The political shockwaves from Donald Trump’s threats to retake Bagram Air Base continue to reverberate across Afghanistan. While the Taliban’s stance—eager for engagement but unwilling to cede ground—is relatively clear, the position of their domestic opponents remains fraught and ambiguous. Prominent figures like Atta Mohammad Noor, Rangin Dadfar Spanta, and Hanif Atmar have spoken cautiously, but their statements reveal personal dilemmas rather than a unified strategic front. For these opposition forces, the Bagram issue presents a triple bind, exposing their profound vulnerability and the deep scars left by decades of conflict and shifting American policy.
1. The Sovereignty Dilemma: Condemning an Unjustified Attack
In the event of a unilateral U.S. military strike to seize Bagram, Taliban opponents would be compelled to condemn the action. Regardless of the Taliban’s lack of legitimacy, a foreign invasion without a clear, compelling casus belli—unlike the 2001 intervention following 9/11—constitutes a blatant violation of Afghan sovereignty. In such a scenario, opposing factions cannot afford to align with Washington. To do so would allow the Taliban to don the mantle of national defenders, galvanizing public sentiment and effectively tarring their rivals as collaborators. This dynamic mirrors the predicament of Iran’s opposition during the recent Israeli strike: silence implies complicity, while defense of the nation inadvertently bolsters the regime. While some opponents might privately welcome an American intervention to topple the Taliban, openly supporting an unjustified attack would be politically suicidal, explaining the widespread official silence.
2. The Legitimacy Dilemma: The Perils of a Negotiated Handover
Should the U.S. regain Bagram through negotiations with the Taliban, a different, perhaps more insidious, dilemma emerges. Such a deal would implicitly, if not explicitly, legitimize the Taliban regime, sidelining the opposition indefinitely. However, this path also contains a unique opportunity: it would shatter the Taliban’s core narrative of unwavering resistance to foreign occupation. A backchannel deal to hand over a key national asset would expose their rhetoric as hollow, creating a potent line of attack for opponents. Strategically, this scenario could also fracture the international landscape. Geopolitical rivals of the U.S., such as Russia and China, might see an opening to bolster certain anti-Taliban factions as proxies, offering them a fleeting moment of leverage. For a fragmented and resource-starved opposition, this could be a critical, if temporary, window to regroup and gain relevance.
3. The Trust Dilemma: A Bridge Burned by Washington
The most profound challenge is the near-total erosion of trust in the United States. Washington’s handling of Afghanistan—from the Doha Agreement and the chaotic withdrawal to its inconsistent policy over the past four years—has left even its most sympathetic Afghan allies disillusioned. The bitter admissions of opposition leaders are telling. Atta Noor’s statement that “The Taliban are not selling out the country’s soil” and his dismissal of the U.S. as undeserving of the “liberator” title speak volumes. Rangin Spanta’s caustic remark that “America has found better servants than the Taliban” and Hanif Atmar’s warning that a U.S. return would “multiply the dangers” for Afghans all point to one conclusion: the opposition believes any American return, under any pretext, would exacerbate the crisis rather than resolve it.
Their expectations from Washington have consequently shifted. Instead of direct military intervention, they seek sustained, non-military pressure on the Taliban: stringent sanctions, travel bans, financial isolation, and blocking access to aid, measures they hope could force the regime toward an inclusive government. Should this fail, some factions see support for armed resistance as the only remaining path—a contentious option that highlights the deep divisions within the opposition itself.
The Insurmountable Divide
Compounding this crisis of trust is the apparent indifference from the other side. Since his return to the political forefront, Donald Trump has not once acknowledged the Taliban’s political opponents, signaling that they hold no credibility in his calculus. His understanding of Afghanistan is superficial, filtered through advisors, and devoid of the nuanced (if flawed) grasp that Joe Biden occasionally displayed. For Trump, an inclusive government or a Taliban monopoly likely makes little practical difference.
Thus, the impasse is complete: Taliban opponents cannot trust Washington to act in Afghanistan’s best interests, and the current U.S. political trajectory under Trump offers them no credibility or partnership. Aligning these two disillusioned and mutually suspicious sides would require a degree of political will and diplomatic capital that simply does not exist today. The Bagram dilemma, therefore, is less about a single air base and more a stark illustration of the strategic void in which Afghanistan’s opposition finds itself trapped.
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
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
Comments are closed.