The Suez thread is a staple on this forum and it usually asks what if the Tripartite Powers had pressed on regardless of what Eisenhower thought. However I can remember reading somewhere before, I can't remember where and haven't been able to find it, that the Atlee Government gave serious consideration to quitting Suez in 1947/48 because of the enormous cost of maintaining the garrison at a time when Britain's economy was at breaking point.
So WI Britain had decided to go through with the pull out much earlier than IOTL? The first implication is that the bloody insurgency in the early 1950's doesn't happen, the 1952 Revolution that toppled the Egyptian monarchy was triggered largely as a result of Black Saturday after the British killed 50 policemen in Ismailia during that conflict. Without that trigger the Revolution may not have happened until later, Farouk was so unpopular it was probably inevitable that he would be toppled at some point.
What other implications could this have had, particularly for the Middle East?
So WI Britain had decided to go through with the pull out much earlier than IOTL? The first implication is that the bloody insurgency in the early 1950's doesn't happen, the 1952 Revolution that toppled the Egyptian monarchy was triggered largely as a result of Black Saturday after the British killed 50 policemen in Ismailia during that conflict. Without that trigger the Revolution may not have happened until later, Farouk was so unpopular it was probably inevitable that he would be toppled at some point.
What other implications could this have had, particularly for the Middle East?