United States Ambassador Tom Barrack clarified on Sunday, August 24, 2026, that Washington’s policy recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights remains unchanged, walking back comments made during an interview last week that the territory is occupied in violation of United Nations resolutions.
United States Ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria Tom Barrack walked back remarks he made during a podcast interview, reaffirming that Washington continues to back Israel’s claim over the contested territory. Ambassador Barrack told The Associated Press in a statement on Sunday that his earlier comments described the historical status of the region rather than breaking with official policy. United States policy on the Golan was set by President Trump in 2019 and is unchanged,
he said in a statement to The Associated Press on Sunday. He said he intended to explain why he does not anticipate annexation in Lebanon, where Israeli forces are occupying parts of the south after the latest Israel-Hezbollah war, and to argue that negotiated agreements, rather than territorial maps, are more durable and that he had cited the Golan as an example that territory taken by force remains contested for generations.
Ambassador Barrack Recalls Policy Origin After Mario Nawfal Interview
The controversy began on Friday during an interview with Lebanese-Australian entrepreneur Mario Nawfal. Discussing potential Israeli actions in southern Lebanon and historical land seizures, Ambassador Barrack stated that Israel still occupy the Golan against the UN resolutions, against all of the international order, which has said the Golan is Syria’s. Ambassador Barrack now says that was a description of the territory’s historical status, not an endorsement of the United Nations’ position
on the Golan.
That remark immediately drew sharp criticism from advocates of Israeli sovereignty and triggered a swift political backlash in Washington. Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott took to social media to criticize the ambassador, writing on X that the ambassador appears to have “forgotten” Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the territory. Senator Rick Scott also criticised the ambassador, saying Barrack was confirmed by the Senate to enact Trump’s agenda. It seems the Ambassador forgot that or failed to do his research, so here’s a refresher for him,
Scott wrote in a social media post that included Trump’s executive order on the Golan Heights.
Far-right commentator Laura Loomer also joined the criticism, calling on the envoy to step down for what she termed a lack of understanding regarding American foreign policy. He should resign for his lack of understanding of US foreign policy,
she wrote in a social media post, sharing Trump’s 2019 proclamation saying that the Golan belongs to Israel.
U.S. Policy and the History of the Golan Heights
Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 Mideast war and annexed the territory in 1981. For decades, the international community and the United Nations treated the territory as occupied Syrian land, with no foreign government recognizing Israel’s annexation. Until Trump backed the Israeli claim to the Syrian territory, no country had recognised the Golan as part of Israel.
That diplomatic consensus shifted in 2019 when President Trump signed a proclamation reversing decades of United States policy to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the plateau. Legal experts warned at the time that the shift could undermine core tenets of the post-World War II global order regarding the prohibition on acquiring land by force. Although the subsequent administration of Joe Biden promoted the rules-based order early in his tenure, he failed to reverse Trump’s policy on the Golan during his four-year term. Recently, Colombia’s right-wing government joined the US in backing Israel’s claim on the Golan.
Clarifying Remarks on Regional Negotiations and Strikes
In his Sunday statement, Ambassador Barrack explained that his Friday interview was intended to illustrate why negotiated agreements are more durable than territorial maps, noting his view that territory taken by force remains contested for generations. He clarified that his reference to the Golan was meant as an example of that historical friction, not as an endorsement of United Nations resolutions.
The ambassador also addressed separate comments from the same interview regarding ongoing negotiations over southern Lebanon and recent Israeli airstrikes on an airbase in northern Syria. In the Friday interview, Barrack had also criticized Israel’s strikes on an airbase in northern Syria earlier last week. Israeli officials said the strikes intended to prevent Turkey from establishing a presence at the base. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz defended the strikes, saying on X on Sunday that critics who initially called it unnecessary and politically motivated
changed their position after the government said they were based on clear intelligence
and at the recommendation of the Israeli army. He added that Israel would not allow Turkey to establish itself in Syria and threaten Israeli security.
The strikes last Tuesday have highlighted growing tensions between Israel and Turkey over Ankara’s increased influence in Syria following the fall of Bashar Assad. Turkey and Syria have denied that Turkish forces were due to be deployed at the Abu Duhur base. Barrack had also suggested that the Israeli strikes in Syria were aimed at antagonising Turkiye, which is allied with the Syrian government. One theory is they were just baiting Turkiye, and it’s a very aggressive, but maybe well-received pre-election concept,
Barrack said, referring to US midterm elections in November.
Barrack went further on the defensive on Sunday, responding to criticism of his assessment of ongoing negotiations between Israel and Lebanon over Israeli withdrawal and the disarmament of the militant group. He had said there are two people missing from that (negotiating) table – Hezbollah and Iran.
That remark prompted speculation Barrack meant Tehran and Hezbollah should join the U.S.-backed negotiations. On Sunday, Barrack stressed that the U.S. does not negotiate with Hezbollah, but said he was pointing out that the weapons in question are supplied and financed by Iran,
which complicates negotiations over their fate. I was describing the difficulty of the problem, not proposing a new table,
Barrack told the AP. Hezbollah is a designated foreign terrorist organization. We do not negotiate with it, and nothing I said suggests otherwise.
He also defended his remarks questioning who would replace Tehran’s financial support for Shiite communities in southern Lebanon, saying that raising those questions was not conferring standing on anyone.
Ещё по этой теме
