Connect with us

American News

Trumps Want Bagram Base Back to Protect Israel

Published

on

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : We begin with a prayer for sound judgment and for the protection of innocent lives: May those who hold the levers of power choose restraint over rashness, and may the suffering of ordinary families be spared the thunder of renewed war.
President Trump’s recent declaration that the United States “wants [Bagram] back” — and his warning that “bad things are going to happen” if the demand is not met — is not merely a rhetorical flourish. It is a public ultimatum aimed at a sovereign state now governed by a regime that has repeatedly insisted on its independence and territorial integrity. To speak of “getting it back” without acknowledging the scale of what that implies is to invite a darkness of consequence that cannot be measured simply in dollars or troop rotations.
This urgency — presented as if the cost could be traded away for strategic advantage — deserves a sober pause. Ask plainly: why, at this perilous moment, should the United States risk lives and treasure to re-establish control over a base it abandoned amid humiliation just four years ago? The calculus offered is blunt and chilling: the perceived need is to neutralize threats before they can reach Israel, to blunt Iranian influence that allegedly “barters” through Afghan soil, and to deter Pakistan’s conventional and nuclear capabilities from shaping the outcome of conflicts in the Middle East. That rationale, if true, places Israel’s security at the center of an American sacrifice that would demand fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers be risked abroad — a moral choice that must be argued openly, not imposed as an offhand strategic fait accompli. The president’s public boast that the base “belongs to those that built it” treats sovereignty like a ledger entry rather than a lived reality; it treats bodies and futures as collateral.
We should be brutally honest about the price. Bagram is not a symbolic hangar you re-enter with a small contingent; it was the logistical heart of a two-decade campaign — runways for the largest transports, detention facilities, hospitals, administrative complexes and entire life-support systems for tens of thousands of troops. The base was vacated during the chaotic U.S. withdrawal in July 2021; the departure remains a potent symbol of the limits of force and of the human cost of occupation. Any serious attempt to retake and hold Bagram would require a force posture that looks very much like re-invasion: large troop footprints, air defenses, long-term occupation forces and an open-ended commitment to secure supply lines against insurgents and regional spoilers. History warns that such ventures rarely end on the schedules or terms imagined by their planners.
Beyond the arithmetic of troops and treasure lies a web of regional dynamics that transform a tactical objective into a geopolitical tinderbox. China has quietly deepened its engagement with Kabul — courting mining contracts, infrastructure deals and incremental Belt-and-Road integration. Pakistan claims a deep strategic interest in Afghanistan; Iran watches its western neighbour for any shift that might threaten its influence; and a resurgent Taliban now trades in a complex mix of domestic control and international overtures. An American kinetic return to Bagram would not be an isolated operation; it would be a whiplash event that could provoke asymmetric retaliation from militant actors, diplomatic pushback from regional capitals, and a strategic confrontation with Beijing over the very infrastructure China is trying to build through soft power. The result would not be merely a regional skirmish; it would be a cascade of destabilising moves with human costs that ripple across borders.
There is also a moral dimension that many in Washington seem eager to elide. If the objective of recapturing Bagram is to create a buffer for Israel — then that aim must be debated openly in Congress and with the American public. Sacrificing American lives to serve another nation’s perceived buffer-zone preferences is a weighty judgment that should not be made in a propagandistic press moment. The American people deserve the facts, the alternatives, and the hard accounting of costs in blood and treasure before such a choice is made. To present threats in cinematic soundbites while concealing the true toll is a betrayal of democratic responsibility.
There is a better, more realistic path — and it is one the United States can actually afford both morally and strategically. Influence without occupation is not naïve; it is prudent. Jobs, roads, hospitals, schools and transparent investment frameworks win long-term leverage in fragile states far more effectively than boots do. Rather than threatening to seize territory, Washington should marshal humanitarian aid, underwrite infrastructure projects with strict governance and environmental protections, fund vocational training and support rule-of-law institutions that make communities resilient to extremist sway. Where extractive industries are concerned, revenue-sharing and oversight can reduce corruption and blunt local grievances that fuel insurgency. In short: rebuild with dignity, not coerce with force. Such an approach may be slower and less theatrical, but it matches moral legitimacy with strategic durability.
We must also confront the bitter irony: if the United States is prepared to pay any price to protect another country’s security ambitions, that willingness will be visible to regional powers and will seed resentment. It will feed narratives that the U.S. acts selectively, that American lives are expendable in service of foreign agendas, and that occupation is a policy tool rather than a last resort. Those narratives will be used by opponents to rally recruits and justify asymmetric attacks that will claim the very lives Washington professes to protect.
The choice facing Washington is, disturbingly, both strategic and moral. It can choose to replay the mistakes of the recent past — thunderous ultimatums, rushed deployments, and the false promise that territory can be held without hearts and minds — and thereby invite a long, painful entanglement whose costs are incalculable in mere budgets. Or it can choose to invest in reconstruction, partnerships and patient diplomacy that respect Afghan sovereignty and build durable influence. The latter requires humility, long-term funding commitments, and a willingness to measure success by human flourishing rather than by signage at a runway.
President Trump’s rhetoric — alternately promising peace and threatening occupation — sends the wrong signal to allies and adversaries alike. Tough talk may score at home; abroad it hardens resistance, rallies rivals, and complicates the very diplomacy Washington will need if it truly seeks influence in South and Central Asia. The moral urgency here is not merely about strategy; it is about responsibility to the families who will bear the cost if the sirens call of occupation is answered.
Let us end where we began: with a prayer for restraint, for wisdom, and for leaders who place human life before spectacle. The path that leads through reconstruction, coalition-building and respect for sovereignty is harder, less glamorous and slower — but it is the path that will spare the greatest number of lives and build a legacy worth defending. If America is to remain influential in a changing region, it must learn the hard lesson of Bagram: boots can seize terrain, but they cannot buy the consent that makes security last.

