LIMA, Peru – The president of the United States, Donald Trump, would be considering Cuba as the next objective within a broader strategy that has already included actions against Venezuela and Iran, as revealed by the magazine Atlantic.
According to the publication, an Administration official assured that the president feels “on a roll” and perceives that his approach is giving results. From the White House, Trump has mentioned the possibility of a “friendly takeover” of the Island and stated that the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is holding talks at a “very high level” to eventually “make a deal.”
The president has highlighted Cuba’s economic fragility due to the lack of oil and financial resources, suggesting that the structural weakness of the political system could precipitate changes without the need for direct military intervention.
According to the analysis, although the official emphasis would be placed on negotiation, an eventual destabilization of the country would imply risks, including a new wave of migration to the United States.
Furthermore, after decades of political control, organized opposition within Cuba is limited, which—according to the report—could lead to a scenario similar to that of Venezuela: an agreement that preserves power structures under some type of American tutelage, far from a full transition to democracy.
For their part, foreign policy specialists warned that an eventual escalation by the United States against the Cuban dictatorship could entail risks comparable to past experiences in other regions.
Historian Timothy Naftali noted that the current climate is reminiscent of the period after September 11, 2001, when the rapid offensive in Afghanistan reinforced the confidence of the George W. Bush Administration to advance later on Iraq. In his opinion, intervening on the Island could be counterproductive if the structures perceive that they have no place in a possible transition scenario.
«The same thing that could go wrong in Iran could go wrong. “When you have a police state populated by people who have no future in a pro-American successor government, they have no incentive to surrender and have a monopoly on force,” the expert highlighted.
Along the same lines, political scientist William LeoGrande, co-author of “Back Channel to Cuba,” questioned whether there is a solid legal basis for direct action today and considered the argument based on the inclusion of Cuba on the list of countries sponsoring terrorism weak. He also recalled the failed precedent from Bay of Pigs as an example of the costs of an open military operation.
The statements come while President Trump’s entourage debates options regarding Cuba and maintains critical rhetoric towards the Castro regime. In that sense, Rubio recently reiterated that the current situation on the Island is “unacceptable” and that the country requires changes.
The analysis of Atlantic concludes that any decision will be conditioned by regional factors and political calculations in Washington, in a context of high migratory sensitivity and hemispheric tensions.
