The administration of President Donald Trump is considering four options regarding Cuba — an economic agreement, a regime change, a military intervention, or simply doing nothing — in a situation that analysts describe as politically explosive and lacking clear solutions, according to an analysis published on Saturday by .
After imposing an oil embargo that has pushed the island to the brink of a humanitarian crisis, Trump promised last Thursday at a rally in Phoenix that "very soon this great fortress" would bring a new dawn for Cuba. Invoking the Cuban-American community in the Miami area and the "brutality" their families suffered on the island, the president stated: "Now, look at what’s happening".
But the path he chooses is filled with political obstacles in every direction, the American media asserts.
Michael Bustamante from the University of Miami sums it up straightforwardly: "It is a domestic political problem that seems to offer very little benefit to anyone involved. None of these options appear particularly viable or feasible."
The first option is an economic agreement. In February, Trump claimed to have sent Secretary of State Marco Rubio to negotiate with Cuban officials "at the highest level" and spoke of a "friendly takeover of Cuba". Sources cited in March revealed that the discussions included the possibility of the Castro family remaining on the island, along with agreements on ports, energy, and tourism.
John Kavulich, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, stated: "I don't think anyone should be surprised if we eventually see Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Havana negotiating with the Cuban government."
However, this approach conflicts with the Cuban-American bloc in Congress. Congresswoman María Elvira Salazar abruptly interrupted a State Department official during a hearing last Wednesday: "We are not going to do business with the Castros. They have to go and start from scratch." Congressman Carlos Giménez, the only member of Congress born in Cuba, warned that the regime is merely looking to buy time: "All they want is time, time to survive. And they are very good at that."
The second option, a forced regime change without military intervention, involves cutting remittances, suspending flights, and sanctioning countries that send oil to the island. But Bustamante warns: "Then you risk provoking a humanitarian situation. They are not very willing to do that."
The third option is military intervention, considered the most risky. Last Tuesday, sources confirmed that the Pentagon has discreetly accelerated its planning for a possible operation in Cuba. The next day, an MQ-4C Triton surveillance drone from the Navy conducted a six-hour mission along the southern coast of the island. When asked about this aboard Air Force One, Trump responded: "It depends on your definition of military action."
Brian Fonseca, from the Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy at Florida International University, pointed out that flying over the Cuban coast "maintains the credibility of military options". Senator Roger Wicker, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, stated that he has not participated in those discussions: "It seems we have two wars to focus on right now."
The fourth option is to do nothing, maintain the embargo, and wait for an internal collapse. Trump said on April 13 at the White House: "We might stop in Cuba after we finish with this (Iran), but Cuba is a nation that has been horribly governed for many years by Castro." A senior White House official confirmed that Cuba remains a priority, but that the president wants to resolve the conflict with Iran first.
Giménez warned that inaction also carries a high political cost for Trump: "I believe that failing to deliver is worse than doing nothing at all."
Filed under: