The latest attacks in Jordan have caused a backlash among the local populace. After trying to blame things on Israel it has now become apparent that the bombers came from Iraq. The victims were mostly locals attending a wedding. Thus there is a justified level of outrage in Jordan. Even clerics are starting to say this goes against the precepts of Islam.
The message won’t be lost in other Muslim countries, either. Symphathy for terrorism (assuming there really was much) will decline. So it is possible that this will be seen as the point at which Islamic terrorism stops being a viable political strategy. The violence in Iraq is different. This is just a form of guerrilla warfare being waged against a stronger occupying force. Look at Algeria for a recent example of the same tactics.
The administration’s continual emphasis on “Islamic terrorists” blurs the distinctions between various political movements. The London bombers had different objectives than those in Jordan or Indonesia and lumping them under a single heading just makes for ineffective foreign policy.
As a US (and UK) domestic political technique to keep people fearful and have them not “change riders in mid-stream” it has been moderately successful so far. In spite of everything Bush still gets 72% approval among Republicans, so that is who he is appealing to. But the political forces in Jordan or Lebanon or Indonesia are different and we can expect to see some regional push back against Islamic fundamentalism as a way for rulers in those countries to maintain their leadership roles.
The point at which the pendulum has started to go the other way is always the hardest to observe.