Bagram: Restoring US Pride Or Containing China?

Recent moves by the United States suggest that Afghanistan may be entering a new and potentially destabilizing phase. The House of Representatives has passed an amendment to the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act requiring the Department of Defense to share intelligence with former Afghan army and police units, as well as other designated resistance forces, in an effort to counter the Taliban. Coming just four years after Washington’s chaotic withdrawal, the measure marks a striking shift in U.S. engagement with Afghanistan, raising hopes among some exiled warlords while stoking fears among ordinary Afghans that the country could once again become an arena for proxy conflict, regional rivalry, and renewed bloodshed.

At the same time, President Trump has publicly expressed his intention to reclaim Bagram Air Base, emphasizing its strategic proximity to China’s nuclear facilities. These developments reveal a renewed American interest in Afghanistan, driven not only by counterterrorism concerns but also by broader geostrategic factors, including Afghanistan’s mineral wealth and its location relative to China. Trump’s claim that America needs Bagram to “check” China may sound persuasive to his followers, given its geographic proximity to Xinjiang and Central Asia. In reality, the situation is far more complex: reclaiming Bagram would mean navigating Taliban control, regional sensitivities, and logistical obstacles, while risking the re-ignition of conflict. Yet Trump’s narrative dismisses complexity. Reoccupying Bagram fits neatly into his story of strength: the U.S. lost the base in a “shameful” withdrawal, and regaining it would restore national pride while signaling resolve against Beijing. The ambiguity of Trump’s threats is destabilizing in itself. He has not specified whether his approach would rely on diplomacy, bargaining, or force. That uncertainty fuels speculation, unsettles Afghanistan’s fragile politics, and raises fears that great-power rivalry could once again be played out on Afghan soil.

Even if Washington were to reestablish a foothold at Bagram, whether by force or through other means, which remains uncertain, sustaining it would demand immense political will, vast financial resources, and above all the restoration of lost trust and local legitimacy, none of which are assured after the chaotic 2021 withdrawal. For Trump, or any fortune-seeker who dreams of control, the true test lies not in the strike itself but in the far heavier burden of governance and the struggle to sustain influence in a land that has humbled outsiders time and again.

On the ground, the IEA continue to consolidate control. From Kandahar to Badakhshan, the regime has restored a degree of order, harsh yet relatively stable compared to the chaos of past decades. It has reduced corruption to some extent and enforced a functioning, if harsh, justice system. Yet international recognition remains elusive. Relations with Pakistan, in particular, are strained. Decades of mistrust, the unresolved status of the Durand Line, and Islamabad’s recurring anti-Afghan campaigns intersect with the Taliban’s anti-Pakistan rhetoric. These tensions, layered on top of regional mistrust, complicate any prospect of stable engagement.

The U.S. intelligence-sharing initiative adds another layer of complexity. Framed as counterterrorism support, it also bolsters anti-Taliban resistance forces, challenges the regime’s domestic authority, and risks rekindling internal conflict. Coupled with Pakistan’s manoeuvring and Trump’s repeated statements, these dynamics create conditions that could once again unsettle a country whose citizens remain deeply weary of war. Ordinary Afghans, having endured generations of conflict, remain determined to shield their homeland from further upheaval. Their resilience and insistence on peace set limits on what outside powers can impose.

This fragile pursuit of stability unfolds in a regional environment shaped by suspicion. Trump’s words, most likely tied to these broader dynamics, including Afghanistan’s fraught relationship with Pakistan, carry weight beyond American politics. Neighboring states such as Pakistan, China, Iran, and Uzbekistan continue to express concern over the the existence of foreign fighters seeking refuge in Afghanistan. The August 20 trilateral meeting of China, Afghanistan, and Pakistan ended without a joint communiqué, reportedly due to disagreements on counterterrorism, an outcome that signalled mistrust and exposed the fragility of even minimal counterterrorism coordination.

A pragmatic course of forward thinking requires responsibility on all sides. The Taliban must move beyond rhetoric and demonstrate genuine commitment to their obligations, constructive engagement with neighbours, and take credible steps toward fulfilling the Doha Agreement if they seek domestic and international legitimacy. The United States, still shadowed by its failures and the chaotic 2021 withdrawal, should resist the temptation of unilateral intelligence operations that risk reigniting proxy wars, and instead prioritise diplomacy, reconstruction, and economic incentives. Pakistan, too, must recognise that stability cannot be secured through grievances or militant leverage, but through constructive, durable relations.

Afghanistan stands at a crossroads. How the Taliban-led Afghan government, the United States, Pakistan, and other regional actors respond will determine whether the country consolidates a fragile peace or slides back into turbulence. For Afghans themselves, the demand is clear: peace, stability, and economic security. Any external attempt to turn their country into a chessboard for great-power rivalry will be resisted. Respecting that resolve is not only wise but the only path toward a sustainable peace.

One Nation, One Pain, One Hope

Support Dawat Media Center

If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Dawat Media Center from as little as $/€10 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you
DNB Bank AC # 0530 2294668
Account for international payments: NO15 0530 2294 668
Vipps: #557320

  Donate Here