Richard Grenell’s Push for ‘Free Imran Khan’ – What’s the Catch

What if Richard Grenell’s push for ‘Free Imran Khan’ isn’t just about a former prime minister’s freedom, but part of a far-reaching geopolitical maneuver? As the United States and Western powers increasingly rally behind the imprisoned leader, a broader game may be unfolding—one where Pakistan’s internal politics become the playing field for larger global strategies. With the Trump administration’s China Containment policy and the whispers of “Operation Goldsmith” gaining momentum, could Khan be more than just a political figure, but a pawn in a much grander, more intricate plan? And what role does Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir, its people’s relationship with its military, and its historical stance on Israel play in this complex equation?

The growing chorus of Western criticism regarding Pakistan’s military court sentencing of 25 civilians on December 21 is just the beginning of a larger, unfolding saga.

When the U.S. and United Kingdom raised concerns, and the European Union condemned the actions as threats to Pakistan’s GSP+ trade status and warned that this could jeopardize over 20% of Pakistan’s exports, they weren’t merely commenting on the erosion of democratic norms. Instead, they seemed to be sending a message.

For the West, this is about more than human rights or the rule of law—it’s a stake in the political future of Pakistan, with Imran Khan at the center. But what happens if supporting Khan means more than just promoting democracy? Could it pave the way for an economic relationship with Israel just like the countries in the mideast, altering the calculus on Kashmir and reshaping Pakistan’s place on the world stage?

Let’s dig deeper into the implications of this geopolitical conundrum—because the stakes are higher than they may first appear.

The Push to ‘Free Imran Khan’: What Lies Beneath?

Imran Khan’s popularity is undeniable. His political vision resonates with millions, and his imprisonment has garnered widespread support from Pakistanis and the international community alike. But, is this support being harnessed by foreign powers to leverage Pakistan into a position that could have lasting consequences for its sovereignty?

Imran Khan’s imprisonment has become a flashpoint for Western intervention in Pakistan’s internal matters allegedly in the guise of human rights. The United States echoed its concerns over the military court sentence on December 21 with State Department spokesperson Mathew Miller urging Pakistan to respect due process. “The United States is concerned by the sentencing of Pakistani civilians in a military tribunal and calls upon Pakistani authorities to respect the right to a fair trial and due process,” said Millar.

“You are late. And this is too little and too weak. Speak plainly. Free Imran Khan,” Richard Grenell fired back.

Grenell’s remarks—ranging from accusing Pakistani officials of reckless rhetoric to calling for a review of U.S. aid—were anything but diplomatic. What is behind Grenell’s impassioned calls for Khan’s release? Is it just about defending a political leader, or is it more about using Khan as a pawn to advance US strategic interests in the region?

Richard Grenell, former U.S. ambassador and key ally of Donald Trump, has become one of the most vocal supporters of Imran Khan, aligning himself with criticisms of Pakistan’s ‘military regime.’ His stance mirrors the narrative pushed by Imran Khan’s political party and their overseas supporters. However, his call to free Imran Khan is not just about championing democracy or human rights—it is part of a broader geopolitical strategy.

But could this support for Khan be more than a humanitarian gesture? For Trump’s administration, the China Containment policy remains a central pillar. Pakistan’s growing proximity to China—symbolized by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)—has been a thorn in the side of U.S. interests in the region. By backing Khan, the West is engaging in a strategic ‘give and take’—supporting a leader with a large base of popular support to neutralize anti-US sentiment in Pakistan. In return, this could help the West counterbalance Pakistan’s growing ties with China, subtly reshaping the country’s foreign policy while capitalizing on the opportunity to increase its own influence.

Also See: Ex-PM Khan Charged With Instigating Violence Against Military

How Far Will Western Influence Go in Pakistan’s Internal Affairs?

Is Western support for Khan tantamount to interference in Pakistan’s internal matters? Many argue that the West’s overt support for Khan and its criticisms of Pakistan’s military court proceedings and judicial actions represent a dangerous precedent. The growing pressure on Pakistan to free Imran Khan, or at least to soften its stance, signals a broader push by the US and its allies to influence the political landscape of a sovereign nation.

Grenell, in particular, has been outspoken about his view that Khan is a victim of political repression, while conveniently ignoring Pakistan’s internal complexities and the risks posed by a political leader who has openly defied the state.

When Western powers—who are fundamentally removed from the intricate cultural and political realities of Pakistan—begin dictating the fate of political figures within the country, where does one draw the line between support for human rights and direct interference?

Operation Goldsmith: The Role of Psychological Warfare

Grenell’s support for Imran Khan could be seen as part of a larger operation—one that isn’t limited to diplomacy but extends into psychological warfare and media manipulation. “Operation Goldsmith” is the term being floated by some observers to describe this multifaceted strategy that involves shaping public opinion, applying economic pressure, and leveraging media narratives. Western diplomats and media outlets are working in concert to portray Khan as a victim of political repression, which in turn erodes the legitimacy of Pakistan’s current government, the military establishment and its democratic institutions.

