ISLAMABAD – A leaked diplomatic cable, known as cypher I-0678, reignited one of Pakistan’s most contested political debates, again placing the removal of former PM Imran Khan back in the spotlight.
The document, which is doing rounds online, shows remarks attributed to a senior U.S. official discussing Pakistan’s political situation during the no-confidence crisis. It claimed that diplomatic relations and international sentiment may have been tied to the outcome of the vote that eventually led to Khan’s ouster.
As the contents spread, so did the mystery with users asking “who actually leaked the cypher?” and competing narratives quickly emerged, each pointing in different directions, from claims involving political insiders to suggestions of bureaucratic or diplomatic leaks. Despite the noise, no version has been conclusively proven.
A group of journalists and political party activists are also desperrately trying to defame miklitary establishment in this under a sophisticated campaign but with mere accusations and conspiracy theories.
What started as classified communication now evolved into a political flashpoint, with competing interpretations, unanswered questions, and a deepening sense of intrigue surrounding one of Pakistan’s most controversial leadership transitions.
‘Imran Khan Playing with Cypher’
In 2022, a leaked audio of Imran Khan surfaced online as he told his close aides to “play” with US Cypher. The fresh political storm has erupted after an alleged audio recording surfaced, reportedly featuring former prime minister Imran Khan and his then principal secretary Azam Khan discussing a sensitive US diplomatic cypher and how its contents could be used for political strategy.
In the leaked clip, a voice attributed to Imran Khan is heard referring to the cypher and suggesting they should “play” with it, while avoiding directly naming the United States. The conversation appears to revolve around how the diplomatic cable, long at the centre of controversy and conspiracy claims, could be framed and utilised.
Azam Khan, in response within the same audio, is reportedly heard laying out a possible approach for leveraging the cypher to advance PTI’s political messaging. He suggests that the Foreign Secretary, Sohail Mahmood, could be brought in so the matter is highlighted at an official bureaucratic level, potentially giving it greater institutional weight. The exact date of the conversation remains unknown.
The emergence of this recording follows a series of leaked audios involving senior political figures across the government and opposition, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, federal ministers, and PML-N leaders, which have already intensified political tensions.
Imran Khan Leaked Cypher Text
Classification: SECRET / MOST IMMEDIATE / NIACTION / NO CIRCULATION
Document Type: TELEGRAM GRADE-II (Plain Language Copy of a Non-OTP Cypher Message
From: PAREP WASHINGTON To: FOREIGN ISLAMABAD
Subject Line: FOREIGN SECRETARY (ONLY) FROM AMBASSADOR
I had a luncheon meeting today with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia. He was accompanied by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. DCM, DA and Counsellor Qasim joined me.
At the outset, Don referred to Pakistan’s position on the Ukraine crisis and said that “people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine), if such a position is even possible. It does not seem such a neutral stand to us”. He shared that in his discussions with the NSC, “it seems quite clear that this is Prime Minister’s policy“. He continued that he was of the view that this was “tied to the current political dramas in Islamabad that he (Prime Minister) needs and is trying to show a public face”. I replied that this was not a correct reading of the situation as Pakistan’s position on Ukraine was a result of intense inter agency consultations. Pakistan had never resorted to conducting diplomacy in public sphere. The Prime Minister’s remarks during a political rally were in reaction to the public letter by European Ambassadors in Islamabad which was against diplomatic etiquette and protocol. Any political leader, whether in Pakistan or the U.S., would be constrained to give a public reply in such a situation.
I asked Don if the reason for a strong U.S. reaction was Pakistan’s abstention in the voting in the UNGA. He categorically replied in the negative and said that it was due to the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow. He said that “I think if the no confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead”. He paused and then said “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar”. He then said that “honestly I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States”. Don further commented that it seemed that the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow was planned during the Beijing Olympics and that there was an attempt by the Prime Minister to meet Putin which was not successful and then this idea was hatched that he would go to Moscow.
I told Don that this was a completely misinformed and wrong perception. The visit to Moscow had been in the works for at least few years and was the result of a deliberative institutional process. I stressed that when the Prime Minister was flying to Moscow, Russian invasion of Ukraine had not started and there was still hope for a peaceful resolution. I also pointed out that leaders of European countries were also traveling to Moscow around the same time. Don interjected that “those visits were specifically for seeking resolution of the Ukraine standoff while the Prime Minister’s visit was for bilateral economic reasons”. I drew his attention to the fact that the Prime Minister clearly regretted the situation while being in Moscow and had hoped for diplomacy to work. The Prime Minister’s visit, I stressed was purely in the bilateral context and should not be seen either as a condonation or endorsement of Russia’s action against Ukraine. I said that our position on the Ukraine crisis is dictated by our desire to keep the channels of communication with all sides open. Our subsequent statements at the UN and by our Spokesperson spelled that out clearly, while reaffirming our commitment to the principles of the UN Charter, non-use or threat of use of force, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, and pacific settlement of disputes.
I also told Don that Pakistan was worried of how the Ukraine crisis would play out in the context of Afghanistan. We had paid a very high price due to the long term impact of this conflict. Our priority was to have peace and stability in Afghanistan, for which it was imperative to have cooperation and coordination with all major powers, including Russia. From this perspective as well, keeping the channels of communication open was essential. This factor was also dictating our position on the Ukraine crisis. On my reference to the upcoming Extended Troika meeting in Beijing, Don replied that there were still ongoing discussions in Washington on whether the U.S. should attend the Extended Troika meeting or the upcoming Antalya meeting on Afghanistan with Russian representatives in attendance, as the U.S. focus right now was to discuss only Ukraine with Russia. I replied that this was exactly what we were afraid of. We did not want the Ukraine crisis to divert focus away from Afghanistan. Don did not comment.
I told Don that just like him, I would also convey our perspective in a forthright manner. I said that over the past one year, we had been consistently sensing reluctance on the part of the U.S. leadership to engage with our leadership. This reluctance had created a perception in Pakistan that we were being ignored and even taken for granted. There was also a feeling that while the U.S. expected Pakistan’s support on all issues that were important to the U.S., it did not reciprocate and we do not see much U.S. support on issues of concern for Pakistan particularly on Kashmir. I said that it was extremely important to have functioning channels of communication at the highest level to remove such perception. I also said that if our position on the Ukraine crisis was so important for the U.S., why the U.S. had not engaged with us at the top leadership level prior to the Moscow visit and even when the UN was scheduled to vote. (The State Department had raised it at the DCM level). Pakistan valued continued high level engagement and for this reason the Foreign Minister sought to speak with Secretary Blinken to personally explain Pakistan’s position and perspective on the Ukraine crisis. The call has not materialized yet. Don replied that the thinking in Washington was that given the current political turmoil in Pakistan, this was not the right time for such engagement and it could wait till the political situation in Pakistan settled down.
IHC declares proceedings in cypher case after Dec 14 invalid
