The U.S. government’s approach to Cuba mirrors its strategy in Venezuela, involving a petroleum blockade, increased military presence, federal charges, and intervention threats. Experts warn that similar pressure tactics do not guarantee similar outcomes.
President Donald Trump often stated “Cuba is next,” seeing the Venezuelan intervention as a success. However, as Brian Finucane of the International Crisis Group notes, Cuba differs significantly from Venezuela. If the U.S. toppled Cuba’s government, there is no clear successor to work with Trump’s administration. This contrasts with Venezuela, where after capturing President Nicolás Maduro, Delcy Rodríguez maintained power with U.S. approval.
Cuban officials, speaking anonymously, emphasized the absence of a figure like Rodríguez. Additionally, the U.S. military presence in the Caribbean is less intimidating compared to its substantial deployment during Venezuela’s situation.
Accusations against a 94-year-old former Cuban leader like Raúl Castro have less impact than targeting Venezuela’s serving president for drug trafficking. Finucane highlighted these key differences in the U.S. campaigns.
Trump has threatened military actions. Much like in Venezuela, Trump laid groundwork for potential interventions with escalating threats. He warned Caribbean leaders to align with the U.S. or face its power.
Weeks before capturing Maduro, Trump publicly warned him against defiance. Post-capture, Trump shifted focus to Cuba, predicting its imminent collapse. He threatened tariffs against countries supplying oil to Cuba and suggested the U.S. might intervene.
The U.S. uses oil embargoes to pressure governments. Both Cuban and Venezuelan embargoes aim to pressure ruling elites but use different methods. For Venezuela, the goal was to deprive Maduro of oil revenue, while also preventing oil exports to Cuba. With Maduro’s removal, Venezuela now must agree to U.S. terms for oil shipments.
In Cuba, the embargo denies oil imports, worsening energy shortages. Some limited shipments are allowed, but the blockade extends the longstanding embargo, complicating energy supply.
Finucane warns that excessive pressure could lead to a refugee crisis similar to the 1990s, with Cubans attempting to reach Florida in makeshift boats, an outcome Trump seeks to avoid given his immigration focus.
The U.S. has filed charges against officials. During Trump’s first term, the Department of Justice charged Maduro with narcoterrorism, using the case to justify his capture. This significantly altered U.S.-Venezuela relations, allowing previously restricted oil sales.
Meanwhile, the charge against Castro for a 1996 incident aims to escalate pressures but likely won’t affect Cuba’s government operations. William LeoGrande of American University explains that although influential, Castro doesn’t direct day-to-day governance.
The U.S. intensifies military presence. Before capturing Maduro, the U.S. deployed its largest Latin American military force in decades, diverting the USS Gerald R. Ford and amphibious assault ships to the region.
The real mission involved over 150 aircraft throughout the Western Hemisphere. Now, the U.S. maintains a reduced Caribbean presence including two amphibious assault ships.
The arrival of the USS Nimitz coincided with charges against Castro, participating in regional exercises before retiring. Finucane notes substantial differences between the situations in Cuba and Venezuela, casting doubt on achieving similar outcomes.
Reporter Andrea Rodríguez in Havana contributed to this report.
Leave a Reply