The proposed subsidised sale of as many as eight new F-16 jet fighters by the US to Pakistan runs the risk of being derailed by the Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, a Republican. The sale of the fighter jets, which was meant to support Pakistan in its efforts to target extremist groups operating in North Waziristan, has been in limbo since November 2015. In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Corker notified the administration that he would unilaterally use his influence to block the deal. Corker decried Pakistan’s activities in the region as “problematic and duplicitous” and asserted that he would not allow “US taxpayer dollars going to support these acquisitions”. As his rationale, he cited Islamabad’s purported close relationship with the Haqqani network, an extremist group with ties to the Taliban that has been wreaking havoc in Afghanistan. He clarified that he would not stand in the way if Pakistan were to purchase the fighter jets without any subsidies. In response, the Pakistani Embassy in Washington has characterised these remarks as “unfortunate” and talked up the importance of acquiring these fighter jets in the fight against extremism. Without commenting directly on the fortunes of the proposed sale, a US State Department spokesperson seemed to convey the discontent of the Obama administration over Senator Corker’s move by stating, “US security assistance to Pakistan actually contributes to their counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations.” While there are enough indicators that the sale has not been fatally blocked, the current political climate of the US, with the presidential elections looming, makes it difficult to make any definitive predictions. Owing to the peculiarities of the US political system, the White House can be occupied by one party while the rival party can dominate Congress, thereby causing friction as witnessed above. Thus it is too early to say if the actions of Senator Bob Corker are merely grandstanding or will they have a lasting impact on the relationship between the US and Pakistan. Regardless of how things pan out, the episode confirms that tolerance for Pakistan’s dual policies is at an all time low as such objections, for so long expressed in private, are being made public. This is indicative of a shift in the criticality of Pakistan for the US; initially appeasing Pakistan was necessary for it provided the US logistical support to invade and subsequently remain in and fight in Afghanistan, but since the withdrawal of most troops the landscape has changed. In this historically transactional relationship, a new chapter is beginning where once again Pakistan is not needed by the US quite as much so there may be other lawmakers who will follow Corker’s lead and raise questions about why Pakistan is being privileged. The Pakistan government should wise up to this reality if it wants to continue to benefit from the military support of the US and show more sincerity in targeting extremist groups without discrimination. *