Key Points and Summary – The U.S. exit from Afghanistan in 2021 ended a long war, but great-power competition revived interest in Bagram Air Base.
-President Trump now signals a push to regain access, citing proximity to China.
-Kabul’s defense chief rejected any deal, though the foreign ministry left the door ajar.
-Washington could leverage humanitarian aid, release frozen assets, restore banking connectivity, lift travel bans, or even consider recognition to win Taliban consent.
-Pakistan’s influence—and its ties to both Washington and Beijing—will be pivotal, while China’s investments and BRI court Kabul to say no.
-Expect a hard trade-off: strategic access versus human rights concerns.
Bagram Air Base 2.0?
On Aug. 31, 2021, grainy images of the last U.S. soldier boarding a C-17 military transport aircraft leaving Afghanistan marked the end of a two-decade “Global War on Terror.”
Senior military leaders have called America’s longest war a “strategic failure,” and as the United States closed this painful chapter, national strategies shifted back toward geopolitics, focusing on emerging great powers and strategic competitors.
Under the Afghanistan Peace Agreement negotiated in February 2020, the United States agreed to withdraw from all bases in the country. However, in an intriguing twist, President Donald Trump recently discussed the return of Bagram Air Base to United States’ control, because of its location “an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons.”
U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Ricky Bryant is last in line to board a C-130H2 Hercules aircraft at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, for a flight to Forward Operations Base Salearno, Afghanistan, on March 8, 2006. The aircraft and crew are assigned to the 185th Airlift Squadron, Will Rogers World Airport, Oklahoma Air National Guard and are deployed to the 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron, Bagram Air Base.
(DoD photo by Master Sgt. Lance Cheung, U.S. Air Force. (Released))
Bagram Air Base: A Regional Check on China
Trump’s announcement makes sense within the context of strategic competition with China – an active forward air base in South Asia would increase U.S. military (and diplomatic) options.
That said, getting buy-in from the government of Afghanistan is another matter, and the administration will have to employ some deft diplomacy to make it happen.
Chief of Staff for Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defense Fasihuddin Fitrat flatly stated “a deal over even an inch of Afghanistan’s soil is not possible. We don’t need it.” However, the Foreign Ministry communicated a willingness to engage the Trump administration in broader discussions. By seizing this diplomatic opening, Washington can offer an array of economic and political incentives to change Kabul’s current position.
Four years after the Taliban assumed power, Afghanistan’s economic woes have been exacerbated by an influx of returning refugees and a humanitarian crisis – all worsened by a simultaneous decrease in foreign assistance.
The New York Times reports that “Three-quarters of Afghan households lack secure access to basic needs like food, sanitation, water, health care or decent housing, according to the United Nations Development Program. Some 3.5 million children under 5 are malnourished, according to UNICEF, and this year had the sharpest surge in child malnutrition ever recorded in the country.”
Washington Has Diplomatic Options
In addition to restoring some $500 million in U.S. funding for humanitarian and economic projects terminated earlier this year, the Trump administration could release some or all of the billions of dollars in Afghan frozen assets held in the U.S. and encourage Europe to do the same. Moreover, Washington could use its influence to restore Kabul’s access to the international banking regime. President Trump could also lift the travel ban on Afghan citizens travelling to the United States. Finally, the administration could negotiate formal recognition of the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan.
Working multilaterally, the Trump administration could ask Pakistan’s government to encourage the Taliban to return Bagram Air Base to U.S. control. The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan has flourished since inauguration day.
For example, Trump publicly praised Pakistan for its assistance in arresting Mohammad Sharifullah, who was allegedly involved in planning an attack at Kabul International Airport that killed 13 U.S. service members. Following its conflict with India in May, Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, expressed gratitude for President Trump’s “pathbreaking leadership” in mediating ceasefire talks and expressed his hopes for “reinvigorating” the strategic partnership with Washington.
Finally, in an unprecedented sign of Washington’s renewed interest in the bilateral relationship – and in South Asia – Trump hosted Pakistani Army Chief Field Marshal Gen. Asim Munir at the White House. If Islamabad wants to remain in the Trump administration’s good graces, it behooves the government to favorably respond to any appeals for intervention with the Taliban.
On the other hand, Pakistan will want to carefully balance any request from Washington against its longstanding strategic relationship with China. For example, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is a decade-old initiative under which Beijing pledges more than $60 billion in infrastructure projects across the country.
The projects are intended to connect China to the Indian Ocean and include development of the strategically important Gwadar Port. Chinese President Xi Jinping recently met with Sharif during a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit to reaffirm the cooperative partnership and economic support for the bilateral relationship.
Likely to Press Ahead
Of course, Beijing could directly use its own leverage over Kabul to deny any U.S. demands on Bagram Air Base.
China was the first country to appoint an ambassador after the Taliban assumed government control in August 2021 and is one of the leading investors in the country’s mining sector. Moreover, China is reportedly in discussions to have Afghanistan formally join its Belt and Road Initiative. These are powerful incentives for the Taliban government to remain resolute against U.S. pressure.
Despite the challenges and resistance, President Trump seems likely to press ahead. The very notion of U.S. forces returning to Afghanistan may seem far-fetched, given lingering hostility over the costly war that ended with former insurgents taking government control. However, one can look to Vietnam as a precedent where once bitter enemies are now economic and security partners.
The Taliban government remains an odious regime that represses women and education. To restrict the population’s access to information, the regime recently announced an internet ban across a swath of northern Afghanistan “to prevent immoral activities.”
Despite such abhorrent behavior, President Trump’s announcement suggests his actions will focus on advancing U.S. national interests (i.e., acquiring access to Bagram Air Base) over these human security issues.
About the Author: James L. Cook
James L. Cook is a Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. He specializes in Strategy, Military Force Planning and the Middle East. A retired Army Air Defense Artillery officer, Professor Cook is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York, and the Naval War College (College of Naval Command and Staff). He has served in a variety of command and staff assignments within the United States, Europe and the Middle East, most recently in Afghanistan. Professor Cook is an active participant in the Naval War College’s International Engagement program where he lectures on strategy and international security matters.
More Military
China Claims New J-35 Stealth Fighter Has Radar Cross-Section ‘Smaller Than a Human Palm’
The SR-71 Blackbird Mach 3 Bomber?
5 Reasons A U.S.-China War Could Start
Jim
September 28, 2025 at 4:42 pm
There were rumors the Afghans might be open to an arraignment where the U S. could voluntarily come onto the base.
Then there was silence.
And the next thing you know Trump is crowing about getting the base and the Afghans quickly nix it.
Trump at his worst… quiet diplomacy could have eased the way to a low key presence, and should that end up being satisfactory to both parties, in a mutual review, a more robust presence could be allowed for and so on.
All done with quiet diplomacy and minimum fuss.
I think there’s something to the rumors… and the Afghans would be okay… stay out on the base at Bagram and stay out of Kabul… stay out of each other’s hair.
And it might work if Trump doesn’t blow it.
Ray
September 29, 2025 at 5:00 am
Would never happen. America didn’t just burn that bridge. It blew it to smithereens. No afghan would trust an American knowing they would face death from their own as they have seen how America honors it’s agreements.