AFTER more than seven months of closure of the Nato supply route to Afghanistan following US drone attack killing 24 Pakistani soldiers, the standoff between Washington and Islamabad is about to end. In the sequel to bin Laden's killing on the soil of Pakistan, the drone attack left Pak-US relations touching a new low.

Much that Islamabad had been insistent on the USA seeking an apology for the November attack, the former would merely express regrets. Furthermore, the US-Nato investigations claimed the killings were because of mistakes on both sides.

Against this backdrop, ice melted as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar to say 'sorry' for the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers in the November air strike. Obviously, it came as a face-saver. Practically, however, there is hardly any scope for dramatising the apparent change of heart. Obviously, intense bilateral negotiations preceded Hillary's phone call overture.

The underlying truth is the compulsion on the part of the US to operate the Nato supply route, the key strategic logistical passage to Afghanistan crucial to its fight against Taliban. Pakistan too has had its own compelling reasons as Washington released about US$ 1.1 billion in aid to the Pakistani military. It goes as part of the 'coalition support fund designed to reimburse Pakistan for the cost of counter-insurgency operations.'

Not surprisingly, Pakistani Taliban issued a threat that they would attack the supply trucks and kill the drivers if the ferrying of supplies to Afghanistan is resumed.

The deal has come in for sharp criticism from opposition leader Imran Khan who termed it 'unacceptable' on the ground that the US still continued to carry out drone strikes on Pakistani soil. The issue remains a