What the 1956 Suez Crisis says about Iran and the limits of U.S. power

0:00Ishaan Tharoor:Support for Here and Now Anytime comes from MathWorks, creator of MATLAB and Simulink software, to design and develop engineered systems, accelerating the pace of discovery in engineering and science. Learn more at mathworks.com. WBUR Podcasts. Boston. It was a classic moment of imperial overreach, where they thought they could dictate terms and they couldn't. Israel leading Western allies into a war in the Middle East, only to foment blowback over the allies' imperial entitlement, ultimately reconfiguring global perceptions of power. I'm talking about the Suez Crisis in the 1950s. What conflict did you think I meant?

0:55It's Monday, April 20th, and this is Here and Now, Anytime from NPR and WBUR. I'm Chris Bentley.

1:05Today on the show, who is going to get a refund for tariffs that they paid that were eventually ruled illegal. And will companies pass those savings along to customers like they did with the taxes in the first place? Also, what do you think about President Trump's plans for a massive arch in Washington, D.C.? It doesn't just block sight lines, but imposes itself in a landscape that doesn't need that kind of decoration. Monumentalist urbanism a la Trump, coming up in about 15 minutes. But first, lessons from history for the war with Iran. Earlier this year, the U.S. and Israel chose to attack Iran and now find themselves in a deadly and economically costly war without a clear victory emerging, despite numerous attempts by those parties to declare it a success.

2:01It's a complicated and unfolding situation. But there is a precedent. the 1956 Suez Crisis, when Western powers allied with Israel to attack Egypt over its nationalization of the Suez Canal. Journalist and foreign affairs columnist Ishan Tharur told Scott Tong, the parallels are striking and might have lessons for the crisis today. The two of them started by talking about the state of the Iran war today, with the Strait of Hormuz mostly empty, and a second round of peace talks this week in Pakistan on the rocks. after the U.S. attacked an Iranian ship over the weekend.

2:40Ishaan Tharoor:Well, look, we're supposed to believe that there is a diplomatic track that's happening, that's accelerating. There's supposed to be big meetings in the coming days. The technical ceasefire that does exist is going to end on Wednesday. So we're obviously poised for another round of escalations. And there's such a huge gulf of trust between the two sides that it is very hard to see where the kind of serious diplomatic headway can come from. And with the nature of President Trump's constant threats and his erratic kind of messaging around all this, it adds to the volatility of what we're seeing right now.

3:15Well, let's get to parallels that you and other observers see with the conflict back in 1956, the Suez Crisis. It began with Israel and other Western allies launching strikes in the Middle East. Tell us, how did that begin?

3:30Ishaan Tharoor:Well, yes, so obviously we're talking about a very different historical moment. In 1956, you have a nationalist Egyptian government that moves to nationalize the company that administers the Suez Canal. Of course, this is the canal that connects the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. That company, of course, is dominated by the British and the French. These are kind of fading colonial powers that built the Suez Canal in the first place. They are furious about this, and so they quietly spend months preparing for some kind of move to either topple the Egyptian government and take back control of the canal.

4:01Ishaan Tharoor:In this, they're allied with Israel, and Israel makes the first move in its invasion of the Sinai Peninsula. And it sweeps aside. It's a tactical success. The English and the French come in quickly. But then the Egyptians make this move that, look, we've been attacked. We're going to shut down the Suez Canal. And they sink a bunch of ships in the middle of the canal, shutting down a vital artery of global trade. And the analogy is quite obvious to us, that the Strait of Hormuz was open before the Trump administration decided to launch this war. Now it's closed, triggering all sorts of global pain.

4:36Ishaan Tharoor:And in the episode, historically, of course, it was a huge catastrophe for the British government in particular. You had oil shortages, you had a government that had to go with its begging cap in hand to the US and to get an IMF bailout. And it led to the end of that government. And it seemed more historically, more broadly speaking, as the kind of bookend of British and French empire on the world stage. I want to just kind of ask you about that observation you just made that in the end Israel, European powers withdrew in humiliation. And you say this highlighted the decline in the power of France and Britain.

5:14Tell me about that.

5:15Ishaan Tharoor:Because it was a classic moment of imperial overreach where they thought they could dictate terms and they couldn't. And then, of course, you have a moment where the real powers at the time were the Soviet Union and the US. And both the United States and the Soviet Union were adamantly opposed to this happening. They did not support the British in this. And of course, in the current moment, we don't have, there's no Eisenhower right now scolding the United States to get back into line, of course. So that's where the analogy doesn't quite work. But back then, it was this clear moment where we shifted from an age of European empires to an age dominated by the Cold War and Soviet and US power.

5:54as far as France and Britain as being declining powers in the day. Do you connect that to where the United States is today?

