Imran Khan Arrest Geopolitics: Did Washington or Beijing Seal His Fate?

The arrest of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister wasn’t just local politics—it was a violent correction of a foreign policy gone wrong.

The Imran Khan arrest geopolitics debate has confused observers worldwide. For instance, was the former Prime Minister arrested by “pro-US” or “pro-China” politicians?

In reality, the answer is complex. Admittedly, the government that arrested him wanted to repair ties with Washington. However, labeling them simply “pro-US” ignores the main actor: the Pakistani military.

To understand who truly arrested Imran Khan, we must look beyond the politicians. Instead, we must analyze the “Division of Labor” that ensures Pakistan’s survival.

The Pivot to Washington: Securing “The Bank”

Initially, Imran Khan claimed a US-backed conspiracy removed him from power. He cited pressure from the State Department regarding his stance on Ukraine. Subsequently, the Sharif government replaced him. They immediately focused on stabilization and re-engagement with the US.

Why did they do this? Because the US controls the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Currently, Pakistan is economically insolvent. Without US approval, IMF loans stop. Consequently, the currency collapses, and the military cannot pay its soldiers or buy fuel. Moreover, Khan’s anti-American rhetoric insulted a superpower. Even worse, it threatened the country’s economic lifeline. Therefore, in this context, the forces that arrested Khan were “pro-US.” They needed Washington to keep the lights on.

The Pivot to Beijing: Securing “The Armory”

On the other hand, while Pakistan looks to Washington for money, it looks to Beijing for war. This is where the binary label fails.

The military knows the US views India as its primary partner against China. As a result, Washington refuses to sell high-tech weaponry to Pakistan. Specifically, it will not upgrade F-16s or sell F-35s.

Thus, Pakistan faces a “capability gap.” Consequently, it must pivot to Chinese hardware. For example, the military recently inducted Chinese J-10C fighters. Furthermore, reports suggest interest in the stealth J-31. These are not political statements. Rather, they are operational necessities. The military needs China to defend against India’s modern air force.

The Equilibrium and “Red Lines”

This creates a high-stakes double game:

• The US is the Bank: Necessary for economic survival.
• China is the Armory: Necessary for physical survival.

Imran Khan’s downfall wasn’t that he was “pro-China”—mainstream Pakistani generals are already deeply integrated with Beijing for defense. Khan’s crime was that he jeopardized the “Bank” side of the equation. By turning anti-American sentiment into a populist weapon, he threatened to sever the economic lifeline that the military depends on, all while the military was busy trying to secure its eastern border with Chinese jets.

The Verdict

Ultimately, Pakistan Rangers smashed through the Islamabad High Court window on May 9, 2023. This was a clear message from the establishment.

So, was he arrested by pro-US or pro-China forces?

In conclusion, forces prioritizing the US economic lifeline arrested him.

The military acted to preserve its “Division of Labor.” Essentially, they sacrificed a popular leader to appease Washington. This saved the economy. Meanwhile, their military alliance with Beijing remained secure. Khan was simply collateral damage. In short, he was caught in a balancing act between the world’s two largest superpowers.

What do you think? Is Pakistan’s “Double-Backed” strategy sustainable, or will they eventually be forced to choose one side? Let me know in the comments below or email me