> You have that exactly backwards.

No, my point is that the Suez crisis proves that even if you do have logistical independence, it doesn't matter, because the US can crash your economy and excoriate you in the UN if you do something they don't like.

The US didn't single-handedly crash the British economy during the Suez crisis, and it wasn't a pure logistical/political defeat in the field, either. In fact, it was very much a military defeat, as well. The British defeat was the sum total of all these parameters rather than any single one. By contrast, France's ability to apply military force is interdicted by precisely one parameter: logistical dependence on the USA (worsened by the US' underhanded acquisition of Alstom, I might add). As such, I don't think your point stands.

You keep on referring to it as a british defeat, but it was a joint effort between britian and France :). Iirc, the US didn't need to crash the british economy, they simply threatened to devalue the pound, denounced the invasion publicly, then the europeans called a ceasefire (unilaterally? I'm not sure).

At no point in either the french nor the british military operations do you see either tactical defeats or supply issues.