6:02Ishaan Tharoor:I think there are many ways in which you can. Of course, there are big differences in historical moments, but this is a clear episode where the U.S. is acting with a certain degree of imperial entitlement. This is also a moment where Israel is kind of leading its Western ally into a conflict, and where you're seeing such profound global blowback and anger that it could reconfigure how the world sees the United States and American power in the years to come. Now, just quickly going back to 1956, Eshan, in the end, with the Suez Crisis, it ended with the Middle Eastern country with hardliners remaining in charge.

6:42Is that likely this time?

6:45Ishaan Tharoor:The journey of Egypt since then is very complicated, but But absolutely, it boosted the celebrity of the Egyptian nationalist president, Nasser, strengthened his kind of ideological pitch to other countries in the region that had been under the imperial yoke in various shapes and forms. And as you're seeing with Iran, regime change does not seem to be in the cards right now. And hardliners indeed in Iran have only gained more legitimacy in the wake of these attacks. Ishan Tharoor, global affairs journalist, contributor to The New Yorker magazine. Ishan, thank you again. My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

7:22Coming up next. After the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's tariffs, a lot of companies started asking for refunds on the import taxes that they'd already paid. Today, the government launched a website to help them formally request their money back, and businesses started flocking there, like so many coupon clippers rushing to a sale. My question is, will consumers, you know, you and me, see any of that refund money? Scott Tong has that story in just a minute.

8:01Ishaan Tharoor:Dean Russell here. I've always been curious about our world. When I was a kid, science and stories were kind of my thing. And today, as a journalist and podcast producer, I still count on both those things for answers and for inspiration. That's why I'm proud to share our new series with you, The Midnight Rebellion. It's a story about climate change and choice. I would have loved it as a kid. Find us this Earth Day wherever you get your podcasts. Big day for small businesses in this country. Starting this morning, U.S. importers that paid tariffs later struck down by the Supreme Court can ask for their money back.

8:40And all tens of thousands of businesses are owed an estimated$166 billion plus interest. One of them is the company Simplified. It makes calendar planners and other stationary products sold at stores like Target. And with us is the owner Emily Lay from Pensacola, Florida. Emily, good to have you back. Hi, thank you so much for having me. You pay tariffs on your products because they were made in Chinese factories. Why? Remind us, did you manufacture there instead of, say, the U.S.? Yes. Well, we actually did manufacture in the United States with our first couple of runs. But unfortunately, our products cost about$38 per unit to make here.

9:22And we just didn't have the infrastructure or options to produce the types of products we needed to make. So to have a better cost and a better product, we did produce overseas. So those tariffs, how did they affect you and your company? It was devastating. When you're a company of our size, I employ seven women all here in the United States. It was really a tough time to be able to afford those and keep the doors open and keep everybody employed. But we did it. Yeah. Well, Emma, starting today, importing companies like yours can use this new electronic portal at Customs and Border Protection to ask for refunds.

10:07Have you checked it out yet? Any idea or how easy or hard this is going to be for you? I have checked it out. We have not put in our request for our refund quite yet. We're still doing some calculations and making sure that we have all of our ducks in a row. It's going to be a process, but we will definitely be submitting our claim here soon. Yeah. Can I ask how much you're owed? That is a great question. I'm actually still trying to figure that out. Unfortunately, it's not as cut and dry as one might think. Some of our products, we paid the tariffs directly. Some we paid, we do DDP. So, you know, delivered, duty paid is what that is.

10:44And so those went through our manufacturers. So we're, it's a lot of moving parts at this point to make sure we get all of our money back. Well, that gets to this question that, I mean, for importers, this can be really complicated, right? Because we're talking about the importer of record, which can mean a bunch of middlemen, right? Agents, brokers, import, export companies. I mean, it sounds like this is affecting you when you talk to others in this situation. Do you have a sense this can get really complicated just to figure out how much to ask for and who asks for it? For sure, for sure. I've been asked multiple times today if we've submitted our claim, and we haven't yet because it is such a project to make sure that we have all the right importer of record requesting those funds back, and then they'll have to be returned to us.

11:36So it's definitely a project on my plate right now. Yeah. Well, you spoke to us earlier this year, and you said the tariffs you paid were about 40%. and you said you had impacted your staff, your charitable contributions. Let's assume you get your refund back of what you're requesting. What are you going to do with that money? Do you plan to hire more people, lower prices, make new things? What? We didn't raise our prices due to the tariffs, but we did have to make changes to our products. So for instance, our signature planners come in these beautiful keepsake boxes. Those had to be cut so that we could afford to pay the tariffs on the products themselves.

12:19So we're looking at ways that we can improve those things again and continue our charitable contributions to supporting women and girls the way we have in the past. Yeah, we're excited to put those dollars back to good use. Yeah, yeah. And can I ask, I mean, tell me maybe about one of your main products and what it costs? Yeah, one of our biggest products is our daily simplified planner. It's probably what we're best known for. and we produce it in China for about 25 % of what we retail it for here in the United States. That gives us margins for wholesale and things like that. And we retail those for$64.

