In a new interview with Turkish TV channel, NTV, U.S. Ambassador to Ankara and Special Envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack announced that the American military would be significantly reducing its footprint in Syria.
“Our current policies toward Syria will not resemble the policies of the past 100 years, because those policies did not work,” Barrack to NTV. Additionally, Barrack confirmed that the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) were still considered an important ally for Washington.
Crucially, the ambassador gave concrete numbers regarding America’s “reconsolidation” of its presence in the country, saying, “from eight (military) bases, we will end up with just one.”
The reduction is “happening,” he added, noting that regional partners will need to take part in a new security arrangement for Syria. “It’s a matter of integration with everyone being reasonable.”
This jibes with today's news that the U.S. has already withdrawn 500 troops from the estimated 2000 it had in the country, according to Fox News.
Moreover, after his meetings last week with new Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, Barrack signaled that the U.S. was not going to try to run Syria but transition to a support role for the new Syrian government, “enabling it.” He also announced that President Trump would be removing Syria from its list of states that sponsor terror.
The Trump administration has been signaling for months that it would reduce America’s presence in the country. An unnamed Department of Defense official confirmed in February that the Pentagon was drafting plans for a potential exit. Trump also ordered all sanctions to be lifted from Syria in May to give the country “a chance at greatness.”
The Syrian Civil War that started in 2014 came to an end in December 2024 when then leader, Bashar al-Assad, was ousted and replaced with the current president, Ahmad al-Sharaa.
In addition to internal conflict, Syria has been the victim of recent Israeli attacks, as well as an invasion beyond the UN buffer zone in southern Syria. Barrack said confidently that “America’s role is simply to start having a dialogue,” when referring to Israeli-Syrian negotiations.
Aaron is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.
Top Photo: A soldier deployed to At-Tanf Garrison, Syria, fires an M3 Carl Gustaf Recoilless Rifle during a familiarization range hosted by Special Forces July 19, 2020. (US Army Photo by Spc. Chris Estrada)
Top image credit: Tucker Carlson, founder of Tucker Carlson Network, speaks during the AmericaFest 2024 conference sponsored by conservative group Turning Point in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S. December 19, 2024. REUTERS/Cheney Orr
Five months into President Donald Trump’s second term, spring is looking like winter for the neoconservatives.
This might be best gauged right now looking at the back and forth war between conservative media giants, Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin.
When Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff said in an interview in May that, “the neocon element believes that war is the only way to solve things,” Levin took offense. The reliably neoconservative talk host blasted Witkoff and added, “By the way, neocon is a pejorative for Jew. Unbelievable.”
Carlson was perplexed by this statement. In an interview with comedian and libertarian activist Dave Smith, Carlson said, “So you have Mark Levin calling Steve Witkoff an anti-Semite. We’ve reached peak crazy, I mean, I think Witkoff is Jewish, right?”
That made Levin even more mad. On Thursday, Carlson shared a lengthy post on X that read, “Mark Levin was at the White House today, lobbying for war with Iran. To be clear, Levin has no plans to fight in this or any other war. He’s demanding that American troops do it. We need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, he and likeminded ideologues in Washington are now arguing. They’re just weeks away.”
Carlson reminded his audience what a farce this was.
“If this sounds familiar, it's because the same people have been making the same claim since at least the 1990s. It’s a lie,” Carlson wrote. “In fact, there is zero credible intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb, or has plans to. None. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or dishonest.”
A ten paragraph essay followed, dismantling some of the usual arguments neoconservatives make to push for war with Iran, with Carlson using Levin in particular to make his points.
On enrichment, Carlson observed, “[M]any Americans would die during a war with Iran. People like Mark Levin don’t seem to care about this. It’s not relevant to them. Instead they insist that Iran give up all uranium enrichment, regardless of its purpose. They know perfectly well that Iran will never accept that demand. They’ll fight first. And of course that’s the whole point of pushing for it: to box the Trump administration into a regime change war in Iran.”
The Quincy Institute’s Executive Vice President Trita Parsi shared Carlson’s post and echoed the importance of his enrichment comments.
“The most crucial part of Tucker's tweet is on enrichment,” Parsi noted. “He doesn’t just issue a generic warning against war. He addresses the impasse of the talks: The neocon red line of zero enrichment.”
Parsi added, “At a crucial moment, Tucker wisely advises Trump to drop this deal-killing demand. Huge!”
Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna (Calif.) also shared Carlson’s X post, writing, “No war with Iran. The war in Iraq was the biggest foreign policy blunder of the 21st century. Americans — right and left — do not want more dumb wars.”
Former Republican congressman Matt Gaetz (Fla.) shared Carlson’s post, adding a 100 percent emoji.
