Power in the international stage can shift rapidly, and nation states would be wise to observe these shifts in the wind. There are times where nation states fail to understand their limitations and are forced to pay a price for it. This was the case for Britain and France in 1956, where they, along with the zionist state of Israel, decided to invade Egypt in order to regain control of the Suez Canal from Egypt. The President of Egypt at the time, Gamal Abder Nasser, decided to nationalize the Suez Canal, which angered the British and French, so they teamed up with the Israelis to invade and take it away from the Egyptians.
What they failed to account for would be the international backlash from the international community, particularly from the United States and the Soviet Union. France and Britain were used to acting like thugs in the Global South and figured that they could impose their will like they had done for a long time, but after World War 2, they were both weakened as global powers to the point where they have now been forced to play permanently subordinate roles to the US. This article will explore how the British and French managed to control the Suez Canal briefly before losing it in spectacular fashion due to international backlash in a rare instance of the US and the USSR agreeing on something. It will also explore the Suez Canal, its origins, and its nationalization by Nasser.
Background
The Suez Canal was opened in 1869, financed by both the French government and by the Egyptian government at the time, but the idea of having a canal in that region is actually quite a bit older than that. The first time in record history of someone actually having the idea to dig the canal was Egyptian Pharaoh Senusret III of the 12th Dynasty.
Senusret III was the 5th King of the 12th Dynasty in the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. The Middle Kingdom of Egypt happened a very long time ago, from 2040 BCE to 1782 BCE. His reign went from happened from 1878 BCE to 1860 BCE. There is a lot to say about Senusret the Third and his reign. To give a quick excerpt:
“In keeping with tradition, Senusret III commissioned a number of impressive building projects. He added significantly to the growing Temple of Amun at Karnak, built an elaborate temple to the Theban war god Montu, renovated and expanded upon Abydos, and commissioned a pyramid complex at Dashur. He was also responsible for the construction of a number of forts in Nubia and along the southern border of Egypt, which regulated immigration, monitored, protected, and participated in trade, and served as supply depots for his military campaigns in that country.” (World History Encylopedia)
To keep it simple, he had envisioned a canal that connected the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. He is historically credited as the first to conceive and commission a canal project during his reign in the 19th century BCE, aiming to promote trade and communication by connecting the Nile to the Red Sea via natural waterways and lakes. This is very different from how the modern day Suez Canal was dug out separately from the Nile. Later on, it had to be redug due to neglect by later governments.
“In 610 B.C., the Canal was left for sand deposition and a dam formed, thus, isolating the Bitter Lakes; which suffered from the absence of maintenance for a very long time, form the Red Sea. Necho II (also known as Nekós) did everything in his power to re-dig the Canal, but only managed to connect the Bitter Lakes to the Nile failing to connect them to the Red Sea. In 510 B.C., Darius I gave a lot of attention to the Canal. He reconnected the Bitter Lakes and the Nile, but, like his predecessor, failed to connect them to the Red Sea except via small canals not suitable for navigation except during the flood season of the Nile. In 285 B.C., Ptolemy II managed to overcome all the challenges that faced his predecessors as he restored navigation to the entire Canal after successfully digging the part between the Red Sea and the Bitter Lakes to replace the small unnavigable canals.”
Roman Emperor Trajan decided to have it redug in 98 CE. The Eastern Roman Empire (aka, the Byzantine Empire) largely ignored this canal as well. When the Muslims conquered Egypt in 640-641 CE, Amr ibn al-As became the Governor of Egypt. He served the role from 640 to 646 and served the post again in 658 till 664. He reopened the canal in 641 CE and renamed it the Amir El-Mo’menin Canal. He had wanted to connect the two seas (the Red Sea and the Mediterranean) but he ultimately didn’t due to the Caliph, Omar Ibn El-Khattab rejecting the idea. By 760 CE, the Abbasid Caliph, Abu Jafar El-Mansur, ordered the canal to be filled so that it wouldn’t be used to transport supplies to the people of Mecca and Medina who had been rebelling against him.
