AHC: Turn the Suez Crisis into a win for Britain&Co

The Suez Crisis was arguably the proof, or a big contributor to the dissolution to the British Empire. To the British it was a huge loss in prestige and set a pace to how the break up of the remaining British Territories was going to be handled.

It was also arguably one of the defining points of Middle East politics for the 20th Century.

How would you turn the Crisis into a win for Britain and what would the ramifications of a win for Israel, Britain and France be for all parties?
 
My understanding is that the Suez Crisis was a failure for Britain (and France) because the USA basically pulled the plug on Sterling. If the USA doesn't do this, and either supports the actions, or at the very least, stays uninvolved in anyway, then you've a chance of getting somewhere.

Keeping the USA from getting involved is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
My understanding is that the Suez Crisis was a failure for Britain (and France) because the USA basically pulled the plug on Sterling. If the USA doesn't do this, and either supports the actions, or at the very least, stays uninvolved in anyway, then you've a chance of getting somewhere.

Keeping the USA from getting involved is left as an exercise for the reader.

See my argument at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ntion-in-the-suez-crisis.330680/#post-9792879 that the Anglo-French intervention would have been a failure even if Ike had not intervened.
 
Chances of ousting Nasser are low. However, if they were able to keep the Suez Canal open to traffic, then the British and French could make sure any permanent status of the canal was international in origin and included the British and French. The Israelis would be forced to give up the Sinai, but they could get it to be permanently demilitarized and have open shipping through the Straits of Tiran.

Nasserism would survive, but it would take a severe prestige blow. The traditional Arab monarchies threatened by Nasserism would be much more stable. In the long term, this would expedite the rise of political Islam, but it would still take a while before anything came of it.

Long term political benefits to Britain and France in the Middle East and North Africa might last a decade at best. The long term forces leading to their decline in influence are ultimately not reversed by imposing their solution onto the Suez. Israel though won't need to fear Egyptian belligerence anytime soon and can become more defiant or aggressive against Syria. This will probably keep Syrian behavior within reason. There may be no 1967 style war, and therefore Israel never gets the Old Town of Jerusalem, the West Bank, or the Golan Heights. Lebanese politics may become more stable without stronger Arab Nationalism that resulted from Nasserism.
 
Chances of ousting Nasser are low. However, if they were able to keep the Suez Canal open to traffic, then the British and French could make sure any permanent status of the canal was international in origin and included the British and French. The Israelis would be forced to give up the Sinai, but they could get it to be permanently demilitarized and have open shipping through the Straits of Tiran.

This leaves the question open of why the Egyptians have to allow any of this. Whatever deals they may have gotten with the Egyptians in peacetime are a lot less likely to fly when imposed by an invasion.
 
I believe that the chances for military success with minor divergences from OTL events, such as Ike not causing a run on the pound or whatever, are low probability..

I think using the military to force a solution is possible if conducted at a similar speed as the Falklands for example; a fleet ready to roll within days and the fighting occurring within weeks before the continued operation of the canal by Egypt is proven and a new status quo emerges. This would require different decisions on RN strategy in the late 40s so the carriers and amphibious forces were available on the day, as it was the delay of gathering the expeditionary forces that drove the long timeline IOTL. Once those factors are in place the invasion can go ahead with the minimum aim of international control of the canal and Egyptian support of the Baghdad Pact and maximum aim of Nassers overthrow and death.

suez012.jpg
 
How would you turn the Crisis into a win for Britain and what would the ramifications of a win for Israel, Britain and France be for all parties?
The problem is that the Tripartite powers were operating from a faulty initial premise that Nasser wasn't as popular with the Egyptian public as he actually was. This is somewhat understandable as even Nasser apparently underestimated his own support which is part of the reason why he seized the Canal to try and shore it up, witness his initial fears about morale as described in the extract David T quoted in his linked post. There's also the problem of Nasser having purged or sidelined any opposition to him within the military to the extent that Naguib was placed under effective house arrest.

To have even a chance of success you need to have Naguib and his supporters be slightly more savvy politically so that even if Nasser is able to come to the fore that they retain at least a minimum level of influence and support within the military, and to find some way to knock out public support for Nasser. I've got no idea how you achieve the latter, perhaps a rapid intervention like Riain suggested rather than a delayed one as in our timeline might help but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say. Relations with the US are still going to be strained but they could potentially be handled better.
 
Top