Analysis
Written by: Khalil Rahnavard
Bagram:
Bagram Air Base, located 40 kilometers north of Kabul in the Bagram district of Parwan province, has been heavily used during the last forty years of conflict in Afghanistan. Originally built by the Soviet Union in the 1950s during the reign of Mohammad Zahir Shah to train and strengthen the Afghan army, the base has been overlooked by major powers since its inception.
Following the Soviet Union’s invasion in 1979, the base was occupied by the Red Army and became its main headquarters. Soviet Union warplanes flew from this base, and it was also extensively used for command, logistical supply, and air strikes. The base remained under the control of the Soviet invading army until the Soviet Union’s defeat in 1989.
After the Red Army’s defeat and withdrawal, the Bagram Base was destroyed in fighting between internal warlords, with Massoud’s forces largely controlling the base; during these battles, Iran’s intelligence agency, Vavak, also supplied Massoud’s militias thru Bagram Air Base. Bagram Air Base was also used by Massoud’s militias for rocket attacks on Kabul.
During the first rule of the Islamic Emirate, their forces around Bagram fought continuous battles with the Northern Alliance, but later the Islamic Emirate gained control of the base, using it for defense but without modern weapons. In 2001, the US-led coalition occupiers overthrew the Islamic Emirate’s rule and made Bagram Air Base the largest military base.
For the United States and its allies, Bagram served as the heart of the war in Afghanistan, as it housed the largest number of troops, from which large warplanes took off to target objectives, and where thousands of Afghan and foreign prisoners were held in horrific conditions. Bagram was also the main logistics and command center for coalition forces. The United States had significant goals in fortifying Bagram, aiming to monitor all rivals and the region, including China, and to supply and manage the war in Afghanistan at that time.
Bagram Air Base came under the control of the Islamic Emirate in 2021 after the defeat of the United States and NATO. Over the past four years, it has been the home of the 221st Martyr Aftab Division and a part of the Air Force, where Afghan soldiers are trained and used for defense.
Political and Propaganda Use of Bagram:
The failure of the war in Afghanistan is a contentious debate between the two American parties (Democrats and Republicans); both parties are blamed for the end of the American military presence in Afghanistan, as Trump, a member of the Republican Party, accelerated negotiations on the Doha Agreement and signed it, which included the decision for the US to withdraw from Afghanistan, but the agreement was implemented under the presidency of Biden, a member of the Democratic Party.
But Trump always tries to blame the Democratic Party for America’s defeat in Afghanistan and specifically blames his rival Biden. This controversy over responsibility for the defeat has always been raised by Trump during election campaigns and used for propaganda purposes. In this regard, he specifically mentioned Bagram as an important and strategic point for monitoring China and Asia and said that Biden should not have handed over Bagram to the Taliban.
Trump is using the issue of Bagram and Afghanistan in his campaign for domestic politics, wanting to show that as a hardline politician, he can protect American interests in order to gain popularity among Americans with this slogan.
China’s Presence:
In 2021, some images were published showing the runway lights at Bagram Airfield at night. These images provided an opportunity for opponents of the Afghan government to make extensive propaganda use of them and falsely claim the presence of foreign forces, particularly Chinese soldiers. However, no evidence or credible documents were found to show that foreign forces had arrived at Bagram Air Base and were present there.
Former enemies of Afghanistan’s territorial integrity, those who currently falsely claim to be engaged in political and military struggle against the Afghan government under various names, took advantage of this opportunity to send false signals to the United States, claiming that Chinese soldiers were present at Bagram Air Base. They created and amplified these narratives thru conferences and press releases.
Trump, who has repeatedly lied and is known as a dishonest politician, gradually accompanied these lies with the opponents of the Afghan government. From the beginning of the election, Trump claimed that Biden made the biggest mistake in American history by leaving Bagram. He later expanded on this statement, saying that Bagram is under Chinese control. Previously, Trump claimed that China had gained a strategic position in Afghanistan and the region after the US withdrawal.
This stance against China is part of a long-standing political strategy of American politicians and presidents. They always want to create an anti-China atmosphere in America for their votes and use it as a tool. However, in the meantime, Bagram is the tactic that Trump wants to use to put pressure on Afghanistan on the one hand, and on the other hand, to create a consensus among other American politicians about China’s influence, and to keep American citizens busy with propaganda issues like Bagram.
China does not have a military presence in Afghanistan, nor is there a document to hand over land to foreigners under the pretext of a security agreement like a republic, nor will Afghans allow any country or military force, whether China, the United States, Russia, the West, or the East, to occupy Afghanistan again. The false claim of a Chinese presence in Bagram is only used for the above-mentioned purposes.
The Futile Welcome to the Capture of Bagram:
In a joint press conference with the British Prime Minister, US President Donald Trump called the withdrawal of his forces from Afghanistan, as well as the abandonment of Bagram Air Base, a major disaster for the country, and emphasized that they would work to regain control of this major military base.
Upon the news being published, the unscrupulous enemies of Afghanistan, those who always see their interests in the foreign occupation of Afghanistan, welcomed Trump’s statement. These opponents, who are leaders of civil, political, and military groups, served America with great sincerity during the fallen republic. They fled the country along with the withdrawal of American forces and are now once again pleased that Trump has given them false expectations or signals of a military invasion of Afghanistan.
They are happy about the re-occupation of Afghanistan because the re-occupation by the United States provides them with the opportunity to regain power in Afghanistan. However, their happiness about the re-occupation of Afghanistan is misplaced because the United States has already experienced all the officials of the fallen republic, who are currently opponents of the Afghan government, and does not agree to their regaining power in Afghanistan because the United States has lost trust in them. Everyone understands that the opposition uses such opportunities for propaganda and wants to be part of the discussion, but they are now isolated and are no longer news headlines.
