The United States and Europe are currently disagreeing regarding foreign policy and military reorganization endeavors. President Trump wants European nations to step up their defense on the continent. Still, some of his cabinet members want more European contributions to American-led military operations in the Middle East, particularly in Yemen.
Currently, American forces are stretched thin and will need assistance from allies to counter emboldened adversaries such as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and their proxies. Nevertheless, a major reason for the lack of assistance regarding Middle East operations correlates with the aftermath of the Suez Canal Crisis, which limited European force projection in the region.
America’s Rift with Europe Over Anti-Houthi Operations
Against the backdrop of the Israeli-Hamas War in late 2023, Ansar Allah, commonly known as the Houthis, intervened. By targeting commercial shipping and firing ballistic missiles at Israel, the Houthis look to force the international community to apply substantial pressure on the Israeli government to end the war.
Instead, Israel continues the war in Gaza to eliminate Hamas, and the Houthis, supplemented by Iran, continue missile and drone attacks in the Red Sea, which is having a major effect on global shipping. In early 2024, the Biden Administration conducted Operation Prosperity Guardian, a coalition of countries, in an attempt to deter the Houthis, which ultimately proved inconclusive.
Digressing from the deterrence campaign of the former President Biden, the current Trump Administration conducted a much heavier campaign against Ansar Allah in Yemen. However, the campaign faced major hurdles as the United States used limited and critical munitions against the unconventional militia, such as Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are critically needed in a potential war against China.
According to texts leaked from Signalgate, the Trump Administration disagreed on how to proceed with the current military campaign in the Red Sea. Vice President Vance and former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz displayed ire over what they see as helping Europe, which relies on shipping in the Red Sea as much as the United States.
Nevertheless, one reason Europe is handicapped in operations in the region has hallmarks dating back to the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis.
How the American Response to the Suez Canal Crisis Changed European Foreign Policy
In the aftermath of World War II, various European colonial powers attempted to retain their empires and global influences, even though their economies declined due to the worldwide conflict. In late October 1956, Egypt’s autocratic leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized ownership of the Suez Canal from the Suez Canal Company, whose shares were owned by France and the United Kingdom.
Under fears of losing influence and economic interests in the Middle East, the French and British, alongside the Israelis, secretly planned an invasion of Egypt to reclaim the Suez Canal and dispose of Nasser, especially as the United States government remained idle to the political grievances.
On October 29th, 1956, the Israeli, French, and British militaries conducted their operation to claim the Suez, incapacitating the Egyptian army within a week and reaching almost all of their operational goals. However, political consequences became far-reaching as American President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev would not only condemn the invasion but also publicly rein in the aggression.
Khrushchev threatened armed conflict with the UK and France, which would have led to World War III, and Eisenhower threatened to withdraw bonds and IMF funds from the UK and France unless both countries accepted the new status quo. Effectively, the UK and France were reduced to being vassals of the United States and could no longer conduct autonomous foreign policy endeavors without approval from the U.S. government.
Indeed, the British government acknowledged the new world reality when Prime Minister Harold Macmillan made his famous “winds of change” speech, in which he admitted the United States and Soviet Union were the new world superpowers as the old world slowly faded.
The security gaps from the crisis are being felt today.
The aftermath of the Suez Canal Crisis effectively put Europe into vassal status, but it simultaneously became a double-edged sword for the United States. Arab nations were able to get more autonomy from Europe. Still, simultaneously, European countries would focus on regional security rather than intertwine themselves in the affairs of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).
The United States, the Soviet Union, and one of its successors, Russia, would retain influence in the Middle East. Today, American armed forces conduct the most extensive military operations in the MENA region, which is leading to overextension of forces when adversaries such as China and North Korea become more emboldened.
Perpetual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and extensive operations in Syria, Libya, and Somalia left security gaps that the United States needed help to fill. With Europe’s minimal force projection and influence, America took the brunt of adventurism in the region. Outside of British bases in Cyprus and the UK and French navies, no other European country has force projection capabilities to sustain operations in the Middle East.
The Trump Administration, realizing operations against the Houthis produced minimal results, would broker a ceasefire with the Houthis using Oman as a mediator.
Actions taken by multiple global powers during the Suez Canal Crisis and the effects of the conflict’s aftermath still ring true today, as America finds itself overextended in the Middle East and North Africa without European force projection. Amidst heightened global tensions, Europe will need to reconstruct and reconstitute its defense. Still, simultaneously, the United States should apply the same pressure on MENA countries to take charge of their security obligations to avoid perpetual conflict quagmires.