American News

Trump celebrates as Democrats face fallout from end of shutdown

Published

on

By

After 43 days, the longest US government shutdown in history is coming to an end.

Federal workers will start receiving pay again. National Parks will reopen. Government services that had been curtailed or suspended entirely will resume. Air travel, which had become a nightmare for many Americans, will return to being merely frustrating.

After the dust settles and the ink from President Donald Trump’s signature on the funding bill dries, what has this record-setting shutdown accomplished? And what has it cost?

Senate Democrats, through their use of the parliamentary filibuster, were able to trigger the shutdown despite being a minority in the chamber by refusing to go along with a Republican measure to temporarily fund the government.

They drew a line in the sand, demanding that the Republicans agree to extend health insurance subsidies for low-income Americans that are set to expire at the end of the year.

When a handful of Democrats broke ranks to vote to reopen the government on Sunday, they received next to nothing in return – a promise of a vote in the Senate on the subsidies, but no guarantees of Republican support or even a necessary vote in the House of Representatives.

Since then, members of the party’s left flank have been furious.

They’ve accused Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer – who didn’t vote for the funding bill – of being secretly complicit in the reopening plan or simply incompetent. They’ve felt like their party folded even after off-year election success showed they had the upper hand. They feared that the shutdown sacrifices had been for nothing.

Even more mainstream Democrats, like California’s Governor Gavin Newsom, called the shutdown deal “pathetic” and a “surrender”.

“I’m not coming in to punch anybody in the face,” he told the Associated Press, “but I’m not pleased that, in the face of this invasive species that is Donald Trump, who’s completely changed the rules of the game, that we’re still playing by the old rules of the game.”

Newsom has 2028 presidential ambitions and can be a good barometer for the mood of the party. He was a loyal supporter of Joe Biden who turned out to defend the then-president even after his disastrous June debate performance against Trump.

If he is running for the pitchforks, it’s not a good sign for Democratic leaders.

For Trump, in the days since the Senate deadlock broke on Sunday, his mood has gone from cautious optimism to celebration.

On Tuesday, he congratulated congressional Republicans and called the vote to reopen the government “a very big victory”.

“We’re opening up our country,” he said at a Veteran’s Day commemoration at Arlington Cemetery. “It should have never been closed.”

Trump, perhaps sensing the Democratic anger toward Schumer, joined the pile-on during a Fox News interview on Monday night.

“He thought he could break the Republican Party, and the Republicans broke him,” Trump said of the Senate Democrat.

Although there were times when Trump appeared to be buckling – last week he berated Senate Republicans for refusing to scrap the filibuster to reopen the government – he ultimately emerged from the shutdown having made little in the way of substantive concessions.

While his poll numbers have declined over the last 40 days, there’s still a year before Republicans have to face voters in the midterms. And, barring some kind of constitutional rewrite, Trump never has to worry about standing for election again.

With the end of the shutdown, Congress will get back to its regularly scheduled programming. Although the House of Representatives has effectively been on ice for more than a month, Republicans still hope they can pass some substantive legislation before next year’s election cycle kicks in.

While several government departments will be funded until September in the shutdown-ending agreement, Congress will have to approve spending for the rest of the government by the end of January to avoid another shutdown.

Democrats, licking their wounds, may be hankering for another chance to fight.

