I have listed some of the punitive measures the US can adopt if Pakistan refuses to reopen the routes. There are other avenues through which it can blackmail and pressurise Pakistan to accept its dictates. Does that mean that Pakistan has no option but to capitulate to the US demands? In the seemingly bleak scenario, two aspects strengthen Pakistan’s hand where it can assert its legitimate rights and does not have to meekly cave in to the US wish list. As a nuclear state with a population of over 180 million, destabilising Pakistan beyond a point would be detrimental to world security. Reducing Pakistan to the status of a failed state where radical elements, especially those with religious agendas, seize power and the nuclear assets come under their control would be very dangerous. The US and the west would then be confronted with a nightmare of how to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and ensure these do not fall into the hands of those whom they consider a threat to their national security without triggering a nuclear war. The options of either doing nothing or attempting to seize or destroy the nuclear assets will both be extremely hazardous and are best avoided, hence destabilising Pakistan would not be in their interest. A continued closure of the routes, therefore, is likely to sprout economic punitive measures to punish Pakistan but perhaps not to the extent where the country and the society implode. While the US has the ability to hurt Pakistan for its refusal to facilitate its endgame in Afghanistan, it knows that without a friendly and cooperative Pakistan, their exit strategy would be compromised. It, therefore, follows that the US would be willing to appease Pakistan’s concerns as long as they do not jeopardise its core interests. While a total cessation of drone attacks is unlikely for as long as the presence of the Afghan Taliban are suspected in Pakistan’s tribal belt, they might agree to allow a much greater say to the ISI in the targets that are engaged by the drones. An apology at some level for the Salala attack should be forthcoming but given the anti-Pakistani sentiments prevalent in the US, a direct presidential apology would compromise Obama’s re-election campaign and probably will not occur. Instead, it might be offered at a slightly different level. Similarly, given the extremely nationalistic and jingoistic spirit of US citizens about their country and their almost blind and unflinching support to their military, a fair trial of those guilty of the Salala mishap is not likely. Identification of some scapegoats and superficial legal and administrative actions against them are perhaps the limit the current US administration can afford to undertake. The payment to Pakistan for the use of its territory for transportation of supplies at international rates in lieu of aid and grants would be, in the words of the younger generation, ‘a piece of cake’. To conclude, in the current standoff between Pakistan and the US on the subject of reopening of the NATO supply routes, Pakistan is not entirely at the mercy of the US’s whims. It has some trump cards, but what must be remembered is that it does not hold the ace of trumps and if it misplays the hand, these can be neutralised by trumps of higher denominations that the other side might possess. Used wisely, Pakistan can avoid the danger of being turned into a pariah state and can renegotiate terms that would, besides protecting its security, enhance its prestige among the comity of nations. While the parliamentary-endorsed resolution reflects the prevailing anti-American sentiments of the public, it nevertheless remains cognizant of the ground realities and provides the government the necessary leverage to resolve the crisis without jeopardising its national interest. Those opposing it are unwittingly playing to the gallery and putting the very survival of the nation at stake. (Concluded) The writer is a defence analyst and Director of Centre of Airpower Studies and can be reached at jamal4701@yahoo.co.uk