WHAT the drone strike last week has achieved is that it has removed the recent confusion in the opposing camps in Pakistan and kicked off the latest ‘we-have-been-vindicated’ campaigns by either side.

But it definitely serves the interests of those who denounce it more than those who justify it, even as a necessary evil. At the end of the day, how can the taking out of Hakeemullah Mehsud signify gains against the anti-drone politicians on the local chessboard?

The drone has strengthened the anti-drone. Just before the drone struck its prized target last week the parties who had come to power in the country on the promise of some kind of a negotiated settlement with the Taliban were on the back foot.

There had been a series of attacks, including a devastating one on a church in Peshawar and another on an army general also in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. These attacks had caused unease among those assigned to lead the talks effort and provided an opportunity to their opponents to question their peace initiative.

The continued violence had forced Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to rethink his earlier pro-dialogue language and he was now compelled to say that he might at some point have to consider the use of force as an option.

Imran Khan, another prominent proponent of dialogue with the Taliban, was also under tremendous pressure to condemn the terror hits which had also targeted members of his Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where the party is in power.

The PTI chief had to concede that there were some groups which couldn’t, at least for the time being, be brought to the dialogue table. In a diluted form, his argument now was that there should be talks with militants who are ‘willing’ to talk.

The drone has restored to him his old confidence and his customary tone. No it has emboldened him and allowed him to play the most agitated pro-people politician in the country.

What the other side in the political mainstream can do is mumble some inaudible points that are drowned in the loudest-ever anti-American torrent inspired by the drone strike which killed Hakeemullah Mehsud.

This is the context that governs Pakistani politics right now. This is the truth whatever celebrations the conspicuous and subtle backers of the drone may allow themselves amid this latest American blitz.

This is the reality whatever laments some others might want to write about regarding the Pakistani people’s ‘succumbing’ to the terrorists through an ‘abject surrender’ by the politicians who the Pakistanis have elected as their representatives.

Pakistani politicians across the board had committed themselves to negotiations when they met in an all parties’ conference not so long ago.

In the charged atmosphere after the drone strike, most of these parties will find it even more difficult to maintain a with-reservations front against militancy in the country.

Just as in the recent past they have had no option but to accept an election on the terms set by the militants, there is no way the opposition political parties can speak openly about the merits of forcefully crushing the militants.

The best they can do is to wrap their support for the government’s talks initiative in some grand statements, suggesting that they are doing this in the service of democracy and the system. This is what the PPP, for example, is doing. No party, with the exception of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, has been able to openly claim the drone attack last week as a positive.

Other parties, like the PPP, which has to watch its interests on a trans-Pakistan level cannot be seen to be as categorical in their denouncements of militancy. Although individual PPP politicians may occasionally be accused of carrying the unwanted liberal title, the party’s options of having a nuanced critical position on the talks has suffered a setback in the wake of the emotional debate the PTI and the PML-N have been able to whip up post Hakeemullah Mehsud.

If any reconfirmation was needed the Hakeemullah episode highlights the takeover of Pakistani politics by parties which a traditional observer of the country’s politics will place on the right of the centre.

There were many ways of looking at the limiting of the appeal of the PPP or for that matter that of the Awami National Party by the time election 2013 approached. Incompetence, corruption, the absence of a level playing field, etc were some of the reasons identified behind their retreat.

Not by any means insignificant, however, was the analysis which viewed this PML-N versus PTI poll as a battle for the leadership of the ‘right’ that had ripened over time and which was now ready for plucking.

To separate the two, some kind of a distinction had to be made and it was the PML-N which emerged as the preferred choice of the ‘rationalists’ who were looking to salvage the best possible deal in the circumstances.

In political commentaries, Imran Khan was invariably discarded as an adventurous guerrilla as opposed to a seasoned, tactful and ‘mature’ Nawaz Sharif who promised some kind of a balance and security. Hakeemullah has intervened in the proceedings to remind the PML-N that the Imran Khan challenge is far from over. There are similarities in the stances adopted by the PML-N and PTI on the Hakeemullah strike. But Imran Khan has the facility of acting as the most belligerent conveyer of the Pakistani sentiment, prompting comparisons that can cost Nawaz Sharif some popularity points.

This is not easy for Prime Minister Sharif. He needs to guard against an advancing Imran and yet live up to his promise of him being a better, moderate choice as compared to the PTI leader. Precisely the delicate balancing act Nawaz was chosen for.

The writer is Dawn’s resident editor in Lahore.