The Cuban priest Alberto Reyes Pías published this Friday the 159th installment of his weekly column "I have been thinking," in which he reflects on the possibility of a U.S. military intervention in Cuba and explains why a significant portion of the Cuban population accepts or even desires it.
The text, posted on his Facebook profile, arrives at a time of heightened tension between Washington and Havana, following leaks that revealed the Trump administration was testing military plans for Cuba and that the president believed the regime could collapse this very year.
Reyes begins his reflection with a distinction he considers fundamental: the reaction of horror at the prospect of intervention mainly comes from people who do not live in Cuba, who do not experience hunger, are not lacking in medication, do not suffer from blackouts, and do not have children who have emigrated. "The focus of Cubans is not on military intervention itself," writes the parish priest of Esmeralda, Camagüey. "The focus of Cubans is on the end of this nightmare, the end of a dictatorship that has robbed us of life for generations."
The priest raises the issue in terms of real options: if intervention is the way to regain freedom, democracy, and a dignified life, then let it be. He adds a condition that says it all: "I am convinced that if there were a dialogued, diplomatic, peaceful way to reach a solution to the dramatic reality of Cuba, we Cubans would have chosen it without hesitation."
But that path, Reyes argues, does not exist because the regime has not provided it. "Has the Cuban government shown even a minimal interest in reaching a negotiated solution?" he asks. His answer is unequivocal: the authorities "have entrenched themselves in a triumphalist and belligerent discourse, demanding more and more creative resistance, more sacrifice, and greater acceptance of pain and misery."
The priest also dismantles the argument that the embargo is the cause of the crisis. He directly describes it as a "throwing weapon and a tool for victimist propaganda," and points to the true culprits being the "inefficiency, thirst for power, and indifference" of those who have governed Cuba for decades with an iron fist.
This position represents a shift from what Reyes held just a year ago. In April 2025, the priest stated that he did not believe a U.S. military intervention would be the solution and urged the Cuban government: “Close this down now. Allow for a peaceful transition.” The accelerated deterioration of living conditions on the island seems to have transformed his analysis.
The context surrounding its publication is of unprecedented gravity. Axios reports revealed on Wednesday that the Trump administration was rehearsing military plans for Cuba. On May 21, the U.S. President stated regarding a possible action that "it seems I will be the one to do it." The U.S. Senate had rejected a resolution on April 28 that would limit presidential powers to act militarily without Congressional authorization. And the USS Nimitz was deployed to the Caribbean during that same period.
The Cuban Parliament had issued a statement describing the situation as a "real and dangerous threat of direct military aggression." Cuban leaders, starting with Miguel Díaz-Canel, have responded in a bellicose tone to Washington, promising that the people of the Island will confront an aggression en masse to defend the regime.
That extreme climate of tension has a counterpart in public opinion. An independent poll published on May 8 with 42,263 valid responses showed that 60.9% of participants supported direct military intervention by the United States in Cuba, and 64.9% endorsed the overthrow of the government "by any means necessary, including armed action." A survey among 800 Cubans and Cuban Americans in South Florida revealed that 79% supported military intervention.
Reyes includes in his text two phrases that, according to him, circulate incessantly among Cubans and capture that collective exhaustion: "the worst thing that can happen to us is that nothing happens," and "we prefer a dreadful ending to a dreadfulness without an end."
Filed under: