This chapter explores the puzzle of why great powers intervene in some revolutionary civil wars but not others, and how they choose sides. Focusing on the 2011 Arab Spring, it highlights contrasting responses of great powers to Arab Uprisings in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria. Introducing the hierarchical intervention theory, it argues that great powers intervene based on preexisting security hierarchies – patron–client ties like arms transfers and defense pacts. These security ties influence the choice of roles on the backstage, while frontstage action scripts are justified through intervention frames. The chapter explains how intervention decisions are framed as performances, with great powers casting themselves and others in specific roles. The theory sheds light on the selective and strategic nature of great power military interventions in regime conflicts. The theory is contrasted with alternative explanations of great power interventions, including resource competition, rivalries, ideological ties, humanitarian concerns, and leadership traits, none of which can account for the historical patterns of great power side-taking.