The global commentary surrounding the ouster of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan loves a good spy thriller. When the text of a classified Pakistani diplomatic cable—the infamous "cipher"—was leaked, mainstream foreign policy analysts rushed to declare it proof of a Washington-engineered coup. They painted a picture of a defiant Global South leader crushed by the gears of American hegemony.
It is a comforting, simplistic narrative. It is also entirely wrong. Meanwhile, you can read other events here: Inside the Bolsonaro Campaign Crisis Burning Through Brasilia.
The obsession with the cipher uncovers a deep misunderstanding of how modern geopolitical influence operates. The media treats a routine, blunt diplomatic exchange as a smoking gun. In doing so, they miss the far more brutal reality: Washington did not need to orchestrate a coup to remove Imran Khan. The Pakistani domestic political apparatus was already doing the heavy lifting.
To look at the events of 2022 and see a puppet show directed exclusively by the U.S. State Department is to ignore decades of Pakistani political history, structural economic failure, and the internal dynamics of Rawalpindi. To understand the full picture, we recommend the recent report by Reuters.
The Cable is Not a Mandate
Let us dismantle the core text that sent shockwaves through the Islamabad press corps. The cipher documented a meeting between Donald Lu, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, and Asad Majeed Khan, who was then Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States.
In that meeting, Lu expressed American displeasure with Pakistan’s aggressively neutral stance on the Ukraine conflict, a position underscored by Imran Khan’s ill-timed visit to Moscow on the very day Russian tanks crossed the border. Lu noted that relations would be difficult if Khan remained in power, but that "all will be forgiven" if the no-confidence vote succeeded.
Geopolitical analysts treated this language as an explicit directive. That interpretation is laughably naive.
Diplomacy at this level is rarely polite. State Department officials routinely deliver blunt assessments of how a foreign government's choices will impact bilateral relations. To interpret a superpower stating "we will not work with this individual" as "we are actively orchestrating his removal" conflates a consequence with a conspiracy.
I have watched commentators spend months dissecting the syntax of that meeting, treating it like a sacred text. They ignore how Washington actually executes regime change when it has the appetite for it. It does not happen via a transparent diplomatic meeting with an ambassador who is duty-bound to write everything down and send it back to headquarters.
The Military establishment is Not a Subcontractor
The foundational flaw in the "U.S.-led coup" argument is that it robs local actors of agency. It assumes the Pakistani military establishment—often referred to as the Deep State or the military command—takes its marching orders directly from mid-level officials in Washington.
The reality is far more transactional, localized, and cynical.
The relationship between Imran Khan and the military leadership, specifically former Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa, did not fracture because Washington sent an angry note. It fractured because of bitter internal disputes over domestic governance, economic mismanagement, and critical military appointments.
The breaking point was not Moscow. The breaking point was the appointment of the Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Khan attempted to stall the transfer of Lieutenant General Faiz Hameed, signaling an effort to interfere in the military’s internal promotion structure—a cardinal sin in Pakistani politics.
Historically, no Pakistani prime minister has ever completed a full five-year term. Every single one has been removed, disqualified, or forced out.
- Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated.
- Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged.
- Nawaz Sharif was ousted three separate times by different mechanisms.
To claim that Imran Khan’s removal required a green light from Washington ignores the structural reality of Pakistani governance: the civilian leadership exists at the pleasure of the military command. When a prime minister loses the backing of the military, a no-confidence motion is the standard constitutional mechanism used to reset the board. Washington's approval was completely superfluous.
The Economic Mirage of Sovereignty
The contrarian truth that Khan's supporters refuse to admit is that Pakistan’s economic vulnerability makes true geopolitical defiance an impossibility.
During his tenure, Khan championed the concept of Riyasat-e-Madina—an Islamic welfare state—and preached foreign policy independence. But a country cannot possess an independent foreign policy when its state treasury relies on constant bailouts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), structural loans from China, and financial assistance packages from Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Pakistan's Economic Dependency Cycle:
[Structural Fiscal Deficit] ➔ [IMF / Foreign Lender Bailout] ➔ [Austerity & Inflation] ➔ [Domestic Political Unrest] ➔ [Geopolitical Concessions] ➔ (Repeats)
By early 2022, Pakistan was facing a balance-of-payments crisis, soaring inflation, and dwindling foreign exchange reserves. The government was forced to roll back fuel and electricity subsidies to meet IMF conditions—a move that tanked Khan's domestic popularity and gave the opposition coalition the political ammunition they needed.
When a state relies on global financial institutions to keep the lights on, its foreign policy parameters are locked in by economic reality, not by secret cables. The U.S. holds immense sway within the IMF. The Pakistani establishment knew this. They did not need a cipher to understand that a collapsing economy could not afford prolonged diplomatic warfare with the world's largest consumer market and financial gatekeeper.
The Flawed Premise of "People Also Ask"
If you look at the public discourse surrounding this crisis, the questions being asked are fundamentally flawed.
Did the U.S. overthrow Imran Khan?
This question assumes the U.S. possesses omnipotent control over Pakistani domestic politics. It reduces a complex web of shifting political alliances, economic desperation, and civil-military friction down to a simple command-and-control structure from Washington. The U.S. expressed a preference; the domestic political opposition and the military establishment acted on their own internal incentives.
Was the cipher authentic?
Yes, the document was real. But authenticity does not equal intent. The document proves that the U.S. was furious about Pakistan's alignment with Russia during a critical European conflict. It does not prove a tactical blueprint for a coup. Confusing diplomatic anger with a covert operation is an amateur error.
The Cost of the Conspiracy Narrative
There is a distinct downside to challenging this populist narrative. Accepting that the cipher is not a smoking gun means acknowledging a much bleaker reality: Pakistan's political instability is entirely self-inflicted.
It is far easier for a political party to mobilize millions of angry supporters by pointing to an external American villain than it is to address systemic fiscal deficits, a broken tax collection mechanism, and a civilian political class that routinely begs the military to intervene whenever they are in the opposition.
By treating the cipher as the definitive cause of Khan's ouster, analysts validate a populist shield that deflects from governance failures. Khan's foreign policy was not a masterclass in defiance; it was an erratic series of maneuvers that alienated traditional allies without securing alternative economic lifelines.
The United States did not overthrow the Pakistani government. It merely watched as a fragile, debt-ridden, politically fractured state did what it has done routinely for three-quarters of a century: tear itself apart from the inside.
Stop looking for ghosts in Washington when the executioners are sitting in Islamabad.
