Did you even read your own linked article ?
We do know that the language and tone of the communication were such that the National Security Committee termed it “blatant interference” in Pakistan’s internal affairs and recommended sending a strong message through diplomatic channels.
The group calling it "blatant interference" is chaired by Imran (the prime minister himself). It's himself and his supporters making that claim. There have been no independent analysis that claims the same or any other such evidence of US interference.
National Security Council (Pakistan) - Wikipedia
And yes, I quoted that passage myself, which you have ignored. Here's another effort. Here's the whole part I quoted, so you don't just delete and ignore it.
BOLD PART MY EMPHASIS:
"It later emerged that these ‘revelations’ were in fact claims based on a routine diplomatic cable that had referenced remarks made by a US state representative on the possible outcomes of a vote of no-confidence against Mr Khan and what they could mean for Pakistan. We do know that the language and tone of the communication were such that the National Security Committee
termed it “blatant interference” in Pakistan’s internal affairs and recommended sending a strong message through diplomatic channels.
Apart from that, it did not seem there was any imminent threat to Pakistan’s national security.
However, going by the self-righteous fury evident in Mr Khan’s recent speeches, one would think it is no longer contestable whether a foreign conspiracy is actually in play or if he has just made a mountain out of a foreign diplomat’s poorly chosen words."
Stop ignoring the fact it is unsubstantiated that this whole no confidence vote was US orchestrated (just
a single cable where a diplomat may have a made a vague threat is very much not evidence of such)!
Another recent article:
"
Most analysts believe Mr Khan is deliberately exaggerating the contents of a diplomatic cable, sent by the Pakistani ambassador in Washington, reportedly passing on a warning that there would be "consequences" if Mr Khan remained in power."
If you want hypocrisy look no further than Imran Khan's government and supporters (and this is strong evidence supporting
@_Redshift_ 's point above about him losing military support last year):
"It's believed a rift between the army and Imran Khan emerged last year, leading to the military withdrawing its support for his slender ruling coalition.
...
Many critics of Imran Khan, who have often faced harassment from the intelligence services for criticising the army's support for his government, noted the sudden change in approach by his followers.
Some remarked on the
hypocrisy, given their earlier praise for the army, whilst others welcomed the apparent newfound belief in civilian supremacy."
Imran Khan supporters point finger over downfall