If you are surprised the US plotted Imran Khan’s ouster, pop a red pill

Honestly, I am not sure what is so “explosive” about the revelation that the Pakistani military connived with the United States to oust Pakistan’s democratically elected Prime Minister Imran Khan for his ‘sin’ of trying to implement an independent foreign policy. If you are still “surprised” by the fact that the United States orchestrates regime change operations around the world whenever it suits its strategic interests, or by the fact that the Pakistani military is its favourite gun for hire, maybe it is time for you to pop that red pill.

The US Deep State has been instrumental in carrying out covert operations (regime change, colour revolutions, name it what you will) throughout history, aimed at aligning target countries with US national security and economic priorities while maintaining sufficient plausible deniability, and Pakistan has been fertile ground. More on that later.

More from Opinion

According to an extensive database compiled by political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke, the US launched 70 stealthy ‘regime change interventions’ globally during the Cold War era alone, at a frequency 10 times greater than overt military force.

That said, the formal publication by investigative outlet Drop Site News of the classified diplomatic missive, identified as ‘cable I‑0678’ and called ‘cypher’ in Pakistan, provides confirmation, if any was needed, that the Pakistani military likes to stay in control of the entire state apparatus, either directly through dictators (Pervez Musharraf) or through civilian fronts (Shehbaz Sharif).

The Rawalpindi khakis were worried about the trajectory of Pakistan’s foreign policy under Khan, and their anxiety found alignment with America’s displeasure over Khan crossing several American red lines, including his refusal to allow the US a staging ground inside Pakistani territory for drones to be used against Afghanistan, and his neutral stance on Ukraine.

The leaked cable takes allegations of US interference in Pakistan’s domestic politics out of the ‘conspiracy theory’ zone and into the ‘hard evidence’ terrain, and makes it evident that the Pakistani military was acting independently, and at variance with the Khan-led civilian leadership. In cahoots with the US national security establishment, the Rawalpindi generals used the Sharif brothers as a front (both Shehbaz and the exiled Nawaz), co-opted the judiciary, and staged a soft coup d’état to oust the popular, democratically elected prime minister.

The purported cable reproduces in full a conversation that took place on 7 March 2022 between Pakistan’s then ambassador to Washington, Asad Majeed Khan, and US Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu, and shows senior US officials explicitly linking “better relations” with Pakistan to Khan’s removal, just about a month before he was ousted on 10 April.

In the ‘cypher’, Lu is quoted as saying that if the no-confidence motion against Khan succeeded, “all will be forgiven in Washington” — referring to Khan’s Moscow visit and his “aggressively neutral” stance on the Ukraine war (both red lines for the US) — but that if he survived, Pakistan’s “isolation” from the US and Europe would “become very strong”, effectively framing a change of government as the price for avoiding diplomatic and economic marginalisation. It spectacularly corroborates every allegation levelled by Khan shortly before his ouster.

Khan had repeatedly claimed that the US was trying to ‘get rid of him’ and was hatching a conspiracy to remove him from power. He frequently made references to a classified diplomatic cable as ‘definitive proof’. Just weeks before he was ousted via a parliamentary manoeuvre, Khan had dramatically brandished a piece of paper, claiming it detailed an American plot against his government, and referred to the exact document that has now been published.

Khan had said the ‘cypher’ delivered an ultimatum: if the no-confidence vote succeeded, “all will be forgiven”, but if it failed, Pakistan would face severe international isolation. These details were previously published by US media outlet The Intercept on 9 August 2023.

Now the little pieces fall into place. Those silences may now be better explained — why the US and Europe remain steadfastly quiet over Khan’s illegal incarceration; why the US and Europe were silent over a blatantly rigged election in which the Army seized power, and why there is now a complete reset in ties. The old truism, that the US prefers to work with the Pakistani military instead of an elected civilian leader, rings truer than ever.

What has been reinforced once again are two axiomatic truths. One, America’s claims of ‘championing democracy’, ‘protecting human rights’, and stressing ‘values’ are used to justify its hegemonic, interventionist foreign policy and repeated political engineering abroad. Khan was proving to be an obstacle for the US because of his attempts to take Pakistan out of the Western orbit and steer it closer to China and Russia.

Second, Washington always prefers working with Pakistani generals to implement its agenda over elected leaders. It conforms to a pattern established since the 1950s, starting with Ayub Khan’s 1958 coup, and continuing through the tenures of military dictators Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf.

It makes sense for both sides and perpetuates a vicious, self-feeding cycle. The US deep state finds Pakistani generals more useful partners than civilian leaders because the army controls the state’s core levers of power, including terrorist proxies, and can deliver swift results on issues that concern Washington the most. For example, as Drop Site’s blog post points out, once Khan was removed and a new puppet regime was installed in power with the military’s backing, “Islamabad began delivering to Washington what it had refused to deliver under Khan. Within months, Pakistan emerged as a quiet but significant supplier of artillery shells and other munitions to Ukraine. Leaked documents showed the weapons were routed through US defence contractors and third-country intermediaries…”

The generals can take such decisions and pivot on US policies without the prevarications, delays, debate, or populist pushback from elected governments. Given Pakistan’s chronic instability, American aid or security assistance routed through the army conversely boosts the military’s dominance and weakens civilian leadership.

All this is not new. What interests me more is the question: who leaked the classified cable to the media, and why now? Munir may have gone out of his way to buy American and European silence over his repressive regime at home, the systemic persecution of adversaries, or the illegal incarceration of Khan and his wife, but the former prime minister still retains significant popularity among the masses despite the army’s all-out effort to ‘finish’ him.

Such a leak is sure to revive the old allegations and strengthen Khan’s hand. Munir will be angry, and there is likely to be a renewed witch-hunt for the source of the leak. As far as the timing is concerned, given Pakistan’s role as a mediator between Iran and the US, this cable may create some complications, more so because Iran has openly accused Pakistan of acting more as Trump’s agent than as a neutral mediator.

We can now put into better perspective why Trump likes to call Munir his ‘favourite field marshal’. Did such explicit US backing for his power grab at home lead Munir to become even more ambitious and launch Operation Sindoor? The answer is blowing in the wind.

(Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)