This idea of a canal between the two seas going through Egypt didn’t really come back till the (brief) invasion and occupation of Egypt under Napoleon. The French had found evidence of this canal in 1798 and wanted to redig it due to the economic and military advantage of such a more rapid transport from Europe to Asia. However, due to the difficulty of this project and the fact that the French were kicked out by joint British and Ottoman forces (Napoleon even fled back to France in 1799, ditching his own troops and commanders in Egypt. It’s pretty funny), this project was abandoned.
Further more, there was a pretty notable blunder in the initial survey for the project. Jacques-Marie Le Père erroneously calculated that the Red Sea was about 8 to 10 meters (approximately 30 feet) higher than the Mediterranean Sea. This led them to believe that constructing a canal would result in catastrophic flooding and would require complex lock systems. The error arose due to inaccurate measurements performed in challenging wartime conditions and the prevailing misconceptions about sea levels at the time. In reality, the Mediterranean and Red Sea are at nearly the same elevation, which allowed the eventual construction of the Suez Canal at sea level, without locks, decades later. This mistake caused the project to be abandoned by the French until more precise surveys were carried out in the mid-19th century.
This is a lot of preamble before describing the actual construction of the Suez Canal, but it is important to establish how many people of different backgrounds and ideas all considered the prospect of connecting the Red Sea and the Mediterranean as a useful means of transport for the purposes of trade and warfare.
The Construction of the Suez Canal and British Influence
Efforts to dig the Suez Canal were revisited in the 19th century. Surveys for the project were made again in 1834 and in 1846. To give more details:
“In 1854 Ferdinand de Lesseps received an Act of Concession from the viceroy (khedive) of Egypt, Saʿīd Pasha, to construct a canal, and in 1856 a second act conferred on the Suez Canal Company (Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez) the right to operate a maritime canal for 99 years after completion of the work. Construction began in 1859 and took 10 years instead of the 6 that had been envisaged; climatic difficulties, a cholera epidemic in 1865, and early labour troubles all slowed down operations. An initial project was the cutting of a small canal (the Al-Ismāʾīliyyah) from the delta along the Wadi Tumelat, with a southern branch (now called the Al-Suways al-Ḥulwah Canal; the two canals combined were formerly called the Sweet Water Canal) to Suez and a northern one (Al-ʿAbbāsiyyah Canal) to Port Said. This supplied drinking water in an otherwise arid area and was completed in 1863.” (Britannica)
As mentioned, the project had been fraught with multiple issues. The death toll was immense. The construction of the Suez Canal resulted in the deaths of an estimated 120,000 workers. About 1.5 million workers participated in the canal’s construction, which lasted from 1859 to 1869. The high death toll was largely due to harsh working conditions, including forced labor, exposure to extreme heat, lack of drinking water, exhaustion, and diseases like cholera. Many workers were brought in under inhumane conditions, especially after 1861 when tens of thousands were forced to work monthly. These difficult conditions, combined with inadequate medical care and harsh physical demands, contributed to the massive number of fatalities during the canal’s excavation. It is one of many examples of blood being spilled for the ambitions of the powerful. The canal officially opened in 1869.
The Suez Canal Company had been co-owned by the French and Egyptian governments. The head office was located in Paris. The British were very hostile to the idea of the Suez Canal at first. France initially held 52 percent of the shares, and Sa’id Pasha holding 44 percent. In 1875, the new Egyptian viceroy, Ismail Pasha, was facing financial difficulties in Eygpt (foreign debts and costs for construction projects), so he decided to sell the remaining shares to Britain. Egypt had been allocated about 15 percent of the profits, but Egypt had relinquished those too. Furthermore, there was also the Treaty of Constantinople, which was signed on October 29th, 1888. It is also known as the Constantinople Convention of 1888. Major European powers were involved, such as Britain, France, Russia, Italy, and the Ottoman Empire. The treaty stipulated that the Suez Canal would remain open and free to navigation of all ships, regardless of that travel being for commercial reasons or warfare reasons. In theory, it means that the canal would be free to anyone, regardless of where they are from.
