The Wall Street Journal: Tom Barrack’s failed adventure in Syria!
The Wall Street Journal launched a sharp criticize on what it described as Tom Barrack’s uncalculated adventure in Syria, arguing that the US envoy abandoned Kurdish allies in a way that could undermine the campaign against ISIS, and criticized his pro-Damascus and Ankara-friendly approach at the current stage.
In its editorial issued on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal questioned the motives for the urgency of changing the equation in northern Syria, saying that ending the role of the Kurdish-led Syria Democratic Forces (SDF) doesn’t achieve a clear US interest, especially since it was done quickly that led to the ISIS detainees issue being left in a foggy state, which allowed some of them to flee and prompted the US military to intervene recently to transfer prisoners to Iraq.
The WSJ newspaper pointed out that US President Donald Trump still has the sanctions card that can be used to pressure the new Syrian authority led by Ahmed al Sharaa to impose a permanent cessation of violence against the SDF, but Washington hasn’t resorted to this option so far.
The Syrian issue is now being managed by Tom Barrack, the US ambassador in Türkiye and special envoy for Syria.
The WSJ said that dismantling the Kurdish forces is a priority for Ankara, which is the main supporter of Sharia.
Trump made contact with Sharaa on Monday, before Barrack announced the next day on X that the SDF’s primary role in fighting ISIS had been reduced, and that Damascus was ready to take over security tasks, including managing the group’s detention facilities.
However, the WSJ newspaper commented sarcastically on these statements, noting that Damascus announced the escape of about 120 ISIS detainees on the first day of the new arrangements, which necessitated a swift US intervention to transfer prisoners out of the country.
The Wall Street Journal found that just a year ago, Ahmed al Sharaa was leading a jihadist group, and that the forces that make up the Syrian army today are still a mixture of militias with different commands, including foreign fighters in influential positions.
It’s unclear whether these forces are actually capable of pursuing ISIS cells in remote areas or fighting battles with other Islamist groups.
The WSJ newspaper cited the killing of three Americans last month by a member of the Syrian security forces, despite later revealing his links to ISIS, noting that authorities said they were unable to fire him before the attack because of the weekend, which the WSJ newspaper considered evidence of a weak response.
The WSJ newspaper stressed that the United States didn’t have to worry about these issues when the SDF was managing the security situation, as it played a pivotal role in the fight against the organization, and provided thousands of deaths in battles so that US forces didn’t have to fight them directly.
It also recalled that Kurdish forces responded to Washington’s requests to protect oil facilities and detain thousands of ISIS elements, which eased the burden on several countries, especially in Europe, asking: “Will the United States abandon them now?”
The WSJ newspaper also warned against the reliance of Sharaa on irregular tribal fighters to advance towards the SDF areas, pointing to the dangers of storming prisons that house ISIS elements or the entry of regime forces into Kurdish-majority areas, and the accompanying reprisals, recalling bloody events that took place in 2025 against Alawites and Druze for which accountability was limited.
The Wall Street Journal concluded that the SDF was counting on US support until fair arrangements were reached to integrate it into the Syrian state, and that the Kurds’ reluctance to disband their forces was understandable as the new authority sought to concentrate the decision in its own hands.
Washington is now risking the security of its Kurdish allies and its interests in confronting ISIS; The United States doesn’t have to facilitate any quick Turkish efforts to dismantle the SDF.
