I can't think of any TL on the top of my head, but try
Google (link to "Suez" query here). It works better than the site's search function.
I may as well say something about the crisis. The Anglo-French situation is greatly overestimated, and even without Eisenhower supporting the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, the Anglo-French may very well fail, as it was horribly planned. During their invasion of the Canal Zone, the British attempted to kill the soldiers and spare the civilians. However, the civilians were armed by Nasser and enormously anti-colonialist, and thus the soldiers were forced to knock on doors and ask people if they were civilians or not. Such horrible planning does not lend itself to success. And as far as Eisenhower was concerned, the Suez Crisis was just Nasser nationalizing a company and reimbursing its shareholders, and the British doing an absurd overreaction. No, I think that you'd need to take out Eisenhower entirely to have the US ally with Britain and France.
Khrushchev would also not be taken out of power, as the US allying with the colonial powers would be a great propaganda coup for the USSR. IOTL, across the third world, there were mass protests against the West. As far as Indonesia, people protested the actions of Britain. This does symbolize the sheer opposition of the third world against the west, and thus, if the US had allied with the colonial powers, it would have alienated them all from the west. Khrushchev can easily spin this as an example of "capitalist imperialism" and he'd have lots of listeners across the third world. As decolonization continues, I expect more communism than OTL.
Also, we should look at nations' support of the Suez Crisis. Many world leaders were opposed to Britain's actions, and even members of white countries in the Commonwealth, such as St. Laurent and Menzies, were ultimately opposed to Britain's actions. This represents a sheer opposition to Britain's actions that would remain the case, even if the US allied with Britain and France.