The British conquered Egypt in 1882 after winning the Anglo-Egyptian War, which was triggered by the nationalist Urabi Revolt against the ruling Khedive and foreign influence like how the British and French controlled the Suez Canal. After this war, Egypt was technically under Ottoman sovereignty, the British effectively controlled the country’s military and government. This was done primarily to secure the Suez Canal. The British presence in the region from 1882 all the way to 1956 meant that they did have a lot of say as to who went through the Suez Canal.
The big example of this was during the Russo-Japanese War, which took place from 1904 to 1905. During this war, Russia wanted to cross the Suez Canal but they were blocked by the British. Part of this was because the British were allied with Japan against Russia at the time. Another reason was the Dogger Bank Incident of 1904. What happened was that the Russian Baltic Fleet mistakenly fired on British fishermen in the North Sea, killing some British citizens in the process. It goes without saying that this was a diplomatic incident that nearly brought Britain into war with Russia. The Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour, issued warnings to Russia and the British government seriously considered going to war over the incident. In the end, the British didn’t go to war with Russia, but it did block the Suez Canal to the Russian Baltic Fleet, forcing them to take the long route around Africa….only to later be obliterated by the superior Japanese navy. The adventure of the Russian Baltic Fleet during this war deserves its own article (or at least explored in an article about the Russo-Japanese War), as it is a complete shitshow, but I bring it up now because it was one example of the British using its imperial control over Egypt and the Suez Canal to dictate foreign affairs.
When the Ottomans joined the Central Powers (Germany, Austria Hungary, and later Bulgaria) in 1915, the British declared a formal protectorate over Egypt, ending Ottoman claims entirely. The Khedive were also deposed by the British in favor of a sultan appointed by the British. In 1922, Britain gave nominal independence of Egypt after the 1919 revolution. The British still maintained control over defense, foreign affairs, and the Suez Canal, but this did mean that the Egyptians at least had control over their domestic affairs. The Anglo-Egyptian treaty was signed, which gave Egypt greater autonomy and required British troops to withdraw from most of Egypt. They still had a military force defending the Suez Canal.
In 1952, the Egyptian Revolution, which was lead by the Free Officers Movement, overthrew King Farouk. This was the beginning of the end for the British influence over Egypt. The Free Officers Movement was a group of nationalist Egyptian military officers and it was founded in 1949 with the goal of overthrowing the corrupt monarchy of King Farouk. They also sought to end British occupation and influence, abolish feudal holdings, and create a strong, independent Egyptian republic. It’s here where one of the most important figures of the Suez Canal Crisis enters our story: Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Nasser was a major figure of this movement. He had been a charismatic leader who organized and spearheaded this group, though other prominent figures like Anwar Sadat and Muhammad Naguib were also involved. July 22nd and July 23rd of 1952 was when they executed a (mostly) bloodless coup in Cairo. King Farouk was forced to abdicate. Naguib was the first president of the new Egyptian Republic, though Nasser assumed much of the actual power behind the scenes. So with all of those details out of the way, we can now finally talk about the nationalization of the Suez Canal and the crisis that followed.
The Suez Crisis
While Egypt became fully independent, the Suez Canal was still held by the Suez Canal Company, which was managed by the British and the French. They intended to maintain this control indefinitely. Gamal Abdel Naser became the second person to be President of Egypt. A lot changed after Gamal Abdel Naser and Muhammad Naguib took over. By the time they did, Egypt was largely an agricultural country. Its main source of wealth was the export of high quality cotton. In fact, it was Egypt and India that were Britain’s main sources of cotton during and immediately after the American Civil War, as the British had been extremely dependent of cotton exports from the American South. When the Civil War broke out, the Union blockaded the South, preventing the export that gave the traitors money. As a result, the British switched primarily to India as well as purchasing cotton from the Ottoman Empire as the Ottomans still held Egypt at this point in time.
There was a notable power struggle between the first Egyptian President, Naguib, and Nasser, who had run things behind the scenes. Real power wasn’t with the presidency at the time, but rather, with the Revolutionary Command Council. Nasser officially became President of Egypt in June 1956.
