WI: Britain and France sucessful in Suez Crisis

If the British and French were able to accomplish their goals in the Suez Crisis, say if the US was willing to back them (either a different president or Eisenhower more concerned about the spread of Communism), what would be the outcome. In particular, since they were planning to remove Nasser who would they replace him with?
 
There is only one outcome that matters!
CVA-01-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth.jpg
 
There is only one outcome that matters!
Having an air-carrier ?
How is that relevant to the question ?

To answer the question, the outcome is that Fr/Uk keep the Suez canal under important military control but give a more important profit share to Fuad II, the ''legitimate'' king of Egypt, who they put back on the throne in exchange of him closing his eye on the occupation.
 
For my argument that the Anglo-French military effort would not have been successful in bringing Nasser down, even if Eisenhower had supported it, see WI: Eisenhower supports British intervention in the suez crisis

As I stated in a later post in that thread: "If the British and French want Nasser out, IMO they have to go after him physically, as the US did with Saddam Hussein in 1991. But this was something they were not willing to do. Instead, they thought (mistakenly IMO) that all-out war was unnecessary because their "limited" intervention would provoke a successful anti-Nasser coup. Instead, it just made him more of a nationalist hero--and would have done so regardless of what the US or USSR had done."
 
Having an air-carrier ?
How is that relevant to the question ?

To answer the question, the outcome is that Fr/Uk keep the Suez canal under important military control but give a more important profit share to Fuad II, the ''legitimate'' king of Egypt, who they put back on the throne in exchange of him closing his eye on the occupation.

Failure at Suez drastically changed British behavior from a leadership role to that of a lower rank, much less confident power. This removed a third centre of decision making from international politics and increased the bipolar nature of the cold war. CVA01 is a visible symbol of a major power willing and able to project power and have it's interests considered.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Eisenhower wasn't just concerned about pissing off the Soviets or the Third World. He was also a bit leary of Israel. Remember, Israel up until 1977 was a pretty Left Wing country, and there was concern that although they were close to the French, they might come too close to the Russians as well. Somehow having a more Right Wing Israel could help.

It wasn't until the trauma of the '73 surprise attack and the overwhelming failure of the elites to assimilate the Mizrahi Jews, who found a champion in Menachem Begin, that Israel was not a socialist, at times hard left, nation.
 
Having an air-carrier? How is that relevant to the question?
It's not quite the non-sequitur it looks like but it could do with a bit more context. Basically failure at Suez caused a major change in how the UK looked at themselves, or possibly recognition of the facts, and their position in the world. Success likely sees less retrenchment and a willingness to spend the money necessary to intervene in international affairs - hence forking out for shiny new carriers and the like.


To answer the question, the outcome is that Fr/Uk keep the Suez canal under important military control but give a more important profit share to Fuad II, the ''legitimate'' king of Egypt, who they put back on the throne in exchange of him closing his eye on the occupation.
This however is so wrong it's not even funny. This isn't about restoring colonialism or occupying Egypt for extended amounts of time, the Allies wanted to be in and out as quickly as possible. If the new leader or leaders stick to the 1954 treaty Nasser had signed and they don't try to unbalance the region the British and French would be more than satisfied with things.


In particular, since they were planning to remove Nasser who would they replace him with?
Something tells me that whoever serves as regent for young Faud, may pull a Sadat, and make nice with Israel 22 years early.
Faud? Yeah that's not going to happen, Farouk had made the monarchy simply too unpopular for any sort of restoration to be considered. It's going to be other members of the military that overthrow Nasser if it happens, if that occurs then, at least to begin with, I would see it going back to something more along the lines of the Revolutionary Command Council or similar collegiate system.

As long as they abide by the 1954 Anglo–Egyptian Treaty which had already agreed to a phased withdrawal of British troops, albeit with right of return in times of war, agreed to UN Peacekeepers in the Sinai to try and stop the low-level attacks across the border, and don't get pretensions of grandeur and try to become the next regional strongman the British won't care who comes out on top. Something which might well come back to haunt them later.
 
It's not quite the non-sequitur it looks like but it could do with a bit more context. Basically failure at Suez caused a major change in how the UK looked at themselves, or possibly recognition of the facts, and their position in the world. Success likely sees less retrenchment and a willingness to spend the money necessary to intervene in international affairs - hence forking out for shiny new carriers and the like.

Correct, cool military toys are only the outward signs of a great power exercising its influence, more importantly would be the sales of British military equipment to allies and clients around the world and long term supporting arrangements such as in-country industrial facilities for licence production, in-country training as well as exchanges, deployment and exercises and the like. If they had won you'd see the British everywhere, all sorts of military projects wouldn't have been cancelled in the subsequent decade and British arms would be in service throughout the world particularly in former Empire.
 
Something tells me that whoever serves as regent for young Faud, may pull a Sadat, and make nice with Israel 22 years early.
Not a chance. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and tit-for-tat attacks across the borders anyone that tried to normalise relations let alone make peace with Israel is going to be overthrown and lynched by an angry mob, even Nasser who himself wasn't all that interested in pressing things found himself having to bow to public opinion over the matter and get dragged into it. Sadat was only able to pull it off thanks to being able to point to recent victories in the Yom Kippur War which helped restore Arab pride plus the promise of American largesse, both civil and military, to keep the armed forces on-side and he still ended up being assassinated for his troubles.
 
Top