Imran Khan’s appeal to the overseas Pakistani community to engage in civil disobedience and withhold remittances from the country reflected a disregard for Pakistan’s economic well-being. Fortunately, this call was overwhelmingly rejected by the patriotic diaspora, which responded instead with record-breaking remittances, reaffirming their commitment to the nation.
Subsequently, reports emerged that Imran Khan had sent a letter to Field Marshal Asim Munir, the Chief of Army Staff. However, Field Marshal General Munir publicly denied receiving any such communication. He made it clear that even if such a letter had been delivered, it would have been forwarded directly to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, not entertained by the military. This principled position reassured the public that the military remained committed to constitutional boundaries, allowing the legal system to address elements acting against the state. Despite having repeatedly demanded military neutrality, Imran Khan now appeared to be trying to involve the Army in his personal political and legal battles. This inconsistency highlights a broader pattern: while publicly rejecting the idea of a National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), he continues to pursue behind-the-scenes efforts to obtain one. To regain credibility, both Imran Khan and his party must demonstrate the integrity to address their challenges through legitimate political and legal means.
Another deeply troubling issue has surfaced. While in custody, Imran Khan has been publishing articles on international platforms, raising serious questions. Prison regulations do not permit inmates to send out written material, and authorities have confirmed that there is no record of Khan writing or submitting any articles from jail. This raises a critical question: if he is not the author, who is orchestrating this narrative?
There is growing suspicion that foreign elements— including the Goldsmith family and Western lobbying groups— may be operating his social media accounts and distributing anti-state content on his behalf. Reports suggest that individuals based in London are crafting and promoting this “article writing” narrative, using Imran Khan’s name and influence to advance their own agendas.
It is alarming that Imran Khan appears to have allowed anti-state forces and foreign actors to exploit his platform to spread hostility against Pakistan and its institutions. This behaviour has prompted serious concerns that he is no longer engaged in a democratic movement, but is instead at the centre of an expensive, externally driven political project. Rather than promoting national interests, his actions increasingly appear to serve those of Pakistan’s adversaries. His propaganda, once again, stands exposed as a vehicle for personal ambition and foreign manipulation. Imran Khan has consistently placed his personal interests above national priorities, demonstrating a clear disregard for Pakistan, its people, and its institutions.
This narrative gained further complexity when two US lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives aimed at imposing sanctions on Pakistani state officials over alleged human rights violations. According to US media reports, these violations include the so-called “persecution” of Imran Khan. The bill has since been referred to the House Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees. The proposed legislation called for sanctions against Pakistan’s Army Head to be enacted within 180 days if Pakistan failed to address ongoing human rights concerns. The bill sought to invoke the US Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which empowers the U.S. government to deny visas and entry to individuals accused of human rights abuses. Additionally, it directed US authorities to identify and penalize those allegedly involved in suppressing political opposition in Pakistan. The US President would have the authority to lift such sanctions if Pakistan ceased military interference in civilian governance and released all political detainees considered wrongfully imprisoned.
This raises an important question for the sponsors of the bill: How would they respond to similar legislation introduced in another country, advocating on behalf of individuals imprisoned in the USA on serious charges? Would they welcome foreign support for someone like Aafia Siddiqui— someone the US judicial system has found guilty? Almost certainly, they would reject such external interference in their legal process.
Similarly, Pakistan has the sovereign right to prosecute individuals under its own legal framework. While these lawmakers may personally support Imran Khan and his political party, the bill appears more a symbolic gesture of solidarity rather than a serious diplomatic position.
It’s also worth noting that during President Donald Trump’s previous term, his administration maintained constructive relations with Pakistan’s elected leadership. In one notable instance, President Trump publicly expressed his appreciation for Pakistan’s assistance in capturing a terrorist suspect, highlighting ongoing counterterrorism cooperation.
In May 2025, Pakistan launched Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos in response to India’s Operation Sindhoor. This marked a critical turning point in South Asian geopolitics. Amidst the growing threat of full-scale war, Trump played a crucial role in brokering peace. On May 10, he announced both countries had agreed to an “immediate and full ceasefire”.
Following the successful conclusion of Operation Bunyan Marsoos, Pakistan’s Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir received an official invitation to visit the USA from Trump. During his visit, Field Marshal Munir was warmly welcomed by the US Administration, and Trump personally expressed his appreciation for Munir’s leadership, particularly in ensuring regional security and counterterrorism efforts. These developments represent a major political blow to Imran Khan, who has consistently sought to distance Pakistan from the USA.
