[quote=@Lady Lascivious]
A thing I forgot to mention is Russia gained the warm water port of Nagasaki in exchange for their military aid. It was not out of the kindness of their hearts, but access to not only a warm water port - but a very well positioned one at that, enabling power projection of the Russian empire into the south pacific. 

However, I think the standards of plausibility are nevertheless being applied very unevenly in this, with regard to the central premise of the British Empire voluntarily ceding control of Egypt, the Levant, and a Suez Canal. Not to mention the liklihood of revolt by the traditionalists and conservatives within egypt that would have been furious with Ali for ceding what he did. He would be lucky to retain the support of his army and thus retaining his throne. 

Yes, my alt is certainly unlikely. But more unlikely than the British voluntarily handing over all of that to Egypt, and Egypt not suffering massive internal strife as a result of Ali's concessions? I somewhat doubt it. 

[/quote]

Except that Muhammad Ali [i]already[/i] controlled Egypt and the Levant and the southeasternmost parts of Anatolia around 1840 - It [i]lost[/i] the Levant and that part of Anatolia and ceded them back to the Ottoman Empire due to Britain destroying his fleet, which included the entire Ottoman Navy, which had defected to him IRL, in his harbors. In this alternate history, Muhammad Ali averted that bombardment and was allowed to keep his conquests by giving the British the right to build the Suez Canal.

While there would have been traditionalist/conservative discontent afterward, the fact that those concessions were made when European Guns were staring him in the face allows for blame to be shifted away from him and his policies.

Edit: And I see the Russians got Nagasaki. That makes more sense.