Pakistan, a nation of over 240 million people, is facing a political and social reckoning. Tens of thousands of citizens mobilized across the country last month, calling for justice, democracy, and the release from prison of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Once celebrated for his charisma and reformist ambitions, Khan is what the United Nations has determined as “arbitrarily imprisoned in violation of international law” and is a stark symbol of the country’s entrenched military dominance and authoritarian drift.
These protests were brutally put down, with live bullets killing many. Although protests centered on Khan, they transcend his personal fate. They embody a broader yearning for democratic governance, accountability, and freedom from a political system long beholden to a military establishment and civil bureaucracy that operates as a shadow state. Videos of state brutality dominate social media, with phrases such as “undeclared martial law” and “Islamabad massacre” trending globally.
HERE’S WHICH BIDEN EXECUTIVE ORDERS WILL BE THE FIRST TO GO UNDER TRUMP
Yet amid this turmoil, the United States has remained conspicuously silent. The Biden administration’s lack of condemnation, let alone action, has not gone unnoticed by Pakistanis, many of whom already suspect Washington’s complicity in Khan’s ouster. This perception is not unfounded. The U.S. has a history of prioritizing strategic alliances with Pakistan’s military over support for popular democratic leaders, and Khan’s fiercely independent foreign policy likely ruffled feathers in Washington.
This silence risks tarnishing America’s credibility in Pakistan and the wider Muslim world. While the U.S. has vocally criticized authoritarianism in countries such as Russia, China, and Iran, its unwillingness to take a principled stance in Pakistan exposes a troubling inconsistency. For millions of young Pakistanis fighting for democracy, this perceived double standard is a bitter pill to swallow, and it deepens anti-American sentiment.
President-elect Donald Trump, however, has a unique opportunity to rewrite this narrative. By standing for democracy and justice in Pakistan, Trump could redefine U.S. relations with the Muslim world in a way that no other American leader has ever managed to do. His message to Pakistan’s military elite should be clear: Release Khan, end the repression of political opponents, and allow free and fair elections. Such a stance, bolstered by the threat of Magnitsky Act sanctions targeting individuals within the military and civilian leadership, would send shockwaves through Islamabad’s corridors of power. It would also send a strong message to other brutal regimes: America is back.
FROM ENEMIES LIST TO SHORT LIST: RUBIO’S RENAISSANCE LANDED HIM IN TRUMP’S CABINET
Critics may argue that Khan is an imperfect champion of democracy. His tenure as prime minister was marked by allegations of inefficiency, economic mismanagement, and an inability to grasp the entrenched power of Pakistan’s military and dynastic elites. Indeed, Khan’s rise to power was partly facilitated by the same military establishment that later turned against him. His critics view his fall as a predictable outcome of his inability to navigate Pakistan’s entrenched “deep state.”
But these critiques, while valid, miss the larger point. Khan’s imprisonment is not just an indictment of his leadership style but of a system that punishes anyone, reformer or not, who challenges its authority. Supporting Khan now is less about endorsing his political record and more about standing with the millions of Pakistanis who see him as a symbol of resistance against an overreaching military and a corrupt political elite.
Moreover, comparisons between Khan and Trump on Afghanistan policy reveal the pragmatic side of both leaders. Both came to the conclusion that the U.S.-led mission in Afghanistan was unwinnable and advocated for a swift withdrawal, recognizing the futility of prolonged engagement. This shared perspective underscores the ability of both leaders to recalibrate strategy in the face of hard realities, a trait that could resonate with Pakistani youth who view Khan as a visionary, albeit imperfect, reformer.
Taking a principled stance on Pakistan is not just good morality; it is smart politics. For a fraction of the cost of military interventions or foreign aid, Trump could secure a lasting legacy as a statesman who stood for democracy and justice in the Muslim world. Millions of Pakistanis, particularly the youth, would likely respond with gratitude, transforming America’s image from that of a complicit bystander to a champion of freedom.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The ripple effects would extend beyond Pakistan. In neighboring countries such as Afghanistan and Iran, and even among the broader global Muslim population, Trump would position himself as a leader willing to back words with action. In contrast to the Biden administration’s cautious diplomacy, this decisive approach could reshape U.S. soft power and reinvigorate its reputation.
This is a strategic opportunity. For Trump, the choice is clear: He must stand with the ordinary people of Pakistan in their darkest hour and demonstrate that he will not turn a blind eye to injustice.
Azeem Ibrahim, Ph.D., is an officer of the Order of the British Empire, a senior director at the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy, and the author of Authoritarian Century: Omens of a Post-Liberal Order.
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
