Dr. Farooq Adil
Have wars truly left our region, or are there still trials yet to come? This question might not have arisen had Donald Trump, shortly after getting elected, not nostalgically recalled Bagram Airbase.
President Donald Trump is considered a fan of deal-making and an opponent of wars. So, why would such a man need Bagram Airbase, the world’s largest military airbase? Trump himself answered this question in his February 26, 2025, conversation with his cabinet, stating that keeping the base would allow the U.S. to keep an eye on China. While saying this, he also recalled the past. He expressed regret that if the U.S. still had Bagram, it wouldn’t have had to endure the humiliating withdrawal of 2021. The past cannot be changed, but lessons can certainly be learned from it especially by a seasoned politician like Trump. The context of his cabinet remarks supports this reflection. But the pressing question is: what will be the consequences of America’s renewed interest in Bagram?
This question is inherently complex, but even a surface-level reading of available facts stirs concern. Why? Because President Trump hasn’t just expressed a desire to regain control of Bagram, he also claimed that the Taliban’s interim government has handed the base over to China. If China does indeed control Bagram, would it simply walk away from it? The answer is clearly no. International politics does not work in simple binaries of yes and no, or black and white. There are many shades in between.
It’s much like when Trump imposed tariffs on numerous countries many expected this to trigger a major backlash even within the West. But those expectations didn’t materialize immediately, as the order was retracted soon after being issued. Similarly, the Bagram issue won’t present two simple options accept or prepare for war. Matters will drag on, and that prolonged uncertainty is what will be troubling. This could mark the beginning of a new kind of tension in the region.
As Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Iran’s next-door neighbor, Pakistan, will be directly affected by this new conflict. China is Pakistan’s all-weather trusted ally that has stood by it through every test. In the coming days, as tensions rise between the U.S. and China over trade, economics, and beyond, the region is bound to feel the impact, whether anyone likes it or not. China, Afghanistan, India, and Iran will be affected, and Pakistan will not remain unaffected. Both its security and economy will be impacted. In other words, Pakistan will have to walk a tightrope. It can neither afford confrontation with the U.S. due to its friendship with China, nor can it afford to join any anti-China alliance under U.S. pressure.
In the current world scenario, Pakistan finds itself in a position similar to the 1960s during the era of the Non-Aligned Movement. Pakistan’s top priority should remain what it currently is putting national interests first. But maintaining neutrality between two global powers is far from simple.
One fortunate aspect for Pakistan is that no political adventurist will be at the helm during this period. Had such a situation arisen under any swashbuckler’s rule, Pakistan may have found itself in deep trouble even before the great powers clashed, just as the impulsive approach of the great one himself during a relatively stable time distanced Pakistan from some of its best allies. The current ruling coalition is expected to handle such complexities with better planning and foresight.
While an active establishment is not ideal in governance, Pakistan’s current conditions demand not only unity among all state stakeholders but also active and enthusiastic cooperation from the establishment. Fortunately, such alignment appears to be in place now, and this may be the key to solving Pakistan’s challenges.
The U.S.-China rivalry is a many-armed creature whose consequences will not remain limited to these two countries this is already evident. For Pakistan, the more important question is: what will happen to its economic revival plans like CPEC and BRI, jointly launched with China? Superficially, one might assume everything will collapse. But when dealing with such major projects, it’s important to remember a key principle of international affairs: these conflicts are not simply black or white; numerous possibilities exist in between. All that’s needed are people who can perceive, understand, and capitalize on them.
A simpler answer is that neither China will act hastily regarding CPEC and BRI, nor should we panic. But this situation is not a T20 match it’s more like a Test match, or perhaps even slower and more patience-demanding. At this point, we must remember the old lesson that patience bears sweet fruit. It shouldn’t be too hard to grasp, but if at any moment it becomes difficult, we should look to our Chinese friends for inspiration.
America’s renewed interest in Bagram has another motive, besides monitoring China. By establishing its presence there, the U.S. also wants to keep an eye on extremism to prevent another 9/11-like incident. This means it intends to closely monitor not just the Afghan Taliban, but also the TTP, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and similar entities.
Though Pakistan is currently suffering from TTP terrorism, the issue runs deeper and is quite sensitive. Pakistan’s religious class has already exhausted its share of jihadi enthusiasm. New realities have opened their eyes. The renowned fatwa ‘Paigham-e-Pakistan’ by Pakistan’s scholars against violence, terrorism, and armed resistance to the state stands as a milestone. They no longer wish to act emotionally as in the past, but they face a challenge four to five decades of legacy still haunt them like a ghost. Even if they want to speak clearly to the extremist elements within society, they can’t, because radical influences are deeply embedded from top to bottom.
These very toxic effects have made it difficult to speak truthfully, and even religious leaders are under pressure. The ghost of the past is chasing us, and in such a scenario, the presence of a self-interested global power at Bagram may become a challenge for us as well. It means the long-delayed but essential work of grassroots deradicalization can no longer be postponed. We are out of time.
The author is a mass media theorist and former advisor to the president of Pakistan.
