‘Active listening’, as any skilled negotiator will tell you, is key to diffusing powder kegs, diplomatic or otherwise. Unless both parties acquire a measure of sympathy for the opposing worldview, building and maintaining rapport is near impossible. Washington’s ears, then, are firmly clogged, as evidenced by the US Senate putting a procedural “hold” on the sale of eight F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan. American lawmakers insist Islamabad “do more” to vanquish the Taliban, but simultaneously refuse to subsidise the military tools necessary to achieve this outcome. The F-16 deal was initially green-lit by the US State Department in February. Under the original agreement, Pakistan would cover roughly 35 percent of the $700 million plus bill, while Washington would underwrite the rest using taxpayer money. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Bob Corker agreed to the sale, but flat-out refused access to public funds for arming a “problematic and duplicitous” ally. A chorus of dissenting voices at the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs (CCFA) meeting on April 27 eventually forced the Obama administration to backpedal on the discount. India’s immediate disapproval of the deal also surprised Islamabad, all the more after growing bonhomie between premiers Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi hinted at a thaw in bilateral relations. New Delhi was “disappointed” by Washington’s decision and disagreed with the “rationale that such arms transfers help to combat terrorism,” Indian foreign ministry spokesperson Vikas Swarup tweeted on February 13. Foreign Secretary Subrahmanyam Jaishankar also posthaste summoned US Ambassador Richard Verma to convey New Delhi’s displeasure. Did the swelling Indian caucus on Capitol Hill lobby to quash the deal? Perhaps, but you have to zoom out for the bigger picture. Since India’s economic turnaround in the early 21st century, it has become a key market for American goods, including weaponry, so increased trade greatly informs Washington’s attempts to woo New Delhi. US President Barack Obama himself is the only White House incumbent to visit India twice during his time in office. Moreover, when he addresses a joint session of Congress in June, Modi will have made his fourth trip to the US in only two years. As Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign slogan sagely noted, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Washington and New Delhi also converge in their paranoia over Beijing’s military ambitions in Southeast Asia. Both view the regime’s policy of unilaterally reclaiming disputed territory in the China Sea as foreshadowing a region-wide display of force. New Delhi also considers the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and Beijing’s plans for a Maritime Silk Road involving India’s neighbours as a Chinese plot to establish hegemony in the Indian Ocean. Washington has gladly stoked these fears, calling for greater Indo-American defence cooperation, which bore the hitherto inconceivable Logistics Support Agreement in April. The recent CCFA meeting also confirmed a strong current of anti-Pakistan-ism in Republican-controlled Congress, which does not surprise if you stay abreast of Donald Trump’s sound bites. More astonishing was the lawmakers’ amateurish insight into the geopolitics governing South Asia. Representative Matt Salmon wondered “whether the F-16s could ultimately be used against India or other regional powers, rather than the terrorists.” Why in blazes would Islamabad risk open war with India while battling a taxing Taliban insurgency? And that too when both states are nuclear-armed. Furthermore, Pakistan’s posture towards all other ‘regional powers’ is benign and non-confrontational, and history proves it. More evidence of such non-sequitur thinking came from Representative Dana Rohrabacher, who in January slammed the White House for considering arms sales to Pakistan, including the F-16s, “That are being used against their own people, just like they did against the people over there in Bangladesh.” Mr Rohrabacher is maybe unaware of Washington’s clockwork-like criticism of Islamabad every week, urging it to wipe out the Taliban, many of them Pakistan’s ‘own people’, with greater gusto. If he is referring to Baloch militants, then surely Rohrabacher realises that armed, anti-state revolts are unacceptable everywhere, including the US. Why else is the Oregon militia facing federal conspiracy charges right now? To boot, closer US-India ties have somehow become a zero-sum contest with Pakistan. While random Congresspersons waste no opportunity to flay Islamabad for allegedly patronising anti-India militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, when will they similarly reprimand New Delhi for destabilising Balochistan and Karachi through alleged saboteurs like Kulbhushan Jadhav? How about condemning Hindu zealots like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, who leverage Modi sarkar’s willful ignorance to forcefully reconvert Muslims and Christians, calling it “Ghar Wapsi” (homecoming)? Then, there is the double standard woven around Shakil Afridi, the Pashtun doctor accused of running a fake vaccination programme in cahoots with the CIA to pinpoint Osama bin Laden’s location, and now serving a 33-year sentence. Afridi, a hero in Washington, seems inextricably tied to any aid disbursement debate about Pakistan in Congress. Indeed, at the recent CCFA meeting, Rohrabacher denounced Islamabad for “thumbing” its nose “to the people of the United States” by keeping Afridi in prison. No one talks about Aafia Siddiqui, though, the Pakistani Ph.D. mysteriously whisked away by US forces in 2008, ostensibly for assaulting coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. Jailed subsequently for seven counts of “attempted murder”, Siddiqui will not see freedom for 86 years. Washington, however, won’t budge on her repatriation, informing Islamabad “the present political climate in the USA” puts those odds between slim to none. It is truly unfortunate that Washington’s self-serving narrative, punctuated by infrequent words of praise, completely waylays Pakistan’s sacrifices as a frontier state in the US-led global war on terror. This narrative further absolves Washington of any role in spawning the Taliban through its sponsorship of Soviet-era Mujahideen, and later courting them at big oil’s behest. Besides, it is not Pakistan’s fault that the US went all guns blazing into Afghanistan after 9-11, cocksure of a military solution, and ultimately failed at nation building. Blaming Islamabad for the Afghan security crisis today when NATO forces counter-intuitively withdrew in 2014 is also disingenuous. This is not how partnerships work. The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance journalist