Reoccupying Bagram: Washington’s New Strategic Gamble

The announcement by United States President Donald Trump today, on 18 September 2025, that his administration is seeking to regain control of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, has raised profound questions about American strategy, diplomacy and credibility. The proposal, made during his visit to the United Kingdom, suggests negotiations with the Taliban to reoccupy the vast facility once central to Western operations in Central Asia. However improbable, the very suggestion marks a remarkable moment in post-withdrawal geopolitics.

The Strategic Rationale

Bagram is not merely an airfield; it is a symbol of two decades of American military endeavour in Afghanistan. Situated north of Kabul, it is the largest base of its kind in the country, with long runways, extensive storage and hardened facilities. To relinquish it during the hurried withdrawal of 2021 was seen by many as an emblem of retreat. To seek it back now implies a recalibration of American ambitions.

President Trump was explicit in linking Bagram’s value not solely to Afghanistan but also to its geography. He emphasised the base’s proximity to western China, describing it as close to Chinese nuclear facilities. In so doing, he tied the issue not to Afghan counterterrorism alone but to the broader competition with Beijing. This frames the proposed reoccupation as part of a new phase of great power rivalry.

The Diplomatic Calculus

Negotiating with the Taliban for the return of Bagram is fraught with complexity. The Taliban rule Afghanistan de facto but remain unrecognised diplomatically by most states. To strike an agreement with them would either entail tacit recognition or risk an arrangement of ambiguous legality. Moreover, the Taliban are unlikely to surrender such a prize without substantial concessions. These could range from economic assistance and sanctions relief to more sensitive matters such as formal recognition of their government.

From the American perspective, the calculus must weigh the symbolic benefits of regaining Bagram against the political costs of legitimising the Taliban. Domestic opposition in the United States, wary of further entanglement in Afghanistan, may be considerable. The very suggestion of negotiations is likely to divide Washington between those who perceive it as pragmatic realism and those who see it as ignominious back-tracking.

Regional Repercussions

Were the United States to re-establish a presence in Bagram, regional reactions would be swift. China, having cultivated relations with the Taliban and eyeing Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, would perceive it as an act of encirclement. Pakistan, long a sponsor of the Taliban, would face delicate choices. Iran, with whom the United States is at renewed loggerheads, would certainly object. Russia, already seeking to extend her influence in Central Asia, might attempt to rally opposition to an American return.

For the Taliban, hosting an American base could appear politically suicidal: their legitimacy derives from expelling foreign occupiers. Yet they may be tempted by the promise of aid, investment, and the removal of economic sanctions that have left Afghanistan impoverished. The tension between ideological purity and material necessity will test their leadership.

Risks and Obstacles

Even if agreement were reached, the practicalities are formidable. The infrastructure of Bagram has reportedly deteriorated. Supply lines to the base would be perilous absent Taliban guarantees. The safety of American personnel would rest on the word of a movement that only recently fought them as mortal enemies. Moreover, the optics of American troops returning to Afghanistan may revive memories of a war many in the United States would rather forget.

There is also the danger of mission creep. What begins as a strategic foothold against China might expand into broader operations in Afghanistan, rekindling entanglements Washington has sought to escape. Allies may question the wisdom of such a gamble, while adversaries may exploit it as evidence of American inconsistency.

Conclusion

President Trump’s proposal to negotiate the reoccupation of Bagram Air Base is a striking reminder of how quickly strategic thinking can shift. Four years ago, the United States abandoned the installation amidst scenes of chaos. Today she contemplates returning, not to wage war against insurgents but to reposition herself in the rivalry with China.

Whether this bold idea becomes reality will depend upon a chain of unlikely bargains: the Taliban’s willingness to deal, America’s readiness to concede, and the acquiescence of regional powers. Even then, the risks of instability, overreach and reputational damage are formidable. Yet in proposing to reclaim Bagram, President Trump has once again re-centred Afghanistan upon the chessboard of global strategy, a place from which many had thought it permanently removed.