US President Donald Trump’s recent statement to get control of Bagram Airbase has started a new debate among the global policy makers, and they are concerned whether the renewed US involvement in Afghanistan, especially in Bagram Airbase, could destabilize the region and reignite the global rivalry. Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that “bad things” would happen if Afghanistan did not return Bagram Airbase to America. He also noted the strategic importance of Bagram Airbase due to its proximity to China; it is an hour away from Beijing, which makes its nukes.
For the US and NATO forces, Afghanistan’s Bagram airbase has been the epicenter of the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda for two decades. The airbase was built by the Soviet Union in the 1950s and played a major role in its occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The US controlled the airbase when it overthrew the Taliban regime in 2001; the Taliban regained its control when the US abruptly withdrew its forces from Afghanistan in 2021. Trump on various occasions expressed his concern that Washington should have a small force in the airbase, not because of Afghanistan but due to its geostrategic location, to have a look at China’s activities.
However, the Afghan government has strongly rejected recent US calls to reclaim Bagram Air Base, reaffirming its unwavering commitment to national sovereignty and urging Washington to honor the 2020 Doha Agreement’s pledge against military interference. Afghanistan’s deputy spokesman of the administration, Hamdullah Fitrat, posted on his X account that in accordance with Islamic principles and grounded in its balanced, economy-oriented foreign policy, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan seeks constructive relations with all states based on mutual and shared interests.
While framed as a bilateral issue between the US and Afghanistan, control of Bagram carries profound regional and global consequences, making such moves highly inadvisable. Afghanistan risks once again becoming a battleground for great power competition, undoing fragile efforts for stability and peace. The resurgence of terrorist groups on Afghan soil with the support of the interim Afghan government and the giving of external control to Bagram Airbase would worsen the regional security.This would have a ripple effect on Pakistan. Iran, China, Russia, and CARs—these states are already facing border and security challenges.
Afghanistan shares borders with Tajikistan, China, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. Iran views the US control of Bagram Airbase as a natural threat. Situated in northern Afghanistan close to the Iranian border, the base would allow surveillance and possible military operations to target Iran’s eastern provinces. The base’s proximity to Afghanistan’s shared borders with Iran, China’s Xinjiang region, and Central Asia would enhance its strategic value as a platform for US regional military and intelligence operations.
Establishing a foreign military foothold risks triggering regional rivalries instead of fostering cooperation. The base would give us access to directly target missiles or airstrikes at Iranian interests. The Tehran Times highlights Bagram through the lens of US-Iran geopolitical rivalry; the US return to Afghanistan is likely to encircle Tehran and to check Sino-Iran’s growing influence in South Asia and Central Asia.
The struggle over Bagram is embedded within a broader triangular contest involving the United States, China, and Russia, all vying for influence in Afghanistan and the Central Asian corridor. For Washington, Bagram symbolizes a foothold from which to project power, counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and monitor regional security threats. China sees Bagram with concern, as it would US surveillance near Xinjiang province, which faces ethnic unrest and terrorism supported by militants in Afghanistan. Russia and China, both viewing Bagram as a strategic threat, would likely react strongly, creating new rifts and threatening global peace. Militarization could fuel proxy conflicts, drawing multiple actors into confrontation rather than stabilizing the region.
The Taliban have positioned themselves as a central geopolitical player, balancing relationships with China, Russia, the United States, and regional powers such as Iran and Pakistan. Their refusal to cede control of Bagram despite US pressure underscores this new reality. In an increasingly fragile regional order, Bagram’s fate carries both practical and symbolic weight, shaping diplomacy, influencing alignments, and serving as a measure of power in and beyond Afghanistan.
For Afghanistan, hosting such an arrangement would erode sovereignty, spark internal backlash, and destabilize governance. Such a move would inflame anti-American sentiment across Afghanistan and also the Muslim world and provide extremist groups with fresh agendas. Reoccupation would require massive manpower and defenses, effectively resembling a new US invasion. Even with Taliban compliance, US presence would remain a magnet for ISIS-K, al-Qaeda, and other militants, hence deepening insecurity. For Washington, “taking back” Bagram risks another protracted conflict with no clear endgame, repeating past mistakes.
In the end, talk of Trump reclaiming Bagram is less a blueprint than a political gesture, a projection of American resolve at home rather than a practical plan abroad. Yet the symbolism carries weight. Bagram remains more than an abandoned airfield; it is a reminder of unfinished wars, contested sovereignties, and the fault lines of great-power rivalry. Whether it re-emerges as a military asset, a bargaining chip, or a symbol of decline, Bagram’s shadow will continue to stretch far beyond Afghanistan’s borders, shaping calculations in Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Kabul alike.