Imran Khan had been hoping for a different trajectory in US-Pakistan relations aligned with his personal political interests. The introduction of the Pakistan Democracy Act also highlighted the persistent lobbying efforts of PTI supporters in the USA. Since Imran Khan’s ouster in 2022, these activists have been organizing rallies, meeting lawmakers, and urging increased US involvement in Pakistan’s internal politics. Over the past three years, their efforts have intensified— though with limited success on official diplomatic fronts. In June 2024, the House of Representatives passed a similar resolution with overwhelming bipartisan support. The resolution called on then-President Joe Biden to urge Pakistan to uphold democratic principles and the rule of law. However, despite the strong congressional backing, the Biden Administration took no action.
At the core of Imran’s political conduct lies an inflated ego. He has consistently demonstrated a lack of trust in his own party leadership, insisting on control over all decisions. This raises serious questions: How can someone imprisoned on criminal charges continue to run a political party? Ironically, Imran Khan frequently criticized others for similar behaviour in the past. Now, he finds himself doing exactly what he once condemned. Imran Khan appears more focused on preserving his image than accepting responsibility for his mistakes and alleged crimes. Instead of owning up, he seems intent on using his loyal followers as a shield to protect himself. While he publicly blames the USA and the Pakistan Army, behind the scenes he is eager for their favor—particularly in hopes of securing an NRO. However, it is increasingly clear that the USA, including Trump, has shifted its priorities away from Khan, aiming instead to strengthen ties with Pakistan’s current democratic government. This shift was further solidified after Operation Bunyanum Marsoos enhanced Pakistan’s global standing and credibility.
Having lost support from these quarters, Imran Khan now appears to be exploring alternative channels— allegedly involving the Israeli lobby through his relatives, the Goldsmith family— who have historically sought internal influence to destabilize Pakistan.
Imran Khan’s contradictory behavior, along with the backing he continues to receive from his party, paints a picture of inconsistency and unreliability. On one hand, he accuses the USA. of orchestrating his ouster, yet on the other, he desperately seeks its help to evade Pakistan’s legal system. The ongoing support from certain factions raises questions about their motives— clearly aiming to weaken Pakistan’s institutions and nuclear capabilities by reinstalling Khan in power. However, following the success of Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos, Pakistan’s people are acutely aware of their country’s core strengths, making it nearly impossible for anyone to undermine them.
After exhausting other avenues, Khan has now instructed his followers from prison to prepare for another agitation. Yet, this latest attempt seems destined to fail, as the people of Pakistan have demonstrated remarkable unity— especially during and after Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos— and are determined not to allow division or hatred to resurface.
Those involved in the May 9 events, including Imran Khan, must face the full force of Pakistan’s legal system rather than attempting to bypass it or exert undue pressure to weaken the country’s judiciary. Khan should learn from the principles of Riasat-e-Madina, where laws apply equally to all citizens. The nation continues to grapple with the damage caused by the anti-state actions of May 9 and demands that the perpetrators be held accountable with the same severity reserved for terrorists and criminals.
The public calls on the government to resist external influence and take firm, decisive measures that set a strong precedent against future attempts to destabilize the country. Imran Khan’s international campaign against Pakistan and its institutions further exposes his lack of genuine commitment to the nation. He and his supporters must recognize that justice—whether punishment or relief—can only come through Pakistan’s legal framework, and they should refrain from pressuring this system for personal or political gain.
Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos served as a turning point, clearly distinguishing Pakistan’s true well-wishers from its adversaries. Genuine supporters of Pakistan demonstrated unwavering unity and stood firmly with the country and its armed forces. Meanwhile, the enemies and their collaborators focused solely on securing their own benefits, even at the expense of Pakistan’s national interests.
The conflict between Pakistan and India remains unresolved, with ongoing issues such as the Kashmir dispute and the Indus Water Treaty still posing significant challenges. In these critical times, it is essential to maintain unity and fully support our armed forces. Spreading division and hatred now would be the greatest betrayal to the nation.
Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos has strengthened the patriotism and awareness of the Pakistani people. They are no longer willing to be misled by Imran Khan, who appears to prioritize his personal ambitions over the interests of the state.
