US envoy backtracks on Golan comments

Tom Barrack, the US special envoy to Syria, has clarified remarks he made two days earlier that appeared to contradict US policy on the Golan Heights, saying he was describing the territory's historical status and not endorsing any change to official policy.

In a Friday interview with Mario Nawfal, a Lebanese-Australian entrepreneur, Barrack was quoted as saying that Israel 'still' occupies the Golan Heights. The remark went against the stance of President Trump, who in 2019 had reversed decades of US policy by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the plateau.

On Sunday, Barrack told the Associated Press that his comment was a description of the Golan's historical status, 'not an endorsement of the United Nations' position.' He emphasized that 'United States policy on the Golan was set by President Trump in 2019 and is unchanged.'

The clarification followed criticism that his earlier words were at odds with the president's recognition, with Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott writing on X that the ambassador appeared to have 'forgotten' the US position.

Historical and political context

The Golan Heights, captured by Israel from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War and effectively annexed in 1981, is considered occupied Syrian land by the United Nations and most of the international community, which do not recognize Israel's annexation. Trump's 2019 proclamation breaking with that consensus remains the official US position.

Barrack explained that his original remark was meant to illustrate why he does not anticipate annexation in Lebanon. There, Israeli forces are currently occupying parts of the south following the latest conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah movement. He argued that negotiated agreements are more durable than territorial maps, and cited the Golan as an example that 'territory taken by force remains contested for generations.'

Barrack also faces criticism for Lebanon and Syria comments

Beyond the Golan, Barrack has faced criticism for remarks on other regional issues. In the same interview on Friday, he addressed the situation in Lebanon, asking 'How is it going to go away if you don't have Hezbollah and Iran involved?' He argued that any serious settlement in Lebanon would require the involvement of Iran and Hezbollah. The comments came a day after the US Treasury announced a new terror designation against Hezbollah for acting under the direction of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force.

Barrack later stressed that the US does not negotiate with Hezbollah, noting that Hezbollah is a designated foreign terrorist organization. He said he was pointing out that 'the weapons in question are supplied and financed by Iran' and that 'I was describing the difficulty of the problem, not proposing a new table.' He also defended his remarks asking who would replace Tehran's financial support for Shiite communities in southern Lebanon, saying raising those questions was 'not conferring standing on anyone.'

Israeli defense minister praises strikes

Israeli officials said the strikes on the Abu al-Duhur airbase in northern Syria were meant to prevent Turkey from establishing a presence there. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz defended the strikes on Sunday on X, saying critics changed their position after the government based the action on 'clear intelligence' and Army, adding that Israel would not allow Turkey 'to establish itself in Syria and threaten Israeli security.'

Turkey and Syria have denied that Turkish forces were due to be deployed at the Abu Duhur base. Barrack, meanwhile, described Ankara's leadership as 'not predatory' and called Turkey's emergence as a regional hub 'a great thing.' He also floated the possibility that the strikes might have resulted from a breakdown in communication among Israel's political leadership, Mossad, and the military.