Suez crisis: non-military reaction

What if the Suez crisis in 1956 is addressed in a different way than an invasion?
In lieu of what is happening with the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam today, would it be possible to convince the Negus to allow building a dam or to divert the flow of the Blue Nile in another way?

And if that were possible, both politically and logistically, who do you think would blink first?
 
Last edited:
He could but it would have no effect on the Suez crisis but it might affect the building of the Aswan High Dam
 
I assume he imagines it as a way of applying leverage to Egypt.
It wouldn't be applying leverage , all it would is investment in Ethiopia unrelated to the Suez canal a better opinion that is not unrelated and won't take years is sanctions.
 
It wouldn't be applying leverage , all it would is investment in Ethiopia unrelated to the Suez canal a better opinion that is not unrelated and won't take years is sanctions.
Fair enough although I assume the point is that it would reduce the water flow through Egypt.

As a leverage point in the context of the canal, though, and in the spirit of the original question, I see the following issues in addition to what you point out:

1.) Building a dam is an awfully slow-as-molasses way to apply diplomatic pressure.

2.) Inconveniencing Egyptian water and power doesn't in any way add up to the value of the canal to Britain and France, so it's not a credible threat.

3.) Once the dam is built, it can't be easily unbuilt, or abandoned midstream as the case may be, so Nasser's incentive to give in to the pressure also goes down accordingly.
 
Ok, let's assume a simpler approach: divert part of the Blue Nile for (alleged) irrigation purposes.

Say this reduces the water flow downstream by 10%.

What happens next? Does Sudan start building its own reservoirs? Does Egypt declare war?
 
Top