Pakistan, a country long familiar with external pressures, once again finds itself at the center of a geo-political power struggle. The latest chapter in this ongoing saga is the political comeback of Imran Khan—a development driven not by grassroots momentum but by a carefully executed foreign intervention. Known within Pakistan as "Operation Goldsmith," this is not a mere conspiracy theory but a stark reality, highlighting the extent to which foreign powers are willing to go to protect their interests in South Asia.

A particular senior Western diplomat has become a subject of both intrigue and concern within Islamabad’s diplomatic circles. With a background deeply rooted in conflict zones like Yemen, Afghanistan, and Kenya, this diplomat has taken an unusually proactive role in Pakistan’s political scene. The diplomat’s recent wave of meetings with journalists, human rights advocates, and academics is far from the standard diplomatic activity. Instead, it points to a coordinated effort to drum up support for Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister, now held in Adiala Jail for the crimes he has been charged with.
What is particularly concerning is this diplomat’s significant involvement in what seems to be an effort to resurrect Khan’s political career. It is highly unusual—and deeply unsettling—for a foreign envoy to be so heavily invested in a single political figure. This is not speculation but a clear and calculated strategy, leading to the question: What is at stake for these Western powers in Pakistan that justifies such blatant interference?

The Western media has not shied away from covering Imran Khan’s situation. Over the past year, the narrative surrounding Khan has undergone a dramatic shift, with an increasing number of sympathetic articles portraying him as a victim of an authoritarian regime. This is the same Khan who was democratically removed from office through a no-confidence vote and now faces a slew of criminal charges. Yet, despite these facts, international media outlets have published at least 129 articles that criticize Pakistan’s state institutions, particularly the military, and frame Khan as a heroic underdog.

This surge in media coverage is not a spontaneous response to a political crisis but a calculated effort driven by powerful interests. The Goldsmith family, to which Khan has personal ties through his previous marriage, and other influential Zionist and capitalist networks are believed to be the main forces behind this campaign. Their objective is clear: to reinstate Khan in a position of power that serves their broader geopolitical interests. It is no coincidence that Khan is being quietly encouraged to submit his candidacy for the chancellorship of a prominent British university—a move that appears to be part of a larger strategy to rehabilitate his international image.

Perhaps most troubling is the selective moral outrage displayed by Western powers and their media outlets. While global attention is fixated on Khan’s political fate, far greater tragedies are unfolding with little to no coverage. The ongoing violence in Gaza, where thousands of civilians have been killed and countless others displaced, is met with near-total silence. The same Western media that vigorously champions human rights in one instance seems to conveniently ignore them in another.

This selective outrage is not new, but it is becoming increasingly blatant. Western powers have long been criticized for using the language of democracy and human rights as tools to advance their own geopolitical agendas. In the case of Pakistan, the disparity in coverage between Khan’s legal issues and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza reveals where these powers’ true priorities lie. It’s not about defending democratic values but about maintaining influence in strategically important regions.

For Imran Khan, the foreign support he receives may seem like a lifeline, but it is also a double-edged sword. In Pakistan, there has always been a deep-seated suspicion of leaders who appear too closely aligned with Western interests. This skepticism is well-founded, rooted in a long history of foreign interference that has often led to negative outcomes for the country.

The more Western powers push for Khan’s political revival, the greater the risk of alienating the very people whose support he needs. Pakistanis are acutely aware of foreign interference in their domestic affairs, and any attempt to impose a leader from abroad is likely to be met with strong resistance. The growing number of pro-Khan articles in the international media is not going unnoticed, and as the full extent of this external influence becomes clear, it threatens to undermine the very cause it seeks to promote.

Operation Goldsmith is not just a political maneuver; it is a vivid reminder of the ongoing struggle for Pakistan’s sovereignty. The attempts to manipulate public opinion and influence political outcomes from abroad are not mere perceptions but are based on factual realities—a challenge that Pakistan must address head-on. The task for Pakistan is to withstand these external pressures and ensure that its future is shaped by the will of its people, not by the designs of foreign powers.

In this increasingly interconnected world, where media narratives can dictate outcomes, Pakistan must remain vigilant. The country’s sovereignty is not a bargaining chip to be traded on the international stage but a fundamental right that must be zealously defended. The stakes are high, but Pakistan has faced and overcome greater challenges before. The determination of its people, coupled with a clear understanding of the forces at play, will be crucial in navigating this latest test of its independence.

 
Authur Bio:
Sahar Khan is a graduate of COMSATS University, having an extensive research experience in European Union, Russia-Ukraine, and Sub-Continent Power Politics.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of The South Asia Times