The recent comments by former U.S. President Donald Trump on “trying to get Bagram back” from the Taliban have reignited both strategic and political debate around the legacy of the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Speaking alongside UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump underscored the airbase’s significance, emphasising its proximity to China’s nuclear facilities in Xinjiang and suggesting that Washington may seek to use leverage points, noting vaguely that “they need things from us,” though without specifying what channels or conditions might be in play.

Bagram Air Base, located north of Kabul, was the linchpin of U.S. and NATO military operations for two decades, functioning as a hub for logistics, counterterrorism missions, intelligence collection, and regional power projection.

Its loss after the chaotic pull-out in August 2021 symbolised not only the end of America’s longest war but also the contraction of U.S. forward basing capabilities in one of the most geopolitically sensitive regions bordering Central Asia, China, Iran, and Pakistan.

Trump’s remarks also highlight the shifting calculus around great-power competition, with Bagram framed less in the context of counterinsurgency and more as a potential fulcrum for deterring Chinese and Russian activity.

The mention of nuclear proximity underscores how the base could, in theory, serve as an advanced monitoring site, while also offering logistical depth should the U.S. reassert presence in Central Asia. However, access would hinge on highly complex negotiations with the Taliban leadership, now recognised by some regional powers but still under broad Western sanctions.

Any potential U.S. bid to regain a foothold in Bagram would raise questions about Taliban willingness, internal Afghan politics, and the reaction of neighbouring powers.

China, Russia, and Iran would likely view such a move as a re-entry of American military power into their near-abroad, while Pakistan’s stance would remain pivotal given its historical ties to both Washington and the Taliban.

For Washington, aligning leverage—whether economic, humanitarian, or political recognition—remains unclear, as Trump did not elaborate on what “they need” might concretely refer to, leaving speculation over deals tied to frozen Afghan assets, aid channels, or counterterrorism concessions.

The episode also revives debates in the U.S. domestic arena over the Biden administration’s handling of the 2021 exit. Trump’s willingness to signal possible re-engagement, even hypothetically, reopens arguments about whether abandoning Bagram was a strategic blunder and whether U.S. global posture requires recalibration in light of mounting competition with Beijing.

The optics of raising the issue with the UK prime minister further echo allied concerns about Western access to strategic infrastructure in contested regions.

Ultimately, Trump’s statement places the Bagram base back into U.S. strategic discourse but without a clear operational pathway, making it as much a political gambit as a military proposition.

Whether this signals genuine exploratory talks with the Taliban or a rhetorical effort to contrast with Biden’s record, the very idea of pursuing Bagram underscores how Afghanistan’s geography remains central to great-power rivalry despite the U.S. military’s departure.

Agencies