Can Trump ‘Make Afghanistan Great Again’?

In Afghanistan, many opponents of the Taliban expect Trump to adopt an aggressive approach toward the group.

Will Hibatullah Akhundzada also be placed on the target list of US Delta Force commandos?

Following the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, supporters of regime change in countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran have also become active, appearing to encourage Trump to carry out a similar operation in Tehran.

US Senator Lindsey Graham posted a photo of himself with Donald Trump, holding a cap bearing the slogan “Make Iran Great Again.”

The cap and slogan are derived from Trump’s US presidential campaign motto, but they also serve as a signal for regime change in Iran. This raises the question of whether influential senators or politicians in Washington are now thinking about “making Afghanistan great again.”

Trump and his supporters in the United States and Iran believe that Iran without the Islamic Republic would be a wealthy, prosperous country and a friend of the West and Israel in the Middle East. In Iran’s neighbourhood, Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada is seen as the Afghan equivalent of Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic.

Akhundzada heads a regime that shelters several terrorist groups. His policies have turned Afghanistan into one of the most isolated countries in the world. Domestically, the rights of half the population have been completely stripped away, and aside from a small Taliban-affiliated minority, Afghans have been deprived of their basic rights.

Although Afghanistan during two decades of republican rule was far from ideal in terms of development and security indicators, it nevertheless had a normal, internationally recognised government. Elections were held, women had the right to study and work, and there were no political or religious prisoners.

Earlier, during the 1960s, Afghanistan had a moderate monarchy and, for a decade, a parliament and a constitutional system. The security and calm of the era of Mohammad Zahir Shah later became a source of nostalgia after the Soviet invasion and civil war.

Not long ago, Afghanistan was a destination for famous tourists and well-known politicians from the region and the world.

Former finance minister Omar Zakhilwal once told the author that Nawaz Sharif, a prominent Pakistani politician, had spent his honeymoon in Kabul.

Sharif reportedly recalled during a visit by a former Afghan president to Islamabad that he had travelled to Kabul with his wife in his youth and enjoyed good days there. He mentioned the intercontinental Hotel, Qargha resort and Paghman, which were once frequented by many tourists.

Zakhilwal also recounted that the Japanese emperor, in a meeting with them, recalled his visit to Afghanistan and said he had spent a night with his family near the Buddha statues of Bamiyan.

Today, however, that country has turned into a place of mourning, gripped by poverty and a severe humanitarian crisis.

Afghan political forces hope that, under external pressure and internal resistance, the Taliban regime will collapse, allowing Afghanistan to emerge from a “Stone Age” and form a civil, democratic government that is friendly with region and globally.

The question now is: will Donald Trump in 2026 be George Bush in 2001?

Trump and China

Many observers believe Afghanistan has little intrinsic strategic importance for the United States. However, since returning to power, Trump has repeatedly criticised the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and emphasised reclaiming American weapons from the Taliban and returning to the strategic Bagram Air Base. From Trump’s perspective, Bagram allows monitoring of China’s nuclear and military facilities. If democracy and human rights in Afghanistan mattered to Bush, having a base near China matters to Trump.

After the operation against Maduro, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Trump is a president of action, not words, and that his statements should be taken seriously.

Previously, many had dismissed Trump’s remarks about annexing Greenland, reclaiming US weapons from the Taliban and returning to Bagram as political bluster.

In Trump’s second term, the United States has adopted an aggressive foreign policy. The White House has acted through both diplomacy and force. In some regions, Trump has pursued conflict resolution through diplomacy, such as mediating peace between India and Pakistan, facilitating an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and supporting a ceasefire in Gaza. In other cases, he has resorted to military force.

If the Trump administration takes competition with China seriously, Afghanistan will re-enter its focus. For now, US priorities are largely concentrated on South America, the Ukraine crisis and tensions with Iran. But if Washington achieves its objectives in these three arenas, it is not unlikely that the long-forgotten Afghanistan will again draw attention.

A Leader in Hiding

Akhundzada, the Taliban leader, remains hidden from public view, and according to reports, heavy security measures surround his residence in Kandahar. Still, the examples of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and Maduro in Caracas show that US intelligence agencies and commandos have been successful in locating the hideouts of leaders of hostile states and terrorist organisations.

Akhundzada is also vulnerable to US special operations. His advantage, however, is that unlike Khamenei and Maduro, he has not adopted an overtly hostile anti-American policy. He rarely addresses Taliban foreign policy in his speeches.

Iran and Venezuela have threatened US regional interests, whereas the Taliban have called on Washington to reopen its embassy in Kabul. Taliban officials have adopted a conciliatory tone toward the United States and speak with an eye toward the future. US and Taliban intelligence services have at least cooperated on intelligence matters related to ISIS.

Following the detention of Venezuela’s president and threats against Iran, Cuba and Colombia, there is little doubt that Taliban leaders are concerned about Akhundzada’s safety and the fate of their regime. Unlike Democratic presidents, Trump has pursued an aggressive, national-security-based foreign policy and has shown willingness to use military force to impose his demands.

After the US withdrawal, rival countries such as China and Iran filled the vacuum left in Afghanistan. At the same time, part of Washington’s actions in Latin America are aimed precisely at reducing the influence of those same countries.

The Taliban have taken Trump’s threats seriously. They view Pakistan’s actions as part of a broader US strategy on Afghanistan. Referring to Washington’s efforts to return to Bagram, a Taliban spokesperson said Pakistan is tasked with implementing US projects in the region and in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, the Taliban have exercised restraint toward Trump and have not reacted to recent US actions in Venezuela.

“Restoring Afghanistan’s Greatness”

In Trump’s politics, restoring greatness means fundamentally changing regimes and political institutions at home and abroad and aligning countries with US interests. This approach seeks to re-establish America’s position as a regional and global hegemon.

If the Taliban fail to properly understand this new, greatness-driven US approach, they could face an uncertain fate.

Domestic Afghan political forces have openly expressed hope for Washington’s interventionist policies. These forces, mostly living in exile, currently lack the military capacity to challenge the Taliban.

If anti-Taliban lobbying convinces Washington to act against the ruling group in Afghanistan, domestic political forces have pledged to restore the rights and freedoms Afghans gained over the past two decades.

During two decades of US presence and support, Afghanistan made remarkable, historically unprecedented progress. Literacy rates rose significantly, and millions of girls gained access to education for the first time, with student numbers exceeding nine million. Women achieved historic participation: about 30 percent of civil servants were women, and in some provinces such as Herat and Jowzjan, women’s participation in local administration nearly matched that of men. Politically, 25 percent of parliamentary seats were reserved for women.

Freedom of expression reached levels widely praised in the region, and a nascent civil society challenged power.

Presidential, parliamentary and provincial council elections were held with public participation. Ethnic and religious groups saw themselves as part of the power structure, and religious and social freedoms were practised in tangible ways.

Internationally, Afghanistan emerged from years of isolation, attracted global attention and actively participated in international organisations.