British and French overthrow of Nasser during the Suez crisis

Say the US decides to back Britain and France in Suez crisis and they decide to invade and install a pro-western regime in Egypt

How successful would a British and French invasion of Egypt be and long would Britain and France be willing to remain in Egypt

How successful would an Egyptian insurgency be and what be the impact on western relations with the third world

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis#Objectives
 
Any regime imposed upon Egypt would have essentially no popular support. As soon as the UK and France leave, the regime will fall.
 
Say the US decides to back Britain and France in Suez crisis and they decide to invade and install a pro-western regime in Egypt

How successful would a British and French invasion of Egypt be and long would Britain and France be willing to remain in Egypt

How successful would an Egyptian insurgency be and what be the impact on western relations with the third world

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis#Objectives

France/UK/US would be facing an Algeria-level insurgency, it’d be bad. They’d only be able to sustain an occupation for a few years at most, and then Egypt would fall to an even more hostile regime to the West than Nasser, and anti-Western movements throughout the Middle East would be invigorated. The US was smart to pursue their OTL course and pressure the UK/France to stand down. But if you get a super hardline McCarthyite in the White House in the 50s I could see this sequence of events unfolding.
 
Not possible. Britain and France simply weren’t strong enough. They couldn’t even hold onto Port Said itself without a major rebellion.

Furthermore, Eden just didn’t have the stomach for this. He believed Nasser to be some sort of fascist, true, but he didn’t have the stomach for even bombing Cairo as he believed it would push the international community away from him. Of course, the Suez Crisis alone was sufficient to push the international community away from him, so perhaps he was wrong.
 
Not possible. Britain and France simply weren’t strong enough. They couldn’t even hold onto Port Said itself without a major rebellion.
But they were still able to take parts of Port Said despite the rebellion and only stopped due to the ceasefire

Furthermore, Eden just didn’t have the stomach for this. He believed Nasser to be some sort of fascist, true, but he didn’t have the stomach for even bombing Cairo as he believed it would push the international community away from him. Of course, the Suez Crisis alone was sufficient to push the international community away from him, so perhaps he was wrong.
Could he believe Nasser could be overthrow without pushing international community away or mission creep leads to them doing it anyway
 
But they were still able to take parts of Port Said despite the rebellion and only stopped due to the ceasefire

Nasser was arming civilians and British forces were literally knocking on doors to see who was civilian and who was not as Eden gave them strict orders not to kill any civilians.

Of course, you could remove Eden with all his pull-popping havits, but then you probably remove the Suez Crisis with him.
 
Would Arab nationalists, communists or the Muslim brotherhood be most likely to take power and would Egypt be able to get Suez canal back after this or would it be permanently lost

I would say a more left-leaning Arab nationalist a la Gaddafi, Ben Bella in Algeria or Qasim in Iraq.
 
Of course, you could remove Eden with all his pull-popping havits, but then you probably remove the Suez Crisis with him.
didn't most British politicians want something to be done about Nasser and to return the Suez to British control
 
OTL the Suez Crisis was the beginning of the re-alignment of UK's foreign policy towards the one of USA, while they had been closer to France previously.

If it were successful, it would strengthen the french-british relationship. That would also prevent the rehabilitation of Germany in France, and thus the creation of EEC as we know it.
 
Eisenhower later regretted not supporting Britain over Suez...

...So he must have felt there was a hope to improve the situation.

I think that Egypt could have received the Suez Canal dues whilst doing little but tolerate an Anglo-French Canal Zone that also paid Egypt for the Sweetwater Canal freshwater.

A major advantage for Egypt would have been that Israel would be deterred from invading the Sinai, which might also receive a little development cash.

Egypt would have little interest in involving itself in Syrian-inspired quarrels with Israel and would retain the Gaza Strip (somehow that always makes me think of a seedy nightclub).

And Egypt would have access to English and French weaponry... Centurions for the Egyptian Army, anybody? Better than SAM-2 missiles pranged by the Heil Avir Israel, anyhow...
 
Any regime imposed upon Egypt would have essentially no popular support. As soon as the UK and France leave, the regime will fall.

Was Farouk completely discredited?
Or...what about putting the Copts on top? It worked for the Alawites in Syria.

Nasser was arming civilians and British forces were literally knocking on doors to see who was civilian and who was not as Eden gave them strict orders not to kill any civilians.

Any chance of a less civilised approach? Say, blockade the city and trade food for guns?
But then, time was against the invaders.
 
Was Farouk completely discredited?
Or...what about putting the Copts on top? It worked for the Alawites in Syria.

Putting anyone on top tars them with association with the invaders. I don't think even Churchill at his worst would be foolish enough to try this.

Also, this feels like the fifth Suez thread in two months, and I can't be the only one who feels tired of it.
 
Top