Then at 7 00 worl is live with your phone calls and todays headlines. Announcer this week on q a, Hudson Institute senior fellow michael durand, talking about his book ikes gamble. He discusses his book. Brian michael durand, what is ikes gamble . Michael first of all, it is the title of my book. The gamble was a decision by eisenhower in the 1950s in dealing with the middle east to tilt away from his traditional allies, britain and france and israel, and towards the rising nationalist in the region, particularly egypt. Israel, and towards the rising ationalist in the region, brian how old was he at this point . Michael nasser was only in his 40s at this point. He was very young. Brian you talk a lot about winston churchill. How was he at this time . Michael churchill was approaching 80, and britain was still the dominant power in the middle east. It was everywhere in decline. Nationalists were rising up. The big strategic question the u. S. Faced was, should it support britain against the rising nationalists, or try to reate a new order . Brian i want to put up on the screen a map of that area back in 1956. When you look at that, and are going to explain the person that hasnt been thinking about this for years, what would you want them to know . Michael when eisenhower came into office, there were 80,000 british troops in the suez anal zone. The zone was euphemistically called the suez base, but it was really a whole string of bases for the british, and the nerve center of their military position in the middle east and east africa. Nerve center of their military those troops were surrounded by egyptians who were carrying out a lowlevel guerrilla war against them. The egyptians, the minute eisenhower came to power, they escalated that war in order to force the americans to make a decision between egypt and the british. Those troops were surrounded by at the same time, there is a conflict going on simmering between israel and all of the surrounding area of states led surrounding arab states led by egypt. The conflict of those two issues, the israel question and the british question, increased that feeling that eisenhower had of being caught in the middle between rising nationalism. He thought nationalism was going to be the wave of the future. And his ties to his traditional allies, the british and the israelis. Brian what led you to write this book . Michael that is an interesting question. I started thinking about it when i was working in the white house. I worked in the george w. Bush white house. I was the senior director at the National Security council, responsible for the middle east. I noticed certain ideas were welling up in the administration about the place of the arabisraeli conflict and our overall strategy in the middle east. I disagreed that the palestine question, the israel question is the central issue. This is a recurring theme in our work Foreign Policy, that arabs and muslims are reacting to the United States according to what we do toward the arabisraeli conflict. This was welling up in the george w. Bush white house. There were significant personalities who believed to this, and i had the exact opposite view. I started wondering, this keeps recurring. I knew something of the history. Ive been a professor before. I thought, im going to go back to the beginning and look at it. I started doing some deep research after i got out of the white house on the eisenhower period, and i got fascinated with eisenhower and the way his views on this issue changed. Brian how did you go about it . Michael i researched in the british archives, the u. S. Archives, and a little bit in the israeli archives. Brian so you started the book, what year would it be when you were doing the research . Michael i hate to tell you this, because it was a long time in making. I started in 2009. Brian lets get a feel for what it was like in 1956 and the suez crisis. Heres some video from the new service back then, it is only a minute. The suez canal, center of controversy for reads, now comes a cause of war and a lighting sequence of diplomatic and military moves. Ince its seizure and nationalization by president nasser of egypt, it has precipitated a new crisis in the already tense middle east. French units are embarked at marseille. They are prepared for seizure of the canal by force. Simultaneously, britain reinforces its garrison on the island for the same eventuality. A naval concentration in the Eastern Mediterranean strengthens the military buildup. France and britain issue a 12 our ultimatum that all fighting must cease. Within hours of its expiration, britain it works its way to egypt with bombers. Brian at this time, we talked about the british and the french and israelis and egyptians, what side was america on . Michael let me say, i love these old clips. Fantastic. So ive got to take you back a ittle bit, if i could. The United States, from 1953 to 1956, eisenhower tilts in favor of nasser thinking he is going to help him organize all the arabs in the cold war. Eisenhowers fear, what he is trying to prevent, is the soviet union coming in, line with the nationalists, undermining the british, and taking control of the oil in the middle east. We cared about the oil because it was 100 of european oil came from the middle east. It was the number one strategic taking control of the oil in issue in the cold war at that time for the United States. We want to make sure we had friendly arab regimes that to absorb and train on these eapons, and then the Egyptian Army will constitute an existential threat to the israelis. And french are upset supporting north african liberation movements and upporting movements all across the fertile crescent that are trying to oust the british. British, appens is the french and israeli are starting common nize they have a nasse r. Gainst nasse ower decides that rhas been double dealing. Help in the cold war but never concludes it. His ill has this image in that support for britain and israel will alienate the the armspush them