He made a lot of changes to Egypt, both in its domestic policy and foreign policy. One of his most consequential decisions he made was a massive land reform law. Here’s how Joel Benin of Jacobin described this reform:
“The Free Officers’ program promised to eliminate “feudalism,” an imprecise term for the economic and political power of the large landowners. To accomplish this, they decreed a modest land reform — less radical than comparable post–World War II measures adopted under US supervision in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. The Land Reform Law of September 9, 1952 limited individual ownership to two hundred feddans and three hundred feddans for a family — very large holdings by Egyptian standards. Initially, some seventeen hundred landowners, including 425 members of the royal family, lost 10 percent of Egypt’s arable land. By 1970, 15 percent of the arable land had been redistributed. The landless population had declined to 43 percent of rural households, and the share of the agricultural income received by wage workers and owners of less than five feddans had doubled.” (Beinin, n.d)
The idea was to bring the Egyptian people into a more even playing field and to help them become more united in this Pan-Arabist view of the world. Pan-Arab Nationalism was this idea of Arab Nationalists rising above the white colonizers such as the British and French and have this strong Arab nation. Egypt under Nasser very much supported Algeria’s National Liberation Front (FLN) when it launched a war of independence against France in 1954. Egypt during Nasser’s time would be this anti-colonial, anti-imperialist model that other Arab countries would aspire to be. So ok, Nasser clearly didn’t have a high opinion on Britain, France, and most recently Israel, but how did he view the US and the Soviet Union? Well, Nasser advocated a “positive neutralism” view point, which wanted to balance the Western and Soviet camps. The Soviets seem to be largely accepting of this policy as they trained Egyptian forces and sold arms to Egypt through Czechoslovakia, but the same can’t really be said for the US or the UK. They reneged on funding the Aswan High Dam, which is one of today’s largest dams and serves as a huge source of hydroelectric power for Egypt even to this day. Aside from this pushing Egypt closer to the East anyways (good job geniuses), it also caused Nasser to look on how to make money elsewhere. He decided on a fateful solution: Nationalizing the Suez Canal. This way, any trade through the Suez Canal would make Egypt money, and since the Suez Canal had been so popular for trade and travel, this had the potential to make a lot of money. He had this to say about the move:
“The Suez Canal was a symbol of despotism, a symbol of rape, and a symbol of humiliation. Today, citizens, the Suez Canal has been nationalized . . . the income of the Suez Canal is 35 million [Egyptian] pounds — $100 million a year, or $500 million in five years. So we don’t need to consider the $70 million in US or British aid. With this, we feel pride, we feel dignity, and we feel that we are really building our homeland as we want . . . we build what we want, and we do what we want.” (Nasser, 1956)
The British and French, who were already referring to Nasser as the “Arab Hitler”, were apoplectic about the news. France had been supplying Israel with tanks and other weapons since at least 1954, partially because Egypt had supported the FLN in Algeria. David Ben-Guron, the first Prime Minister of the illegal state of Israel, was also furious since Nasser immediately blocked the Suez Canal to Israel. Thus, the Tripartite Aggression had begun.
Guy Mollet was the French Prime Minister and Anthony Eden was the Prime Minister of Britain. They came up with a scheme to take back the Suez Canal. Israel would invade and occupy the Sinai Peninsula while France and Britain would invade the Suez Canal region to “restore” order and then get rid of Nasser. On October 29th, 1956, Israel invaded the Sinai and the British and French delivered a joint ultimatum the next day. This ultimatum ordered soldiers from both sides to withdraw about 10 miles from the Suez Canal…but the Israeli forces were still about 40 miles away from the Canal in the first place. This giant fuck up made it extremely obvious to everyone what the British and French really wanted. They received international backlash but the backlash got much worse after Britain and France invaded in earnest.
Egypt was ill prepared to deal with the well armed and well trained military forces of the three aggressors and was on the backfoot, especially after the British and French invaded on November 5th, 1956 through troops being deployed via parachute and then landing in some ports via boat a day later. The Israelis also took over the Sinai very quickly. Egyptians fought viciously in the streets, but it was clear that the three invading countries had superior firepower. Around 1000 to 3000 or so deaths occurred on the Egyptian side with around 100 to 200 dead for Israel. France had about 10 killed while the UK had about 22 killed. Militarily, the invasion of the Suez Canal was a massive success for these countries….but politically, it would be a catastrophe.
