Who is Controlling Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan Now?
The Secrets Behind the Scene About Bagram These Days!
When you hear the name Bagram Airbase, you probably imagine the thundering sound of military jets, convoys of armored vehicles, and rows of barracks that once hosted thousands of troops. For two decades, Bagram was not just a military outpost in Afghanistan—it was the beating heart of U.S. and NATO operations across the region.
Today, however, the once most fortified airfield in Afghanistan is under new hands. The question many ask is: Who controls Bagram Airbase now, and why does it still matter to the world in 2025?
A Fortress in the Mountains
Located about 40 miles north of Kabul, Bagram Airbase has long been a jewel of strategic importance. Built originally by the Soviets in the 1950s, it grew into a massive military complex during the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. The base featured multiple runways, high-tech radar systems, detention facilities, and enough space to host tens of thousands of troops.
At its height, Bagram was essentially a self-sustaining city. It had fast-food chains, medical facilities, and sprawling infrastructure that represented the reach of American power in Central Asia. To U.S. generals, it was the nerve center of operations against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. To Afghans, it was both a source of jobs and, for some, a symbol of foreign occupation.
The Withdrawal and the Handing Over
In July 2021, long before the world watched chaotic scenes at Kabul Airport, U.S. forces quietly vacated Bagram. They did so overnight, without even notifying the Afghan commanders who were supposed to inherit it. This sudden departure left Afghan security forces shocked—and vulnerable.
Within weeks, as the Taliban swept across Afghanistan, Bagram fell into their hands. For the first time in decades, the base was no longer under the shadow of a foreign power.
Taliban’s Control
As of October 2025, the answer to “Who controls Bagram?” is straightforward: The Taliban do.
The Taliban now hold the keys to what was once the largest U.S. military installation in Asia. Reports suggest that while they do not operate it at the same scale or sophistication as the Americans, the base is actively guarded and used as a military hub. Its runways remain intact, and its vast compound is under constant Taliban supervision.
Taliban officials have repeatedly rejected foreign requests to lease or hand over the base. To them, Bagram is both a trophy of victory and a symbol of sovereignty. Allowing another nation—especially the U.S.—to retake it would undermine the very narrative of their triumph.
Why Bagram Still Matters
You might wonder: if the war is over, why does anyone care who controls Bagram now? The answer lies in geography and geopolitics.
Strategic Location: Bagram sits at the crossroads of Central Asia, near China, Iran, and Pakistan. Whoever controls it, controls a gateway into the region.
Military Infrastructure: Unlike most Afghan airstrips, Bagram is built to handle heavy bombers, large cargo planes, and sustained operations. Rebuilding something similar would take billions.
Symbolism: For the U.S., losing Bagram is a painful reminder of a war that ended in retreat. For the Taliban, it is proof that they defeated a superpower. For regional rivals, it’s a prize worth watching.
Trump’s Recent Remarks
In September 2025, former U.S. President Donald Trump stirred headlines by declaring that he wanted to “regain control of Bagram Airbase.” He argued that abandoning it in 2021 was one of America’s biggest strategic blunders.
His comments, though bold, quickly hit reality. The Taliban’s leadership rejected the notion outright, calling it an insult to Afghan sovereignty. Political observers view Trump’s statement as part of his broader rhetoric to project toughness rather than a practical policy proposal. Still, the fact that Bagram is being discussed at the highest levels in Washington four years after the withdrawal shows just how important it remains.
What the Future Holds
The future of Bagram is uncertain, but here are some possibilities experts consider:
Continued Taliban Control – The most likely scenario. The Taliban will keep the base as their central military hub and symbol of power.
Regional Cooperation – Some analysts suggest the Taliban could use Bagram for joint ventures with regional powers like China or Russia, especially given growing ties. This could transform the base into part of a new geopolitical order.
U.S. Return (Unlikely, but not impossible) – While the Taliban firmly reject it now, history has shown that international politics can shift dramatically. In the case of internal Taliban fractures or new global conflicts, Bagram might once again be part of negotiations.
A Base that Refuses to Fade
Bagram Airbase is no ordinary military installation. It is a stage where the drama of Afghanistan’s modern history has played out. From Soviet ambitions to American intervention, from Afghan struggles to Taliban victory—the base has witnessed it all.
Today, as Taliban fighters guard its gates and foreign powers cast long glances toward its runways, Bagram continues to shape the narrative of Afghanistan. Its fate mirrors the fate of the nation itself: contested, symbolic, and always at the heart of global attention.
So, who controls Bagram Airbase now? The Taliban do. But that answer only scratches the surface. To truly understand what this means, we must see Bagram not just as a patch of land or a runway, but as a symbol of shifting global power.
From Washington to Beijing, from Kabul to Moscow, the shadow of Bagram stretches far beyond Afghanistan’s mountains. Its story is not finished—and perhaps, it never will be.
