Is America Returning to the “Great Game”?
By Abdul Naser Noorzad, security and geopolitics researcher, exclusively for Sangar.
Following CNN’s report about Donald Trump’s months-long pressure on the U.S. national security team to find a way to retake Bagram Air Base from the Taliban, Afghanistan and this base have once again returned to the center of geo-strategic debates. From the Soviet era until today, Bagram has been one of the most important military assets in the heart of Afghanistan. Controlling it not only enables aerial and logistical support, but—because it sits close to the borders of China, Pakistan, Iran and Central Asia—it provides an unmatched platform for intelligence gathering and exerting influence. Factors such as proximity to China, access to rare minerals, creating an anti-terrorism hub to strike ISIS, and even reopening a diplomatic outpost have turned this base from a mere airfield into a unique geopolitical asset.
In this context the Taliban are not just an enemy but sometimes a tool or potential partner for crisis management. This reality makes any U.S. plan to return to Bagram less likely to mean an open confrontation with the Taliban and more likely to take the form of a covert deal or arrangement with certain factions of the group. Two decades of experience have shown Washington that long-term occupation of Afghanistan carries heavy political, economic and human costs, and U.S. public opinion can no longer tolerate it. Therefore, if Trump’s pressure or that of any future administration leads to a return, the presence will probably be limited, tactical and flexible—special counter-terrorism teams, intelligence facilities, drones and even private security companies advancing U.S. strategic objectives without incurring overt political costs.
Such a model could simultaneously be negotiable with China and Russia. Beijing is eyeing Afghanistan’s mineral resources and the containment of extremism in Xinjiang, while Moscow is sensitive to stability in Central Asia and the spread of ISIS. Even a limited U.S. presence can be seen both as a threat and as an opportunity for negotiation: Washington can claim its presence is only to fight ISIS or to secure the safe exit of investments, while in reality holding a pressure lever in the heart of Eurasia and turning Bagram into a “bargaining chip” in larger deals with China and Russia. In this view, ISIS as a “managed threat” becomes a pretext for continued U.S. presence and even limited intelligence cooperation with the Taliban; whenever the ISIS threat rises, special-forces deployments or drone strikes can be justified and public opinion kept primed.
Meanwhile, Afghans themselves remain the primary victims. Continuing poverty, drug trafficking, social disorder, the strengthening of extremist and militant groups, and even softer projects such as ethnic division or de-religionization can all serve as tools to engineer a “controlled instability”—one that prevents the emergence of a strong national state and keeps the playing field open for great-power competition. Keeping Afghanistan and its surroundings unstable could pave the way for semi-autonomous units or zones of influence, a situation easier for outside powers to manage than a centralized national government.
Overall, Trump’s push to retake Bagram should be seen in a broader framework: a reconfiguration of U.S. presence in Eurasia and using Afghanistan as a platform of pressure and negotiation with global rivals. This presence is unlikely to resemble the past—no thousands of soldiers under official flags, but rather limited teams, airbases and intelligence networks under various covers. Such a presence creates a complex equation for China and Russia: on one hand it is a threat, on the other perhaps an opportunity to contain extremist threats.
For the Afghan people, however, it means continued insecurity, poverty and being sacrificed in the rivalries of great powers. What remains shrouded in ambiguity is the “main plan”: does Washington want to steer the game up close or simply hold a base as a bargaining chip—and will ISIS once again be activated as a cat-and-mouse tool? The answers to these questions will shape Afghanistan’s future and the stability of the region.