Shared opposition, divergent motives: India and Pakistan both rejected Trump’s Bagram bid, but for very different reasons

Taliban military helicopters fly to celebrate the third anniversary of Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan, at the Bagram Air Base, in Bagram, Parwan province on August 14, 2024.

When US President Donald Trump began hinting at reclaiming control of the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, the proposal drew immediate resistance from regional powers. India, Pakistan, China and Russia jointly rejected the idea, calling any renewed foreign military presence in Afghanistan “unacceptable.” The rare consensus came under the Moscow Format consultations, where India found itself aligned with countries that usually stand on opposing sides of global issues.

Meanwhile, the Taliban warned that any state assisting the United States in retaking Bagram, explicitly naming Pakistan, would be treated as an enemy. This development has not only raised tensions but also highlighted the deep strategic anxieties surrounding Afghanistan’s future.

Why India opposed Trump’s Bagram bid

India’s opposition to the US plan is rooted in its long-held position that Afghanistan’s sovereignty must be respected and that no foreign power should use the country to advance its strategic goals. Delhi fears that a US return to Bagram could destabilise the fragile regional balance, reigniting the kind of foreign intervention that once fueled extremism across the region. The joint Moscow Format statement reflected this concern, calling foreign attempts to deploy military infrastructure in Afghanistan or neighboring countries “unacceptable.”

By opposing Trump’s proposal, India also sent a message that it does not support unilateral actions that could drag the region into new conflicts. The stance aligns with Russia, China, Pakistan, and even the Taliban, marking a rare moment of regional unity against external interference.

For New Delhi, the issue goes beyond Afghanistan. The proximity of Bagram to western China makes it strategically significant for the U.S., which has hinted at using it to counter Beijing’s influence. Supporting such a move would have indirectly positioned India in an anti-China military framework, which it wants to avoid.

India’s reaction is also consistent with its broader Afghanistan policy. While Delhi has not formally recognised the Taliban regime, it continues to provide humanitarian aid and support for reconstruction. Taking a stand against renewed US military presence allows India to maintain credibility as a regional actor that supports stability and Afghan sovereignty, rather than one that enables external military involvement.

Why Pakistan opposed Trump’s bid and the Taliban’s warning

Pakistan’s response to Trump’s proposal is far more complicated. Reports suggested that Trump sought Islamabad’s support to facilitate US access to Bagram, given Pakistan’s logistical advantages and historical ties with the Taliban. However, the Taliban swiftly warned that any state assisting the US would be considered an “enemy state.” The statement, issued from Kandahar, was interpreted as a direct threat to Pakistan, underscoring the group’s distrust despite years of collaboration.

Pakistan’s dilemma stems from its desire to maintain influence in Afghanistan while also managing relations with Washington. Supporting the US could provide short-term diplomatic or financial gains, but it would come at a steep cost. Islamabad risks losing its leverage over the Taliban, facing internal backlash, and straining its partnerships with China and Iran, both of which oppose renewed US military activity in the region.

The security risks are also substantial. Any visible cooperation with Washington could invite retaliatory attacks from militant groups operating along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Pakistan’s past strategy of balancing between the US and Taliban is increasingly unsustainable, as both sides now demand clear alignment. The Taliban’s threat leaves little room for ambiguity, forcing Islamabad to publicly distance itself from Trump’s plan even if backchannel contacts exist.

Why Trump’s outreach to Pakistan has created a conflict

Trump’s attempt to seek Pakistan’s support for regaining control of Bagram exposes the competing pressures facing Islamabad. For Washington, Pakistan’s geography and intelligence links make it a natural partner for logistical support or coordination in Afghanistan. But agreeing to such cooperation would pit Pakistan against the very Taliban leadership it once helped install.

At the same time, Pakistan cannot easily afford to alienate the United States, which remains a key player in international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank. The country’s fragile economy depends heavily on Western goodwill. This balancing act leaves Pakistan trapped between two conflicting imperatives: securing US favour while avoiding Taliban hostility.

The Taliban’s explicit warning has forced Islamabad to tread carefully. While it may quietly offer diplomatic assistance or facilitate limited US engagement through intermediaries, it cannot openly align with Trump’s plan without provoking internal unrest and regional isolation. The episode highlights Pakistan’s deep strategic contradictions and the enduring instability surrounding Afghanistan’s post-war order.

India’s opposition to Trump’s Bagram proposal stems from its desire to prevent a renewed cycle of intervention in Afghanistan and to uphold regional sovereignty. Pakistan’s hesitation, in contrast, reflects a more complex balancing act shaped by external pressure and domestic vulnerabilities. Both countries, though for different reasons, see the prospect of a US return to Bagram as a potential trigger for regional turmoil.