This is a circular argument but here are my thoughts.
Americans were NEVER allowed to enter. They did what they do today, which is to unilaterally strike as and when they feel the need to. Pakistan tries to align with the Americans when its possible. Pakistan under Musharraf was constrained the exact same way as it is today, in that it does not know how to stop the Americans when it wants to. Secondly, Americans conduct unilateral strikes because support for the Taliban in Afghanistan comes from our tribal areas. When Imran Khan talks about "This is not Pakistan's war", he needs to answer how Pakistan can pull out of this war when FATA is being used by various militants operating in Afghanistan. As a result, Pakistan is sandwiched between a superpower doing what it needs to and the UN not caring about the occupation of Afghanistan because the American takeover was given legal cover by the UN after the 9/11 attacks.
Agreed on the point that Musharraf offered the NRO to let Benazir come back to Pakistan. The rest, i.e. getting PPP and Asif Zardari elected to power, was done by the Pakistani public. Musharraf did not force the public to elect the looters to rule and loot again. Lets realize that our nation has a nasty habit of passing the buck. Yet again they have elected thieves and looters after living through the looting for the past five years.
The above is an opinion and certainly one that you are entitled to. However why is Musharraf responsible for this "slavery of the West"? Who is stopping NS from getting detached from it? Why is IK taking funding from the Americans for the uplift programs in KP? Big slogans in a country which rather not pay the taxes due yet has no shame in asking for funding from all over the World including IMF etc. Then we talk about slavery. Since we are at it, why not take the critique back to Quaid-e-Azam who reached out to the Americans for assistance and lay the blame on him?
Iran has oil. We have geography. We should understand the differences. Geography has to be exploited. Oil simply sold to whosoever is willing to buy. The latter allows you consistent fiscal space, the former occasionally. So that is one difference between the ability of the two countries to withstand pressure.
Our problem is that we confuse dealings with the West as slavery of the West without ever trying to understand the limits of our own power. We tend to operate on extremes where we over estimate our power or underestimate it when the need to is to have an honest appraisal of our capabilities, influence and power. Once we do this, then we will realize that statements like "slavery" etc. are meaningless.
