The U.S. and Afghanistan: A Strategic Crossroads Under Trump

 

 

By Wahab Raofi

The Biden administration’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan was hailed by some as the end of America’s longest war, but its repercussions continue to unfold. Donald Trump, preparing to take office in January, has made Afghanistan a key talking point, sharply criticizing the withdrawal as a strategic blunder.

During his campaign, Trump emphasized the significance of Bagram Airfield, citing its proximity to China — a nation he views as America’s foremost adversary. “They also gave up Bagram, one of the biggest bases in the world. I liked it because of China. It’s one hour away from where China makes their nuclear weapons,” Trump said.

His critique underscores a broader concern: did the U.S. relinquish a critical strategic foothold by pulling out entirely?

As a registered Republican who did not vote for Trump, I nonetheless agree with his assessment that a contingency force at Bagram should have been retained. Such a presence could have safeguarded U.S. interests against geopolitical rivals like China, North Korea and Iran. The withdrawal has emboldened these nations, each exploiting the vacuum left behind. However, any future U.S. engagement in Afghanistan must avoid repeating past mistakes.

The question now is: how should the U.S. navigate its re-engagement under Trump, balancing strategic imperatives with human rights and the risk of prolonged conflict?

The Geopolitical Fallout of Withdrawal

The consequences of the U.S. withdrawal have been swift and significant. China was the first nation to formalize relations with the Taliban, sending diplomats and establishing economic agreements. These moves solidified Beijing’s influence in Afghanistan and strengthened its Belt and Road Initiative.

Iran, through its Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has maintained ties with Taliban leaders and continues to exert influence in Kandahar. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) plays a substantial role in Afghanistan’s internal dynamics, reportedly overshadowing the authority of Taliban leader Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada

The regional power shift is undeniable. Since the Taliban takeover, Afghanistan’s GDP has plummeted by 35%, with over 900,000 jobs lost. Economic decline has exacerbated public discontent and highlighted the regime’s inability to govern effectively. Within the Taliban, divisions between hardliners in Kandahar and moderates in Kabul further weaken their cohesion. These fractures present both challenges and opportunities for U.S. policy.

Three Paths Forward

Trump’s leadership style, often described as transactional and unpredictable, suggests three potential approaches to Afghanistan:

1. Negotiate a Transactional Deal: Trump could attempt to broker agreements with the Taliban, offering financial incentives and political recognition in exchange for strategic concessions. However, this path is fraught with risks. The Taliban’s decentralized leadership and ideological rigidity make cohesive agreements unlikely. Rank-and-file fighters might reject compromises, splintering the group and potentially fueling the rise of ISIS factions. This approach could destabilize the region further, rather than achieving U.S. goals.

2.     Re-engage Military Troops: If negotiations fail, the U.S. might face the choice of limited military intervention. Regaining control of Bagram Airfield or targeting key Taliban strongholds could restore some strategic advantage. However, such actions risk re-entrenching the U.S. in a conflict it has long sought to end. The “break it, fix it” cycle of intervention and rebuilding could once again trap America in Afghanistan, which is in contrast with the latest election. Most Americans don't want to get engaged in foreign wars. In a recent issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Dan Caldwell and Reid Smith write: “In the aftermath of the United States’ post-9/11 foreign policy disasters, an increasing number of Americans oppose their country’s heavy reliance on the use of military force to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Instead, they want policymakers to focus on challenges at home and be more cautious when they send U.S. service members into combat. Trump’s victory signals that breaking with the post-Cold War orthodoxy on foreign policy is both sound policy and smart politics.”

3. Exploit Internal Divisions: Afghanistan’s current instability — economic collapse, popular dissent, and internal Taliban divisions — offers an alternative route. By leveraging these vulnerabilities, the U.S. could weaken the regime without direct military involvement. This might involve cutting financial aid that indirectly supports the Taliban, as the U.S. has spent nearly $21 billion on Afghanistan since 2021. Additionally, pressuring the Taliban to adhere to the Doha Agreement — which calls for power-sharing and free elections — could pave the way for a more legitimate government.

Balancing Strategic Interests and Human Rights

The U.S. faces a critical challenge in balancing its geopolitical goals with the need to promote human rights and stability in Afghanistan. Negotiating with the Taliban could undermine efforts to secure democratic governance and human rights, particularly for women. At the same time, continued aid risks legitimizing a regime that many Afghans view as an imposed authority.

Trump’s strategy must address this tension. Holding the Taliban accountable to the Doha Agreement could provide a framework for international legitimacy while prioritizing human rights. However, achieving this would require a coordinated, multilateral effort, involving regional players like Pakistan, India and allies in NATO.

A Path Forward

To regain influence in Afghanistan, the U.S. could adopt a multi-pronged strategy:

1. Economic Leverage: Use financial aid as a tool to pressure the Taliban into meeting governance benchmarks, such as power-sharing and women’s rights. Conditioning aid on tangible progress can encourage reform while avoiding direct confrontation.
2. Diplomatic Engagement: Work with regional powers to create a unified approach to Afghanistan. While China and Iran have established ties with the Taliban, their interests do not align perfectly. Exploiting these differences could limit their influence.
3. Counterterrorism Measures: Strengthen intelligence and counterterrorism operations to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven for extremist groups like ISIS.
4. Long-term Strategy: Focus on building relationships with Afghan civil society and moderate elements within the Taliban, laying the groundwork for a more stable political future.

Conclusion

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan marked the end of one chapter but opened another that has been fraught with complexity. Under Trump, re-engagement must be guided by strategic pragmatism, not nostalgia for past policies. By balancing economic, diplomatic and security measures, the U.S. can safeguard its interests while supporting the Afghan people in their pursuit of stability and self-determination. Anything less risks repeating the same mistakes that led to the current crisis.