Bagram Air Base: A Strategic Hub in U.S. Policy, Regional Mediation, and the Afghan Balance

Situated at the crossroads of Central Asia, where the interests of major powers intersect and regional strategies converge, Bagram Air Base remains far more than an abandoned military installation. It reflects the history of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, symbolizes a national memory weighed down by decades of conflict, and serves as a potential bargaining asset in current and future geopolitical calculations. Discussion of Bagram is not simply a revisit of the past—it tests the ability of local, regional, and international actors to convert a military legacy into a political instrument rather than a source of division.

Recent reports regarding potential U.S. proposals to reconsider the base’s status have ignited extensive debate in Afghanistan and the region. The de facto authorities in Kabul have unequivocally rejected any such proposal, asserting that a return of the base under foreign control would violate national sovereignty and contravene the 2020 Doha Agreement between the United States and the Taliban¹. For many, even raising the idea is viewed as unrealistic, evoking memories of occupation and foreign interference.

Nevertheless, the discussion surrounding Bagram’s future is not limited to outright rejection. Pragmatic voices argue that Afghanistan, given its sensitive geopolitical position amid major power competition, cannot categorically dismiss proposals that may influence its security and strategic interests. The country’s geography places it among neighbors seeking to expand their influence, and some regional actors have previously facilitated access to major powers, including the United States², exposing Afghanistan to complex geopolitical maneuvering.

This complexity frames the debate over Bagram. Hardliners see any discussion as unacceptable interference, whereas pragmatic approaches regard it as a negotiable instrument within broader security, political, economic, and humanitarian frameworks. Any future agreement would be meaningful only if accompanied by genuine settlements that ensure internal Afghan stability while addressing U.S. security concerns. U.S. Special Envoy for Counterterrorism Christopher Kirk’s statements in August 2025³ on ongoing cooperation with Afghan authorities underscore Washington’s preference for indirect partnership over a return to a purely military approach.

Regional Mediation and Diplomatic Channels

Regional actors, particularly Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, play central roles in mediating between Kabul and Washington. Qatar, since the Doha negotiations of 2018–2020, has provided crucial diplomatic and logistical support that maintained open channels of communication, earning its status as a trusted intermediary.

The UAE has recently engaged in supporting negotiations through humanitarian and economic initiatives, recognizing that Afghan stability requires a holistic approach combining security and development. Their involvement offers opportunities for regional integration that could bridge the trust gap between Kabul and Washington if effectively coordinated.

Chinese and Russian Considerations

China and Russia’s perspectives on Bagram are critical. Beijing views any U.S. return to the Parwan province base—300 to 400 kilometers from its border via Tajikistan—as a direct threat to national security, given sensitivities surrounding Xinjiang and concerns over separatist movements⁴. Russia, which regards Central Asia as within its strategic sphere of influence, perceives a renewed U.S. presence at Bagram as undermining its security objectives within the Collective Security Treaty Organization framework. In the context of the Ukraine war and strained relations with the West, Moscow’s sensitivity to U.S. presence in its southern periphery has intensified⁵.

These international dynamics elevate the Bagram discussion beyond a bilateral “Kabul–Washington” issue, transforming it into a complex regional–global strategic consideration.

Conclusion

Bagram Air Base, with its strategic and historical significance, will remain a subject of political interpretation and potential leverage. Converting it into a new flashpoint would be unwise, particularly in the absence of immediate regional threats to U.S. interests or transnational security concerns justifying a military return. Maintaining the debate at an analytical and theoretical level is preferable to engaging in pathways that could destabilize Afghanistan further.

A balanced approach should focus on reinforcing security, political, and economic partnerships that protect Afghan sovereignty while addressing the concerns of major regional powers. In this framework, Qatar and the UAE are well-positioned to act as diplomatic bridges, provided they are granted sufficient trust and coordination, while the U.S. role will ultimately determine the success or failure of this strategic pathway.

The original Article is published on the White House in Arabic Platform based in Washington D.C

Zalmay Khalilzad: U.S. Strategy and a Controversial Legacy in Afghanistan and the Middle East

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