12:58Okay. And Emily, the business world keeps changing today. The world is high oil prices, high transport costs. How is all this change hitting you, your company? You know, expenses are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Luckily, we have a small but mighty team. And so we're constantly on our feet, you know, making changes where we can to keep things growing and keep, you know, remaining profitable. So we're really hopeful. It's been a tough year with expenses growing, but, you know, we see our company growing as well. So we're excited for next. All right. Well, good to hear. Emily Lay is owner of the company Simplified.

13:39It makes paper planners and other stationary products based in Florida. Emily, thanks again. Thank you so much.

13:51We've got to take one more short break and we'll be right back.

14:01Well, as usual, there's lots more stories we're not getting to on this podcast today, but you can find them all at hereandnow.org. We've got news about the record-setting 130th running of the Boston Marathon. And what the Make America Healthy Again-influenced food pyramid could mean for school lunches. In short, more protein. Yeah, the government loves to tinker with school lunch standards. You know, there was that controversy that had Congress and the Obama administration sort of going head-to-head when Congress wanted pizza sort of to be counted as a vegetable, or at least the tomato paste in pizza.

14:40More recently, the Biden administration scaled back, added sugars in school lunches, and that's something that schools are still trying to implement to give you an idea of how long some of these changes can take for schools. And even more recently, Donald Trump signed a law reversing an Obama-era rule that outlawed whole milk in school lunches. So now whole milk could be on the table pretty soon. Get a full serving of that conversation at hereandnow.org, where you'll also get a glimpse of how Trump is changing the architectural face of D.C. Last week, the Federal Commission of Fine Arts gave preliminary approval for a 250-foot-tall arch that the president wants to build.

15:23They did suggest some changes, like taking off the towering golden winged figures that sit on top. Philip Kennicott, culture critic for the Washington Post, is one of many in the district who's no fan of the proposed changes. He told Scott Tong, it's just not appropriate for D.C. But really going way back to the beginning, you see the buildings here reflect a very Enlightenment ideal of sort of simplicity and sobriety in their design. There's a feeling that they should be grand but not grandiose, and that they should reflect not the sort of ostentation of imperial or monarchical governments, but a much more humble and direct and in some ways accessible style of government, which was the notion of self-governance.

16:10You object to the design. Why? I object to the design because it's ostentatious and too big. I object because of where it's being placed. The sight lines to Arlington Memorial Cemetery will be blocked. And I object to it because it's celebratory. It's triumphalist. Trump even calls it the arch of triumph, triumphal arch. That's not the way America has traditionally celebrated the end of wars. You think of this famous moment when Lincoln goes to Richmond after the fall of the Confederacy. He goes there with a handful of people. And he explicitly says, you know, let them up easy. Don't, you know, lord victory over these people.

16:50The arch is coming out of a different vocabulary. It reminds us much more of Napoleon, who is both winning battles but also needing to prove to the people that he's the one who can win battles. That just doesn't fit with the symbolism and the ethics and the morality of how America believes it should think about war. Philip, you have a broader beef complaint with President Trump's plans to change how the city looks. There's, of course, the proposed giant new White House and Ballroom. There's proposed new Garden of American Heroes with a lot of statues just right on the Potomac River on the D.C.

17:30side. What is your more fundamental objection? There are two things that I really worry about. is the ostentatiousness of the new things that are being planned. And that doesn't fit with the American design vocabulary of Washington. But then there's this bigger loss to design review and oversight and an ideal that things can be improved through input, through collaboration, through listening, through tweaking and development. And so much of architecture is about architects presenting ideas, getting a lot of criticism, going back literally to the drawing board and coming back with a better idea.

18:05There's a back and forth there that represents an ideal of how we can interact with each other in a democratic and civil way. And that's being lost. And once that's lost, then the next president can basically do what he or she wants to do. And the care over two centuries with which people have sort of stewarded these plans for Washington, that'll be gone. It'll be a free for all. Philip Kennicott and Scott Tong had more to say about the architectural design and urban planning of our nation's capital. You can listen to that whole conversation right now at hereandnow.org. But that'll do it for us today.

18:44Here and Now Anytime comes from NPR and WBUR Boston. Today's stories were produced by Will Walkie, Lynn Managon, and Julia Corcoran. Today's editors were Mark Navin, Michael Scotto, and Kat Welch. technical direction from Matt Reed and Andre Peralta. Our theme music is by Mike Pischetto, Max Liebman, and me, Chris Bentley. Our digital producers are Alison Hagen and Grace Griffin. Thanks to Shiko Fiori for filling in last week. Here and now's executive producer is Alan Price. And thanks to you for listening. We'll be back with you tomorrow.

19:25Thank you.