As expected, the Bonn Conference did not go beyond the rhetoric. It convened to encourage talks with the Taliban and boost regional cooperation, and also brought forth the reality of a dead end in the peace process sans Pakistan. Though the Taliban had been engaged in the peace talks for years, they did not show up for the event; they branded it as a sham. Just as Irans Foreign Minister arrived for the conference, Tehran reported that the Iranian forces downed an American drone that strayed into its airspace. Candace Rondeaux, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, opined: The narrative of regional cooperation being built up in Washington and other Western capitals in no way matchs reality. Needless to say, Bonn II was a political conference. The leaders of the international community pledged to support Afghanistan after the foreign troops withdrawal. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said: "Today, the international community sends a clear message to the people of Afghanistan: 'We will not abandon you. We stay at your side." In exchange for good governance, the international community was ready to stand by Afghanistan for 10 years after Natos combat troops withdraw from that country in 2014. The conference acknowledged the burden of Afghanistans neighbours, in particular Pakistan and Iran, in providing temporary refuge to millions of Afghans in difficult times. Hillary Clinton said: We continue to believe that Pakistan has a crucial role to play, adding that she was encouraged by the remarks of a Pakistani government official that it will continue cooperation, including in the fight against terrorism. She acknowledged Pakistan's importance to the Afghan peace process and expressed regret about Islamabad's boycott. "We would, of course, have benefited from Pakistan's contribution to this conference," she said. Much of the attention in Bonn was on Afghanistan's economic needs. The Afghan government estimates that it will need around $10 billion a year in aid for many years to come to prevent its administration and security forces from collapsing. However, many analysts say that the estimates are exaggerated. Thus, the actual levels of international financial support for Afghanistan will be determined during a pledging conference in Japan next year. Ahead of the Bonn moot, the Afghan officials had floated the concept of transition dividend under which the coalition nations would commit to invest in Afghanistan the part of the money that they save by pulling out their troops in the coming years. But this point was dropped from the conferences declaration, as donor nations were reluctant to make commitments. Yet, Afghanistan indicated its resolve to do its share. Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassul said: Today, Afghanistan also reaffirms in the strongest possible terms our determination to fight corruption and the culture of impunity that have undermined the development of our national institutions and internal strength and credibility. President Hamid Karzai said: The Afghan people do not wish to remain a burden on the generosity of the international community for a single day longer than absolutely necessary. Pakistan is a key player in the Afghan crisis. It wields critical influence with some Taliban groups; it could convince them to participate in the Afghan peace process. But Americas delusion of victory continues to blind it from ground realities. Apparently, until the US drawdown is completed its forces will be operating aggressively in the Afghan provinces bordering Pakistan. On December 3, The Guardian opined that Washington is planning a substantial offensive in eastern Afghanistan aimed at insurgent groups based in Pakistan, involving an escalation of aerial attacks on insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carters National Security Adviser, recently, wrote: If America sought influence in Central Asia and Afghanistan, it had to come through Pakistan, and for the US to treat Pakistan as subservient as opposed to a friend, let alone an equal, was a grave error. The American public, Brzezinski said, are being sold a half-baked truth. The problem within Afghanistan lies within Afghanistan and not in Pakistan. Robert Dreyfuss in his article, Bonn Meet Falls on Face, carried by The Diplomat on December 7 opined: Despite the pomp and ceremony - the just-concluded conference.......fell flat on its face.......Perhaps, the principal reason why no breakthrough occurred is that Pakistan is increasingly alienated from the process.......Underneath its reaction to the recent event, however, are Pakistans real, strategic concerns. Following this years cascading series of events that have roiled the US-Pakistan ties, neither side can any longer maintain the fiction that their relationship isnt adversarial and that they have sharply divergent objectives in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the boycott of the conference has triggered a fresh Pakistan-bashing spree in the Western media. As usual, the focus is on the security of Pakistans nuclear weapons. Ann Murlin has reported a narration of recent Pentagon war games under the title Doomsday War Games: .......at least one (nuclear weapons) site is occupied by Islamist units.......Both US and other national intelligence services have concluded that sympathetic elements of the ISI have provided Islamist officers leading the breakaway army units with the activation codes needed to arm the nuclear weapons under their control....... Graham Allison, an expert on nuclear weapons who directs the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, says: There are three threats. The first is a terrorist theft of a nuclear weapon, which they take to Mumbai or New York for a nuclear 9/11. The second is a transfer of a nuclear weapon to a State like Iran. The third is a takeover of nuclear weapons by a militant group during a period of instability or splintering of the State. Earlier in November, Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder in an article, The Pentagon's Secret Plans to Secure Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal, had reported for the National Journal that much of the world, of course, is anxious about the security of Pakistans nuclear weapons.......The single biggest threat to the US security....would be the possibility of a terrorist organisation obtaining a nuclear weapon.......Pakistan would be an obvious place for a jihadist organisation to seek a nuclear weapon or fissile material.......Its security services are infiltrated by an unknown number of jihadist sympathiser.......And the weapons are stored on bases and in facilities spread across the country. This scenario building is not purely fictional. It is a well orchestrated campaign to mould the international opinion. The physical threat to Pakistans nuclear assets is real. However, it is not from non-State actors operating in Pakistan, but from America itself. A considerable effort has been put in place by the American forces to plan such an eventuality; special teams have been trained and put through rehearsals. It is also possible that America may engineer a crisis scenario in Pakistan to justify such an action. Unfortunately, Pakistani militarys inability to put up a timely military response to the Abbottabad and Salalah attacks have further emboldened the Americans to think that such a misadventure is a doable. Surely, Pakistans political and military leadership needs to put its act together and plug all loopholes to deter America from undertaking such misadventures. All intruding aircraft must be shot down to dispel the impression of lack of capacity and capability. The writer is a retired Air Commodore and former assistant chief of air staff of the Pakistan Air Force. At present, he is a member of the visiting faculty at the PAF Air War College, Naval War College and Quaid-i-Azam University. Email:khalid3408@gmail.com