Nothing is more ludicrous than the latest conclusion drawn by Syrian opposition supporters regarding the protests in the Islamic world. Eager to vindicate themselves for aligning with the US on Syria, such types are now contending that the attacks on US diplomats in Libya and the angry mobs (which don’t exceed a few thousand in select countries, mind you), are proof that the US has no grand strategy for the region and that its interests remain a point of contention. Granted, the US government is not a monolith and different departments and interest groups who produce and impact policy-making have different notions of which policies best serve the US’s Middle east agenda. However, this is merely a difference over tactics, not strategy, and certainly not interests. The twin pillars of US Middle policy remain the protection of Israel (for its own interests) and oil and gas. If the US is now facing blow back (that is if we assume it did not turn a blind eye to the al-Qaeda attacks in Benghazi as the Independent piece seems to suggest) and continuously engages in counter-productive policies, this doesn’t imply that it lacks a coherent strategy for our region or a specific agenda. Nor does it debunk the alleged “myth”’ of a thinly veiled “conspiracy”. The US’ versatile policy-making, which can easily shift from confronting to collaborating with its enemies, including those who threaten its national security , is not proof of the absence of any imperialist designs on its part, but proof of its amorality, complete lack of values, and opportunism; in short, qualities required for implementing grand strategies.