Senior Editor of The American Conservative Andrew Day shared and highlighted the dangerousness of having Levin around Trump at this moment. Carlson said from the beginning of his post that he believed Levin was at the White House to agitate for war.
“Mark Levin is the last person who should be whispering in Trump's ear at this stage of negotiations,” Day wrote. “I hope Vance and Gabbard are actively exerting a counter-influence.”
Vice President JD Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have been against a U.S. war with Iran.
Carlson finished his post, writing, “The one thing that people like Mark Levin don’t want is a peaceful solution to the problem of Iran, despite the obvious benefits to the United States. They denounce anyone who advocates for a deal as a traitor and a bigot. They tell us with a straight face that Long Island native Steve Witkoff is a secret tool of Islamic monarchies. They’ll say or do whatever it takes. They have no limits”
“These are scary people,” he concluded. “Pray that Donald Trump ignores them.”
I noted in an essay in late May that established neoconservative media voices on the right were beginning to be outshined by new conservative, libertarian and independent influencers, almost all of them antiwar.
Carlson is the largest figure on the American right this side of Donald Trump right now and he has been consistently against America’s involvement in any new wars, the mirror opposite of Levin.
As of this writing, Carlson’s Levin-Iran X post has over 5.4 million views.
Mark Levin has used his large platforms on talk radio and Fox News to promote neoconservative foreign policy for many years. Now Tucker Carlson appears to be using his arguably even larger platform on social media to shut that down.
Good.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Erik Prince arrives New York Young Republican Club Gala at The Yale Club of New York City in Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S., November 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
Haiti could be Erik Prince’s deadliest gambit yet for business and a ticket back into the good graces of the Washington military industrial complex.
Prince's Blackwater* reigned during the Global War on Terror, but left a legacy of disastrous mishaps, most infamously the 2007 Nisour massacre in Iraq, where Blackwater mercenaries killed 17 civilians. This, plus his willingness in recent years to work for foreign governments in conflicts and for law enforcement across the globe, have made Prince one of the world’s most controversial entrepreneurs.
Prince sold Blackwater in 2010, but remains at large in the private mercenary business. Indeed, a desperate Haiti has now hired him to “conduct lethal operations” against armed groups, who control about 85% of Haitian capital Port-Au-Prince.
As the New York Times reported last week, Prince will send about 150 private mercenaries to Haiti over the summer. He will advise Haiti’s police force on countering Haiti’s armed groups, where some Prince-hired mercenaries are already operating attack drones to take out gang leaders. The U.S. government reportedly isn’t involved.
Reemerging after an extended absence from Washington circles, Prince’s Haiti venture coincides with a number of adjacent bids for the current White House, which during the first Trump term, turned down a Prince plan to privatize the war in Afghanistan.
But what Prince stands to gain by the venture may well be Haiti’s loss. Indeed, Prince’s private contractors, operating in a legally gray area in a functional conflict zone, could wreak further havoc — after a legacy of Western meddling that has undermined the country’s affairs.
Prince's Trump era return
The brother of Betsy DeVos, who served as education secretary in Trump’s first term, Prince has long been a supporter of Republican politics. He donated $250,000 to Trump’s successful 2016 presidential run.
But, concerned that Prince’s controversial private security projects brought unwanted scrutiny to their work, DoD and CIA officials essentially barred him from contracts in 2020.
And yet, Prince has been active in the rightwing-national security periphery and has resurfaced in official circles in recent months, even participating in group chats with State Department and National Security Council senior officials. And he’s been eager to showcase his usefulness through a barrage of pitches to the Trump administration as well as other relevant players in its orbit.
In recent months he has floated a scheme to Trump in which private contractors would assist the administration in hitting its deportation targets. In April, Prince also pushed for a plan in which his contractors would be in charge of a prison partly owned by the U.S. in El Salvador.
Prince brokered a deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the same month, arranging to secure and tax the nation’s mineral wealth — just as the DRC and U.S. moved closer with their own minerals-for-security deal.
“Where was he during the (Democratic administration)? He was nowhere. He was hiding. So when Trump is in office, he comes out like a peacock and starts looking for contracts,” said Sean McFate, former contractor and author of“The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order.”
McFate pegged the Haiti deal as a case in which Prince was acting as “an opportunist aligned with Trump." Prince knows the Trump administration wants to stanch the flow of illegal migrants to the U.S. and to send back to Haiti those already here in the U.S. Right now, the security situation there makes it all the more complicated. While emphasizing much could go wrong, McFate said Prince’s initiative just might quell the country’s violence. “We’ll see,” he said.
“What's different this time…is that [Prince is] not really pitching contracts to Washington. He's pitching contracts in cooperation with what he thinks is Washington,” McFate posited. “He's finding clientele who are not Americans, but he's doing it with the blessing he thinks [he’ll get], or wants [from] Trump.”
