Geopolitical analyst Michael Arizanti contends that Brett McGurk’s 15-year involvement in U.S. Middle East policy inadvertently strengthened Iran’s influence, particularly in Iraq and Syria, while Tom Barrack, serving as U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Special Representative for Syria and Engagement in Iraq, reversed many of those trends within just 18 months. Arizanti questions why critics of Barrack’s approach have not applied the same scrutiny to McGurk, despite the stark contrast in outcomes.
Why it matters
- During McGurk’s tenure, Iran-backed groups such as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) gained significant military and political power in Iraq and Syria.
- His policies contributed to sectarian governance in Baghdad, increased Iranian influence in Damascus, and the empowerment of groups like the PMF and YPG/YPG.
- The 2011 U.S. withdrawal from Iraq allowed ISIS to seize one-third of the country, a vacuum filled by the PMF, further consolidating Iran’s regional position.
- In contrast, Barrack’s term saw the removal of terrorist group designations in Syria, a U.S. economic initiative aimed at disrupting Iran’s corridor in Iraq, and a framework agreement in Lebanon to restore state monopoly over arms.
These steps were explicitly designed to counter Iran’s regional influence, marking a clear reversal of the trends associated with McGurk’s longer-term approach. For Turkey, this divergence is significant because shifts in the security and strategic balance in Syria and Iraq directly affect Ankara’s border security and regional operations. Stability or Iranian expansion in these countries impacts Turkey’s counterterrorism efforts, refugee dynamics, and influence in northern Syria — making U.S. policy shifts in the Levant a matter of direct national security concern.