The presence that the US intends to keep in minimal at best and it does not require a logistics network as intensive as the GLOC. The "leverage" is hardly leverage but rather an attempt at assuaging the energy crisis in Pakistan. It is a commendable effort, personally I think the whole Iran issue itself is hogwash and unnecessary even though I'm through and though pro-Israel. The US doesn't particularly care about Afghanistan, not with the same intensity as you would assume- not when the interests of KSA and Israel are concerned. Contrary to popular belief the chief ally of the US is actually KSA and not Israel (relatively speaking) and their influence in the US senate is pervasive- these are the fellows who got the US to back off as Pakistan struck out to develop its nukes.
Besides there are plenty more countries which will push Pakistan to get the Taliban on the table, chief among them being China. When it comes to Afghanistan US and Chinese interests converge, China is the biggest investor in the natural resources block in Af- larger than India or the US- you think they will let the Pakistani establishment slide by while their economic interests are hurt? The Taliban is a no go for China- for simple reasons,
no company will insure and underwrite any business venture in Taliban controlled Af- and that's just one of the hurdles that'll bring Chinese ventures in the region down if Pakistan doesn't play ball. Do the math- the US will be the least of your concerns in such a scenario.
So trying to hold the US at bay with the negotiations as a card will play in only as long as US soldiers are out on ground dominance patrols in Af, once that ends and its presence is reduced to spec op teams and trainers the US will just abrogate most of its Afghan concerns in order to placate the Arabs.
This is the one, singular issue that sees two of the most influential lobbies in the States and EU converge- two lobbies which are otherwise mostly antithetical. The bipartisan push that this will be will be nigh impossible for Pakistan to absorb. Best case scenario, even if, by some miracle, the KSA allows this to go through, they will make Pakistan pay through its nose for such perceived intransigence. The trade relations are not important here but Pakistan's dependence on SA's diplomatic underwriting of its ventures is, the benefits have clearly accrued to Pakistan- push the KSA and there will be a backlash- one that even the Chinese may be shy about softening.
Pakistan's leverage will last till 2014 when the heavy equipment will either be pulled out or disbursed upon the Afghan army, that equipment will require the GLOC- in fact its the ONLY viable route. Afterwards though its lights out. Pakistan should have consolidated its economy, pulled itself off the IMF's lap before taking such a move, had it done so- there wouldn't be a single nation that would have tried to arm twist Pakistan beyond the point of issuing hollow statements. But as things stand now the outcome will not be beneficial- not in the short and middle term.
IF Pakistan can within this decade pull itself out of the slump then maybe the dividends of this decision will become fruitful and available- till then this is going to be the proverbial albatross around Pakistan's neck.
Elections and another party coming to power is not the panacea that everyone deems it to be. Lets see if any consolidation occurs within next two years.
Till them Pakistan's position is clearly unenviable. Clearly this is the kind of move that Pakistan should have undertaken after a decade of economic and diplomatic consolidation and not when its at its nadir.
So points for the sheer audacity of it but penalties for the lack of geopolitical and strategic clarity.
Again, @
ZYXW your opinions and counter points are invited since you have insight into the prevailing American sentiment.
dint know a gas pipeline will propduce oil.
