wished to meet directly with Trump instead of Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Barrack stated, “Of course, I cannot speak on behalf of President Trump. However, it certainly needs to be a meaningful meeting where the decisions made are effective and come with security guarantees. Türkiye can assist in narrowing down a few issues necessary to formulate a sensible solution for all relevant parties.”

Ambassador Barrack continued: “President Trump’s patience has now run out; you cannot say he is a very patient person. With Türkiye intervening at this point and eliminating operational problems, a summit-level meeting between leaders could occur. And I believe we can resolve this issue for everyone.”

‘Our Syria policy will not resemble the policy of the last 100 years’

Barrack also provided important insights into the US’s future strategy in Syria, emphasizing that the current policy will change.

Barrack said, “Of course, what I can assure you is this: our Syria policy today will not resemble the Syria policy of the last 100 years, because none of those approaches worked.”

In response to whether the US would withdraw from Syria, he referred to President Trump’s previous statements, indicating that the number of US military bases would be reduced.

Barrack added, “Certainly, the reduction of our military bases is also significant. The number will eventually decrease from 8 bases to 1.”

When the interviewer, Kilislioğlu, reminded him that US support for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) was justified by the fight against ISIS and asked, “When do you think the US will say, ‘Okay, we don’t need the YPG’?” Barrack responded, “I don’t believe the outcome you are referring to is the anticipated one. Because the SDF is an ally. The support provided to the SDF is support given to an ally. This is a very important factor for our Congress. Guiding them towards integration into a new Syrian government is exceptionally crucial. Everyone needs to maintain reasonable expectations.”

The Ambassador mentioned that President Trump, together with President Erdoğan, said he would “give the new regime a chance,” an outcome nobody had predicted.

Türkiye-Israel tension in Syria and regional dynamics

Addressing the Türkiye-Israel tension in Syria, Barrack recalled that Türkiye was among the first nations to recognize Israel, stressing that the issue is not a religious conflict.

Stating that the Golan Heights issue pertains to water and security, Barrack said, “Therefore, the dialogue between Türkiye and Israel coincides with the dialogue between the YPG and Türkiye, and Türkiye is a very critical, key element here. It is a key element that will persuade the rest of the regional powers that Israel does not seek territorial expansion and is not attempting to seize Syria. Moreover, Türkiye has no designs on Syrian territory.”

Barrack suggested that a new commercial sphere could emerge in the region, fostering cooperation among Turkish companies, Gulf capital, and Israeli innovation.

“I believe all these borders trace back to Sykes-Picot, to the San Remo Agreement, to all the failed demarcations. It is simply time for reassignment and to reach an agreement,” Barrack stated, adding that the situation in Lebanon would likely follow a similar trajectory, requiring Hezbollah and Hamas to take a subordinate role. He characterized Iran as “a completely different question.”

Noting Türkiye’s location in a challenging geopolitical area, Barrack said, “We live in a very difficult region, a very challenging zip code, but Türkiye is coping incredibly well. However, the future lies in regional respectability, meaning not just as a NATO ally.” He also criticized Türkiye’s non-acceptance into the European Union as “utterly ridiculous.”

‘There is a senseless massacre in Gaza’

Ambassador Barrack, also responding to questions about the situation in Gaza, described the events as a “senseless massacre.”

Barrack stated, “Of course, I cannot speak on behalf of the administration, but I believe I can speak on behalf of the American people. There is a senseless massacre in Gaza, and this is horrifying for everyone.”

While condemning Hamas’s actions, he asserted that Palestinians should not be equated with Hamas.

Explaining that the solution to the problem is complex and that individuals like Steve Witkoff are working with President Trump towards a resolution, Barrack said, “I believe the President’s intention is to resolve all these issues in the very near future. We can refer to this as a two-state solution or a permanent solution.”

Barrack summarized the Trump administration’s foreign policy philosophy with President Trump’s words: “He says, ‘Do not trust us for long if you do not want to end senseless deaths everywhere, because America will no longer be globalist, it is not in neocon thinking; we want peace, prosperity, and understanding.’”

A new era in US-Türkiye relations?

Referring to relations between Türkiye and the US, Barrack highlighted the complexity of the S-400 issue. He explained that Türkiye shot down a Russian jet in 2015, experienced a coup attempt in 2016, and required air defense systems. Barrack noted that Türkiye turned to Russia due to difficulties in acquiring Patriot missiles at that time. Barrack said, “This, naturally, caused confusion for everyone. Because while NATO is intended to protect against Russia, Türkiye never used the S-400s, not even taking them out of the box.”

Emphasizing that Türkiye has developed its own air defense industry and the importance of TB2 drones and the Kaan jet, Barrack stated, “The relationship this President wants to establish with Türkiye, with your President, is a different kind of relationship—not strategic, not event-oriented, not transactional. It elevates it to a different level where America is not dictating defense directives to Europe; it is a completely different echelon.”

He indicated that Trump views Türkiye as being in a position where it can be most effective within a geography that has become the most influential region globally.

Middle East

UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon

Published

on

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.

According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.

The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.

The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.

In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.

At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.

The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.

Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion

The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.

Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.

At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.

The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.

In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.

In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.

In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.

The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.

The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.

As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.

For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.

In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.

The report listed several additional limitations:

Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.

Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.

No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.

Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.

Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.

No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.

Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).

UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.

Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US

Published

on

Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.

Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.

The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.

US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.

According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.

US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal

According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.

US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.

The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.

Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.

Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement

An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.

During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.

Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.

In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”

Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.

In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.

Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.

Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed

Published

on

The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.

Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.

The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.

The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.

After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.

In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.

Negotiations to continue in Switzerland

According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.

A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.

According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.

The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.

In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey