Ike's "gamble" wasn't that much of a gamble: The French, British and Jews covered his loss.

Submitted by Michael S, Mar 16, 2017 at 08:25

Hello, Sean

The British and French, who had legal title to the canal, did not think the Egyptians had a "right" to seize it. Eisenhower set a bad precedent, granting Egypt this "right"; and US companies have subsequently suffered considerably because of it.

The Suez Canal was vital to the British, which is why Disraeli financed the building of it in the first place. Having lost control of Suez, the British eventually had to abandon their interests in Asia and Oceania. Eisenhower didn't just "tell them to quit it"; he struck a serious blow to British and French foreign policy -- for better or for worse, but a serious blow nonetheless. Those two powers would remember Suez, when the US asked them to help us out in Vietnam.

Israel was the big loser: Under Franco-British control of the canal, they could freely sail through it; now they were barred by Nasser. In that sense, Ike's "gamble" wasn't such a gamble: He bet and lost, and the Jews paid. Ike continued for four more years, as a popular President, because most Americans were not very concerned about the Middle East.

I was too young at the time, to appreciate what was happening in Suez. The main point I later read about the crisis, is that Ike was irked that the British and French did not explicitly conspire with him on the planned intervention. Of course, the Brits and French probably reckoned that Eisenhower would not go along with them. This may have gone back to animosities during World War II; or Ike may have been suspicious of Britain and France wanting to return to pre-WWII conditions, conditions which had led to the war. I'm just speculating there. One thing is for sure: there was mutual mistrust across the Atlantic, for one reason or another.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".