“The world is watching what is happening in Cairo. We urge the government of Egypt and all parties in Egypt, to refrain from violence and resolve their differences peacefully”, White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, is quoted by Reuters as saying.

At the same time he gave no indication that the United States is prepared to immediately cut off its $1.3 billion in military assistance to Egypt. As for the July 3 ousting of President Mohamed Mursi, according to Earnest, the administration will not call the takeover a coup; a step that would force Washington to cut the flow of assistance.

“It has been determined by senior foreign policy officials in this administration to not make a determination, but rather to engage in a dialogue with the interim government of Egypt.” said Earnest.

Indeed, for those whose memory is not so short as to remember only yesterday’s events, it would be advisable to take a broader retrospective look at Egypt.

For decades, the US did not “notice” the authoritarian nature of Hosni Mubarak’s regime and tended to rely on the then Egyptian President in many matters of regional importance. In fact, during his 30-year rule, Mubarak proved to be quite a reliable ally and partner.

But as the “Arab Spring” gained momentum, the US thought it better to abandon its one-time ally in the vague hope that a more “democratic” (therefore pro-Western) regime would be a more obedient ally than the strong-arm Mubarak.

Whatever Washington’s hopes might have been, “democracy” in Egypt took on a distinctly Islamist face. Still, for a time at least, even Mursi seemed to satisfy the US as Egypt’s ruler.

But then again things took a U-turn and once again the US thought it prudent to abandon Mursi, who had come to power to a great extent thanks US support of the “spring”, and make their choice in favor of the generals, i.e. the same military top brass who had enjoyed the upper hand under Mubarak in Egypt.

Now the administration is again facing a hard choice, whether to call a coup a coup and therefore concede a possible return of Islamists to power, or forget about “democracy” and push on with supporting Egypt’s military generals.

In fact, the choice only appears difficult. Forget about “democracy” or “human rights” (including the right to live); in Washington’s eyes, other matters are much more important with political domination over the vast region coming first of all.

Therefore, the best outcome of current events in Egypt, for Washington strategists, would not be appeasement or restoration of any kind of law and order, but the continuation of the currant chaos.

This can be seen in Syria, where the US continues to support the rebels, despite the fact that their forces are basically radical Islamist and terrorist.

This can also be seen in Washington’s attitude to what is happening in Bahrain, where the opposition is intimidated and suppressed in no lesser way as in Egypt, but this does not seem to bother Washington.

The explanation is simple. While most of the Middle East is burning in the flames of revolution, counterrevolution and counter-counterrevolution (of which the-longer-the-better suits US interests), there is a need for some oases of stability in this “arch of instability”. Bahrain, where a US Navy base is located, serves as one such oasis. The US will therefore close its eyes to whatever is happening there for as long as possible and quite possibly, a great deal longer.

Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies