> With the goal of stealing their oil supply.

And control of the Suez Canal...

Hah yes, of course, I deleted that part somehow.

True, with one tid bit: it was more about the Suez Canal then oil. Oh yeah, and the US was pissed not because of the conspiracy but rather because it interfered with US plans. And because the US didn't get any of the spoils if it would have worked out.

> And because the US didn't get any of the spoils if it would have worked out.

That may be true of some people in his administration but I don't think that was Eisenhower's view.

>It's to Eisenhower's credit that he didn't back their immoral attack. And one of the big wins for the morality of US foreign policy in the 20th century.

Oh wait, you're seriously using a moral argument about the cold war. Let me laugh harder.

The bigger issue was how Egypt unilaterally seized the Suez Canal Company (jointly owned by the British and the French). Egypt then banned Israel from using the Straits of Tiran for shipping, effectively imposing a blockade. Attempting regime change was likely unwise, but all three countries were quite thoroughly provoked by Nasser.

> ...all three countries were quite thoroughly provoked by Nasser.

FYI "provoked" is the exact word used by many to rationalize Putin's invasion of Ukraine. One could just as easily say Nasser was provoked to his actions by decades of foreign domination and exploitation.

This stuff is complex but at the end of day those three countries were clearly wrong to invade a sovereign country.