Trump pledges to recapture Bagram, signaling possible return to Afghanistan war

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump on Thursday renewed his pledge to recapture Bagram Air Base from the Taliban, a move that analysts and current U.S. officials warned could require a large-scale force and potentially a full re-invasion of Afghanistan. In an on board interview with the Daily Mail aboard Air Force One, Trump said, 'we want that base back,' and emphasized its strategic proximity to China, adding, 'It's an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons.' The comments underscore a continuing theme in Trump’s rhetoric about retrofitting the failures of the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Trump’s comments come as Bagram remains under Taliban control after the 2021 withdrawal that saw American forces depart with vehicles and equipment left behind. The base, once the nerve center of U.S. operations in Afghanistan, now lies in ruins and is patrolled by Taliban fighters. While Trump proposed reoccupying the base, U.S. officials familiar with the matter told Reuters that such an operation could require more than 10,000 troops to recapture and defend Bagram, along with the large-scale logistical and supply chain support that would be necessary. An anonymous U.S. official cited by Reuters said there was no active military planning underway to retake the base, but warned that the endeavor would be enormously challenging and costly, with risks spanning mission durability, regional stability, and domestic political support.

Some experts said that even if the Taliban consented to a U.S. reoccupation, the base would remain vulnerable to hostile actors in Afghanistan, including Islamic State affiliates and al-Qaeda. Reuters cited defense analysts who noted that the country hosts multiple groups willing to exploit any foreign presence, and that the base’s location near potential insurgent sanctuaries would complicate security. Others pointed to broader regional risks, including the possibility of Iranian missiles targeting U.S. and allied positions in the Persian Gulf or the broader theater, given Tehran’s past strikes on U.S. facilities in the region.

Trump also floated the possibility of reviving the operation through a diplomatic deal with the Taliban, rather than through a traditional military takeback. Still, experts emphasized that even with Taliban acquiescence, reoccupying Bagram would require an enduring commitment to defend the base against both internal and external threats, as well as credible guarantees of long-term U.S. involvement—conditions that would be politically contentious and strategically complex.

A former senior U.S. defense official told Reuters there appeared to be little, if any, practical military advantage to being stationed again at Bagram, arguing that the risks would likely outweigh the benefits. 'I don't see how this can realistically happen,' the official said, noting that reestablishing a sustained U.S. foothold would demand a massive, enduring commitment in a country where security conditions have repeatedly proven unpredictable.

Last weekend, U.S. officials held conversations with Taliban authorities in Kabul about the possible release of Americans held in Afghanistan, illustrating the ongoing, complicated diplomacy that would accompany any renewed U.S. presence. The discussions underscore how current policy debates in Washington intersect with on-the-ground realities in a country still grappling with insurgent threats, humanitarian concerns, and regional power dynamics.

Trump’s remarks illuminate a broader political dynamic in which Afghanistan remains a touchstone for critiques of U.S. foreign policy and security strategy. While his statements aim to cast himself as the candidate who would fix what he describes as a bungled withdrawal, security experts caution that a successful reoccupation would demand a level of commitment that goes beyond campaign rhetoric and would test both U.S. resources and international alliances. In the near term, there is no official White House plan announced to retake Bagram, and American policymakers say any such move would hinge on evolving assessments of threats, alliance support, and the feasibility of sustaining a presence in a country that has long resisted foreign reentry.