Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta, while talking before an audience of National Defence University at Washington, expressed the belief that though the US relations with Pakistan were 'complicated, Washington attached great importance to them and had no option but to maintain them to successfully prosecute the so-called war on terror. It was a nuclear power and that raised fears in the minds of the Americans about their security. We have to be concerned about what happens with these weapons, remarked Panetta. The bogey about the arsenal falling into the hands of the terrorists is deliberately kept alive with unfounded stories in the media, 'assessments of its dozen a dime think-tanks and statements of political figures, despite Islamabads emphatic assurance of a foolproof command and control system being in place. The idea is to put pressure on Pakistan and make it go the whole hog with the US in eliminating whom it regards as militants. Both these US leaders talked of Islamabads refusal to take certain actions in the context of the war on terror, which the US considered were extremely necessary for defeating Al-Qaeda and groups allied with it. A specific mention was made of the Haqqani network, which the Americans are convinced makes deadly forays into Afghanistan from across the border in North Waziristan. The Haqqani group has been so repetitively accused by the US that one would assume that it is the single most hindrance standing between the invading armies and defeat of the resistance, as if the Pashtuns within Afghanistan have been subdued into giving up their inborn and traditional revulsion of foreign occupation. The Americans seem to have realised that no amount of coercion, pressure or lure would make Pakistan forsake its national interests and, instead, work for achieving the US goals, if they come in clash with each other, as in the words of Clinton, Pakistan has a viewpoint that needs to be seen with some respect. And there is clearly a clash between each others interests in the pursuit of the war on terror, which had once again compelled Washington to seek alliance with Islamabad. For Pakistan it would not be possible to overlook these vital interests and go along with the US, even if it is certain that the US will live up to its assurance that it will stay engaged in the region after the war has ended and that its friendship with Pakistan is of a long-lasting nature. It is not only geographical necessity for us not to create hostility in the majority population of the neighbouring Afghanistan, but also a domestic compulsion in the sense that a large number of its own citizens are of the same ethnic stock as Pashtuns across the border and virtually the countrys entire population is averse to any action against them. If the question whether US best asset (drones) is Pakistans worst nightmare elicited an emphatic 'No in response from Clinton as well as Panetta, they must be having its subservient political leadership in mind; to the public and the security forces they are simply an anathema.