Barak’s mission: From confining weapons to the center to strengthening energy security in the region

Barak’s mission: From confining weapons to the center to strengthening energy security in the region

2026-06-16

Ramzi Mirkani
The arrival of Tom Barrack, the US presidential envoy to Iraq and Syria, in Baghdad and his subsequent visit to Erbil, was not merely a routine diplomatic procedure on the US administration’s agenda. Rather, this visit, with its timing and the significance of the person undertaking it, represents a clear declaration of a fundamental shift in US policy toward Iraq; a shift from managing relations and political courtesies to managing decisive and critical decisions.

Tom Barrack (79), the billionaire investor of Lebanese descent and a close confidant of President Donald Trump, is not a traditional diplomat raised within the corridors of the State Department. He is a master dealmaker, fluent in Arabic, and understands the complexities of the Middle East. His appointment as presidential envoy, tasked with issues including Iraq and Syria, and linked to his duties as ambassador in Ankara, reflects Trump’s new vision: dealing with the region as a single security and economic bloc, not as fragmented issues. Barrack does not believe in diplomacy that smiles behind the scenes while strategic interests are lost; he is the man who previously described the invasion of Iraq as a glaring example of failure, and today he returns not to rectify the past, but to impose a new reality that ensures the trillions of dollars are not squandered without tangible results.

Barak’s visit comes at a critical juncture for Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s government. The most pressing issue is completing the cabinet. However, the sticking point lies not in the names of the ministers, but rather in the identity of the groups demanding key ministerial positions (deputy prime minister and a sovereign ministry). Government sources revealed that armed factions have expressed their willingness to dismantle their military wings and integrate into the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in exchange for this hefty political price. Herein lies the American “no,” which Barak carries with him; Washington refuses to trade weapons for sovereign positions that could be used to undermine American influence or advance regional agendas. Barak came to clarify matters: integration into the state means complete submission to state authority, not the transformation of sovereign positions into spoils for those who previously bore arms outside its framework.

The issue of “monopolizing weapons in the hands of the state” has long been a topic of media consumption in Iraq, but with Barak, it has transformed into a security issue with a pressing timeline. Washington can no longer tolerate the duality of power in Baghdad. Barak’s message is clear: stability in Iraq is a prerequisite for investment and energy, and this stability will not be achieved while forces possess both political decision-making power and military capability. Analysts believe that Barak seeks to dismantle the “gray areas” in which factions have operated for years, presenting them with two options: full and transparent integration into the official security apparatus, or facing direct economic and political pressure that spares no one.

Barak’s visit to Erbil is not merely a gesture of appeasement toward the Kurdistan Region, but rather an American acknowledgment that the region represents a cornerstone of the “balance of power” strategy. The outstanding issues between Baghdad and Erbil (oil, salaries, and Article 140) are no longer considered internal Iraqi matters by Washington, but rather issues related to regional energy security and the stability of its Kurdish ally, whom Washington views as a reliable partner. Barak seeks to establish lasting understandings that will end the mutual “political blackmail” between the central government and the region, thereby ensuring the smooth flow of oil exports and protecting foreign investments.

What distinguishes the Barak era is its language. The time for soft diplomatic reports is over. Barak is a man who doesn’t shy away from speaking the unvarnished truth; for him, Iraq today is part of a chain stretching from Tehran to Beirut, and any disruption in the Baghdad link will affect the entire American project in the region. He believes that allies must “be self-reliant and share the burden,” meaning that Washington will not foot the bill for Iraq’s security, politically or financially, without seeing tangible steps in combating corruption, controlling weapons, and curbing regional influence that opposes its interests.

Tom Barrack’s visit paves the way for Ali al-Zaidi’s visit to Washington, but it is a visit contingent on results. Washington, through its blunt envoy, is telling the Iraqi political elite: the time for playing both sides is over. It’s either a strong, fully functioning government that controls its weapons and fulfills its international obligations, or facing a period of isolation or pressures that the existing political system may not be able to withstand. Tom Barrack is not just a visitor; he is the architect of a new phase that may be tumultuous and painful, but will certainly be decisive in shaping the future of Iraq and the region. The remaining question is: Do the Iraqi political forces have the capacity to absorb this diplomatic shock, or will they continue to gamble on time, which seems to have run out for Trump and Barrack?

shafaq.com