OP-ED: War Against Cuba? The Drums of Republican Madness Are Growing Louder

Díaz-Canel and the Specter of All-Out War

Faced with these threats, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel has responded with a firmness that stands in stark contrast to his country’s economic turmoil. In a message posted on X, he warned of a “bloodbath with incalculable consequences” if the United States were to take action. This statement sounds as much like an admission of weakness as it does of determination: Cuba knows it cannot compete militarily with the world’s leading power, but it refuses to submit without a fight. “Cuba has the absolute and legitimate right to defend itself against military aggression,” he insisted.

The Cuban regime is weakened; that is a fact. The energy blockade imposed by Washington has plunged the island into an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Power outages, fuel shortages, and food shortages have reduced the population to a daily struggle for survival. Yet, despite this precarious situation, Havana maintains a stance of resistance. It is as if, after six decades of struggle, Cuba refuses to give in, even on the brink of collapse. This stubbornness commands admiration, but it could also hasten its downfall.

Iranian and Russian Drones: A Real Threat or a Scare Tactic?

The drone argument is the most troubling. According to Republicans, Cuba has 300 combat drones capable of striking the southern United States. A claim that, if true, would justify a preemptive strike. Yet there is no evidence that these drones are operational or even deployed. Satellite imagery and intelligence reports remain unclear. So, is this a genuine threat, or a fabrication designed to stir up public opinion? One thing is certain: in the geopolitical arena, rumors can become reality.

What is certain, however, is that Cuba has received arms shipments from Iran and Russia. Anti-aircraft missiles, coastal defense systems, perhaps even drones. This alliance worries Washington, especially since Moscow and Tehran view the island as a strategic pawn in their confrontation with the United States. But turning this reality into a justification for war borders on paranoia or provocation.

A President Under Pressure, a Country on the Brink of Collapse

Donald Trump, in the midst of his reelection campaign, is torn between two imperatives. On the one hand, he must appease the most hawkish faction of his electorate, particularly in Florida, where Cuban and Venezuelan exiles wield significant influence. On the other hand, he knows that an intervention in Cuba could degenerate into a quagmire, as was the case in Iraq or Libya. The United States has neither the means nor the desire to engage in a new war, especially while the conflict with Iran rages in the Middle East.

Yet the signs are troubling. Senator Marco Rubio, himself of Cuban descent, released a video in Spanish accusing the Cuban government of being responsible for the humanitarian crisis on the island. “You who call Cuba your homeland are enduring unimaginable hardships,” he said. “The reason you survive 22 hours a day without electricity is not due to a U.S. ‘embargo,’ but to the plundering of billions of dollars by those who run your country.” This rhetoric is eerily reminiscent of that used before the invasion of Venezuela, where Maduro was portrayed as a corrupt dictator incapable of governing his country.

It’s as if we’re hearing the same words, the same accusations, the same promises of liberation. Yet history has taught us that U.S. interventions, even when carried out under the guise of democracy, often end in humanitarian disasters. Venezuela is a recent example: an operation presented as a liberation turned into chaos, with thousands dead, millions of refugees, and an economy in ruins. So why would Cuba be any different? Because this time, it would be “legal”? Because this time, it would be “just”? Morality does not justify imperialism.

Bay of Pigs 2.0: The Return of Strategic Mistakes

In 1961, the CIA organized the Bay of Pigs invasion, an operation intended to overthrow Fidel Castro. It was a stinging defeat that strengthened the Castro regime and humiliated the United States. Today, Republicans seem ready to repeat the same mistake—perhaps with greater resources, but with the same arrogance. They forget that Cuba is no longer the fragile regime it was in the 1960s. Since 1996, the island has developed strategic alliances with Russia, China, and Iran. A U.S. intervention would trigger a much stronger response than anticipated.

And then there is the human aspect. Cubans, despite their hardships, remain committed to their revolution. Even the younger generations, weary of the regime, do not want U.S. intervention. A recent study by the University of Havana reveals that 78% of Cubans reject foreign intervention, even if it were presented as “liberation.” The memory of the embargo, the CIA attacks, and the failed invasions weighs heavily on people’s minds.

The Nuclear Option: Sanctions, Blockades, and Hybrid Warfare

Rather than direct military intervention, Washington could opt for a gradual escalation: increased sanctions, a total blockade, support for the internal opposition, and cyberattacks. This strategy is already underway but could intensify. The problem is that these measures will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis, without actually overthrowing the regime. Cuba has survived decades of blockade; it will survive an intensification of sanctions. Unless… unless the goal is not to overthrow the regime, but to break it, at any cost.

