Trump's Second Term: Will the U.S. return to Afghanistan?

The second term of Donald Trump's presidency will begin on January 20, 2025. His foreign policy regarding various regions and countries can be anticipated based on his statements during the election campaigns.
Mass deportations of immigrants from the first day of his presidency, tariffs of 15 to 25 percent on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China, non-compliance with America's NATO commitments, and cuts to its budget, prioritize expediting permits to expand oil drilling, A deal between Ukraine and Russia, and new sanctions on Iran were some of the major issues that Trump emphasized.
However, the key question is: What will Trump's stance on Afghanistan be, and what will his policy towards the Taliban look like in his second term as president?
To better understand the issue, let's examine two points here:

1. The Doctrine of Trump's Foreign Policy in His First Term
2. Trump's campaign Statements on Afghanistan and the Senior Security Officials He Appointed
A part of Trump's doctrine that could be related to the U.S. position on Afghanistan is as follows:

1. Never start a war, but if forced into one, win it decisively.
2. Don’t engage in regime change and nation-building
3. Continue to demand that NATO partners pull their weight.
Based on Trump's doctrine, which he declared during his first term as president, he emphasized that no war should ever be started, but if forced into one, the goal should be to win it. Trump prioritizes an econ-omy-focused policy within the borders of the United States and shows less interest in expanding America's sphere of influence, nor does he want to spend money for that purpose. For this reason, he accuses the Democrats of inconsistency in handling tensions, arguing that their pol-icies both created tension and guided enemies towards confrontation.
Similarly, Trump is not seeking regime change in any country and be-lieves that in every country where such efforts were made after WWII, they ended in failure.
Ultimately, regarding NATO, which has acted as the military arm of the U.S. and the West, have played a decisive role in the wars in Afghani-stan, Iraq, and Libya, Trump does not want to spend excessive amounts on the organization. Instead, he urges other member countries to not re-ly on NATO's burden and to pay their fair financial share.

The US withdrawal from Afghanistan:
Trump often touched on the Afghanistan withdrawal during the cam-paign trail in 2024, condemning it as a “humiliation” and “the most embarrassing day in the history of our country.” He repeatedly criticized the Democrats in his statements regarding the U.S. withdrawal from Afghan-istan. He also emphasized that if he were in power, such a withdrawal would not have taken place, and the Bagram Airbase would have been maintained for U.S. forces.
Trump’s transition team has begun to compile a list of current and for-mer U.S. military officials involved in the chaotic withdrawal and has looked into possibly court-martialing them for their involvement. Promo-tion of a general who oversaw troops in Kabul during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan put on hold because of oversaw the chaotic pullout from Afghanistan in 2021; his nomination was among more than 900 proposed nominations sent to the Senate.
When looking at Trump's doctrine, it is clear that he has no interest in re-gime change or spending excessive costs. These remarks are likely more aimed at shifting public opinion and garnering support from American nationalists who believe that the U.S.'s withdrawal from Afghanistan has tarnished its reputation.
The final decision and timeline for the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan were set during Trump's presidency, and In February 2020, Trump agreed on a deal with the Taliban that set a date for the phased withdrawal of US forces by May 2021. This was the foundation for the collapse of the Afghanistan government and the Taliban’s return to power. Trump even went so far as to entertain the idea of inviting Taliban leaders to Camp David, though his advisers wisely convinced him to abandon it. one thing united Trump and Biden: their desire to exit Afghanistan, no matter the consequences. The Trump administration, with its deal, laid the groundwork for the disaster that followed under Biden.
Now that U.S. forces have fully withdrawn from Afghanistan, and Bagram Airbase, with its $3.5 billion cost and equipment from three years ago, was handed over to the Taliban, it is unlikely that Trump would have any interest in re-engaging directly in Afghanistan.
Trump's focus on prioritizing the U.S. and its people, rather than global security, led to disagreements among his senior security officials during his first term.
Trump first secretary of defense General Mattis, resigned in December 2018 and mentioned in his resignation letter that, we cannot protect our interest or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong allianc-es and showing respect to those allies. These statements by General Mattis reflect Trump's view that the U.S. is not the world's police and does not have the responsibility to ensure the security of foreign coun-tries. This was one of the reasons for his resignation.

What Trump Top Security Officials Candidates Believes:
Trump's candidates for Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor have made similar statements to Trump. In the past, they were either involved in the Afghanistan issue or had military missions in Afghanistan. Both of Trump's security nominees strongly oppose the man-ner in which the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, focusing primarily on the issue's impact on America's prestige, without considering the consequences of this withdrawal for the people of Afghanistan.
A former Army major who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and as a guard at Guantanamo Bay, Hegseth has since emerged as one of Trump's most vocal allies in cable news. He previously led two veterans' organizations before transitioning fulltime to his position at Fox News. Now elected for secretary of defense.
The nomination of Florida Congressman Mike Waltz as national security adviser signals a possible shift. Waltz, a former US special forces officer who served several tours in Afghanistan, has been one of the most vocal critics of Biden’s withdrawal.

Conclusion:
1. Considering that U.S. presidents have limited influence over foreign policy changes, with some powers resting with the Senate, it is un-likely that Trump's policies will be completely opposed to those im-plemented by the Biden administration.
2. Trump has a more economy-focused approach, which contrasts with the Democrats' view of expanding their global influence. Therefore, Trump does not want to re-engage in Afghanistan's affairs by incurring significant costs.
3. In Trump's doctrine, there is no pursuit of regime change in countries. Therefore, the expectations of the Afghanistan people for a regime change in Afghanistan and the collapse of the Taliban regime are un-likely to materialize.
4. Trump never focused on the situation of the Afghanistan people un-der Taliban rule. Instead, he emphasized the negative consequences of the withdrawal for the U.S. and its people. Therefore, Trump's anti-withdrawal statements are not about his interest in improving the sit-uation for the Afghanistan people, but rather about restoring the pres-tige of this event for the U.S.
5. Trump's rise to power will make the situation more difficult for the Taliban. They are likely to lose their weekly cash payments, face seri-ous liquidity problems in Afghanistan, and will be unable to cover even part of the government's expenses.
6. Trump's foreign policy during his first term regarding South Asia was clear: giving more concessions to India and ignoring Pakistan. If such a policy continues in the second term, Pakistan and China’s role as the biggest supporter and lobbyist of the Taliban will also diminish.
7. Since the Taliban came to power, terrorism and extremist networks have grown and are gradually becoming a regional and global threat. If the situation continues in this manner, there is no doubt that the possibility of the United States once again fighting terrorism on Afghan soil remains. However, this does not mean a long-term U.S. presence in Afghanistan like it was in 2001.

----------