CIA torture undermined U.S. interests: Column U.S. 'intelligence' repelled moderates, boosted extremist recruitment in Middle East.

Habib Al Mulla | USATODAY

In December, when the United States Senate released its report on harsh interrogation techniques employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), much of the ensuing conversation in the U.S. focused on domestic impacts. What are the political implications? What does it mean for embattled CIA leadership? How will it taint the legacies of President Barack Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush?

The more important question was is the impact on perceptions of the U.S. around the world — and, especially, in the Middle East, where nearly every citizen of every nation has first-hand experience with extremism and U.S. efforts to stop it.

Of course, most Middle Easterners held opinions about the U.S. prior to the report. As one might expect, those opinions ran the gamut from highly negative to somewhat positive. They still do, despite the fact that the report diminished America's standing across the board.

Yet, there are subtle differences in the reactions of three subsets of Middle East culture that bear examination — extremists and their supporters, non-extremists with negative opinions of the U.S., and non-extremists with favorable opinions of the U.S. — as they articulate a great deal about both the dangers and opportunities that define America's relationships in the region.

Like this column? Get more in your e-mail inbox

First, there are the extremists and their supporters. It's here that the report had the least impact on Middle East attitudes, as there is nowhere to go when perceptions already sit at rock bottom. Enraged by Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq War, Abu Ghraib, drone strikes and countless other grievances (real or imagined), the Senate report was simply a confirmation of what is already widely believed.

Where the report did move the needle in the extremist context is recruiting. Like the instances listed above, the Senate report provides terrorist groups and their supporters with yet another chance to tap into a well of anger and frustration. The obvious danger is that there will be more people to carry out terrorist attacks and more resources to put behind them.

The more subtle danger is that extremist recruiting pulls from the key audience in American-Middle East relations: those that maintain an unfavorable opinion of the U.S., but have not yet been radicalized. They comprise a vast majority of the Middle East population. They are angered by reports of American abuses and not surprised by the Senate's findings. More important, they are frustrated with American support for unpopular regimes. But at the same time, they want peace. And they want the stability that will bring access to opportunities abundant in other parts of the world.

This group is where the Senate report is most damaging. Not only because it pushes some across the line into extremism; but also because it paints America as a country that does not abide by the standards it seeks to impose on the rest of the world. It speaks to imperialism. And it builds on the sense of inequality so pervasive in many Arabs' day-to-day lives. As a result, attitudes have hardened and are all the harder to thaw — making it all the more difficult to win the hearts and minds most critical to U.S. security, economic and geo-political interests.

Last, and least populous, we have those in the Middle East that maintain somewhat favorable perceptions of the U.S. This group doesn't necessarily agree with American foreign policy in the region; but it sees in America an example of good governance to strive towards. Despite obvious anger at the details of the report, the fact that it was even produced and shared with the public stood in stark contrast to what might be expected of their various regimes. Moreover, it strengthened the notion that American government is at least willing to be held accountable by its people — even if that accountability stops at its own borders.

The problem, just as above, is that report's findings again bring to the forefront America's apparent double standard — the perceived belief that its citizens are worthy of treatment that other countries' citizens are not. Even those with favorable views of the U.S. prior to the report find it hard separate that perceived hypocrisy from the laudable transparency with U.S. addressed its actions. Amongst this group, reactions to the report were a mixed bag at best.

In the end, we learned that the CIA's actions ran counter to each and every American policy goal in the Middle East.

Rather than prevent violence, they grew the extremists' ranks and increased the likelihood of future and more gruesome attacks.

Rather than build upon the desire for peace and stability that exists in the region, they repelled hearts and minds needed to bring those goals about.

And rather than build upon the American example of freedom and opportunity, they spoke to the fundamental inequality and inconsistency that most Middle Easterners see as pervasive in American foreign policy — and the biggest roadblock to real and lasting partnership.

Habib Al Mullah is the founder of the Habib Al Mulla law firm in the United Arab Emirates.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors . To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion e-mail newsletter .