Follow us on social

Imran-khan-scaled

Imran Khan's arrest could be the spark to light a tinderbox in Pakistan

The apprehension of the former prime minister, indicted under the politically-charged anti-terrorism act, could trigger violence.

Analysis | Middle East

Former prime minister Imran Khan has been charged under Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act which marks the latest escalation in a bitter power feud between the ousted leader and the current coalition government. The criminal complaint is based on comments that Khan made that were perceived to threaten a judge and police but is clearly politically motivated. An arrest could lead to political violence.

Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act is broad, often employed as a catch-all, and extends far beyond the popular understanding of what constitutes “terrorism.” So far Khan managed to secure pre-arrest bail until Thursday. After that time he could face arrest which would likely spark mass protests. Pakistan is currently facing widespread flooding and an economic crisis that has required bailouts from the IMF and regional countries. Factional politics in Pakistan are stronger than ever despite these collective crises.

Imprisonment of opposition political leaders is not an uncommon occurrence in Pakistan and members of the current government faced jail time during Imran Khan’s tenure. But in the current political environment an arrest of Imran Khan would mark an inflection point with the potential to turn violent.

It also fuels Khan’s populist message which is rooted in the notion that the current government’s power was won sneakily rather than through popular mandate. Khan was removed from office in April via a no confidence vote in the National Assembly. Since then he has railed against what he characterizes as a regime change conspiracy. An arrest would derail Khan’s campaigning but may also be a boon for his popularity.


Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan. (shutterstock/Awais khan)
Analysis | Middle East
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.