America was traditionally a friend of the Middle East. For example, Eisenhower was highly regarded after he mediated the Suez crisis, and the US was seen as protecting the Middle East from British and French imperialism. The deterioration of relations was a gradual process, and putting the blame entirely, or even mostly, on America’s shoulders is silly. Likewise, the rise of fundamentalism was the result of many different factors.
that is a superficial analysis, French influence certainly suffered in post war period with their reluctance to walk away from the Mahgreb, however most countries in this region still look to France for some level of support, British influence certainly suffered for a short period following Suez, however British forces were certainly regarded as useful in sustaining the regimes in the horn of Africa and elsewhere.
The British FCO has always has a pro-arabist pov, something the Israelis are happy to point out.
Certainly British policy in allowing the creation of the Muslim state of Pakisthan recieved support from the Muslim world, as did the sustaining of the Malaysian integrity from the chineese inspired communist upraising in the 1950's
As you see, glib statements to say X was thought well of by Muslims and Y wasn't is insufficient - and is typical of most of the simplistic analysis which takes place from the post colonial perspective.
Interestinly enough much of this stuff comes out of the white colonies, which recieved most of the investment support in establishing their economies and industries.
I wonder what the world would have looked like f the same level of British investment in the USA, Canada and Australia had been made in Africa ?