The opponents of the Afghan government dream of reaching power not thru their own strength, but thru the force of foreigners; they count their assets, palaces, businesses, and bank accounts in the presence of the American occupation and calculate them accordingly, not from the perspective of the nation’s suffering, pain, and bloodshed. The opponents who are happy about the occupation are, in fact, happy about the sufferings of their nation.
Possible Scenarios:
Here, focus on two potential scenarios predicted by political and security experts;
First Scenario: Mentioning the Bagram issue in press conferences and international forums is for diplomatic pressure and propaganda. There are American claims regarding the detention of US citizens in Afghanistan, with Trump pressuring the Islamic Emirate to release the mentioned prisoners and prevent Chinese economic projects in Afghanistan. However, practical changes in these areas are highly unlikely, as the Emirate is working on diplomatic solutions, considering neutrality in resolving such issues. Few countries in the region will attempt to neutralize the United States’ influence in Afghan affairs, but if there is international interest in the Emirate’s neutral political policy and diplomatic relations, political stability and balance will remain in place. With this scenario, the Afghan government’s power stability will continue, but political tensions will increase slightly.
Second scenario: America is preparing for another military invasion of Afghanistan under the pretext of Bagram. Trump claimed that China’s nuclear facilities are only an hour away from Bagram, and that Bagram is a base in Asia thru which the United States can monitor China, Iran, countries in the region, and even Russia, provide logistical support to its proxy fighters, and maintain a strategic location like Afghanistan under its influence. In this scenario, it’s important to say that a military invasion of Afghanistan is not based on Trump’s personal decisions, but requires a decision from the US Congress, major changes in the defense budget, and several other steps, none of which have been taken so far. Additionally, the US is currently involved in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Africa, and can not become involved in Afghanistan again. Based on this, we can say that the first scenario has a high probability of implementation, while the second scenario has a very low probability of implementation.
America’s Repeated Request:
A consistent demand from the United States, always accompanied by irony or directness, is that the limited presence of American military and intelligence personnel at Bagram be allowed as a result of negotiations between the United States and the Afghan government or a new agreement, in order to ensure American objectives in Afghanistan. This request has always been strongly rejected by the Afghan government, as such a presence could be seen as selling out the twenty years of sacrifices made by the Afghan believing and mujahid people, violating Afghanistan’s territorial integrity, and depriving it of its independence.
Consequences of the Renewed Military Invasion:
When the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, countries in the region, including the US and the West, as well as permanent members of the UN Security Council, either agreed or did not object to the US and NATO occupying Afghanistan. When the United States revealed its core objectives behind the comprehensive invasion and failed to manage the war in Afghanistan, countries in the region turned against it, and further US occupation in Afghanistan was no longer acceptable to them based on their political goals.
When the US and its allies fled Afghanistan, a new government was established in Afghanistan, which kept Afghanistan relatively calm, established diplomatic relations with regional countries in a neutral manner, until it was recognized by Russia and the process of international legitimacy began alongside domestic legitimacy. Now, there are close, multifaceted relations with Russia, Iran, China, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and India. In addition, relations have been established with countries in the Middle East and the West.
If the United States were to invade Afghanistan militarily again, it would face the following consequences:
- The Afghan government will defend Afghanistan with all its might.
- Except for a few limited proxy and intelligence groups, no one else inside will cooperate with the United States.
- Iran, China, and Russia will not allow a US military presence in the region; they will turn Afghanistan into a testing ground for the world’s powers to protect their interests.
- Pakistan, which blames Afghanistan for its insecurity, will be provided with the opportunity to once again engage in extensive military and intelligence interference in Afghanistan.
- The gathered and united Afghan nation will be scattered, and Afghanistan will become a home of insecurity and a hub of unrest.
Analysis Result:
Bagram is not just a military base; it is a crucial point in the deep strategic competition between global superpowers, whose importance has multiplied due to Afghanistan’s geopolitical location. Donald Trump’s statements about Bagram, although having a propagandistic nature, have become a fundamental part of his campaign to bolster his political standing and portray himself as a truly committed president to America. He is trying to portray the withdrawal from Bagram as a major mistake by Biden and a risk of expanding Chinese influence.
Regarding Bagram, Trump’s recent statements have also been warmly welcomed by Afghan politicians and opponents who came to power at the behest of the United States and are now thirsty for power again. They dream of a potential reoccupation of Bagram, but these expectations don’t align with a realistic analysis and regional realities. In the analysis, two potential scenarios were presented. The first scenario (considering the Bagram issue solely as a tool for propaganda and pressure) is, in the opinion of experts, largely realistic and probable. The second scenario (another US military invasion), although possible, is highly unlikely due to international, regional, and domestic US constraints.
The Afghan government has so far made Bagram part of Afghanistan’s national defense, with no foreign military presence confirmed there. The claim of Chinese military presence and control is not only baseless but also part of a propaganda war aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the Afghan government, maintaining an anti-China atmosphere, and using it as a tool for political pressure on the United States.
The Bagram issue should be examined based on the principles of internal unity, national sovereignty, and neutrality, not become a tool for foreign actors’ propaganda, and not have some figures who have tested the nation for twenty years but failed, consider it in Afghanistan’s interest based on personal gain. Afghans cannot tolerate the light of their country once again becoming a battlefield for proxy wars between superpowers. The current Afghan government’s policy is based on neutrality, balanced diplomacy, and the preservation of national sovereignty, and this is the only way to ensure the country’s stability, progress, and regional credibility.
Note: The articles, essays, and comments published in Hindukush Voice only reflect the views of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the agreement of Hindukush Voice.
