Bagram Airfield, nestled in Afghanistan’s Parwan Province, has re-emerged on the geopolitical stage in 2025. The contested hub represents more than just operational efficiency; it serves as a microcosm of global rivalry, evolving military strategies, and the recurring mistakes of Western interventions. Recent calls by US President Donald Trump to reclaim Bagram have sparked criticism from the Taliban and raised concerns in China, while also leading analysts to ask: What does Bagram signify for the future of global power, and have the US and NATO truly learned from past mistakes?
Strategic Significance of Bagram Airfield
Bagram’s history is linked to major power ambitions. Initially built by the Soviet Union in the 1950s, the base was later turned into Afghanistan’s biggest military site by the United States, featuring runways longer than many international airports, reinforced shelters, a 50-bed trauma hospital, large fuel depots, and extensive intelligence facilities.
At its height, Bagram hosted tens of thousands of US and coalition troops, contractors, and Afghan staff, acting as a “military city” capable of operating independently for long periods.
The strategic importance of Bagram rests in its geography
Situated just 60 km north of Kabul, Bagram is at a crossroads where the interests of major powers intersect: China’s Xinjiang region (where nuclear and missile facilities are expanding), Iranian and Russian spheres of influence, Pakistan’s unstable borders, and the mineral-rich areas of Central Asia. Its closeness to China’s sensitive nuclear sites provides Washington with direct surveillance of Beijing’s military development, a point highlighted by President Trump: “It’s an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons,” he stated recently.
The US-China Strategic Rivalry
US interest in Bagram is increasingly influenced by strategic competition with China. As China accelerates its nuclear arsenal expansion and implements its Belt and Road Initiative across Eurasia, American policymakers see control over Bagram as a key surveillance hub facilitating signal intelligence collection, drone operations, and quick deployment of counterterrorism missions. Bagram’s role in the US-China strategic rivalry is significant, as it offers the US a vital surveillance centre and the capacity to influence China’s infrastructure and economic projects.
For Washington, Bagram serves not only as a check on traditional rivals but also as a vital vantage point for monitoring and potentially influencing China’s infrastructure and economic projects, especially near Xinjiang and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The base’s logistical and operational capabilities extend to supply chains, rare earth minerals, and key trade routes across Central Asia, keeping them within US oversight, challenging China’s pursuit of resource security and trade dominance.
From Beijing’s perspective, a renewed US presence at Bagram would indicate a show of force, increasing tensions and possibly turning Afghanistan into a new flashpoint in the ongoing US-China competition. China has already warned against destabilising actions, while the Taliban has repeatedly denied reports of Chinese military activity at the base, aiming to dismiss any narratives of ‘external presence.’ The contest over Bagram reflects not just local politics but the larger struggle in Eurasia, balancing America’s military history with China’s rising influence. The potential outcomes of the US reclaiming Bagram, such as increasing regional tensions and a power shift, are essential and need careful consideration.
The Taliban’s Response: Sovereignty Over Subordination
Amid this strategic contest, the Taliban government’s response to Trump’s ultimatum has been clear and firm. Taliban officials have stated they will “not yield even an inch” of Afghan territory to foreign powers, framing resistance to US demands as a matter of national sovereignty and historical pride. Statements from the Afghan foreign ministry and top military leaders emphasise that the Doha Agreement prohibits foreign military bases and commits to non-interference.
This posture serves as both a principled defence of Afghan independence and a practical political move. By referencing a history of resistance from the British and Soviets to the recent US withdrawal, the Taliban strengthens its legitimacy among the Afghan people and presents itself as a safeguard against another period of occupation or proxy conflict.
However, rejection does not rule out dialogue. Taliban statements indicate openness to “political and economic ties” with Washington based on “mutual respect and shared interests,” while drawing a red line against reintroducing US forces or bases on Afghan soil.
The message is clear: Afghanistan is no longer a chessboard for global powers; any engagement must be on Afghan terms.
Historical Lessons: The Cycle of Forgotten Mistakes
The contest for Bagram highlights a broader problem, namely, the ongoing failure of US and NATO policymakers to learn and apply historical lessons from Afghanistan and other foreign interventions. The American experience in Afghanistan, like the Vietnam War before it, is characterised by “mission creep,” unrealistic goals, and a significant disconnect between high-level decision-makers and on-the-ground realities.
Efforts to remake Afghanistan overlooked deep-rooted tribal dynamics, informal power networks, and local realities, leading to unstable institutions and significant aid waste. Western governance and military models proved largely incompatible with Afghanistan’s social fabric, causing institutions to collapse almost immediately during the Taliban’s 2021 takeover.
Military and intelligence errors were common. Despite twenty years of training and investment, Afghan security forces quickly fell apart, echoing South Vietnam’s ARVN decline years earlier. Corruption, unreliable information, and a lack of local support hampered US/NATO efforts. Even as audits, reports, and academic studies documented failures, harsh truths were often ignored or justified by institutions resistant to change.
This inertia, analysts argue, risks repeating the cycle whenever new conflicts or interventions arise. Until the US and its allies implement genuine soul-searching and systemic reforms embracing local context, accountability, and strategic humility, the cycle of costly errors may continue with each new crisis in global affairs.
Bagram as Allegory: Power, Resistance, and the Future
The current debate over Bagram Airfield is more than a tactical disagreement it serves as an allegory for the persistent patterns of global power politics. America’s effort to reclaim Bagram highlights anxieties about waning influence, the threat of Chinese expansion, and the need for strategic positions in an increasingly contested Eurasia.
For the Taliban, refusing to bow to US threats is part of their identity and realpolitik, showing sovereignty and strength in a world wary of renewed intervention. China, meanwhile, observes closely, aware that Bagram’s status could shift the regional balance and impact its security calculations.
History’s lesson, written across the ruins of many empires in Afghanistan, is clear: the allure of strategic bases and military might must be balanced with respect for local agency, flexible strategy, and honest assessment of limits. Whether the US and NATO are prepared to internalise this lesson remains uncertain. Until then, Bagram Airfield stands as both prize and warning, its fate reflecting each era’s ambitions, rivalries, and regrets.
Conclusion
Bagram Airfield’s renewed importance in 2025 highlights deep questions about global power, rivalry, and forgetting history. For Washington, it is a point for showing strength and opposing China; for Beijing, it is a possible flashpoint; for the Taliban, it is a sacred symbol of sovereignty. But behind the headlines and showmanship is a more important lesson: interventions separated from local realities, historical knowledge, and institutional reform tend to repeat past mistakes. In facing this, global powers might discover better strategies and a wiser way forward for a turbulent century.