Daniel Markey, senior fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote an interesting piece in Foreign Policy magazine called “Zardari’s War.” Markey sets forth a clear analysis of the current situation in Pakistan and where we could be heading if the political and domestic unrest continues.

This time, it wasn’t Islamist militants or al Qaeda stirring up trouble. Rather, Pakistan’s government — elected in the wake of former President Pervez Musharraf’s resignation — has gone to war with itself.

The country’s Supreme Court is once again implicated in the action, having disqualified from office the leaders of Pakistan’s main opposition party: former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother, the sitting chief minister of Punjab. Soon after the court’s decision, President Asif Ali Zardari imposed governor’s rule, effectively placing his own man in charge of his country’s most populous and politically dominant province.

In response, the Sharif brothers accused Zardari of manipulating the court and have vowed to take their case to the streets. This is no idle threat. According to public opinion surveys, Sharif is now Pakistan’s most popular politician. His party, the Pakistan Muslim League (N), might well succeed in mobilizing violent street rallies that would test the capacity of state security and could even deliver a deathblow to the coalition government in Islamabad.

In short, Pakistan’s major political leaders are now in a no-holds-barred contest for political power. The time for unity and compromise appears to have passed; the era of stable democratic governance (and a loyal opposition) was fleeting.

Markey’s question of where this puts the Obama administration in terms of the US led War on Terror reveals startling options being considered by the powers that be in Washington. While Pakistan’s newspapers have been full of articles about the hustle and bustle of US and UK diplomats between President’s House, Prime Minister House and Raiwind trying to keep the political battle that has broken out between the Sharif led PML-N and Zardari’s PPP, but Washington is already considering its options if things spin out of control in Pakistan.

But three other, less pleasant outcomes are now more likely. First, Zardari could succeed in quelling Sharif’s protests, effectively sidelining his primary opponent and consolidating his own national standing. Second, Sharif could leverage street protests and existing cleavages within Zardari’s party to claw his way to power. Third, destabilizing violence and prolonged political uncertainty could convince the Army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to reassert control and sideline both civilian contenders.

Of these outcomes, the Obama team will find it most natural to resist the third — return to military rule — having just witnessed the perils of undemocratic governance and knowing that it would throw a major wrench into plans for a closer partnership and increases in U.S. assistance. Washington should encourage Kayani to keep his men in the barracks, but if the violence gets out of hand, U.S. entreaties will fall on deaf ears. The United States must therefore prepare for that unwelcome contingency by formulating a list of its highest-priority demands for any new military regime, including, but not limited to, a timeline and plans for Pakistan’s return to constitutional democracy.

Markey also makes a point to suggest what could happen if none of the other options are successful.

And there might be even worse things than military rule in Pakistan. Sharif’s well-publicized Islamist ties may not determine his policies, but from a U.S. perspective they are troubling. Washington should work to avoid the worst-case scenario, in which a Sharif-led government would curtail partnership with the United States in ways that undermine critical U.S. counterterrorism goals. To some degree, Sharif’s behavior will depend on whether he feels resentful or threatened by the United States, on which political allies he brings with him to Islamabad, and on how he conducts relations with Pakistan’s top military and intelligence leaders. If Sharif’s stock continues to rise, Washington should move quickly to share its primary strategic concerns with him directly and then assess his response accordingly.

If, on the other hand, Zardari weathers the immediate political storm, his government could veer dangerously toward unconstitutional and illiberal measures to ward off waves of popular protest. Washington’s too-close association with an unpopular or repressive Zardari regime would prove no more effective than its recent association with Musharraf. Obama would then need to strike a difficult balance between closer bilateral cooperation on issues of common interest and the appearance of overdependence upon Zardari and his party. In particular, the Obama administration might need to rethink or condition apparent plans for vast increases in nonmilitary assistance, a policy intended to support Pakistan’s ongoing democratic transition, not civilian authoritarianism.

While Pakistan has already seen the Obama administration increase the frequency of Predator attacks in Pakistan, we can only assume that there will be little tolerance in Washington for unrest in Pakistan that could potentially lead to a civil war or a potential Taliban takeover attempt. The question that we have to ask is: Can Pakistan get its house in order?