The year 1956 marks one of the most significant turning points in modern geopolitics. The Suez Crisis began on July 19, 1956, when the United States withdrew funding for the Aswan Dam in Egypt. The situation escalated on July 26, when Egyptian revolutionary leader Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Britain and France perceived this as a direct threat to their interests. In reality, it was financial capital that panicked, as the canal was a vital artery of global trade.

Israel was the trigger for the intervention in Suez in 1956

After Nasser came to power in 1954, the British Navy withdrew from Egypt, but reserved the right to return in the event of a crisis. Britain would not accept a complete loss of control. Therefore, Nasser’s decision was seen as both a strategic and symbolic threat.

Diplomatic efforts between August and October 1956 failed. Between October 22 and 24, Great Britain, France, and Israel agreed on a secret amphibious plan in Sèvres, near Paris. Israel was not a supporting actor, but rather the spearhead of the operations. Since Great Britain and France lacked the international legitimacy to directly attack Egypt, Israel initiated the war by attacking the Sinai Peninsula on October 29, 1956. Subsequently, Great Britain and France intervened under the pretext of separating the parties and securing the canal.

It is also worth noting that Israel became a de facto nuclear power around 1967, although it has never officially acknowledged this. The foundations for this capability were laid in the late 1950s, immediately following the 1956 Suez Crisis. This crisis fostered a strategic alliance between Israel and France. Aiming to counter Gamal Abdel Nasser’s influence in Algeria, France agreed to provide Israel with crucial nuclear assistance, including the Dimona reactor and the technological base for plutonium production. At the same time, Israel learned a fundamental lesson from the crisis: it could not rely on major powers, including the United States, for its absolute security. This combination—the transfer of French technology and a heightened sense of strategic isolation—prompted Israel to develop an independent nuclear deterrent capability. In this sense, the Suez Crisis was not just a regional conflict; it was the decisive turning point that enabled Israel’s emergence as a nuclear power.

Academic studies and memoirs clearly demonstrate that Israel consciously assumed the role of first aggressor and instigated the military launch of the 1956 operation. The crisis was not a spontaneous tripartite conflict, but a coordinated intervention, with Israeli geopolitics at its core. Israel entered the Sinai on October 29, Great Britain and France launched air strikes on October 31, and the landings took place at Port Said between November 5 and 6.

Eisenhower’s reaction

US President Dwight Eisenhower strongly opposed the intervention, which had been carried out without informing him. He believed it weakened the Western bloc and pushed the newly independent states closer to the Soviet Union. Prime Minister Anthony Eden initially resisted, confident of military success.

The United States exerted financial pressure by restricting oil supplies and blocking IMF support. The pound sterling was severely affected. As a result, a ceasefire was declared on November 6. Britain and France withdrew in December, and Israel left the Sinai in March 1957. Within days, British imperial power collapsed, not militarily, but financially, under American pressure.

Hungary and the Soviet opportunity

At the same time, the anti-communist uprising in Hungary, which began on October 23, 1956, created a strategic opportunity for the Soviet Union. Prime Minister Imre Nagy introduced reforms, moved toward a multi-party system, and declared Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact.

On November 4, just before the Anglo-French landing at Port Said, Soviet forces entered Budapest with overwhelming force and crushed the revolt. Nagy was subsequently executed. As the United Nations focused on Suez, the Hungarian crisis was relegated to the back burner. The divided West was unable to respond effectively.

This simultaneous event revealed a fundamental geopolitical truth: fractures in one arena create opportunities in another. Eisenhower was particularly outraged by this outcome. Britain had the military capability to continue, but lacked the financial capacity. On January 9, 1957, Eden resigned.

The decline of Great Britain

Britain’s collapse was gradual. In the 19th century, the pound sterling dominated world trade. By the early 20th century, the United States had surpassed Britain in production. Two world wars left London heavily indebted.

Although the British Royal Navy was still powerful in 1945, its strength declined rapidly due to economic constraints and its dependence on the United States. By 1956, it could no longer operate independently. In 1971, Britain withdrew east of the Suez Canal, ceding strategic positions to the US Navy and ending its global maritime dominance.

Today is yesterday: The Hormuz crisis

Seventy years later, a similar systemic rupture emerges in the March 2026 crisis, centered on the Strait of Hormuz. As the Gulf War enters its fourth week, the Strait of Hormuz is virtually blocked. The cost of the war to the United States has exceeded $30 billion.

Normally, around 140 ships transit this point daily. Now, only a few can pass. This strategic hub handles approximately 20% of the world’s oil trade. The disruptions have triggered a physical supply crisis.

Energy prices are rising sharply, impacting fertilizer production, agriculture, industry, and semiconductor manufacturing. Risks to food security are rapidly emerging.

On March 15, the United States released 172 million barrels from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, reducing stockpiles to about 243 million barrels. With daily consumption at approximately 20 million barrels, this only covers about 12 days. In 2009, stockpiles totaled 727 million barrels.

At the same time, the United States faces budget crises and a growing debt exceeding $40 trillion. Annual interest payments are approaching $1 trillion. An additional $200 billion request for defense underscores the unsustainability of this trajectory. The inability to pass domestic budgets while increasing external military commitments reflects a profound institutional imbalance.

Meanwhile, China and the Gulf states are reducing their holdings of US bonds, signaling an erosion of the dollar’s reserve status, mirroring Britain’s earlier decline.

The United States Navy in decline

The true power of the United States lies in the dollar and its navy. However, both are weakened. Its military capacity on the ground is insufficient to reverse the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. While the two carrier strike groups have a psychological effect, they lack material impact. The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group cannot approach the coast due to the intense threat from Iranian missiles and combat drones. The problems don’t end with the USS Gerald R. Ford, which remains far from the Saudi Arabian coast due to the threat posed by the Houthis in Bab el-Mandeb, in the Red Sea. The fire on the ship, which lasted 30 hours, was kept from the public. The ship is returning to Crete, where it arrived for inspection and repairs.

In the Pacific, the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan is undergoing maintenance, the USS Tripoli and its supply 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) have left the area, and at least four destroyers have been transferred to other mission areas. As a result, the number of U.S. surface ships consistently operating in the Pacific has fallen to critical levels. This table clearly shows that the U.S., which has 292 ships (233 combatants) but only 104 ships (75 combatants) active combat-ready as of 2026, is unable to transfer sustainable forces on two fronts simultaneously. The Marine Corps, with approximately 2,500 personnel, is far from providing deterrence against a country like Iran, with a population of nearly 85 million and a vast geographic area. On the other hand, the 11th Marine Corps, which departed San Diego on March 20, 2026, will arrive in the Gulf just three weeks later. Even if both groups of Marines were to join forces, the military impact would be minimal; on the contrary, American casualties would be higher than anticipated.

On the other hand, the lack of a strong response to Washington’s call for NATO and its Asian allies to send ships to the Gulf and open the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates that this transformation has already begun. At this point, the fundamental truth of international relations is revealed once again: states do not have permanent friends, but rather permanent interests. All these events confirm Colin Powell’s warning to Iraq in 2002, applied on a global scale: “Whoever breaks it, owns it.” If an order is disrupted by brute force, responsibility for the resulting chaos must also be assumed. The current crisis in Hormuz demonstrates that this principle now operates on a global scale.

Potential for crisis in the Western Pacific and Taiwan

The Hormuz Strait crisis is particularly affecting the Indo-Pacific region. Energy importers, such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea, will be severely impacted, while exporters, such as Russia, will benefit from higher prices. The crisis is generating a profit of $150 million per day for Russia following the lifting of Trump’s sanctions. Meanwhile, countries whose energy security is threatened will quickly seek new alliances.

