It is possible that the recent killing of the officer in Egypt may have an impact on the IMF decision regarding the $12 billion loan, but I doubt it. If this act is interpreted as an indication of the regime’s instability, it could cause the IMF and its patrons in the international business community to be wary of the situation in Egypt. But, again, I think this is unlikely. As long as unrest focuses on the regime itself and its security apparatus, there is no reason for business to fear; the regime and its security apparatus is there, at least partially, for the purpose of absorbing the unrest caused by the policies imposed by business; to keep the public occupied with striking against obvious targets like the police and military, and diverted from targeting the real power structure. In other words, as long as they are not being targeted themselves, I don’t see any reason for them to be upset by anyone else being targeted.
Certainly, if Egypt were to deteriorate into an open armed confect zone, this would impact the IMF position, and the attitude of multinationals. But what this would accomplish is merely a delay in their conquest of Egypt, which would be even more ruthless once it comes. And this is what will happen in Syria in the coming years.
As I have written numerous times, at present, the majority of factions among the global owners of capital prefer stability in Egypt, but there are factions who desire chaos and war. Attacking the police or army does not seriously undermine stability, so this does not bother multinationals; this is something that has been sporadic in Egypt for years anyway with no noticeable impact. For those who desire armed conflict, this action will please them. It is, in my view, therefore, not particularly useful.
The thing to remember is that there are no factions of the business community who can accept for their financial interests to be targeted, and this, then, is the most strategic approach.