Cuba: after the Republican defeat

The midterm elections resulted in a Republican defeat and a warning for those of us fighting for the freedom of Cuba. The Democrats gained control of both chambers. Analysts emphasize the cost of living, inflation, tariffs, and the economic consequences of the war with Iran as the main reasons for the Democrats' success. Concerns over unfulfilled promises and ICE's actions also weighed heavily. Many voters punished those they hold responsible for their economic decline.

I believe actions against the Iranian regime are necessary, but a military campaign requires better planning, achievable objectives, and greater coordination with NATO's American allies. A brief and effective operation should have been implemented, avoiding an extension that would increase fuel costs and impact the American economy. Firmness needs strategy: when a war drags on and its costs hit people's wallets, it loses support and fuels the desire for retribution at the polls. Of course, this happens only in a democratic nation. The Russian economy is faring much worse, and Putin's party won the "elections." Cuba's economy is medieval, and the feudal lords of the PCC "win all the elections."

The decision to buy oil from the Russian czar and the criticisms of Zelensky were not well taken, and the results they sought from that agreement never materialized. Haste, if it's incorrect, can end very badly. The United States and its Western allies must always keep in mind that the regimes of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba are their enemies and that they must work together against the threat they pose to democracy and human rights.

Venezuela should have moved more swiftly toward democracy. After January 3rd, the delays, uncertainty surrounding María Corina Machado's return, and the contradictory statements from Washington created confusion. Capturing a dictator was a good decision, but the transition is not yet complete: free institutions, political guarantees, and clear leadership are lacking. The Venezuelans deserve to know that the goal is to restore their sovereignty, without settling for economic agreements with those who uphold repressive structures.

In Cuba, the delay is even more concerning. After what happened in Venezuela, Washington should have accelerated an effective strategy to end the Castro-Communist dictatorship. Some statements seem to announce an immediate solution; others indefinitely push the horizon away; some evoke fears that mere economic negotiations would suffice. My objection is clear: intervening at a branch of the authoritarian cancer while leaving its Havana matrix intact diminishes the effectiveness of the treatment. There are dangerous diseases for which granting time can make eradication more difficult. And it's not that I want Donald Trump to do all the work for us. It's a matter of simple logic: you do what you announce, you finish what you start, or you'll face greater problems.

The results are in and must be respected. I congratulate the winners from both parties, sincere defenders of liberty and human rights. I am concerned about the strengthening of the radical left. Ballotpedia's provisional tally records seven victories for candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America in the House, with three contests still pending. I am also worried about the victory of Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, the first Muslim senator, due to his political positions, including his economic proposals and his opposition to U.S. military aid to Israel.

Regarding Cuba, although there is a distinction between advocating for the lifting of the embargo and explicitly supporting the dictatorship, McGovern, Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, Jayapal, and Jackson are among those promoting initiatives to lift it, which solely benefits the communist regime. The Democratic Socialists of America also openly admire Fidel Castro.

Those radical movements pose a danger to the principles that made the United States great and favor an enemy regime located just 90 miles away. A future Democratic administration with Congressional support could replace the policy of maximum pressure with engagement and business ventures that would empower the Castro regime and prolong the oppression faced by the Cuban people. This would provide oxygen to a dictatorship that maintains close alliances with Washington's adversaries. It would not only be a Cuban issue: it would affect U.S. security and the democratic prospects of the continent. Cuban freedom deserves a firm and sustained policy, with verifiable human rights demands.

I imagine today in Havana a mix of satisfaction and fear. Satisfaction for the parliamentary difficulties that Trump will face; fear that he will seek a historic success before the new Congress takes over. There are recent reports of movements of tanks and armored vehicles, as well as the strategic exercise Moncada 2026. There is joy and fear among the ranks of the exploitative communists in Cuba.

I am one of those who wish for Cuba's liberation as soon as possible. If it could happen tomorrow, that would be even better. However, I wouldn't mind if a decisive change occurred on January 3, 2027. Soleimani died on January 3, 2020, near Baghdad airport; Maduro was captured on January 3, 2026, in an operation that resulted in the deaths of at least 32 members of the Cuban regime. January 3 could go down in history as the Friday the 13th of dictators and terrorists.

If Trump decisively helps to end the tyranny, bring those responsible to justice, and initiate a democratic transition, he would hold a historic place in Cuban memory and in universal history. January 3 would be a good day for action. But I wouldn't mind if it happens sooner.