In a bold and cryptic social media post on September 21, 2025, US President Donald Trump warned that “bad things” would happen if Afghanistan refuses to return control of the Bagram Air Base to the United States. This threat, issued via Truth Social, has reignited debates over America’s unfinished business in Afghanistan, four years after the chaotic US withdrawal in 2021. As Trump eyes a potential reoccupation of the strategic airfield, questions swirl about his motives, the feasibility of such a move, and the deep-seated mistrust between the US and the Taliban.
Why Is Trump Threatening ‘Bad Things’ in Afghanistan?
At the heart of Trump’s threat lies Bagram Air Base, a sprawling 30-square-mile facility in Parwan Province, north of Kabul, that served as the nerve center for US military operations in Afghanistan for two decades. Built by the Soviets in the 1950s and expanded by the US after the 2001 invasion, Bagram was home to over 100,000 troops at its peak, complete with fast-food outlets like Burger King and Pizza Hut, a massive detention center, and runways capable of handling heavy bombers.
Trump’s fixation on reclaiming Bagram isn’t new. During his first term, he frequently lamented the base’s abandonment during the 2021 withdrawal under President Joe Biden, calling it a “monumental mistake” that handed a strategic gem to the Taliban. In recent weeks, Trump has ramped up rhetoric, telling reporters on September 19, 2025, that the US is in direct talks with Afghan officials to regain control “right away.” His Truth Social post explicitly ties the threat to this demand: “If Afghanistan doesn’t give Bagram Airbase back to those that built it… BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.”
But why now? Analysts point to a mix of geopolitical maneuvering and personal legacy-building. With Trump’s second term underway, reclaiming Bagram could symbolize a reversal of the 2021 “humiliation,” bolstering his image as a strongman unafraid to project power. Strategically, Bagram’s location—proximate to Iran, China, and Pakistan—makes it invaluable for monitoring regional threats, from Iranian missile programs to Chinese infrastructure projects in the Belt and Road Initiative. Current and former US officials warn that retaking it covertly or through force could spiral into a “re-invasion,” requiring 10,000+ troops and advanced air defenses to counter Taliban resistance, ISIS-K attacks, or even Iranian retaliation.
The threat of “bad things” remains deliberately vague—Trump dodged questions on troop deployments, saying, “We won’t talk about that”—but possibilities include economic sanctions, drone strikes, or cyber operations. Afghan officials, led by the Taliban, have outright rejected the demand, viewing it as a violation of sovereignty and a prelude to renewed occupation.
- UN Slams Taliban’s Arrests of Women for ‘Bad Hijab’ in Kabul
- Why Taliban Chooses Russia Over the U S?
- Inside Taliban War Museum | Mines, Bombs, and Vests
- Taliban’s Global Comeback: Allies in Moscow and Beijing
What Does Trump Want to Do That Can’t Happen Immediately?
Trump’s vision for Bagram is ambitious: transform it back into a forward-operating hub for US forces, potentially hosting intelligence assets, counterterrorism units, and logistics for Middle East operations. He has floated ideas of “acquiring” strategic sites globally, from Greenland to the Panama Canal, positioning Bagram as a crown jewel in this expansionist playbook.
However, this isn’t a quick handover. Negotiations are stalled, with the Taliban insisting any US presence must align with their interpretation of the 2020 Doha Agreement, which Trump himself signed and which mandated a full US exit. Even if talks succeed, operationalizing Bagram demands massive resources: securing its perimeter against insider threats, rebuilding infrastructure degraded since 2021, and integrating it with US bases in Qatar and the UAE. Experts estimate initial deployment could take 6-12 months, involving engineering battalions, air defense systems like Patriot missiles, and diplomatic buy-in from neighbors like Pakistan and China to avoid encirclement.
Complications abound. The base’s prison complex, once holding 3,000 detainees including high-value al-Qaeda targets, raises human rights red flags—reopening it could invite international condemnation. Logistically, supply lines through Pakistan (strained by border clashes) or air routes over hostile airspace add delays. Trump’s non-committal stance on force—”if they don’t do it, you’re going to find out what I’m gonna do”—hints at phased pressure, starting with aid cuts (the US already froze $7 billion in Afghan assets post-withdrawal) before escalating to military options. In short, Bagram’s return is a multi-year project, not a snap decision, testing Trump’s patience and the Taliban’s resolve.
Will the Taliban Trust the US Again?
Rebuilding trust between the Taliban and the US seems like a long shot, given decades of deception and dashed hopes. The Taliban’s leadership, hardened by 20 years of war, views Washington’s overtures with deep skepticism. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid dismissed Trump’s demand as “colonial arrogance” in a September 20, 2025, statement, echoing fears that Bagram’s return would erode their hard-won independence.
Publicly, Taliban officials cite the Doha Agreement’s betrayal: signed in February 2020 under Trump, it promised a US troop drawdown in exchange for Taliban commitments to cut ties with al-Qaeda and prevent terrorist safe havens. Yet, the Taliban allege the US delayed withdrawal, bombed their positions even after the deal, and abandoned allies during the 2021 Kabul evacuation—leaving 13 US service members dead in a suicide bombing. This “stab in the back” narrative fuels distrust, with Taliban negotiators demanding ironclad guarantees, like UN-monitored status-of-forces agreements, before entertaining US basing rights.
Privately, some Taliban moderates see pragmatic value in cooperation—access to frozen assets or humanitarian aid could ease their economic woes. But hardliners, dominant since 2021, prioritize ideological purity, banning women from education and enforcing Sharia without concessions. Polls from the Asia Foundation (2024) show 70% of Afghans oppose foreign troops, aligning with Taliban rhetoric. Trust might thaw if Trump offers economic incentives, like releasing $3.5 billion in aid, but history suggests fleeting alliances: the US armed mujahideen in the 1980s, only to label their Taliban offshoots terrorists post-9/11. Without verifiable commitments, the Taliban won’t gamble on Uncle Sam again.
The Historical Connection
The US-Taliban saga is a cautionary tale of blowback, spanning proxy wars, invasions, and uneasy diplomacy. It begins in the 1980s Soviet-Afghan War, when the CIA’s Operation Cyclone funneled $3 billion in aid to mujahideen fighters resisting Moscow’s occupation. Among recipients were Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e-Islami and Jalaluddin Haqqani’s network—precursors to the Taliban and Haqqani Network. Pakistan’s ISI funneled Stinger missiles to these groups, including future Taliban founder Mullah Mohammed Omar, forging indirect US-Pashtun militant ties. Ronald Reagan hailed them as “freedom fighters,” but the 1989 Soviet withdrawal left a power vacuum, awash in weapons and radicalized fighters.
By 1994, the Taliban emerged from Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan, blending Pashtun nationalism with Wahhabi ideology (bolstered by Saudi funding). They seized Kabul in 1996, imposing draconian rule and sheltering al-Qaeda. The US initially engaged pragmatically: in 1998, Unocal sought Taliban approval for a Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, with US diplomats like Robin Raphel meeting Omar. But Osama bin Laden’s 1998 embassy bombings and 9/11 attacks shattered this—President George W. Bush demanded his extradition, launching Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001. US Special Forces, backed by Northern Alliance proxies, toppled the Taliban in weeks, scattering leaders to Pakistan.
The next two decades were a quagmire: $2 trillion spent, 2,400 US deaths, and Taliban resurgence via IEDs, suicide bombings, and Pakistani sanctuaries. Trump’s 2017 South Asia Strategy surged troops to 14,000, but by 2019, war fatigue led to Doha talks. The 2020 accord—brokered by US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad—promised Taliban power-sharing with the Ghani government, but implementation faltered amid Afghan infighting.
Biden’s 2021 pullout triggered the Taliban’s lightning reconquest, stranding $85 billion in US gear, including at Bagram (evacuated July 2, 2021, without Taliban notice). Post-withdrawal, frozen assets crippled Afghanistan’s economy, sparking famine. Sporadic US drone strikes (e.g., 2022 Zawahiri killing) underscore ongoing enmity, yet quiet channels persist for counter-ISIS-K ops. This cycle—ally to enemy to reluctant partner—defines a relationship scarred by mutual exploitation.
Regional Ripple Effects and Dark Possibilities
Trump’s Bagram push coincides with seismic shifts in South Asian alliances, none more alarming than the September 17, 2025, Saudi-Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement (SMDA). Signed in Riyadh, this “watershed” pact commits both nations to treat aggression against one as an attack on the other, formalizing decades of military ties—Pakistan has trained 8,000+ Saudis since 1967 and maintains troop deployments there.
For the US, anxieties stem from eroding Gulf reliance on American security umbrellas, amid Israel’s 2025 strikes on Iran and Qatar, which exposed vulnerabilities. Saudi Arabia, once a bedrock US ally, now diversifies with Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent—raising fears of a “Pakistan nuclear umbrella” over the Gulf, despite denials. Washington’s sanctions on Pakistani missile programs (seven rounds under Biden) amplify distrust, with analysts like Sahar Khan warning the pact won’t mend Pakistan’s “credibility problem” in DC.
Afghanistan enters the fray via Pakistan’s border frictions with the Taliban: TTP militants use Afghan soil for attacks, prompting Pakistani airstrikes and Taliban retaliation. The SMDA binds Saudi to these disputes—”potentially with the Taliban-led Afghanistan”—emboldening Islamabad to escalate, per Al Jazeera reports. US worries include:
- Destabilized Negotiations: Heightened Pak-Taliban clashes could harden Taliban’s stance on Bagram, viewing US overtures as divide-and-conquer tactics.
- Proxy Escalation: Saudi funding (historical $100 million+ to Afghan madrassas) might flow to anti-Taliban factions, reigniting civil war and complicating US counterterrorism.
- Iranian Backlash: Tehran, already missile-testing US bases, could exploit chaos for asymmetric strikes on Bagram, per June 2025 Qatar incident.
- Chinese Gains: Instability diverts US focus, allowing Beijing to deepen CPEC ties with Pakistan and extract rare earths in Taliban-held mines.
Worst-case scenarios? A Pakistan-Saudi axis greenlights cross-border ops, drawing in India (via SMDA ripple effects) and sparking a multi-front crisis. Or, Taliban aligns closer with Russia (which recognized them July 2025), trading Bagram access for Moscow arms. For Trump, this pact underscores a multipolar world where US leverage wanes—pushing “bad things” from rhetoric to reality.
As Afghanistan teeters, Trump’s Bagram gambit risks repeating history’s errors. Will it yield a strategic win or another quagmire? Only time—and Taliban resolve—will tell.
