FP: Trump’s renewed focus on Bagram Airbase raises strategic questions
3 Min Read
Trump's calls for the return of Bagram airbase from the Taliban raise questions about his Afghanistan policy, IS-K threats, and broader regional implications.
-
Afghanistan Taliban displayed military hardware during a military parade to mark the third anniversary of the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, in Bagram Air Base in the Parwan Province of Afghanistan, Wednesday, Aug 14, 2024. (AP Photo/Siddiqullah Alizai)
A recent article by Michael Kugelman for Foreign Policy scrutinizes US President Donald Trump’s escalating demand for the Taliban to surrender control of Bagram airbase. The piece underscores the strategic and diplomatic complexities surrounding Trump’s position.
In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump warned that if the Taliban did not relinquish the former US military stronghold, then "BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!"
As Foreign Policy notes, the demand appears detached from the current political and military realities in Afghanistan. The Taliban has consistently rejected any foreign military presence, treating Bagram as a red line. While the group has made certain diplomatic overtures, such as releasing American hostages, returning Bagram is not among them.
Timing, diplomatic risks
Trump’s statement comes at a delicate time. US hostage envoy Adam Boehler and former special representative Zalmay Khalilzad recently visited Kabul to discuss prisoner issues. Public threats risk derailing sensitive negotiations that remain central to US influence in Afghanistan, according to Foreign Policy.
Trump has cited Bagram’s proximity to Chinese nuclear facilities as a reason for its return. However, reintroducing US forces at Bagram could provoke Beijing and escalate US-China tensions. Ironically, China maintains only a limited presence in Afghanistan, largely due to its own security concerns.
The IS-K threat
Kugelman suggests that another potential motive may be the threat posed by Islamic State-Khorasan (IS-K), a group linked to foiled plots in the US. Trump may see Bagram as a useful base for monitoring IS-K. However, given the group’s global reach, counterterrorism efforts might be better directed elsewhere.
The Taliban, which has conducted aggressive campaigns against IS-K, contends that the US could monitor terror threats through diplomatic presence, as India and others have done since 2021.
Alternative options for US influence in Afghanistan
While reopening the US embassy in Kabul is unlikely, Washington maintains communication channels with the Taliban, including meetings in Doha and Kabul. These avenues may allow the US to address terrorism concerns and explore access to Afghanistan’s critical minerals. Foreign Policy also points to the possibility of informal intelligence cooperation between the US and the Taliban.
It remains uncertain whether Trump is engaging in political theatrics or signaling a serious strategic intent. Nonetheless, any attempt to forcibly retake Bagram or destroy the facility would endanger lives, sabotage diplomatic efforts, and invite political backlash.
Ultimately, Foreign Policy frames Trump’s push to reclaim Bagram airbase as a largely symbolic move, one that is unlikely to be accepted by the Taliban and may divert attention from more effective strategies for advancing US interests in Afghanistan.
