Actually, I've been thinking about this question, too, and I think I have an answer, at least one that makes sense to me. Basically, I think of it like this: a story begins in some equity harmony. Either the characters are happy with their lot, or things are negative, but not so negative that people want to rock the boat. Then, the Story Driver hits, and things are thrown into inequity discord. The Protagonistic character(s) want(s) the discord to resolve towards the Goal, right? Towards a new harmony. The Antagonistic character(s), meanwhile, want to resolve towards the Consequence. In many cases, this is the old harmony. So part of it depends on how you frame the first harmony:
If in the first harmony, it feels like the bomb-makers have the upper hand, and it feels like the bomb disrupters are trying to reach for a new, more peaceful equilibrium, then the bomb-makers are the Antagonists, and the disrupters are the Protagonists.
If in the first harmony, it feels like everything is basically peaceful, but the bomb-makers are trying to spur some new, more terrified equilibrium, then I could see them being the Protagonists, and the disruptors the Antagonists trying to maintain the status quo.
...I don't know if that makes any sense,or if it's theoretically sound, but that's how I've interpreted it.