Since taking office in January 2025, Donald Trump has reignited the debate over US strategy in Afghanistan, focusing specifically on Bagram Air Base. During a visit to the United Kingdom in September 2025, Trump, sitting next to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, made it clear that his country wanted to regain control of the base, which he described as a \u201cfree gift to the Taliban\u201d during the US military\u2019s ignominious withdrawal. \u201cWe want that base back,\u201d he said, and in a later statement on social media he warned in his familiar diplomatic language of \u201cbad things\u201d if Afghanistan did not return it to the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As expected, the Taliban, who have ruled the country since 2021, categorically rejected the request, stressed that under \u201cno circumstances\u201d they would cede the base to a third country, and found significant diplomatic support from a wide range of regional powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In early October in Moscow, at a meeting of officials from countries including Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, and four Central Asian states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan), the statements were united in a joint condemnation of the development of foreign military bases in Afghanistan. The joint statement, which did not explicitly mention the United States, called such efforts \u201cunacceptable,\u201d arguing that they do not serve the interests of regional peace and stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This unanimity is notable, given that many of these countries have historically conflicting interests and rifts in the region. This unity is interpreted as an expression of a broader regional perception that considers Afghan issues a \u201cregional responsibility\u201d and rejects external intervention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to Taimur Khan of the Islamabad Institute of Strategic Studies (ISSI), this common position significantly strengthens the Taliban\u2019s diplomatic hand, giving them regional legitimacy as they face pressure from Trump. This legitimacy is manifested through the Taliban\u2019s deepening ties with neighboring states, such as the recent historic visit of their foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, to New Delhi, despite the fact that the majority of states have not officially recognized them as a government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bagram base, located 44km north of Kabul and originally built by the Soviet Union in the 1950s, remains a strategic target because of its capacity to host large military aircraft \u2013 a rare infrastructure in mountainous Afghanistan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, experts express skepticism about Washington\u2019s real intention or ability for a new military commitment. Current US geostrategy focuses on \u201cmilitary disengagement\u201d and that the costs of maintaining such a base would far outweigh its benefits. The US\u2019s economic problems are no longer being swept under the rug\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instead, the request for Bagram may be a signal to the Taliban that the US is open to new forms of dealing, perhaps aimed at countering Chinese influence in Central Asia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For the Taliban, the request poses a dilemma. On the one hand, handing over the base is politically unthinkable, as it would undermine the legitimacy of their government internally. On the other hand, they need relief from international sanctions to deal with the economic crisis and need to connect with the West. At the same time, strengthening their diplomatic ties with neighboring states helps them cope with the pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The motives of neighboring countries for supporting the Taliban are realistic. They are to promote stability on the borders, to ensure guarantees for the fight against terrorism and to secure trade routes. The countries of Central Asia, in particular, fear the re-emergence of the country as a battlefield for \u201cproxies.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
KuatAkizhanov of the Central Asian Institute for Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) explains that a US base would put the smaller states of the region at the forefront of US-Russia-China competition, which could provoke economic as well as military conflicts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, the collective response to the Bagram challenge does not reflect a blind anti-American stance, but a deep regional shift towards solving challenges through economic integration and collective security, under the auspices of organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). What we see is not formal diplomatic recognition of the Taliban, but a \u201cworking understanding\u201d that continuing to isolate Afghanistan serves no one\u2019s interests, while its stabilization through regional cooperation is the only viable path. The dispute over Bagram, therefore, functions as a reflection of a broader geostrategic realignment, where the region seeks to determine its own future, without external military intervention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The American disorderly retreat from Afghanistan was not an isolated unfortunate moment. It is a milestone that declares the definitive withdrawal of the United States from the region and the determination of states that have been affected by endless wars to take the fates of their people into their own hands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We may not agree with the practices of the Taliban, but let’s stop the hypocrisy that the West, drowning in corruption, is anxious about the fates of women in Asia.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Since taking office in January 2025, Donald Trump has reignited the debate over US strategy in Afghanistan, focusing specifically on Bagram Air Base. During…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":26423,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[836,3],"tags":[1210,7456,1211,70],"class_list":["post-26422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-asia-geopolitical","category-geopolitical","tag-afghanistan","tag-bagram","tag-taliban","tag-usa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26422","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=26422"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26422\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26424,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26422\/revisions\/26424"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/26423"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=26422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=26422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=26422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}