The development that further aggravates this situation is unfolding on the Korean Peninsula. While the United States is transferring elements of the THAAD and Patriot systems from South Korea to the Middle East, North Korea conducted new ballistic missile tests last week. Furthermore, it is believed that cruise missiles launched from recently commissioned destroyers could be capable of carrying nuclear warheads. These developments indicate that the US missile defense umbrella in the Pacific is weakening and that the regional deterrent architecture has become fragile. According to a report published in the Financial Times on March 21, 2026, the intensive use of Tomahawk cruise missiles and Patriot SM-series air defense interceptors in operations in West Asia is also necessary to defend Taiwan and engage Chinese forces at the outset of a conflict, while noting that US production capacity is limited and that completing the munitions could take months or even years.

As a result, China’s pressure on Taiwan stems not only from its own capabilities but also from the United States’ lack of attention and resources. The latter has sought to balance on several fronts simultaneously. While the Trump administration attempts to achieve success with Cuba, China steadily increases military pressure around Taiwan. In the second week of March 2026, more than 40 fighter jets and over 10 naval vessels operated around Taiwan in just 24 hours. This is not a temporary exercise but a permanent doctrine of containment. When the Soviets intervened in Hungary in 1956, the West was unable to respond.

The model China is implementing around Taiwan today could have a similar outcome. However, this time the difference is greater. China is not only a military power but also a key player in systems building in the areas of production, trade, and finance. By 2025, it will possess the world’s largest military force, and its weight in global production is accelerating this transformation. In 1956, the United States was the rising hegemonic power, Great Britain a declining power, and the Soviet Union the dominant regional power. In 2026, China is the rising hegemonic power candidate, the United States is the current hegemonic power, and Taiwan is the new Hungary. However, this time hegemony will not be transferred between relatives. The Suez Crisis brought about the end of Great Britain.

The Hormuz Crisis could trigger a similar rupture for the United States. Because this time there is a power poised to seize control of the system not only militarily, but also economically and financially. In 1956, the United States was prepared; today, China is. Therefore, Suez was the end, and Hormuz could be the beginning of a new era.

As a result, the world is crossing a new threshold. Energy, security, transport corridors, and economic balances are all being disrupted simultaneously. Israel and the United States stand out as the initiators of this process. It is no longer possible to speak of the US-India-Israeli dream, the IMEC Economic Corridor, the Abraham Accords, or the Gaza Peace Committee. Financial capital is fleeing uncontrolled war. The region will rapidly move away from investment and prosperity. Stopping the war is not possible with Iran’s resistance alone. What is decisive is the pressure that rational states will exert on the United States and Israel.

In fact, the cautious stance of Europe, Japan, and South Korea, and their refusal of Trump’s request for a warship, demonstrate that this crisis is struggling to gain global legitimacy. If the process is not halted, this period will go down in history as a series of global economic and social upheavals, rather than as a protracted regional war. Stopping the escalation by the Trump administration is no longer an option, but a necessity for global stability. Israel, with a population of 9 million, has set in motion a process that will affect the fate of 8 billion people by appealing to a power like the United States. Unfortunately, few sensible people in the United States are aware of this situation.

Admiral Cem Gürdeniz graduated from the Turkish Naval Academy in 1979. As a deck officer, he served on various destroyers and frigates. He assumed command of the guided-missile frigate TCG Gaziantep and the Third Destroyer Division. He completed his training at the Turkish Naval War College and the Higher School of the Armed Forces. He holds two master’s degrees, one from the United States Naval Postgraduate School and the other from the Free University of Brussels (ULB), in personnel management and international policy, respectively. He was promoted to rear admiral (lower rank) in 2004 and to rear admiral (higher rank) in 2008. He served as head of the Strategy and Agreements Department and later as head of the Plans and Policy Division at the Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. In combat, he commanded the Amphibious Ship Group and the Mine Fleet. He retired in 2012 following the Sledgehammer Bogus incident. He is the founder and director of the Maritime Forum at Koč University in Istanbul. In addition to his native Turkish, he speaks fluent English and French. Admiral Gürdeniz is the author of numerous publications in several languages, including “Bluehomeland Writings.” He is a columnist for the Aydınlık newspaper and Yacht Magazine.

(Mavi Vatan via PIA Global)