So what would you call the Malayan and Aden Emergencies, The Indonesian confrontation?
Malaya was a minority (the Chinese) population attempting to overthrow the local government (the Sultans, remember Malaya is a Federation of Sultans at this time) backed by the British to set up their own communist state.. thus not a colonial war, but a war fought to defend local elites and a larger majority population from a smaller elite leading a minority population.
Aden.... a mess then, a mess now. Yemen is a collection of tribes and city states and traditionally the city state (Aden) has not been on good terms with some of the tribes... going back to the pre Christian era. Hardly a simple colonial war.
Indonesia was trying to steal Malaysian Borneo and Brunei. For no other reason because it thought it could. Nothing colonial about that. Of the three it is the most clear cut situation of the British defending an ally
None of these are similar to Egypt at all. Nasser it should be noted had so much popular support that when he lost the War in 1967 he was able to outright lie and not be called on it, and when he died ... well look up how Egypt reacted when he died.
So what are the Anglo-French going to do? Assuming as I said that the military operation went letter perfect (it didn't, they never do), that still leaves the Anglo-British having to permanently garrison the Suez, while at the same time fighting wars in Algeria (France) and variety of police actions (British) while in theory supporting NATO while facing the condemnation not only of the Soviet Bloc, but just about every other nation in the world that wasn't involved, and for what? To guard the Suez that wasn't under outside threat until Musketeer was launched?
Keep in mind that Hungary was a full scale crisis at the very same time, and Krushchev actually is threatening to use the missiles he doesn't really seem to have but which the US, British and French assumed he did as nuclear blackmail
The entire operation was a stupid blunder. For all those reasons and more. Even if Eisenhower had fully supported the operation it would have been a bad idea, because the diplomatic consequences were grave and the propaganda mileage that the Soviets were getting, while they were still slaughtering Hungarians mind you, more than offset any prestige that the Anglo-French would get from fighting what was obviously a colonial war against Egypt to take their property back.
The world changed in World War II... the direct rule of colonial empires was over... India proved that, Indochina proved that, and Suez merely added an underline to the point. As far as CIA backed coups are concerned (I would argue Iran was far more important by the way) note that the United States did not then decide to directly run the place. Indirect colonial rule has the virtue of at least being subtle. Really though, comparing American (and British too) backed coups in the Third World to massive direct invasion of a sovereign independent state is a bit of a stretch don't you think?
By the way, my father was an Aviation Electronics Petty Officer aboard the Coral Sea, fixing the radar systems on AD1 Skyraiders at the time. He remembers the Suez very well. He told me port visits for the rest of the cruise were not terribly fun. He remembers the tension as the 6th Fleet steamed through the Allied fleet. Everyone was hoping no one would screw up