Follow us on social

2023-05-09t141328z_150938224_rc21v0aoscnn_rtrmadp_3_pakistan-politics-khan-scaled

Imran Khan arrest sparks rare violence against police, military across Pakistan

The government is now weighing its response, as whatever happens now will affect security, politics, and even US relations.

Analysis | Reporting | Middle East

UPDATE 5/12, 6:30 AM EST: Islamabad's high court has ordered former Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan released on bail after he was arrested on Tuesday, sparking nationwide protests and violence.


Former prime minister Imran Khan's arrest by Pakistani Rangers on Tuesday has sparked unprecedented protests targeting police and military installations. The outrage reached a boiling point when protesters ransacked the Lahore Corps Commander's House.

Although arrests of politicians and large political protests are common in Pakistan, it is rare for them to target military installations.

Khan’s arrest is purportedly connected to the Al-Qadir Trust case, which revolves around allegations of fraud. However, many Pakistanis, including some of Khan's opponents, claim that the detention is a consequence of his clash with the security establishment. Khan has accused Major General Faisal Naseer of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of plotting (and failing) to assassinate him last November. But the optics of the Rangers taking Khan into custody from the Islamabad High Court has even prompted staunch critics of Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) political party to express messages of support on social media.

While demonstrators have been seen setting fire to military facilities, police vehicles, and even attempting to breach the army headquarters in Rawalpindi, the military appears to have made a conscious decision to lightly protect these installations and not respond violently in Islamabad or Lahore. 

There are potentially three factors contributing to this approach. First, the military might be speculating that the protests will naturally lose steam over time. Secondly, the leadership could be aiming to avoid violent confrontations that could further endear the protesters to the general public or alienate their own officers and rank and file, many of whom may support Khan. Instead, they may assume that allowing the protesters to inflict damage on government property and residences will eventually turn the masses and PTI supporters within the military against them.

Furthermore, the demonstrations could be used as a justification to limit Khan’s participation in politics and place restrictions on PTI. 

Lastly, taking no action might be perceived as a more powerful short-term response. Nevertheless, protesters in some areas have been met with tear gas and the internet is down in parts of the country. There are some reports of clashes in provincial cities, a situation that could easily escalate into more violence.

Imran Khan’s arrest intensifies an already escalating political crisis and adds fuel to the fire as the nation teeters on the edge of an economic precipice. The impact of this situation extends beyond Imran Khan himself, potentially dealing a severe blow to Pakistan's efforts to overcome its economic crisis and secure regional assistance, including an IMF bailout.

It also has potential ramifications for U.S.-Pakistan relations. In April 2022, Imran Khan was removed from the position of prime minister through a vote of no confidence. He attributed his removal to a U.S.-backed conspiracy for regime change. While some of his supporters interpreted this as a literal U.S. conspiracy, others understood it as a metaphor for the alleged desire of the military establishment to oust him. 

To distance themselves from accusations of a U.S. regime change conspiracy, senior members of the PTI have recently been observed engaging in public meetings with U.S. officials. This crisis presents a dilemma for Washington as it strives to publicly support a healthy democratic process in Pakistan, while also maintaining cordial relations with all major political parties and relying on Pakistan's military establishment as a partner in counterterrorism efforts. Any public or private comments from Washington could potentially do more harm than good, and involving itself in what essentially amounts to a domestic political struggle would be unwise.


A woman gestures next to a burning police vehicle during a protest by the supporters of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Imran Khan after his arrest, in Karachi, Pakistan, May 9, 2023. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
Analysis | Reporting | 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.