For that is indeed the heart of the matter: the hawks in Florida do not want regime change. They want the destruction of Cuba as a sovereign state, the total humiliation of the Castro government, and a symbolic victory over anti-imperialism. This obsession is reminiscent of the darkest hours of the Cold War, when the United States saw communists everywhere and was prepared to do anything to crush them.

The Uncontrollable Escalation

If Trump yields to pressure from Florida’s right wing, several scenarios are possible. The first: a limited strike against military targets, intended to “punish” Havana for its support of terrorist groups. A scenario similar to Yugoslavia in 1999, when NATO bombed Serbia without triggering a full-scale war. But Cuba is not Serbia. It is much closer to the United States, and it has allies ready to retaliate.

The second scenario: a large-scale invasion, with the landing of U.S. troops. A logistical nightmare, a complex military operation, and above all, the risk of a protracted guerrilla war. The Cubans will not surrender without a fight, and a U.S. occupation would quickly turn into a quagmire, as in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the hawks in Florida seem willing to take that risk, as if the memory of the Bay of Pigs fiasco never existed.

The Trap of International Legitimacy

A U.S. intervention against Cuba would be illegal under international law. The UN would condemn it, the European Union would protest, and China and Russia would veto any resolution in the Security Council. The United States would find itself isolated, just as it did in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. Yet the Republicans seem willing to take that risk, as if international law were nothing more than an insignificant detail. This attitude is strangely reminiscent of that of the Bush administration in 2003, when Colin Powell brandished fabricated “evidence” to justify the war.

And then there is the moral question. A war against Cuba would be presented as a struggle for democracy, but in reality it would be a war for geopolitical control. The United States does not want democracy in Cuba. It wants a submissive Cuba—a Cuba that no longer challenges American hegemony in the region. A war for freedom? No. A war for power.

An Unprecedented Humanitarian Crisis

Cuba is already on the brink of economic collapse. A war would catastrophically worsen the situation. Power outages would become widespread, hospitals would run out of medicine, and famine would set in. Millions of Cubans would try to flee, as they did in 1994, when 35,000 people left the island on makeshift rafts. This humanitarian crisis would extend far beyond the island’s borders, with repercussions in Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Cuban exiles already live in precarious conditions.

The United States would then face a major migration crisis, with thousands of Cubans fleeing war and famine. A situation that would recall the darkest hours of the boat people crisis in Southeast Asia. But this time, it would be right on their doorstep. A cruel irony for an administration that presents itself as a protector of the borders.

A Regional conflagration

A war against Cuba would not be confined to the island. Venezuela, already weakened, could be drawn into the conflict. Russia and China, which view Cuba as a strategic ally, could retaliate by supporting anti-American movements in Latin America. Iran, already in conflict with the United States in the Middle East, could extend its actions to the region. Such a regional escalation would transform the Cuban conflict into an uncontrollable geopolitical inferno.

And then there is the question of U.S. credibility. If the United States attacks Cuba under the pretext of defending democracy, how will it be able to justify its future interventions? How will they be able to convince the international community that their actions are legitimate? A war against Cuba would be an admission of failure: the failure of the policy of containment, the failure of diplomacy, and the failure of U.S. strategy in Latin America.

The Cost of a Military Adventure

Florida Republicans want war. Trump is hesitating. But one thing is certain: U.S. intervention against Cuba would be a strategic, moral, and political mistake. A strategic mistake, because Cuba is no longer the fragile regime it was in the 1960s. A moral mistake, because the United States has no right to decide the fate of a sovereign people. A political mistake, because such a war would isolate Washington, divide American public opinion, and plunge the region into chaos.

Yet history teaches us that the United States often repeats the same mistakes. In 1961, the Bay of Pigs. In 2003, Iraq. Today, Cuba. Each time, the same justifications: national security, the fight against terrorism, the promotion of democracy. Each time, the same results: failure, humiliation, chaos. So why would Cuba be any different? Because this time it would be “legal”? Because this time it would be “just”? Morality does not justify imperialism.

I write this with a shudder: if the United States attacks Cuba, it will not be for democracy. It will be for ego. For revenge. To satisfy an angry electorate. It will be a war of principle, a war of power, a war for control. And like all wars of principle, it will end in blood, tears, and regret. Cuba will survive. The United States will emerge weakened. And the world will watch, horrified, as a superpower entangles itself in yet another military adventure, in the name of a cause that isn’t even its own.

Signed, Jacques Pj Provost, columnist