Appearing to address Haiti’s gang-related woes, in other words, helps Prince align himself with Trump’s political goals.
Will Prince undermine Port-Au-Prince?
The Prince deal is occurring within the context of extensive ongoing American intervention in Haiti.
Currently the U.S.-backed, Kenyan-led multinational police force operating in Haiti to combat the armed groups is largely seen as a failure. Previously, a U.N. peacekeeping mission aimed at stabilizing Haiti from 2004 through 2017 was undermined by scandal, where U.N. officials were condemned for killing civilians during efforts aimed at armed groups, sexually assaulting Haitians, and introducing cholera to Haiti.
The cloud of American intervention dates back far more than a century, but more recently, the U.S. installed former interim Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry in 2021 following the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse. Henry himself resigned last year following pressure from the U.S., turning government affairs over to a foreign-backed transitional council — where council members had to endorse international intervention to improve Haiti’s security situation to join.
Before that, the U.S. was accused of ousting Haitian leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide after he proved obstructive to U.S. foreign policy goals, in 2004. (The U.S. denies this coup took place).
Now, experts fear a clumsy, profit-driven private mercenary touch could now push Haiti past the brink.
"Haiti's crisis was generated by the dismantling of democratic accountability structures, including the police, but also the courts, the legislature and elections. A sustainable solution to the crises requires rebuilding those structures,” Brian Concannon, founder and Executive Director of the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, told RS.
“With a history of unaccountable, deadly violence and undermining governance and the rule of law in countries where they operate, Erik Prince's companies seem ill-fitted to building accountability structures,” Concannon added.
"Having mercenaries just go in and start executing people… is going to be just like the U.N. [intervention in the past]. It's going to continue to undermine the rule of law and the social fabric and lead to just more rebounds of more trampoline effects of increasing gang violence,” Concannon explained.
Practical factors regarding the deployment of foreign private mercenaries in Haiti are also at play. For example, the jurisdiction governing foreign mercenaries’ actions remains hazy, especially within the context of the weak Haitian government overseeing its deployment.
“It’s unclear to what extent, if any, the Haitian government is capable of delineating the legal structures that would be in accordance with whatever global arrangement…is appropriate for this,” said researcher David Isenberg, author of “Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq.” “It is just problematic [to suppose], in my viewpoint, that the Haitian government, whatever remains of it, is…even capable of setting that out.”
“Prince's professional fighters have never shown a great grasp of local social and cultural issues or discretion in using force,” Ambassador Daniel Foote, the U.S. Special Envoy for Haiti from July to September 2021, told RS. “If they wind up running autonomous operations in Haiti, there's a great chance we'll see similar bloodbaths from Prince's 'army.'”
The Haitian Embassy in D.C. did not respond to a request for comment. Rodenay Joseph, who owns a Florida-based security officer training company and was reportedly contacted by Prince about possibly collaborating on his Haiti deal, also did not respond to inquiries from RS.
But the New York Times reported Joseph’s discomfort about private American mercenaries working with the Haitian government without outside oversight. “We should be very worried, because if (were) from the U.S. government, at least he can have the semblance of having to answer to Congress,” he told the Times, calling Prince’s scheme “just another payday.”
“If it’s him, his contract, he doesn’t owe anybody an explanation.”
Editor's Note: This story was corrected to accurately convey that the private company Constellis has no legal ownership or ongoing business relationship with Blackwater nor association of any kind with Blackwater founder Erik Prince.
In a sign of hope for diplomacy over war, the U.S. and Iran began engaging in serious, high level negotiations over Iran’s civilian nuclear program in April for the first time since President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal seven years ago.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has fully empowered his team to negotiate, with one firm limitation: they cannot negotiate “the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.” So bold is Khamenei’s red line on not negotiating away the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes that he has made it clear to past negotiators that “if Iran is to abandon its right to enrich, it will either have to happen after my death, or I will have to resign from leadership.”
Trump, though, recently posted that “Under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!”
An innovative solution for bridging this deal-ending divide has emerged. It is not clear who first suggested it. Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, says that the Omani mediators made proposals that removed obstacles. Other reports credit Iran with the idea. Others say it was suggested by Oman and adopted by the United States.
The idea is that Iran joins Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in a nuclear enrichment consortium. In some versions, other regional partners are also included. Such a consortium could resolve the paradox created by the American demand that Iran give up its uranium enrichment and Iran’s insistence that it will never give up its uranium enrichment. Components of the enrichment process would be spread across countries with each sharing all but none fully possessing all. Iran could have its enriched uranium, but Iran could not fully enrich uranium.
The plan has the potential to satisfy two goals of the U.S. and its partners. Not only could a regional consortium prevent Iran from engaging in the full enrichment process, granting Saudi Arabia a membership in the enrichment consortium may assuage Saudi Arabia’s felt need to enrich uranium independently and, so, help solve the regional proliferation threat.
