This week marks our fundraising initiative at Naked Capitalism. 431 generous donors have already contributed to our mission to tackle corruption and exploitative practices, especially within the financial sector. We invite you to support us as well through our donation page, where you can find options to donate via check, credit card, debit card, PayPal, Clover, or Wise. Learn more about the reasons behind our fundraiser, our achievements over the past year, and our current objective of supporting our new Coffee Break/Sunday Movie features
Yves here. In this post, we explore why the seemingly absurd suggestion for the United States to reclaim Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan—following our chaotic withdrawal—is as outlandish as it appears. Readers may wish to contribute additional insights into the challenges associated with this proposal.
The most concerning aspect is that when Trump makes such outlandish remarks, he often uses them to divert attention from his faltering initiatives, whether it’s in relation to the Ukraine conflict, the trade war with China, or negotiations with Iran. Once the media pick up on these comments, Trump’s self-absorption ensures that they become tied to his identity, making them challenging to dismiss.
By James D. Durso, Managing Director of Corsair LLC, a supply chain consultancy. From 2013 to 2015, he served as CEO of AKM Consulting, which offered business development and international project management services in Central and Southwest Asia to U.S. clients across various sectors, including telecommunications, homeland security, and defense. Originally published at OilPrice
- Trump has demanded that the Taliban return Bagram Airfield to U.S. control, citing worries about potential Chinese utilization of the site, but the Taliban has firmly refused.
- Regional powers—including Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and Central Asian nations—are opposed to a U.S. return.
- Any attempt by the U.S. to reclaim Bagram by force would provoke violent backlash.
Recently, President Donald Trump demanded that the Taliban allow the U.S. to retake Bagram Airfield, strategically located near Kabul. He warned, “BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN” if the Taliban does not accede to the demand.
The Taliban swiftly rejected Trump’s request but did express a desire for political and economic relations with the U.S.
What could drive Trump to insist on U.S. forces returning to Bagram?
His concerns seem to be based on the belief that China might occupy the airfield, which he views as advantageous for surveillance—asserting that it is “an hour away from where China develops its nuclear weapons.”
While this perspective raises eyebrows, there is minimal chance of U.S. forces returning to Bagram anytime soon. First, the logistics of moving troops and equipment back into the region complicate matters significantly.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the United States found itself with global sympathy, and cooperation from Iran, Russia, and Central Asian republics existed during the retaliatory efforts against al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden. However, that was over two decades ago, and circumstances have changed dramatically.
Today, Russia and Iran have no intention of assisting the U.S. in revisiting Afghanistan, unless it involves placing the U.S. in another unfortunate situation. While Pakistan has sometimes worked alongside the U.S., it grapples with its own challenges, particularly with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and any support for the U.S. could provoke further terrorist attacks, which have already taken over 4,600 civilian and security lives since 2021. Although the Central Asian republics maintain friendly ties with Washington and Kabul, they are unlikely to engage in actions that might make them appear as American co-belligerents in a renewed Afghan campaign.
Should the U.S. choose to forcefully take over the airfield, it would necessitate a significant deployment of troops and aircraft, all needing to be clandestinely positioned in the area. Covering an expanse of approximately 5 square miles, Bagram would require considerable security, placing hundreds of U.S. personnel under constant threat and dependent on air supply for provisions.
Meanwhile, the Central Asian republics are enhancing their ties with Kabul, participating in pragmatic cooperation that ensures economic integration without political agendas. These nations recognize that they are “neighbors forever” and believe collaboration is key to the peaceful inclusion of Afghanistan in regional dynamics.
Another reason for neighboring countries’ opposition to a U.S. takeover of Bagram is their reliance on Afghanistan for much of their water supply.
For instance, the Qosh Tepa canal, under construction to serve northern Afghanistan, may reduce water accessibility for Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan by up to 17%. Iran argues that its rightful access to water from Afghanistan, as per the 1973 Afghan-Iranian Helmand River Water Treaty, is not being honored, impacting both drinking and agricultural water supplies.
Pakistan is also wary of Afghan plans to construct dams on the Kunar and Kabul Rivers, amid its disputes regarding water management with India, particularly after India’s withdrawal from the Indus Waters Treaty.
Trump likely believes that offering the right mix of incentives will persuade Kabul to comply with his request. However, the Taliban views their stance against the U.S.-led coalition as a critical part of their legitimacy, and their firm rejection of collaboration is resolute. If Taliban leaders were to entertain Trump’s proposition, they would risk retribution from local al-Qaeda and Islamic State factions, which could swell in numbers with defections from the Taliban. This could revive the glory days of hardliners within the Taliban, overshadowing any moderate voices.
In such a scenario, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State could initiate “self-defense” attacks against U.S. interests and allies across the region, exacerbating instability.
Such an escalation would not only increase regional violence but also lead to a surge in refugee and displaced populations, putting additional strain on an already burdened area and empowering human trafficking networks, which would destabilize neighboring countries like Iran, Pakistan, and Central Asian states and further complicate matters for Turkey and governments in the South Caucasus.
During the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, foreign ministers from China, Russia, Pakistan, and Iran convened and released a joint statement. This emphasized the importance of respecting Afghanistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity while opposing any military base reestablishment in or around Afghanistan by nations responsible for its current predicament, as this would not contribute to regional peace and security.
In conclusion, Trump would be wise to refrain from pursuing this direction.
The United States is already facing challenges with scarce military resources supporting Israel and Ukraine, and may soon confront escalating tensions in Venezuela and the South China Sea. Following the lack of a decisive response to the Israeli attack on Qatar, a long-time ally, the U.S. faces a credibility crisis. Suggesting ideas such as retaking a base built by the Soviets—while attributing the venture to the American identity—only compounds the folly of the situation. If the U.S. attempts to reclaim Bagram Airfield, it risks mirroring British experiences, having been expelled from Afghanistan not just once, but twice.
