U.S. envoy Tom Barrack on Sunday sought to clarify a series of comments about Lebanon, Hezbollah and Israel’s territorial disputes that had sparked confusion and criticism, stressing that Washington does not negotiate with Hezbollah while defending his argument that Iran’s role must be taken into account in talks over the group’s weapons.

Barrack, the U.S. special envoy to Syria and ambassador to Turkey, had said that “there are two people missing from that (negotiating) table – Hezbollah and Iran” when discussing U.S.-backed negotiations between Israel and Lebanon over an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the disarmament of Hezbollah.

The comment fueled speculation that Washington wanted Hezbollah and Iran brought into the negotiations.

Barrack rejected that interpretation on Sunday, saying he was referring to the practical difficulty of addressing Hezbollah’s weapons because they are backed by Tehran.

“I was describing the difficulty of the problem, not proposing a new table,” Barrack told The Associated Press.

“Hezbollah is a designated foreign terrorist organization. We do not negotiate with it, and nothing I said suggests otherwise.”

He explained that his reference to Iran was intended to highlight the origins of Hezbollah’s military capabilities, saying that “the weapons in question are supplied and financed by Iran.”

Barrack also defended remarks in which he questioned who would replace Tehran’s financial support for Shiite communities in southern Lebanon. He said raising the issue was “not conferring standing on anyone,” but rather reflected the practical questions surrounding any effort to weaken Hezbollah’s military and financial infrastructure.

His comments come as Lebanon and Israel remain engaged in U.S.-backed discussions over an Israeli withdrawal from areas of southern Lebanon and the future of Hezbollah’s weapons, with the issue of Iranian support remaining a central obstacle.

Barrack walks back on Golan comments

Barrack also sought to walk back remarks he made Friday suggesting that Israel “still” occupies the Golan Heights, comments that appeared to conflict with President Donald Trump’s longstanding position recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the disputed territory.

Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 Middle East war and formally annexed it in 1981. The United Nations and most of the international community continue to regard the territory as occupied Syrian land and do not recognize Israel’s annexation.

Trump broke with decades of U.S. policy in 2019 when he recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.

In an interview Friday with Lebanese-Australian entrepreneur Mario Nawfal, Barrack said Israel “still” occupies the territory.

On Sunday, however, he said he had been describing the Golan’s historical status rather than endorsing the U.N. position.

“United States policy on the Golan was set by President Trump in 2019 and is unchanged,” Barrack said in a statement to the AP.

Barrack said his intention had been to explain why he did not expect Israel to annex territory in Lebanon, where Israeli forces are occupying parts of the south following the latest war with Hezbollah.

He argued that negotiated agreements tend to be more durable than territorial maps and cited the Golan as an example of how “territory taken by force remains contested for generations.”

The remarks nevertheless triggered criticism in Washington. Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott wrote on X that Barrack appeared to have “forgotten” Trump’s 2019 decision recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

Dispute over Israeli strikes in Syria

Barrack’s Friday interview also included criticism of Israeli strikes on an air base in northern Syria earlier in the week.

Israel carried out strikes on the Abu Duhur air base last Tuesday, with Israeli officials saying the operation was intended to prevent Turkey from establishing a military presence there. Turkey and Syria have denied reports that Turkish forces were preparing to deploy at the base.

The strikes have highlighted growing tensions between Israel and Turkey over Ankara’s expanding influence in Syria following the fall of President Bashar Assad.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz defended the operation on Sunday, saying on X that critics who initially described the strikes as “unnecessary and politically motivated” had changed their position after the government said the operation was based on “clear intelligence” and carried out on the recommendation of the Israeli military.

Katz said Israel would not allow Turkey “to establish itself in Syria and threaten Israeli security.”