into of the soviet union. Nasser uly of 1956, suez canal. He ts seen as the legacy of europeanism. Every agency is impressed by british feel if nasser continue, will they turn to eisenhower nd say we need to attack and eisenhower says, no way. E tells the british to give up the canal. But really, its just to string get them away from the what they had with canal. Eisenhower is stringing them along into the summer and fall 1956, the british, french and israelis start to collude with other. What you saw there is the beginning of the conflict, the sraelis attack egypt and the british and the friend issue an ultimatum, and they tell the israelis to the miles from the canal in each direction. Pull back 10 s miles, theyre inside the sinai in egyptian territory. Pull back theyre handing egyptian territory to the israelis deep inside their the egyptians, of course, rejected. That was the plan all along, is and french were trying to create a pretext to attack the israelis. Not. Re pretending theyre it ourse, eisenhower sees immediately. He basically takes the side of nasser. Ven though the reality is, he believes hes a blackmailer and absolutely loathed to line up allies against him because he feels it would drive he whole arab world into the arms of the soviet union. That was a long winded answer. Seconds. Ook at 30 nassers , what was title at this point . Egypt. President of and today, egypt has about 90 million people. Britain, france, israel, all those in population. Was it that way back then . Taxing me at e this point. I should know the population of point. That you know, the exact im cared to give you an exact number, because i dont have it off the top of my head, but it arab most populous country at that point, by far. And still is. Yeah. Is, but i would guess at that point, 15 or 20 million. But im just pulling that out of nowhere. Lets see this so we know sounded like. All, we have to deal ith the situation with the israelis. To United States will try nationalists, and the nationalists in this area, i in k people will lose faith the United States and defeat. Clip. Is a great ive never seen that clip. And the message is right there. Messages are hort the key messages that he sent to the americans when eisenhower came in which convinced him that guy they can work with. Hes saying i have a problem imperialism. Help me get rid of the british. Of me with my standard living and ill help you keep the communists out. The pitch that we bought. President t w, ruman was for the israeli when the ck in 1948 was not. Ne decision hat about eisenhower, was he for it . At the time, eisenhower didnt express himself but he in it clear that he was agreement with marshall, as was he entire u. S. Foreign policy elite. Administration egarded the trumans recognition and support for israel as one of the strategic blunders in american history. Would you advise somebody listening to this, theres so many players in all this. What impact that happened back then has had on what we our today with the middle east . Well, on many different levels, i think this is the moment when the United States because r the region, we ousted the british and french, basically, and helped nasser. That wasnt the goal but that was the effect of our policy, nasser oust the british and french. So this is the moment when we take over the region and become dominant power in the region. That dynamic,t of changes his nderstanding completely of whats happening in the region. In and helpedcame oust the british from the canal and the support for nasser in the suez crisis, the theory he was creating space where the arabs and the United States together. Ate the united uld see benevolent power. Just wanted to keep the soviets that basis, we could modusy vendi. What happened was the actions an opposite result than intended. Vacuum in the region by ousting the british the suez ench, after crisis, you know, the im sorry. I never told you about what happens after eisenhower opposes french. Sh and the he actually brings the british to the brink of economic destruction. Quite dramatic. Israelis ritish and attack and sinks them in the all the us blocking tankers through the permission canal going through europe. Allies in time, his syria blow up the oil pipeline gulf from the permission to the mediterranean. British have no supplies of oil. Anthony eden is looking at economic ruin. Eisenhower and says, can you give me north american supplies of oil . And eisenhower says not unless get out of egypt immediately and unconditionally. He says can you at least help me stabilize the markets and eisenhower says not unless you out of the market immediately and unconditionally. So eisenhower stops the war and a huge military and political victory over the and the the french israelis. Into a figure er 20 feet tall in arab politics. Book, you talk about the importance of the British Empire and that this whole war had on them. What they were at that point and why was eisenhower so much against the British Empire . Know, theres a traditional american ntiimperialism, which you see running through every dministration was there, with roosevelt, you know, and but stronger among the republicans than the democrats, interestingly enough. Deep, a blicans had a visceral the Republican Base visceral idea of the base of the British Empire but for isenhower, it was really a simple calculation that i its oned earlier, which on face seems absolutely reasonable, that the arabs are in a conflict with the british israelis, and we have taken the side of the british, who are in terrible decline. Cant reconstitute the British Empire. Impossible. Theyre in terrible decline. The wave of the future is nationalism. We have to find the basis for with the n nationalists. Thats totally reasonable. Is in trying then to do that, this vacuum was reated, and the soviet union came in with nasser and explo exploited it. Soviet union very cleverly so in the suez they realized that was serious about stopping his allies and was brink oftake it to the economic