The idea of a nuclear consortium is older than the Islamic State of Iran. Barbara Slavin, distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, told RS that the suggestion was made by the U.S. to the Shah. It is often forgotten that it was the U.S. who first suggested Iran develop a nuclear power program. Secretary of State Kissinger said it would provide “for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export,” and declassified documents reveal that the Ford administration “endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry.”
Princeton physicist Frank von Hippel told RS that there have been many versions of the nuclear consortium idea. Iran has even broached precursors to the idea in the past. In 2005, Hassan Rouhani, then Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, offered to share Iran’s enrichment technology with other Persian Gulf States. The same year, then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the U.N. that Iran was “prepared to engage in serious partnership with… other countries in the implementation of [an] uranium enrichment program in Iran.”
The modern incarnation is similar to an idea first proposed by von Hippel and former Iranian nuclear negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian in a 2023 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that argued that a multinational consortium in the Middle East could ensure that uranium is produced only for peaceful purposes.
Von Hippel says that the idea was inspired by the 1971 URENCO enrichment consortium of Germany, the Netherlands and Britain and by the ABAAAC consortium of Brazil and Argentina. In the URENCO consortium, one country makes the centrifuges, one designs next-generation centrifuges and the third hosts the headquarters.
The advantage, he says, is that a consortium allows nuclear experts from each country to “visit each other’s facilities to assure themselves that the activities are peaceful.” He adds that “decisions that might have proliferation implications are made by the [partner] governments.” Saudi Arabia’s, the Emirates’ and Iran’s watchful eyes would all help the International Atomic Energy Agency ensure that the program is peaceful.
The key question has always been whether Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium on its own soil. And nothing has changed now. Mousavian says that nuclear negotiations with Iran have failed when its right as a signatory to the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT) to peaceful uranium enrichment have been denied, and they have succeeded when that right was granted. The key question now in negotiations is whether Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium on its own soil. Since the consortium story broke, the answer to that question has swung back and forth on a reporting pendulum.
The first reports, on May 13, said that Iran would continue to enrich uranium but accept a cap at the 3.67% enrichment required by a nuclear energy program.
Days later, the reporting had changed. Axiosreported that the U.S. wants the enrichment facilities to be outside Iran. The New York Times reported that the document the U.S. gave Iran “calls for Iran to cease all enrichment of uranium.”
By June 2, the reporting had become more nuanced. Axiossaid the U.S. proposal “would allow limited low-level uranium enrichment on Iranian soil for a to-be-determined period of time.” At the same time, Reuters was still reporting that the U.S. was demanding that Iran “commit to scrapping uranium enrichment.”
Reuters said that, as a result of the denial of their right to enrich, "Iran is drafting a negative response to the U.S. proposal.”
The next day, Axiosreported that, according to a senior Iranian official, “If the consortium operates within the territory of Iran, it may warrant consideration. However, should it be based outside the borders of the country, it is certainly doomed to fail.” According to Axios, “the proposal doesn't clearly define where the consortium would be located.” The New York Times agreed, but added that “the United States has said it cannot be in Iran.”
Part of the confusion was undoubtedly because the document the U.S. handed Iran was not a fully developed text but “preliminary ideas” to be discussed in upcoming talks. Furthermore, Iranian officials say the proposal is “vaguely worded on many of the most important issues.” Araghchi says that “a lot of issues… are unclear” and that there are “many ambiguities.”
But part of the confusion may have been because of partial reporting. As the parts are put together, a pattern emerges that seems to resolve the paradox. The reports of continued enrichment are reports of an interim period; the reports of no enrichment are reports of the final goal.
On June 3, the Times reported that while enrichment facilities were being built in other countries, Iran could continue low level enrichment, which would stop when the new facilities were operational.
The problem is that Iran is unlikely to agree to join a consortium that prohibits it from enriching on its own soil. One possible solution, proposed by von Hippel, Mousavian and their colleagues at Princeton, is to let Iran enrich but not on its own soil. In this plan, Iran would build centrifuges and ship them to a partner country where Iranian technicians would operate them.
Another solution, which was first proposed by von Hippel about a decade ago, and now, reportedly being discussed, is to build the enrichment facility on an island in the Persian Gulf. Iran would insist the island be one of theirs, allowing the U.S. to insist that uranium is not being enriched on Iranian soil, while Iran can insist that it is.
Iran is likely to refuse a proposal that insists it surrenders its right to enrich both because, as Slavin told RS, of the country’s well-founded suspicions about the reliability of external sources, and because, as Mousavian told me, denying Iran a right that is granted to every other signatory of the NPT “constitutes a national humiliation.”
The ability to negotiate this detail in the consortium will likely determine if the consortium proposal saves the negotiations or not.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.