Israel is increasingly concerned about the approach being pursued by Tom Barrack, U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Syria and ambassador to Turkey, as well as the degree of influence he may wield with President Trump, Ynet reported.

The latest clash between Israel and Barrack was not an isolated incident. Israel’s strike this week on the Abu al-Duhur airbase in northwestern Syria once again exposed significant differences between Jerusalem and the American envoy over Syria’s future, Turkey’s regional role and Israel’s freedom of military action.

Barrack responded to the strike by saying it created a “real risk” of rapid escalation and a direct confrontation involving Israel, Turkey and Syria. He warned that the lack of communication between the sides could have prompted Turkey to believe it was under attack and respond militarily.

Israeli security officials view the incident differently. The Prime Minister’s Office said Syria had ignored repeated Israeli warnings over plans to deploy Turkish forces at the base and that the strike was intended to prevent a change in the security balance on the ground.

For Israeli officials, however, the concern extends beyond Barrack’s public statements to the broader worldview he brings to the region — one in which Turkey, and particularly President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, plays a central role in shaping the emerging regional order.

“Barrack is considered someone who promotes Erdogan’s interests and those of the Syrian regime in the United States,” said an Israeli official familiar with Israel-Turkey relations. “He is not sensitive to Israeli sensitivities. He is focused on the immediate benefit the United States can gain from Syria.”

He added: “Netanyahu doesn’t like Barrack because he thinks Barrack is behind Trump’s support for Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and connects him to Erdogan.”

There are conflicting views in Israel, however, over how much influence Barrack actually has with Trump. On one hand, Barrack has been one of Trump’s close associates for decades. He was close to the president long before entering government and has over the years served as an important point of contact between Trump and officials in the Arab world and Gulf states.

On the other hand, Israeli officials stress that a close personal relationship does not necessarily translate into influence over policy. “It is not at all clear how much he influences Trump,” Israeli officials say. “He certainly doesn’t influence Rubio.”

As evidence, they noted the silence following Barrack’s criticism of the Abu al-Duhur strike: Neither Trump nor the State Department joined him in condemning Israel.

Senior Western diplomats, however, offer a different assessment. They believe Trump views Barrack as his point man on Turkish and Syrian affairs, arguing that his simultaneous appointment as ambassador to Ankara and special envoy for Syria demonstrates the degree of trust the president places in him.

The differences between Barrack and Jerusalem became increasingly apparent following Ahmed al-Sharaa’s rise to power in Damascus. Israel initially harbored serious concerns about Washington’s new approach toward the Syrian leadership, which enjoys significant Turkish backing. Trump himself met with al-Sharaa and supported a dramatic change in U.S. policy toward Damascus, while Barrack emerged as one of the key architects of contacts between Israel, Syria and Turkey.

During those contacts, however, it became clear that Barrack’s ambitions went beyond simply preventing a war between Israel and Syria. He promoted a broader vision centered on integrating Syria into the regional order, rebuilding its economy, strengthening its relationship with Turkey and reducing the American and Israeli military presence as much as possible.

Barrack has described the Israel-Syria conflict as a “solvable problem” and called for beginning with a nonaggression agreement. Israel, by contrast, wants to ensure that any new arrangement does not transform Syria into a Turkish client state or allow Ankara to establish military infrastructure that could threaten Israel or restrict its freedom of action.

One of Barrack’s statements that particularly strained relations with Israel came at a forum in Doha in December 2025. Barrack said that “Israel can claim that it is a democracy,” but added that what had “worked best” in the region was a “benevolent monarchy.”

The comments sparked outrage in Israel and were viewed in Jerusalem as an insult to the country’s democratic character.

Another particularly sensitive issue for Israel is Washington’s effort to bring Turkey closer to the U.S. security architecture. Barrack has publicly advocated progress toward Turkey’s possible return to the F-35 fighter jet program. Israel opposes such a move.

Those concerns are not theoretical. Turkey has emerged over the past year as one of the most influential players in rebuilding Syria’s military and security infrastructure. The Abu al-Duhur base at the center of the latest Israeli strike had been undergoing reconstruction with Turkish assistance.

Alongside Barrack’s personal relationship with Trump, some in Israel are suspicious of his extensive business background in the Middle East. Barrack, a Lebanese Maronite American billionaire and businessman, was involved for years in business deals and commercial relationships across the region, including extensive ties in Gulf states such as Qatar.

Some Israeli officials believe his business background helps explain his worldview: less emphasis on historic alliances and more focus on deals, stability, investment and the economic opportunities that can emerge from regional agreements.

“He is not necessarily against Israel — he simply does not see it through Israeli eyes,” those officials say.

That may be at the heart of Israel’s concerns about Barrack. Even Israeli officials who criticize him do not necessarily describe him as “anti-Israel.”  Rather, they worry that he does not share Israel’s starting assumption that security threats must take precedence over considerations of regional stability and economic interests.

Israel has repeatedly warned Washington that Turkey is helping rebuild the Syrian military and that Erdogan continues to engage in inflammatory rhetoric against Israel. Nevertheless, the prevailing assessment in Israel is that there is no immediate danger of a direct military confrontation between Israel and Turkey — though officials stress that both sides must take care to prevent relations from reaching that point.

“The Americans will not allow this under any circumstances and at any price,” said an Israeli official specializing in Israel-Turkey relations. “It would be a disaster for the United States if two of its allies were fighting each other. These are more like provocations on both sides intended for domestic political purposes.”

He added: “No one in Israel wants a war with Turkey. There is dialogue between Israel and Turkey. There are direct channels, but they are probably not effective enough. In any case, the Americans would like the dialogue to go through them so they can control it. The US envoy may be deliberately presenting the situation as more severe in order to strengthen the channel of dialogue through the United States.”

(YWN Israel Desk—Jerusalem)