All will be forgiven in Washington if the vote succeeds
In the long arc of postcolonial sovereignty, few questions cut deeper than whether a nation's government falls by its own people's will or by the quiet hand of a distant power. A classified diplomatic cable, now resurfaced, suggests that in 2022 Washington signaled its displeasure with Imran Khan's independent foreign policy — his Moscow visit, his UN abstention, his refusal to align — and that his removal from Pakistan's premiership followed with striking swiftness. Khan has since remained imprisoned while his country pivoted toward arming Ukraine and mediating US-Iran contacts, leaving open the enduring question of whether Pakistan chose its new path or was steered onto it.
- A leaked US diplomatic cable quotes a senior State Department official telling Pakistan's ambassador that Khan's removal would be 'forgiven in Washington' — language that reads less like diplomacy and more like a verdict already rendered.
- Khan's February 2022 trip to Moscow, made in defiance of a direct American request to cancel it, placed Pakistan visibly outside the Western consensus on the very day Russia invaded Ukraine, triggering a rupture that would prove irreversible.
- Within months of Khan's ouster, his military-backed successor began quietly supplying artillery shells to Ukraine — a reversal so complete it seemed to confirm every allegation his supporters had made about why he was removed.
- Pakistan now occupies a paradoxical position: celebrated by its own leaders as a vital backchannel between Washington and Tehran, yet unable to resolve whether its elevated standing was earned through strategic wisdom or extracted through political submission.
- Khan remains jailed on charges his party calls fabricated, and the cipher cable has become the gravitational center of a debate Pakistan cannot close — about sovereignty, about pressure, and about what was truly exchanged.
On the day Russian forces crossed into Ukraine, Imran Khan was in Moscow shaking Vladimir Putin's hand. The images traveled fast. Jake Sullivan had called Pakistan's security chief days earlier asking him to cancel the trip. Khan went anyway.
A classified diplomatic cable, now resurfaced by Drop Site News, captures what followed. In it, US State Department official Donald Lu tells Pakistan's ambassador that if a no-confidence vote against Khan succeeded, 'all will be forgiven in Washington' — and that failure would mean 'tough going ahead.' Within weeks, Khan lost that vote and fell from power. He and his supporters have argued ever since that the cable proves foreign interference. Washington and Pakistan's military establishment have denied it.
The subsequent years have done little to quiet the argument. Pakistan abstained from the UN vote condemning Russia's invasion, but after Khan's removal, his successor's government began quietly supplying artillery shells to Ukraine — a shift reportedly linked to negotiations that eventually produced a $3 billion IMF bailout. The country that had refused to condemn Russia was now arming Ukraine's defense.
The story grew stranger still. Pakistan has since positioned itself as a backchannel mediator between Washington and Tehran, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif calling the role 'one of the shining moments in our history.' Analysts note the country is attempting to maximize strategic flexibility, though balancing all sides grows harder as regional tensions rise.
The cipher cable has become a symbol of a question Pakistan has not answered: whether its post-Khan foreign policy represents a sovereign choice or a negotiated surrender. Khan remains detained, his cases described by his party as politically motivated. The cable suggests pressure was applied. The years since suggest it worked. What remains unresolved is whether Pakistan gained anything in the exchange, or simply moved from one constraint to another.
In February 2022, as Russian tanks rolled toward Kyiv, Imran Khan was shaking hands with Vladimir Putin in Moscow. The photographs circulated instantly—a sitting prime minister of a US-aligned nation greeting Russia's leader on the day of invasion. Days before the trip, Jake Sullivan, then the US National Security Adviser, had called Pakistan's security chief Moeed Yusuf with a direct request: cancel it. Khan went anyway.
What happened next became the hinge on which Pakistan's politics turned. A classified diplomatic cable, now resurfaced and reported by Drop Site News, captures a conversation between Donald Lu, a senior US State Department official, and Pakistan's ambassador to Washington. The cable quotes Lu as saying that if a no-confidence vote against Khan succeeded, "all will be forgiven in Washington." If it didn't, Lu reportedly warned, "it will be tough going ahead." The message was unmistakable. Within weeks, Khan lost a parliamentary vote and fell from power.