Meanwhile, the issue they fought over – healthcare subsidies – could become a pressing concern for tens of millions of Americans who will see their insurance costs double or triple at the end of the year. Republicans ignore addressing such voter pain at their own political peril.

And that isn’t the only peril facing Trump and the Republicans. A day that was supposed to be highlighted by the House government-funding vote was spent dwelling on the latest revelations surrounding the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Later on Wednesday, Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in to her congressional seat and became the 218th and final signatory on a petition that will force the House of Representatives to hold a vote ordering the justice department to release all its files on the Epstein case.

It was enough to prompt Trump to complain, on his Truth Social website, that his government-funding success was being eclipsed.

“The Democrats are trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax again because they’ll do anything at all to deflect on how badly they’ve done on the Shutdown, and so many other subjects,” he wrote.

It was all a very clear reminder that the best-laid plans and political strategies can be derailed in a flash.

Continue Reading

American News

BBC faces fresh claim of misleading Trump edit

Published

on

By

The BBC was accused of a misleading edit of Donald Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech two years before the Panorama sequence that led to the resignation of the director-general.

The clip aired on Newsnight in 2022, and a guest on the live programme challenged the way it had been cut together, the Daily Telegraph reported.

On Monday the BBC apologised for an “error of judgement” over an edited portion of the same speech that aired last year on Panorama.

The fallout saw the resignations of the BBC’s director-general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness, and a legal threat from the US President.

Lawyers for Trump have written to the BBC saying he will sue for $1bn (£759m) in damages unless the corporation issues a retraction, apologises and compensates him for the Panorama broadcast.

In response to Thursday’s story in the Telegraph, a BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC holds itself to the highest editorial standards. This matter has been brought to our attention and we are now looking into it.”

In Trump’s speech on 6 January 2021, he said: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

More than 50 minutes later in the speech, he said: “And we fight. We fight like hell.”

In the Panorama programme, the clip shows him as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

In the Newsnight programme the edit is a little different.

He is shown as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol. And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

This was followed by a voiceover from presenter Kirsty Wark saying “and fight they did” over footage from the Capitol riots.

Responding to the clip on the same programme, former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who quit a diplomatic post and became a critic of Trump after describing the 6 January riots as an “attempted coup”, said the video had “spliced together” Trump’s speech.

“That line about ‘we fight and fight like hell’ is actually later in the speech and yet your video makes it look like those two things came together,” he said.

The Telegraph also reported that a whistleblower told the newspaper that a further discussion the following day was also shut down.

Last week, a leaked internal BBC memo claimed Panorama had misled viewers by splicing two parts of Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech together, making it appear as though he was explicitly urging people to attack the US Capitol after his election defeat.

The documentary aired days before the US presidential election in November 2024.

Speaking to Fox News, Trump said his 6 January 2021 speech had been “butchered” and the way it was presented had “defrauded” viewers.

Continue Reading

American News

President Donald Trump is asking the US Supreme Court to review the $5m (£3.6m) civil case that found he defamed and sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll.

Published

on

By

He has repeatedly claimed that the judge who oversaw the civil trial, Lewis Kaplan, improperly allowed evidence to be presented that hurt how the jury viewed Trump.

A federal appeals court agreed with the jury’s verdict last year and said Kaplan did not make errors that would warrant a new trial.

A New York jury awarded Ms Carroll damages over her civil claim that Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s, and then branded the incident a hoax on social media. He denied the allegations.

The Supreme Court is now Trump’s last hope of overturning the unanimous jury’s verdict. Whether the top US court will take the case up is unclear.

A federal appeals court declined to rehear Trump’s challenge to it in June.

Trump’s comments about the jury’s findings in the case led a separate jury to order him to pay Ms Carroll $83m for defaming her. A panel of federal judges denied his appeal of that decision in September, and Trump has now taken the next step in trying to have it overturned by asking the full bench of judges at a federal appeals court to review the case.

In the petition to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued Kaplan should not have let jurors see the 2005 Access Hollywood tape that showed the president saying he groped and kissed women.

“There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation,” they wrote about Ms Carroll’s allegations.

“Instead, Carroll waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th president, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself.”

Roberta Kaplan, Ms Carroll’s attorney, told the BBC she had no comment on the Supreme Court appeal.

While Trump was found to have defamed and sexually abused Ms Carroll, the jury rejected her claim of rape as defined in New York’s penal code.

Ms Carroll, a former magazine columnist who is now 81, sued Trump for attacking her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room in Manhattan. The defamation stemmed from Trump’s post on his Truth Social platform in 2022 denying her claim.

Trump has said Ms Carroll was “not my type” and that she lied.

Continue Reading

Trending