By Khurram Zeeshan
The writer is a Senator of Pakistan and a lawyer by profession.

ISLAMABAD — In the high-stakes theatre of Middle Eastern and Central Asian diplomacy, the role of a mediator is often a thankless one. Yet, as Israel’s war on Gaza grinds on and regional tensions between global powers resurface, the search for credible mediators in the Muslim world has become a matter of existential urgency. Western-led initiatives are increasingly viewed through a lens of scepticism across the Global South, while internal regional initiatives often struggle for the necessary diplomatic “buy-in” from Washington or Brussels.

In this vacuum, the name of Imran Khan is repeatedly invoked. For those of us in the legal and legislative corridors of Pakistan, the question of his detention is not merely a domestic political dispute; it is a question of strategic exclusion. The international community is currently sidelining a leader who offers a rare commodity in modern diplomacy: cross-civilizational legitimacy.

The ‘Shuttle’ Diplomat and the Record of Neutrality

Khan’s vision for Pakistan was a pivot from its historical “war for hire” reputation toward becoming a “partner in peace.” This was not just populist rhetoric; it was a policy of active de-escalation. In late 2019, following the drone strikes on Saudi Arabia’s Aramco facilities, the region stood on the precipice of a direct Iran-Saudi confrontation. While others calculated military responses, Khan embarked on a whirlwind mission of “shuttle diplomacy.”

Leveraging Pakistan’s unique position—a Sunni-majority nation with deep Saudi ties and a 900-kilometre border with Iran—he sought to bridge the sectarian divide. It is a matter of record that both Tehran and Riyadh initially welcomed this initiative. At the United Nations, Khan famously revealed that he had been asked to facilitate dialogue by Western leadership. While others have since claimed the mantle of mediator, the groundwork of regional de-escalation was laid during those early Pakistani efforts.

A Principled Foreign Policy

Before entering the political fray, Khan’s standing was anchored in institution-building and a humanitarian record that spanned four decades. As Prime Minister, he translated this into a foreign policy based on sovereignty and non-intervention. He was among the most vocal leaders to challenge Islamophobia at international forums, including his 2019 UN General Assembly address, where he forcefully argued that “there is no such thing as radical Islam.”

By condemning the profiling of Muslims and opposing the expansion of the “War on Terror” into new theatres, he gained what diplomats call “strategic credibility.” He could speak to the “Muslim street” without being dismissed as a proxy, and he could address Western capitals with a fluency few others possess.

The Legal and Humanitarian Crisis

As a lawyer, I view the current state of Khan’s detention with grave concern. Since August 2023, the former Prime Minister has been imprisoned in Adiala Jail, facing a litany of charges that international observers—including the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and Amnesty International—have flagged for lack of due process.

Recent reports from early 2026 highlight that Khan has been subjected to conditions that fall below international standards, including prolonged isolation. For Pakistan, this is a crisis of representation and the rule of law. For the wider region, it represents the removal of a vital channel for de-escalation. Effective diplomacy requires individuals who can move between camps that no longer communicate directly—who can be received in Riyadh without alarming Tehran, and who can engage the US and EU on trade and climate while defending the principle of self-determination in Gaza and Kashmir.

The Cost of Exclusion

The post-Cold War order is fragmenting. Middle powers are asserting themselves, and the Global South is demanding a greater role in conflict resolution. In this era of multipolarity, neither the West nor the Muslim world benefits from silencing voices that can bridge divides.

No single figure can resolve conflicts rooted in decades of occupation and asymmetry. However, mediators shape the process and the public legitimacy of any eventual peace. Khan’s record has been consistent: oppose foreign military intervention, facilitate negotiated settlements, and bridge the trust deficit.

This is not an argument against the internal legal processes of a sovereign state; it is an argument for strategic realism. If the international community seeks durable stability in Afghanistan or a credible voice for de-escalation in the Middle East, it must recognise that trust is not just found in communiqués—it is found in people.

For millions across the world, Imran Khan remains that person. His continued detention does not just silence a Pakistani opposition leader; it closes a diplomatic door that the world may soon find it desperately needs to open.