Pakistan, Taliban, Bagram and shifting geopolitics

In a significant and potentially disruptive move, the US House of Representatives has passed an amendment to the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), instructing the Secretary of Defense to share intelligence with former Afghan army and police units — and others designated as resistance forces — to counter the Taliban.

Almost simultaneously, President Donald Trump (Sept 18) declared his intent to reclaim Afghanistan's Bagram Air Base, citing its strategic proximity to China's nuclear facilities:

"We're trying to get it back because they (Taliban) need things from us... It's an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons."

These developments mark a new phase of US re-engagement in Afghan geopolitics, following years of hard posturing toward China, India and others. Washington seems poised to reassert influence in the region, potentially complicating matters for the Taliban regime. Concerns about China's growing influence in the region, counterterrorism and desire to access rare minerals seem to be driving the Trump administration's reengagement with the Taliban.

Will this conditional re-engagement lead to recognition of the regime, help stabilise Afghanistan economically or fuel further instability in an already fragile region?

Taliban Rule: Peace, Control, But Isolation

Since August 2021, the Taliban have faced no serious domestic opposition and now control most of Afghanistan, from Badakhshan to Kandahar, including key regions like Paktia, Paktika and Nangarhar. While the regime has restored basic order, curbed corruption and established a harsh but functioning justice system, international recognition remains elusive — possibly now linked to cooperation over Bagram.

Ordinary Afghans, weary of decades of war, initially welcomed peace under Taliban rule. Their current demands are simple: economic stability, personal freedoms and a peaceful life, free of crime and corruption. The Emirates has largely delivered on crime and corruption, considerably enhanced state revenues but the issues around female education and employment as well as soft handling of militant groups remain the big sticking points.

Pak-Afghan Relations: Mistrust Lingers

Despite the Taliban's hold on the country, their relations with Pakistan remain strained. Anti-Pakistan rhetoric is widespread on Afghan media and social platforms, often fueled by influencers who label Pakistan as a puppet state or mock its leadership. It is not just the self-proclaimed General Mubeen and a cleric Nasim Haqqani delivering stinging messaging on Pakistan. At times security officials and minister, too, blurt out narratives that obviously cause consternation.

Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid, in a conversation in Kandahar, acknowledged the issue: "We've instructed media not to invite individuals who inject bad blood into bilateral relations," he told me at his Kandahar office.

Yet, discussions about the Durand Line — Afghanistan's historical dispute over the border — continue to inflame tensions. Mujahid reiterated the Emirate's stance and said this would require a national, cross-border consensus.

"The Durand Line is a national issue. No single government can decide it. A grand tribal jirga comprising elders from tribes that straddle both sides of the (border) would be needed to settle the matter for good," he elaborated.

This viewpoint also disregards the fact that Pakistan almost entirely fenced the border during the Ashraf Ghani government, with no objection whatsoever then.

Still, one wonders if the Taliban — with their consolidated control — are not best positioned to influence public opinion toward accepting the internationally recognised border since 1947.

Mujahid admitted some remnants of the previous Afghan regime remain active and exploit every opportunity to malign Pakistan.

The spoilers mischievously try to draw an analogy between TTA and TTP. Sanctifying this argument, even by default, amounts to only undermining TTA's own narrative of "jihad against foreign occupation" — an indigenous movement rooted in masses.

TTP deploys almost similar argument, often talking about a "foreign occupation force". But nobody else dares such an insinuation because Pakistan is a fully functional, independent state. Nor is the Pakistan Army an occupation force. Most countries engage with its leadership across the globe — both at the White House (Washington) and the Great Hall (Beijing). TTP on the contrary is treated as an aberration, an evil force responsible for killing innocent people.

With all the goodwill that currently exists for the Emirates of Afghanistan, leaders in both Kabul and Kandahar have a golden opportunity at hand to help shake off cliches that sow bad blood, trigger skirmishes, poison the public discourse and thus impair relations between the two countries every now and then.

Counterterrorism is a common challenge that necessitates cross-border cooperation. Why can't the two nations join hands in narrowing the space on all terrorist groups that are a source of concern not just for Pakistan but China, Iran and Uzbekistan too?

Mujahid maintained that the Emirate is committed to peaceful relations: "Our Emir, Mullah Hibatullah, emphasises a policy of 'no harm to neighbours'. We discourage hostility and prioritize cooperation."

Counterterrorism: Symbolism vs Substance

Though the Taliban claim to monitor and restrict militants, neighbouring states — including Pakistan, China, Iran and Uzbekistan — remain deeply concerned. Reports suggest that thousands of fighters from Chechnya, Syria, Iraq and Xinjiang may have found refuge in Afghanistan.

Despite Taliban denials, the spike in TTP attacks in Pakistan casts doubt on the Emirate's ability — or willingness — to fully control such groups.

The August 20 China-Afghanistan-Pakistan trilateral gathering ended without a joint communiqué, reportedly due to disagreements over counterterrorism, highlighting regional unease over the Taliban's approach.

Mujahid nevertheless emphasised that "only sustained dialogue through formal channels like the Joint Coordination Committee can address misunderstandings. Force is not the answer to our mutual challenges."