The Bagram Dilemma: Taliban, Opposition, and U.S. Policy under Trump

Donald Trump’s warning about retaking the Bagram air base has unsettled Afghanistan’s political scene. The Taliban’s position is increasingly clear they signal readiness to engage with Washington, though not necessarily to cede Bagram

Donald Trump’s warning about retaking the Bagram air base has unsettled Afghanistan’s political scene.

The Taliban’s position is increasingly clear they signal readiness to engage with Washington, though not necessarily to cede Bagram.

In contrast, the anti Taliban opposition remains hesitant, fragmented, and uncertain, facing three interlinked dilemmas.

1-Military Intervention Scenario If the United State reclaims Bagram through force, Taliban opponents have little room to maneuver.

Endorsing such an intervention would mean justifying a violation of Afghanistan’s territorial integrity, something politically untenable.

Yet silence or neutrality risks handing the Taliban a powerful nationalist narrative: defenders of the homeland.

This would further isolate and discredit opposition groups in the eyes of the public.

2- Negotiated Return Scenario If Bagram is returned through U.

S Taliban negotiations, the greater danger lies in implicit recognition of the Taliban regime.

Such recognition could permanently sideline opposition factions.

However, this scenario offers a rare opening: the Taliban’s long-standing narrative of jihad against occupation would be severely undermined if they voluntarily handed Bagram to the United States.

With strategic messaging, opposition groups could exploit this contradiction to weaken the Taliban’s ideological legitimacy, particularly with potential support from regional powers.

3- Crisis of Trust in the United State Underlying both scenarios is a deeper problem: a profound distrust of the United States among Taliban opponents.

After two decades of war, the Doha Agreement, the chaotic withdrawal, and inconsistent foreign policy, even seasoned opposition leaders such as Atta Mohammad Noor, Rangin Dadfar Spanta, and Hanif Atmar publicly criticize United States actions.

For them, another American return to Bagram would not bring stability but rather exacerbate Afghanistan’s crisis.

Their preferred alternative is sustained international pressure sanctions, travel bans, financial restrictions, and isolation of the Taliban to force the group toward an inclusive government.

A faction also advocates armed resistance, but internal divisions make this path uncertain.

Trump’s Indifference Since his return to the White House, Donald Trump has not once acknowledged anti-Taliban factions, a telling indicator of their low credibility in Washington.

Unlike Joe Biden, who occasionally recognized Afghanistan’s structural and historical challenges, Trump shows little concern over whether the regime is exclusive or inclusive.

For him, stability or the appearance of it matters more than political pluralism.

This leaves Taliban opponents caught in a double bind: mistrustful of United States intentions yet unable to secure recognition or influence in American policymaking.

The Bagram debate exposes the precarious position of Taliban opponents.

On one side, the Taliban maneuver between nationalist rhetoric and international engagement; on the other, the United States appears indifferent to Afghanistan’s opposition forces.

Unless these groups achieve unity, craft a coherent strategy, and leverage regional partnerships, they risk permanent marginalization in Afghanistan’s evolving political order.

Reporter: Mohammad Fahim Azimi.