In a rare display of agreement, the US and the USSR shared their anger on someone other than each other. To quote US President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev on their immediate reactions:
“When I talked to you last October, I pointed out that the United States fully realized that military action against Egypt resulted from grave and repeated provocations. But I said also that the use of military force to solve international disputes could not be reconciled with the principles and purposes of the United Nations.” (Eisenhower, 1956)
“The aggression committed by Britain, France, and Israel against Egypt constitutes a grave breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter. The Soviet Union calls on all peace-loving countries to demand the immediate cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of foreign troops from Egyptian territory.” (Khrushchev, 1956)
Khrushchev threatened to use nuclear weapons against Britain and France during the Suez Crisis of 1956. He declared his intention to fire nuclear rockets at western Europe if the invading forces did not withdraw from Egypt. This nuclear threat was part of the intense Cold War brinkmanship surrounding the crisis and helped escalate international pressure on Britain, France, and Israel to pull back their military forces. Eisenhower went for a more economic warfare approach. The United States, under Eisenhower’s directive, threatened to block financial assistance to Britain, including withholding aid and pushing for the sale of British pound sterling bonds, which caused a financial crisis in the UK. The U.S. also limited oil exports to Britain, worsening fuel shortages and leading to petrol rationing. The US even told the IMF to not give financial assistance to the British until they leave Egypt. These economic actions, combined with diplomatic pressure through the United Nations, significantly contributed to the British and French decision to withdraw their forces from Egypt. Israel was the last country to remain, but Eisenhower also made them leave the Sinai and return it to Egypt. Egypt also had control of the Gaza Strip at the time. Israel was still unable to go through the Suez Canal but could at least go through the Strait of Tehran, which was also blocked by Egypt. It also demonstrated Israel’s military capabilities to the rest of the Arab nations, so sadly, Israel was the one country of the three invading countries to gain more than it lost during the crisis.
For Britain and France, this incident was an exceptional international embarrassment. Anthony Eden had to resign as Prime Minister of Britain. Guy Mollet still remained as Prime Minister of France immediately after the Suez Crisis but the Algerian War of Independence and the domestic issues at home caused his government to collapse on May 1957. For Egypt, it was a massive success, despite the military defeat. Nasser gained unparalleled unpopularity in Egypt and across the Arab World. He became the face of the Pan-Arabist movement and could now shape global politics in some ways. The UN also became far more important after this incident, as UN Peacekeepers were deployed to a conflict zone for the first time. Canada played a key role in negotiations. Canadian diplomat Lester B. Pearson was instrumental in brokering a peaceful resolution by proposing the creation of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), the first-ever UN peacekeeping force, to supervise the ceasefire and troop withdrawals. Pearson’s diplomatic efforts helped prevent greater conflict between the invading powers and Egypt, preserving international organizations like NATO and the Commonwealth. Pearson even gained the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in 1957, so good on him I think. Fun fact, the Suez Crisis helped spark debates about Canadian identity and independence from Britain, eventually culminating in Canada adopting its own distinctive Maple Leaf flag in 1965, moving away from the British Union Jack since Canada still had a flag that had the Union Jack on it like Australia and New Zealand, though Canada’s flavor of it was red instead of blue like those two.
So, what were the long term consequences of this incident?
Conclusion
The main lesson here is that the British and French had their time in the sun, but this incident proved that they could no longer act on their own without US approval. The US also had to stand its ground and force their allies to behave, which is probably the most notable instance of this happening. It was especially inconvenient timing for the US since around the same time of the Suez Crisis, the Hungarian Revolution was going on and the US couldn’t condemn the Soviets crushing that as an act of imperialism (which, to be blunt, it was) while their allies were engaging in blatant imperialism themselves. The Hungarian Revolution was sadly overshadowed by this incident, but it should also be discussed. I do plan on covering the Hungarian Revolution another time. As for Egypt, it quickly became a Soviet ally since it was clear to Egypt that it would get along better with the Soviets anyways, especially given the socialist framework the Egyptian government was working under at this point.