destruction, they against clear threats the british and israelis. Basically said, its a nice you have there. It would be a shame if it was destroyed by nuclear missiles. In the e the impression arab world that it was nasser and the soviet unions who had and the e british french. The american role was all scenes. Ut behind the the soviets got all the credit wave of ave a revolutions after the suez risis, kind of like the revolutions we had in 2011 that all benefitted nasser and the soviet union. Thats where eisenhower then started to rethink. Did you find something in your research that you said, hmm, this is really interesting . I found a number of things surprised me. Evidence of as the this rethinking by eisenhower. Isenhower is remembered remembered for the position, in regards to his middle east policy, remembered in the position he took suez crisis, and people remember it as people who think israel is a liability of the United States, eisenhower as a president really stood up to the israelis. Dont like em peer emperialism. The stance was that he was aggressors. So people who Like International the tutions, they liked position he took. Nd generally, eisenhower, the historians who likes eisenhower, every historian who writes about him. Ke hes a very likable hour and see him in his finest hour and way its remembered. Came across the evidence regretted what he d i found it interesting. People didnt Pay Attention to it, partly because Steven Ambrose, just after nixon died, it up e that nixon made it was Steven Ambrose made it up. A lot of archival indeed, that suggested, eisenhower really regretted. Great passage in the inutes of the meeting of 1958 where dulles is being told by the cia and state department, what theytill believe is ys believe, that nasser the way of the future and arguments again nd kind of loses it and says nasser is frankensteins monster. Every success hes had is it. Se hes taken dulles couldnt say he was a really f israel and he antizionist trongly feelings and i would go so far antisemitic are attitudes. This is a sidebar question. This g as ive been in town, forever, there has been a monument to John Foster Dulles, state, er secretary of called the Dulles International airport. Dwight no monument to eisenhower. As you know, theres one in the works. Why did they honor him so far this game and eisenhower as president hasnt gotten any mention . Its a great question. I wonder if it was eisenhower himself who might have done that. I dont know. The Dulles Airport built . Do you know . I think it was 1962. Would have been kennedy then. I really dont know. Good question. He died in office, dulles. Maybe there was and he was a great man. Signs of antisemeticism not with standing. Lets go back. Britain and france attacked egypt . Yes. Planes. The was that our Aircraft Carrier or did it belong to britain or france . Know. Nt i wasnt watching closely. Here is Dwight Eisenhower to the very issue of attack to those three countries. United states was not consulted in any way about any of these actions. We informed of them. In the circumstances i have no ribed, there will be United States involvement in these present hostilities. Therefore, have no plan to call the congress in special session. Of course, we shall continue to contact with congressional leaders of both parties. Intent that pe and this matter will be brought United Nations general assembly. Operating, no veto the opinion of the world can be brought to a bear to a just end tormenting problem. How much do republicans today ook back and hear him talking so positive about the u. N. Go that . Ith not at all. I dont think they remember it. It was e, the u. N. When created had kind of almost a religious glow around it. Going to be is was the institution that would End Authority lot of that lasted well into the 1950s. Know, i dont think anyone looks at it today and thinks it will do much worse in that regard. We do a survey every so often on president s and whos the most popular. Eisenhower has moved up in every survey. A couple of weeks ago, he moved out of all 43 ce men that have been president. Do you think thats happening . Well, its really interesting hen you go back and look at where he was during office and just after. Slesinger, the famous a torian at harvard did survey of american historians in very early 1960s, nd had them rank all of the president s. And eisenhower barely made it to mediocre. Very bottom of the mediocre. Intellectuals. Most reporters, educated people regarded eisenhower as adult. Compare whating to we have today with President Trump. Intellectuals were absolutely convinced that eisenhower was a stuffed shirt. Here was a book written called the captive hero, and the notion world had been a hero of war ii and however successful he was on the battle field, he was his depth as a president. He was surrounded by all of teiticians like richard next. A wall street lawyer. These were the guys running the country. Isenhower was a, you know, a just a figure, and the people never agreed. Always saw a man of great substance and intellect. They read that and over time, documents became available, the historians tarted to see that the people were right and the intellectuals were wrong. Theres a popular scientist at who eton called greenstein wrote i book in the 1980s called presidency. Hand and this guy was running large and he had a concept of the presidency. Its a mix of the head of state of government. Theres this great symbolic mportance of the presidency, and eisenhower understood that. He let his cabinet be the face of policy. Ehind the scenes, he was actually very much in charge of what was going on. I dont know if you remember in there 0s under reagan, was a saturday Night Live Program which was hilarious, and based it on this, but reagan would go out in front of the reporters mumbling, out of his depth and confused and behind the scenes, in ould bark out orders different languages and telling everybody what to do. Thats closer to the reality of presidency enhower w