Khan and his supporters have spent four years arguing that this cable proves foreign interference—that Washington orchestrated his removal because his foreign policy didn't align with American interests. The US and Pakistan's military establishment have denied the charge. But the resurfacing of the cipher, as it's known in Pakistani political discourse, has reignited the debate at a moment when Pakistan's geopolitical position has shifted in ways that seem to validate Khan's original complaint.
The timing matters. Pakistan abstained from a UN General Assembly vote condemning Russia's invasion, joining China and India in refusing to take sides. American officials, according to reports, privately expressed frustration. Within months of Khan's ouster, Pakistan's new government—backed by the military—began quietly supplying artillery shells and military equipment to Ukraine. The weapons pipeline reportedly became tied to Pakistan's negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, which approved a $3 billion standby arrangement in July 2023. The country that had refused to condemn Russia was now arming Ukraine's defense.
Yet the story has grown more complicated still. Pakistan has since emerged as a backchannel mediator between Washington and Tehran, facilitating quiet diplomatic contacts as regional tensions escalated over Iran's nuclear program. Pakistani civilian and military officials have quietly supported these communications, attempting to position their nation as a stabilizing force in a region where every alignment carries cost. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif recently called this mediation role "one of the shining moments in our history." A former Pakistani ambassador to the US echoed the sentiment, saying he had never seen Pakistan "on such a high pedestal."
The paradox is stark. Khan was removed, his supporters argue, for pursuing an independent foreign policy. His successor has pursued a foreign policy that appears far more aligned with Washington's interests—arming Ukraine, mediating with Iran on American terms, repairing the relationship that Khan's Moscow visit had fractured. Yet Pakistan's leadership now speaks of strategic flexibility and regional influence. Michael Kugelman, a South Asia analyst, observed that Pakistan is "trying to maximize strategic flexibility," but "balancing all sides becomes increasingly difficult as regional tensions intensify."
Khan himself remains detained, facing multiple legal cases that his party characterizes as politically motivated. The cipher cable, with its implicit threat and its apparent vindication by subsequent events, has become a symbol of a larger question: whether Pakistan's government made a choice to realign with Washington, or whether that realignment was imposed. The cable suggests pressure. The subsequent years suggest compliance. What remains unclear is whether Pakistan gained anything by it, or whether the country simply traded one form of constraint for another.
Citas Notables
Pakistan is trying to maximize strategic flexibility, but balancing all sides becomes increasingly difficult as regional tensions intensify.— Michael Kugelman, South Asia analyst
Pakistan's mediation role in US-Iran engagement is one of the shining moments in our history.— Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does this cable matter now, four years later? Khan lost the vote. He's in jail. What changes by releasing it again?
Because it's evidence. If you're Khan's supporters, this cable proves what you've been saying all along—that a foreign power signaled his removal was acceptable, even desired. The timing of its resurfacing matters too. Pakistan is now doing exactly what the US wanted: arming Ukraine, mediating with Iran on Washington's terms. It looks like the pressure worked.
But couldn't Pakistan have made those choices anyway? Without the cable, without the pressure?
Theoretically, yes. But the cable suggests those choices weren't made freely. It suggests they were conditions of Khan's removal. And the fact that Pakistan moved so quickly to supply Ukraine after he fell—that's hard to explain as coincidence.
What about Pakistan's claim that it's a neutral mediator now? How does that square with arming one side in a conflict?
It doesn't, really. That's the tension Kugelman identified. Pakistan is trying to be everything to everyone—friend to the US, friend to Iran, friend to China. But as regional tensions rise, that becomes impossible. You eventually have to choose.
Did Trump really pressure the military to release Khan?
That's reported but unconfirmed. It's the kind of thing that would happen in private conversations. What we know is that Khan remains detained despite international attention, and his party says the charges are political. The cable suggests the US had leverage over Pakistan's military. Whether Trump used it for Khan is unclear.
So what's the actual human cost here?
Khan lost his job, his freedom, and his political future—at least for now. But there's a broader cost too. Pakistan's foreign policy became less independent, not more. The country that wanted to chart its own course ended up more aligned with Washington than before. Whether that was worth it for Pakistan is a question Pakistanis are still asking.