This effort is far from incidental. Imran Khan’s political resurgence, supported by a network of influential Western figures, is being presented as part of a broader movement against Pakistan and its military establishment in particular. By portraying Khan as a ‘political martyr’, Western powers could be positioning him as a leader who aligns more closely with their interests than his predecessors. This alignment could extend beyond politics into economic ties, particularly in the form of a potential normalization of ties with Israel.

Can Imran Khan’s Support Lead to Normalizing Ties with Israel?

Could the U.S. and the West’s support for Khan serve as a strategic push to normalize Pakistan’s ties with Israel? If Khan were to return to power, there are whispers that his policies might align with the West in ways his predecessors did not. Economic ties with Israel could open new doors for Pakistan, from trade agreements to technology exchanges—ultimately offering the country a much-needed economic boost.

For Pakistan, however, this would be a monumental shift. The longstanding stance on Kashmir, which has been a cornerstone of Pakistan’s foreign policy, would be put at risk. Normalizing relations with Israel could neutralize Pakistan’s position on Kashmir, altering the balance of power in South Asia. In such a scenario, the U.S. and Western powers may have successfully leveraged their support for Imran Khan to achieve a broader regional realignment.

Is Pakistan’s Sovereignty at Risk?

Beyond the politics of Khan and the potential Israel connection, the larger question remains: Is Pakistan’s sovereignty under threat? The West’s increasing interference in Pakistan’s internal matters—be it through media campaigns or lobbying efforts—raises concerns about the erosion of Pakistan’s autonomy in its decision-making processes. The U.S., EU, and the UK’s vocal support for Khan’s release is framed as an act of defending democracy, but it also signals a more invasive involvement in the country’s political affairs.

Pakistan’s internal struggles—ranging from the actions of the judiciary to military interference, and civil-military relations—have left it vulnerable to external influence.

The growing sway of Western powers, combined with the U.S.’s transactional approach under Trump’s policies, creates a situation where Pakistan’s political landscape is being shaped not just by its own citizens, but by external actors with their own agendas.

Also See: Stability’s Linchpin: Why Pakistan Matters

Is the U.S. Exploiting Pakistan’s Vulnerabilities?

The strategic support for Imran Khan may not be entirely altruistic. The Trump administration’s focus on containing China and recalibrating U.S. influence in South Asia presents an opportunity to manipulate Pakistan’s vulnerabilities. By exploiting strained relations of a large chunk of the Pakistani public with its military and its internal political divisions, the U.S. could be positioning itself as a champion of democracy while advancing its own interests in the region.

Moreover, the rising tide of cross-border terrorism, fueled by instability in Afghanistan, only exacerbates Pakistan’s security challenges. As Pakistan grapples with terrorism and manages an unstable border with Afghanistan, external pressures—whether through sanctions, political influence, or international concerns triggered by military action against internationally acknowledged terrorist sanctuaries in Afghanistan—add additional layers of complexity to an already precarious situation.

Is Pakistan the Target Once Again?

Let’s not beat around the bush: Pakistan has always been at the center of global power struggles, and the situation today is no different. While the US and Western powers are increasingly positioning themselves as champions of Imran Khan’s freedom, their involvement has far-reaching implications beyond human rights or democracy.

From Operation Goldsmith to US-China rivalry, the influence of foreign powers in Pakistan’s internal affairs may have less to do with supporting democratic values and more to do with advancing geopolitical agendas. By aligning with a leader like Imran Khan, the West is not just promoting democracy; it’s rewriting Pakistan’s foreign policy and, by extension, its relationship with the world.

As the Trump administration gears up for its second term, Pakistan finds itself at the crossroads of an international tug-of-war, where strategic decisions could have far-reaching consequences not just for the country’s leadership, but for the region and the world.

In the end, Pakistan remains a target—one whose sovereignty is constantly being tested by external pressures and internal strife. The upcoming Trump administration may well find that, with the right mix of soft power, economic leverage, and strategic alliances, it can tilt the scales in its favor. But whether this will be enough to maintain the delicate balance of Pakistan’s national interests remains to be seen.

Will Pakistan continue to walk the tightrope between competing foreign interests, or will it finally assert its sovereignty, charting a course independent of external forces? The next chapter of this geopolitical saga has only just begun.

Pakistan must tread carefully—because the West’s support for Imran Khan may not be a gift, but rather part of a larger game where the stakes are higher than anyone may realize.

SAT Editorial Desk

Your go-to editorial hub for policy perspectives and informed analysis on pressing regional and global issues.

South Asia Times

Richard Grenell’s Push for ‘Free Imran Khan’ – What’s the Catch