it does seem complicated. and i've scratched my head a few times. but, let's think back to iran-contra, when the americans were selling weapons to iran as they were both arming iraq and running off chauvinistic propaganda against iran. i'm too young to remember this; i think the first exposure i can recall came through watching 'naked gun'. but, it does make sense in hindsight. first, official policy needs to follow international law and public opinion, whereas unofficial policy follows true strategic interests. second, despite a desire to defeat this or that force, the greater strategic objective is to ensure that nobody in the region is too powerful (except the americans themselves). so, public policy often contradicts real policy. the key to getting through the contradictions is to acknowledge the contrived nature of public policy.

so, it's not entirely a contradiction to support every country without an attempt to build a coherent strategy between them. the hope is to generate conflict. a great satan, indeed.

in most of these conflicts, the americans publicly back the state (as required by international law) and covertly back the rebels (as determined by actual policy). most of this can be solved by that observation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/now-its-middle-eastern-regimes-fighting-alqaida-while-the-us-ties-itself-up-in-knots-9039977.html