Why the US Wants Bagram Airport in Afghanistan Back — Strategic Motivations and Risks

Background: The Fall and Significance of Bagram

• Bagram Air Base, in Parwan Province, ~60 km north of Kabul, was the crown jewel of the US military presence in Afghanistan for nearly 20 years. After September 11, 2001, it became the central hub for counterterrorism operations, intelligence gathering, air support, drone missions, logistics, detentions, etc.
• In 2021, during the withdrawal of US/NATO forces under the deal signed in Doha, the US handed over control of Bagram to the Afghan government (which soon fell to the Taliban) while US troops left. Since then, the Taliban have controlled the facility.

What Trump and His Advisors Say Are the Reasons to Reclaim It

A number of strategic, geopolitical, military, and symbolic reasons are being cited by President Donald Trump and US policy analysts for wanting Bagram back. Some of the key ones:

1. Proximity to China and Monitoring Capabilities
   Trump has repeatedly claimed that Bagram is “an hour away” from areas in China tied to nuclear weapon or missile production, particularly in Xinjiang. Holding Bagram gives the US a forward base from which surveillance, early warning, and quick response are easier.
2. Strategic Location & Power Projection
   Because of its location, Bagram allows access to Central Asia, the Middle East, Pakistan, Iran, and China. It’s a logistical hub: large runway, infrastructure, allows large cargo/bomber aircraft, and can support rapid deployment. This makes it enormously valuable in any planning for regional influence or military operations.
3. Counterterrorism Operations
   The US sees continuing threats from groups like ISIS-K, Al Qaeda and wants forward staging bases from which it can surveil, gather intel, conduct raids, etc. Bagram historically served that role. Reacquiring or regaining influence could allow the US to re-establish a counterterrorism hub in Afghanistan.
4. Symbolic and Credibility Element
   There is also political symbolism: Bagram is seen by some in the US as a lost asset, and regaining it is framed as reasserting American presence, strength, and credibility, especially after what critics see as a chaotic withdrawal in 2021. Maintaining or reclaiming Bagram would have propaganda as well as operational value.
5. Geoeconomic and Resource Interests
   Some reports also suggest interest in Afghanistan’s rare earth minerals and trade routes, which could be better accessed or protected if the US had physical infrastructure in Bagram. Especially as China pursues the Belt & Road and infrastructure corridors, having control or presence near those routes has economic value.

The Pushback, Challenges & Practical Problems

However, reclaiming Bagram is not easy. Experts and Afghan/Taliban officials have pointed out several serious obstacles:

• Sovereignty and Afghan Resistance
  The Taliban government has firmly rejected any foreign military presence on Afghan territory. They say handing over Bagram is not possible. Afghan officials argue that doing so would violate sovereignty and the Doha Agreement, which promises that no foreign force will interfere in internal affairs.
• Re-invasion Fears and Legitimacy Cost
  Any attempt by the US to militarily take control of Bagram (without Taliban consent) could be viewed internationally as a re-invasion. That risks war, diplomatic backlash, and regional instability. The manpower required would be huge, and the political cost high.
• Security Risks and Operational Burden
  Maintaining a base like Bagram requires not just reclaiming the land but defending it from insurgents (ISIS-K, Al Qaeda), from regional threats including missile attacks (e.g., by Iran), and securing supply lines. The basing infrastructure might need repairs, updates, and the costs would be enormous. (mint)
• International & Regional Opposition
  Neighbouring countries and regional powers (Pakistan, China, Russia, etc.) are wary of a renewed US military presence so close. They fear this could inflame tensions. The “Moscow Format” meeting of regional nations explicitly opposed US plans to re-establish military facilities in Afghanistan.
• Taliban’s Position under the Doha Agreement
  Under the Doha accords, the US had promised to respect Afghanistan’s sovereignty and not use force or maintain military presence post-withdrawal. That legal and diplomatic framework complicates any attempt to reclaim Bagram, especially without building consensus.

What Reclaiming Bagram Would Mean — Scenarios

Depending on how the US tries to get Bagram back, different outcomes are possible:

• Negotiated agreement: US offers economic aid, political incentives, or diplomatic recognition, in exchange for the Taliban allowing US access or partial control. Might involve lease, joint usage, or usage rights rather than full occupation.
• Military action: Risky, likely unpopular, could spark conflict. Not much support or legitimacy for this route.
• Hybrid/Proxy operations: Using covert operations, drone bases, and intelligence partnerships rather than overt presence.
• Symbolic leverage: Even making the demand itself serves as a diplomatic signal—to China, regional powers, and domestic US audiences—that the US intends to reassert influence in Central Asia.

What the Latest Facts Suggest & Some Speculation

• Trump has publicly said he wants Bagram back, in part to counter China, in part as a matter of national pride and strategic positioning.
• The Taliban and Afghan government have so far rejected such proposals outright, citing sovereignty and previous agreements.
• Experts warn that reoccupation would require significant resources (troops, security, defenses) and could be destabilizing both for Afghanistan internally and for the region. (mint)

Why Bagram Matters in the Greater Geopolitical Game

• US-China Rivalry: The US is increasingly framing its foreign policy around countering China’s influence, especially in strategic zones. Afghanistan, Central Asia, and regions close to China’s border become important. Bagram offers proximity that many other US bases don’t.
• Afghanistan’s Strategic Role: Even though the US is no longer stationed there, Afghanistan remains a geographical pivot between South Asia, Central Asia, and China. Whoever controls or influences Bagram has an advantage in projecting power or influence.
• Revival of “Great Power Competition”: Renewed interest in Bagram seems less about Afghanistan per se, and more about positioning in the broader contest between the USA, China, Russia, and perhaps Iran. Control of bases, surveillance, access routes, and influence matter more in this era of geo-competition.

Bottom Line

The US desire to own or control Bagram again is not simply nostalgic or emotional — it’s rooted in hard strategic calculations: surveillance, counterterrorism, proximity to China, and regaining credibility. But it’s also fraught with risks: diplomatic, military, financial, and reputational.

Whether Bagram returns to US hands or remains under Taliban control depends on whether both sides find a deal that can satisfy strategic interests without violating sovereignty, or whether tensions escalate further.

#Bagram #USForeignPolicy #StrategicBases #Geopolitics #China #Taliban #Afghanistan #Counterterrorism #PowerProjection #GreatPowerCompetition #RegionalStab