The simple fact is that hard power (military power) can only solve so much, and when you treat every problem like a nail that needs to be hammered out, you are just going to be sloppy with how you fix those nails. The British and French empires were already in decline before this point, but it caused the British and the French to spiral much faster in terms of losing their colonies. This also caused the British and French to diverge in terms of how they were dealing with their declining empires. The British largely accepted that the British Empire had an expiration date and made moves to gradually end their colonization of countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The British also sought stronger ties to the Americans. The French sought greater ties to the rest of Western Europe, but they also violently tried to maintain their empire (Algerian War of Independence being the worst example of this). The failures of the French war effort in Algeria caused the Fourth Republic of France to fall and be replaced by the Fifth Republic that still exists to this day. Charles de Gaulle eventually faced reality and retreated from Algeria entirely. France was also far more aggressive in building nuclear weapons and their strike policy than Britain had been, though this largely comes from French ideas of acting independently from the US as they didn’t want to be too reliant on the US…which in fairness, is the problem we’re seeing still. France also just gave up on their colonial holdings after losing Algeria, though not without steep neo-colonial costs (much of West Africa is still super reliant on France economically, it’s really bad).
The last thing is that this incident caused the US to be much more involved in the Middle East after British and French influence began rapidly collapsing in the coming decades. In the long run, this would have…dire consequences (see the past like, fuckin, 20 years or so), but in the immediate term, it was simply one superpower replacing other global powers. Power can shift rapidly, or can shift gradually. This power shift had been moving towards the US and Soviet Union for a while after WW2, but this only made it clear to everyone who were the top dogs, and they would continue to make it everyone else’s problem.
Sources
Mark, J. (2017, July 26). Senusret III. World History Encyclopedia. https://www.worldhistory.org/Senusret_III/
SCA – Canal History. (2019). http://Www.suezcanal.gov.eg. https://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/English/About/SuezCanal/Pages/CanalHistory.aspx
The Mohit. (2019, April 7). Suez Canal: A Man-Made Marvel Connecting the Mediterranean and Red Sea. Marine Insight. https://www.marineinsight.com/maritime-history/a-brief-history-of-the-suez-canal/
SueCanal Opens | Research Starters | EBSCO Research. (2021). EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/suez-canal-opens
Suez Canal – History. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Suez-Canal/History
Impact on the British Cotton Trade · Liverpool’s Abercromby Square and the Confederacy During the U.S. Civil War · Lowcountry Digital History Initiative. (2025, November 25). Retrieved from https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/liverpools-abercromby-square/britain-and-us-civil-war/impact-cotton-trade
Beinin, J. How Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser Changed World Politics. (2025, November 25). Retrieved from https://jacobin.com/2021/11/egypt-gamal-abdel-nasser-world-politics-arab-socialism-anti-imperialism-history
Matters, H. (2019, March 24). The 1956 Suez Crisis: History Matters (Short Animated Documentary). Youtube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xICnObSHU0M
Historical Documents – Office of the Historian. (2025, August 25). Retrieved from https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/d35
Why Was The Suez Crisis So Important? (2025, November 24). Retrieved from https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-important
Suez Crisis, 1956. (2023, June 25). Retrieved from https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/lw/97179.htm
Ahmed, Z. (2025). The Suez Canal: A Man-Made Marvel Connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. Marine Insight. Retrieved from https://www.marineinsight.com/maritime-history/a-brief-history-of-the-suez-canal
Fiorino, J. (2014, August 14th) Canada and the Suez Canal Crisis: A New Perspective. Retrieved from https://natoassociation.ca/canada-and-the-suez-canal-crisis-a-new-perspective
World’s Deadliest Construction Projects: Why Safety is Important. (2024, October 17). Retrieved from https://www.360training.com/blog/worlds-deadliest-construction-projects
Al Sheikh, M. H. (2017). English. Raseef22. Retrieved from https://raseef22.net/english/article/1067917-canal-killed-130-thousand-egyptians
Leave a Reply