By: Mary Dejevsky / The Independent (headline: Watch out, Cuba - Donald Trump is coming for you next...)
Translation: Telegrafi.com
After the drama of the Venezuelan operation, the focus of US military activity shifted almost immediately to Iran, while a more obvious target for Donald Trump's 21st century version of the Monroe Doctrine seemed to be fading from view. That target is Cuba.
However, the relative calm of the past month may have been deceptive - and may even be about to end, potentially bringing about one of the most radical changes in the region since Fidel Castro took power in 1959 and since the Cuban Missile Crisis that nearly brought the world to war three years later.
While there has been no regime change in Caracas, despite the arrest of President Nicolas Maduro, the US forced the interruption of Venezuela's vital fuel shipments to Cuba, which now risks an emergency more acute than anything it has faced so far.
In the past two weeks, the Cuban government has warned foreign airlines that it cannot guarantee fuel supplies for their planes. Canada has canceled all flights to Cuba, and even Russia - which remained Cuba's ally after the collapse of the Soviet Union - has announced that it is also halting all flights to Cuba, except for a few empty planes it is sending to evacuate its tourists.
With tourism effectively ended, Cuba is losing one of its few sources of foreign exchange. The domestic fuel rationing system, long erratic and unreliable, is on the verge of collapse. Periodic power outages are affecting many areas, including the capital, Havana. Overall, America’s noose seems to be tightening, without warships circling or direct action on its part. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that an end, of one kind or another, is on the horizon.
The US’s intentions, on the other hand, remain unclear. Late last month, Donald Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order accusing the Cuban government of supporting and aligning itself with “hostile state actors,” including Russia, China, and Iran, and of trying to “destabilize the Western Hemisphere.” He threatened tariffs on any country that supplies Cuba with any goods.
However, within days, Trump told reporters (at Mar-a-Lago, not far from Cuba) that Cuba was a “failed nation,” but that: “We’re talking to the people from Cuba, the highest people in Cuba, to see what happens.” He concluded in classic Trump style: “I think we’re going to make a deal with Cuba.”
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel responded - in front of a photo of Fidel Castro in revolutionary attire - with his most formal statement yet. Cuba, he said, was "ready to engage in dialogue with the United States, in dialogue on any subject, but without pressure or preconditions." Proof of how interested Cuba was in getting this message across was the fact that it was broadcast on television and radio - and in YouTubeUnconfirmed reports suggest that talks may be taking place in Mexico.
Whether or not there are talks, it is positive that both sides appear to be communicating. But it also raises questions about the kind of “deal” that might be on the table and whether US-promoted regime change has been ruled out, or if it was ever really in play.
Of the various options that could be envisaged, the most benevolent would be a return to the openness to Cuba that Barack Obama undertook in his second term, which allowed travel and investment, but which was overturned by Trump in his first term. For such a reopening to be possible, Cuba – under the current leadership or another – would undoubtedly have to reorient its policies away from Russia, a move that would surely depend in part on what the United States offered.
But the choice for Havana may not be as difficult as it once was—and perhaps not even for Moscow. While Russia could still send emergency fuel supplies to Cuba (which would take weeks and only ease the hardship for a while), Russia’s decision to evacuate its tourists and officially declare that the arriving planes are empty (i.e., not loaded with food or other aid) suggests that it may be distancing itself from this early bastion.
The priority of the war in Ukraine may be one reason, but another may be Russia's natural sympathy with Trump's views on spheres of influence, which it could more easily oppose than provide rhetorical support for Cuba.
The other obvious US option would be regime change in Cuba - and, in principle, there is probably nothing the White House would want more. But carrying it out is another matter. Cubans, even desperate Cubans, have a strong sense of their history and identity. Installing a new leader from among the exiles in Florida could end badly.
Promoting domestic change may be a more realistic option, but that could take time and there is little sign of a domestic opposition on which to rely. Moreover, Trump has criticized previous US administrations’ attempts at regime change, insisting that he is not in favor of imposing other ways of life on other countries. So far, he has avoided doing so, including on Iran.
Could there be an exception for Cuba? Perhaps, since regime change is an option enthusiastically embraced by many Cuban immigrants in the US, including Florida’s Marco Rubio, a second-generation Cuban immigrant who is Trump’s secretary of state. A successful regime change could also be an asset for Trump ahead of the midterm elections in November. On the other hand, a failed or contested intervention could become a liability, including for Rubio, who is seen as a candidate with presidential aspirations for 2028.
The downside for Trump of a revised version of the Obama option (aside from Trump's open contempt for the 44th President) is that Cuba, unlike Venezuela with its oil or Ukraine with its rare minerals, has almost nothing to offer in return. Cuba needs massive investments for which returns, even in the best-case scenario, may be delayed.
On the other hand, there may be some appeal for Trump, if not to completely remove Cuba from isolation, at least to no longer have an impoverished irritant and potential hostile point just 90 miles [145 kilometers] from Florida. This is perhaps the single change that could do more for the security and cohesion, at least of the northern part of the Western Hemisphere.
Parts of the former Soviet bloc have shown how quickly economies can flourish once they are freed from dogma. Whether such a drama-free choice would be recommended to the main disruptor residing in the White House, however, remains another matter. /Telegraph/
