“That impact depends on whether the establishment views Khan as a threat to stability or as someone who could help de-escalate tensions.”

Lali cited various media reports suggesting that an individual reportedly unaffiliated with any political party—but understood to represent elements within Pakistan’s powerful establishment—met Khan during the recent standoff between India and Pakistan and sought his support.

He claimed, “Khan is said to have signaled agreement, which some analysts believe was reflected in how PTI’s influential social media network actively countered Indian narratives during the conflict.”

According to Lali, the establishment remains cautious, resistant, but not inflexible about a potential release. He suggested that growing public and international pressure, along with mounting political fatigue, could eventually push for a shift in its approach.

He described the US response as measured, noting that while some lawmakers voiced concern over Khan’s detention, the administration maintains strategic ambiguity. Washington, he said, is recalibrating its South Asia policy to prioritize stability, counterterrorism, and countering China, while avoiding direct involvement in Pakistan’s internal politics.