In a message that raised eyebrows, U.S. Ambassador to Ankara and Special Envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, published a provocative statement on social media criticising Western imperialist policies in the Middle East. The post appeared to signal a new U.S. strategy for Syria, and was framed as a break from the past.
“A century ago,” Barrack wrote,“the West imposed artificial borders, mandates, and foreign governments. The Sykes-Picot Agreement divided Syria and the wider region for imperial gain—not for peace. That mistake cost generations. We will not repeat it.”
He added that the era of Western interventions is over, claiming that the future lies in regional diplomacy, partnerships, and mutual respect—echoing Donald Trump’s 2017 Riyadh speech, where he declared that the West would no longer dictate to the Middle East how to govern or live.
Barrack went on to say:
“The tragedy of Syria was born out of division. Its rebirth must come through dignity, unity, and investing in its people. That begins with truth, accountability, and working with locals—not ignoring the problem.”
He concluded by affirming U.S. support for “Turkey, the Gulf states, and Europe,” but emphasized that this support is “not through troops or speeches or phantom borders, but with the Syrian people themselves.” He claimed the fall of Assad’s regime “opened the door to peace,” and lifting sanctions would “allow Syrians to open that door and find a renewed path to security and prosperity.”
U.S. Imperialism, Rebranded in Diplomatic Language
That such a statement would come from a senior U.S. diplomat is telling. The United States—one of the principal architects of bloodshed and instability across the Middle East—now speaks of Western mandates and partition plans as if it played no part in them.
It is especially ironic, critics noted, for a country located 15,000 kilometres away to claim it supports local solutions while continuing to shape the fate of sovereign Arab states from afar.
The Sykes-Picot Reference: A Strategic Signal
Barrack’s reference to the Sykes-Picot Agreement was particularly striking. The so-called agreement—named after British diplomat Mark Sykes and French counterpart François Georges-Picot—was a secret wartime plan to divide Ottoman territories between imperial powers. It was never officially signed, but it shaped modern borders with little regard for ethnic or religious realities.
Its full text was first exposed by the Bolsheviks in 1917, as part of their propaganda war against the West—revealing the imperialistic ambitions behind Britain and France’s meddling in the Arab world. Notably, the plan excluded any consideration for Palestinian rights, while the infamous Balfour Declaration promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine—a decision that lit the fuse of the Middle East’s century-long conflict.
From that point on, the region was doomed to instability, as the Zionist project took root in 1948, and Israel continued to inflame regional wars in pursuit of its ideological and expansionist goals.
From Partition Plans to Present-Day Destabilisation
While Sykes-Picot was never ratified, it was implemented in spirit:
-
- Syria came under French mandate
-
- Iraq and parts of the Gulf under British rule
-
- Ottoman territories were carved up post-World War I
The resulting chaos laid the groundwork for today’s sectarian wars. Israel, established with Western blessing, only further entrenched division and conflict.
Now, as the U.S. hints at post-war reconstruction, questions arise: Is Washington preparing the ground for new borders in Syria? Is this a modern-day partition plan under a new name?
A Divided Syria, Again?
Barrack’s statement failed to emphasize Syrian territorial unity—a glaring omission. His language about “rebirth through dignity and regional cooperation” has sparked suspicions that the U.S. is paving the way for a redrawing of Syria’s borders, possibly along sectarian and ethnic lines.
The fear is not unfounded. Even President Woodrow Wilson, in his 1918 speech to Congress, hinted that Ottoman-controlled peoples should have self-rule—language that once seemed idealistic, but was later weaponised to justify fragmentation.
If Barrack’s statement is any indication, we may be witnessing the early diplomatic narrative for future partitioning.
Partition by Proxy: U.S., Israel, and the Kurds
In Iraq, talk of a three-way split—Shia, Sunni, Kurdish—has never disappeared. In Syria, potential partitions could involve Alawites, Arabs, Druze, and Kurdish groups like the PKK/PYD/YPG. Israel’s recent overtures toward Syrian Druze and Kurdish militias may well be part of this vision.
Further fueling concern, Barrack praised Syrian President Ahmad Al-Shar’a following a recent meeting in Istanbul, suggesting that lifting U.S. sanctions would serve the U.S. goal of defeating ISIS while congratulating Syria’s cooperation on issues aligned with Trump’s goals:
-
- Combatting foreign fighters
-
- Normalising ties with Israel
-
- Managing refugee camps in northern Syria
The Real Agenda: From ISIS to Abraham Accords
Perhaps most concerning is Barrack’s quiet nod toward bringing Syria into the Abraham Accords—despite the fact that Israel still occupies Syrian land.
This is no offhand suggestion. As Trump made clear in his Riyadh visit, the ultimate goal is Arab-Israeli normalisation under U.S. supervision. In every move the U.S. makes in the Middle East, Israel is either the initiator, the beneficiary, or the gatekeeper.
The truth is: no U.S. step in the region happens without Israel’s approval—and every plan, whether disguised as diplomacy or peacebuilding, must be read as part of the broader Zionist vision for control.
A Warning Behind the Smile
Any statement that sounds too soft, too optimistic, or too diplomatic from U.S. envoys must be viewed with caution—especially when it ignores justice, sovereignty, and history.
The American eagle doesn’t fly without calculating its prey—and Tom Barrack’s message, veiled in promises of cooperation, may very well conceal the blueprints of future chaos.