About the Creator
Keramatullah Wardak
I write practical, science-backed content on health, productivity, and self-improvement. Passionate about helping you eat smarter, think clearer, and live better—one article at a time.
Keep reading
More stories from Keramatullah Wardak and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
No Internet in Afghanistan?
It began with whispers on social media. Screenshots of blank connections. Messages that wouldn’t send. A generation that had grown up with the hum of WhatsApp notifications suddenly sat in silence. For a moment, it seemed as if Afghanistan had been unplugged from the rest of the world.
By Keramatullah Wardak4 months ago in The Swamp
Egypt Rejects What It Calls a “Fantastic” Emirati Offer: Power, Pride, and Politics in the Arab World
In a region where financial power often translates into political leverage, Egypt’s recent rejection of what officials described as a “fantastic” offer from the United Arab Emirates has drawn widespread attention. At a time when Egypt’s economy faces inflationary pressure, currency challenges, and rising public debt, turning down a lucrative proposal from one of the Gulf’s wealthiest states appears, on the surface, counterintuitive. Yet Cairo’s decision reflects deeper strategic calculations about sovereignty, long-term stability, and the limits of economic dependency. What Was Behind the “Fantastic” Offer? While official details remain limited, the Emirati proposal was widely understood to involve major investment, development rights, or long-term control over strategic assets. Such offers are not new in the Middle East. Wealthy Gulf states, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia, have increasingly used capital investment as a tool of regional influence, financing infrastructure, ports, real estate megaprojects, and energy ventures across the Arab world. From Egypt’s perspective, the offer was financially attractive—hence the term “fantastic.” In an era where foreign currency inflows are vital, Gulf investment has often been a lifeline for Cairo. Over the past decade, Egypt has relied heavily on deposits, loans, and investments from its Gulf allies to stabilize its economy and fund large-scale development projects. So why say no? Sovereignty Over Short-Term Relief At the heart of Egypt’s refusal lies a familiar concern: sovereignty. Egyptian officials signaled that while financial support is welcome, it cannot come at the expense of national control over strategic land, infrastructure, or decision-making authority. In other words, not all money is worth taking—especially if it risks long-term dependence or public backlash. Egypt’s leadership is acutely aware of domestic sensitivities. Public opinion has grown increasingly wary of foreign ownership of national assets, particularly land and ports. Accepting a deal perceived as selling off sovereignty could fuel social unrest, political criticism, and accusations of mortgaging the country’s future for short-term cash. By rejecting the offer, Cairo sent a clear message: economic cooperation must respect national red lines. A Shift in Egypt’s Negotiating Posture This decision also suggests a subtle shift in Egypt’s regional posture. Rather than passively accepting Gulf capital under unequal terms, Egypt appears to be asserting itself as a partner, not a client. This recalibration does not mean Cairo is distancing itself from the UAE—relations remain strong—but it does indicate a desire for more balanced agreements. Egypt has been working to diversify its economic partnerships, strengthening ties with Europe, Asia, and multilateral institutions. By widening its options, Cairo gains leverage, reducing the pressure to accept any single deal that may compromise long-term interests. Regional Implications The rejection carries implications beyond Egypt and the UAE. Across the Middle East and North Africa, countries facing economic strain are increasingly confronting a difficult question: how to attract foreign investment without surrendering strategic autonomy. Egypt’s stance may embolden other states to renegotiate terms with powerful investors, insisting on transparency, local ownership, and shared governance. At the same time, it may prompt Gulf investors to reassess how their offers are structured, recognizing that influence through capital has limits. For the UAE, the refusal is unlikely to trigger a rupture. Abu Dhabi is known for its pragmatic diplomacy and may return with revised terms more aligned with Egypt’s priorities. In regional politics, today’s rejection can become tomorrow’s renegotiation. Economic Reality Still Looms Despite the symbolism of saying no, Egypt’s economic challenges remain pressing. Inflation, currency devaluation, and debt servicing continue to strain public finances. Turning down major investment does not eliminate the need for foreign capital—it simply raises the stakes for finding deals that align with national strategy. The challenge for Egypt now is to translate this principled stance into sustainable alternatives: boosting exports, supporting local industry, attracting diversified investment, and implementing reforms that reduce reliance on external lifelines. More Than a Financial Decision Ultimately, Egypt’s rejection of the “fantastic” Emirati offer is about more than money. It reflects a broader debate playing out across the Global South: how nations balance urgent economic needs with long-term independence in an era of capital-driven geopolitics. For Vocal Media readers, this story resonates because it highlights a universal tension—between opportunity and caution, growth and control, partnership and power. Egypt’s decision reminds us that sometimes the most consequential choices are not about what a country accepts, but what it chooses to refuse. As negotiations continue behind closed doors, one thing is clear: Cairo has drawn its line, and the region is watching closely to see what comes next.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 7 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.