When former U.S. President Donald Trump recently floated the idea of regaining control over Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, the statement instantly revived debates about the geopolitics of Central and South Asia. While such remarks may appear bold to some, they raise critical questions about feasibility, history, and the broader regional implications. Can the U.S., after being forced out of Afghanistan in 2021, realistically expect to return? Will the Taliban, who fought for two decades to reclaim sovereignty, allow foreign troops back? And what would such a move mean for Afghanistan’s neighbors—Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan?
To understand why such a proposal is both impractical and deeply provocative, one must first revisit Afghanistan’s long and bloody history of resistance against foreign powers.
Afghanistan: The Graveyard of Empires
Afghanistan has often been described as the “graveyard of empires.” This phrase is not a romantic exaggeration but a historical reality that has repeated itself over centuries.
Alexander the Great entered the rugged Afghan highlands in the 4th century BC, facing ferocious resistance. Despite his vast empire and military genius, his forces struggled to subdue Afghan tribes, and their control remained fragile.
The British Empire, at the height of its colonial supremacy in the 19th century, launched three Anglo-Afghan wars. Each ended in humiliation, with Afghan resistance fighters forcing the British to retreat. The infamous 1842 retreat from Kabul, where nearly the entire British force was annihilated, remains etched in history as a symbol of Afghan defiance.
The Soviet Union, equipped with modern weaponry and a global superpower status, invaded in 1979 but was bled dry by Afghan mujahideen over the next decade. Backed by local determination and foreign support, Afghans once again expelled an empire.
The United States and NATO, after invading in 2001 to topple the Taliban regime, faced two decades of relentless insurgency. Despite technological superiority and billions of dollars poured into the war, the Taliban eventually forced the U.S. to sign the Doha Agreement and withdraw by 2021.
The lesson is clear: Afghans have never tolerated long-term foreign occupation. Their sense of sovereignty, tribal pride, and Islamic identity make them fiercely resistant to any external domination.
Taliban: Sons of the Soil
The Taliban movement emerged in the 1990s from the ashes of civil war, drawing strength from Afghan traditions, religion, and nationalism. Whatever one thinks of their governance style, their legitimacy as fighters for Afghan sovereignty cannot be denied.
For twenty years, they waged war against U.S. and NATO troops, enduring drone strikes, night raids, imprisonment, and unimaginable losses. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans died, millions were displaced, and yet the Taliban remained rooted in their soil. To suggest that these same men—who sacrificed generations in pursuit of independence—would now invite the U.S. military back is not only unrealistic but also insulting to Afghan collective memory.
To the Taliban, Bagram is not just an air base; it is a symbol of foreign occupation. It was here that U.S. forces maintained a notorious detention facility where countless Afghans were imprisoned, tortured, or disappeared. Allowing the Americans back would be viewed as betraying their own sacrifices. For this reason alone, no Afghan government under Taliban leadership is likely to compromise on Bagram or any other part of their sovereignty.
Trump’s Style: From Greenland to Bagram
President Trump’s remarks about Bagram should be seen in the context of his political personality. Known for bold, often theatrical statements, Trump has a history of floating grandiose and sometimes whimsical ideas:
He once suggested that Canada could join the U.S. as its 51st state and even offered to make Prime Minister Justin Trudeau the “governor” of this new state.
He also expressed interest in purchasing Greenland, an idea so unusual that it drew international ridicule.
He also desired to transform Gaza (Palestine) into ahis real-estate project by displacing Palestinians.
These remarks underscore Trump’s preference for bold declarations rather than carefully crafted geopolitical strategies. His comment about Bagram fits this pattern—more of a rhetorical flourish than a concrete policy proposal.
Still, even rhetoric has consequences, especially when it touches upon a region as volatile as Afghanistan.
The Strategic Significance of Bagram
Bagram Air Base, located about 40 kilometers north of Kabul, was once the largest U.S. military installation in Afghanistan. From this fortress, America projected power not only across Afghan territory but also into Central and South Asia.
For Washington, regaining Bagram would mean a restored foothold in a region bordering China, Iran, and Russia—three of its main strategic rivals.
For the Taliban, it would represent a return to foreign domination, undermining their hard-won legitimacy.
For neighboring states, the U.S. presence at Bagram would trigger alarm bells.
Implications for Afghanistan’s Neighbors
The reoccupation of Bagram by the U.S. would not only destabilize Afghanistan but also threaten the delicate balance of power in the wider region.
Iran
For Iran, a U.S. base next door is nothing short of a red line. Already encircled by American military assets in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and elsewhere, Tehran would view Bagram as another outpost of pressure. The presence of U.S. troops could embolden hardliners, escalate tensions, and potentially increase proxy conflicts.
Russia
Moscow, still haunted by its own Afghan debacle, would perceive a U.S. return as a direct encroachment into its traditional sphere of influence in Central Asia. Russia has worked hard to strengthen ties with the Taliban and would resist any American foothold in the region.
China
For China, Afghanistan is strategically important because of its proximity to Xinjiang and the Belt and Road Initiative. A U.S. base in Afghanistan would be viewed as part of Washington’s broader strategy to contain China. Beijing has consistently engaged with the Taliban diplomatically and economically; it would strongly oppose an American return.
Pakistan
Pakistan, which shares a long, porous border with Afghanistan, would be caught in the crossfire. While Islamabad has historically cooperated with Washington, its strategic interests now align more with Beijing and Moscow. Moreover, Pakistan cannot afford renewed instability spilling over from Afghanistan. A U.S. base at Bagram would inflame domestic opinion and complicate Pakistan’s regional diplomacy.
Why the U.S. Cannot Simply “Take Over”
Even if Trump or any future U.S. leader wished to reoccupy Bagram, the logistical and political hurdles are enormous:
Lack of Consent: The Taliban would never voluntarily cede Bagram to the U.S. Any attempt to negotiate such a return would be dead on arrival.
Military Impossibility: The U.S. no longer has the political will, regional alliances, or troop strength to launch a large-scale reoccupation. After two decades of war fatigue, American public opinion is firmly against another Afghan adventure.
Regional Opposition: With Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan all opposed, Washington would face a united regional front against any move to reestablish a permanent base.
Domestic Politics: Trump’s statement may excite his political base, but in Washington’s corridors of power, there is little appetite for another endless war.
The Way Forward: Engagement, Not Occupation
The U.S. must recognize that its era of military dominance in Afghanistan is over. The Taliban, whether the world likes it or not, are the de facto rulers of Afghanistan. The only sustainable approach for Washington is to engage Kabul diplomatically and economically, not militarily.
Instead of dreaming about Bagram, the U.S. could focus on:
Counterterrorism cooperation through intelligence-sharing rather than bases.
Humanitarian aid to stabilize Afghan society.
Encouraging dialogue between the Taliban and regional stakeholders for long-term peace.
Conclusion
President Trump’s talk of reclaiming Bagram Air Base is more bravado than strategy. History has shown that Afghans—whether against Alexander, the British, the Soviets, or the Americans—do not tolerate invaders. The Taliban, rooted in Afghan soil and hardened by sacrifice, will not hand over their sovereignty for the return of a foreign base.
For the region, the reestablishment of Bagram under U.S. control would be a direct provocation against Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan, creating fresh instability. For the U.S., it would be a costly and ultimately futile endeavor.
Reference Link: https://sovereignista.com/2025/10/07/bagram-airbase-why-afghanistan-will-never-welcome-back-the-u-s/