We often talk of Pakistan as one of America’s key foreign policy allies. Indeed, the two sides have maintained a crucial relationship over the past decade. But it has been one fraught with troubles. Neither of the leaders is liked in the other’s country, but both of them realize – fortunately – that their countries cannot do without the partnership.  

Disturbingly, some people disagree on the need for continuing connections. They would argue that, while the two countries could not have done without each other over the past decade, they perhaps can drop the relationship come January 2015. The argument goes that it was Afghanistan that held the U.S. and Pakistan together despite their constant bickering over the terms of the relationship. Now that the U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan is coming to a close in December in 2014, why bother cozying up to a country that has caused so much heartache since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The majority of Pakistanis, unfortunately, have a similarly dismissive view of the U.S.

This is where the Pakistani prime minister’s trip to Washington becomes so important. He is not here to achieve major breakthroughs on the contentious issues. Nor is U.S. President Barack Obama meeting the premier with any expectations of reorienting the relationship.

These three days will be about raising the thorny questions behind closed doors, but publicly confirming mutual commitment, excitement, and the will to keep a positive relationship going post-2014. It is about shutting out voices that call for outright “containment” of Pakistan on one side of the relationship, and those who consider the U.S. an “enemy” on the other. Those positions threaten to become particularly attractive when the leading reason for sticking together – Afghanistan – is no longer front-page news.

That is why making the trek to Washington was absolutely the right thing to do for the Pakistani premier. And this is precisely why Washington’s decision to welcome Prime Minister Sharif for an “official visit” is commendable.

The symbolism is powerful, given that the Pakistani government is new to office. There had been, rightly, the age-old concern that Pakistan-U.S. relations are too dependent on the individuals in charge on each side, making them vulnerable to changes in administrations rather than being institutionalized. That was especially a concern with the ascendance of a right-of-center government carrying nationalistic credentials to the helm in Pakistan. The timing of this visit is just right to lay any such worry to rest.

On the substantive aspects, if one were to draw up a list of issues that either side considers central in the relationship, they would include: Pakistan’s links with the Haqqani network; anti-India militant groups on Pakistani soil; Pakistan’s ties with Iran, most specifically a planned pipeline to deliver natural gas from Iran to Pakistan; the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons; civilian nuclear energy cooperation; enhanced market access to Pakistani exports; and so on. To be sure, there are others issues on which respective visions overlap more neatly. The collective weight of this list can’t be dismissed, however.   

The general feeling in the U.S. is that Pakistan’s strategy on Afghanistan has cost the U.S. its once-hoped-for victory against the insurgency, and American officials don’t accept Pakistan’s claims that it is no longer favoring certain Islamists as assets. Furthermore, Pakistan’s position on India is not seen by the U.S. as entirely rational.

Pakistani leaders abhor this view and have felt for some time that complying with the U.S. positions would make their country worse off. Moreover, Pakistan considers an agreement with the U.S. to cooperate on civilian nuclear energy as a virtual right, given that India reached such an agreement with the U.S. in 2008, and also that it can’t do without the gas pipeline project with Iran. The long-standing Pakistani demand for U.S. market access for exports is seen as the least Washington can do as a quid pro quo for Pakistan’s support in the war on terror. Such demands have been non-starters in Washington for various reasons that Pakistanis see as unmerited.  

The point is not to question the wisdom of the respective positions. It is to emphasize that these divergences are beyond cosmetic. Both sides truly believe in their stances, and feel deprived (or find it impossible to accommodate) if they are asked to bend further or stand down. There are no easy overlaps.

Policymakers in Washington and Islamabad are well aware that each side will raise the most irksome issues this week. Their challenge is to finesse their divergent positions so they leave reason for serious negotiations to continue.

The happy marriage metaphor is unlikely to apply to the Pakistan-U.S. relationship for the foreseeable future. The key is for the two sides to continue talking about the tough issues and for the leaders to bless these efforts from time to time.

For all those watching the visit closely, the simple message is: keep your expectations realistic. The real benchmark of success for this visit will not be the contents of a joint statement at the end but rather, after the Afghanistan drawdown, where things stand in January 2015.

Moeed Yusuf is USIP’s director of South Asia programs. A version of this article was published by Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper.