Fear Behind the Words: Cuba, Iran, and the Misrepresentation of "Peace Through Strength"

The Cuban regime's foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, recently took to Twitter to criticize the American doctrine of "Peace through Strength." In his post, he labeled it an "imperialist doctrine" aimed at imposing "terror, militarization, and global destabilization" to uphold what he described as the "decline of U.S. hegemony." He ended his statement with a stark claim: "It rests on the notion that might makes right."

This declaration, far from being a mere diplomatic opinion, unveils a more intricate rhetorical operation. It blends the distortion of a strategic concept, the reaffirmation of an ideological narrative rooted in the Cold War, and a barely concealed fear of a potential scenario: that the United States might apply this doctrine against key Cuban regime allies like Iran or Venezuela.

The Origins and Interpretation of "Peace Through Strength"

The doctrine known as 'Peace through Strength' has origins dating back to ancient Rome — si vis pacem, para bellum — but it was modernized by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. The idea is straightforward: a strong military force serves as a deterrent against potential adversaries, thereby maintaining peace. While it has been used to justify interventionist policies, it has also defined defensive strategies, particularly during the Cold War.

In contemporary contexts, its application is not uniform and varies depending on the governments invoking it. It is not inherently a warlike doctrine, although it can be employed for aggressive purposes if not bound by clear legal and political constraints.

The Political Use of Discourse: Between Anti-Imperialism and Hypocrisy

Rodríguez Parrilla's condemnation fits neatly within the official rhetoric of the Cuban regime, which for over sixty years has centered its discourse on anti-imperialism. By branding this doctrine as "imperialist," the foreign minister seeks not to nuance or question its application in specific contexts but to completely delegitimize it. His emotional language — "terror," "decline," "militarization" — serves a propagandistic, not analytical, purpose.

Yet, beyond style, the hypocrisy of this stance is unsustainable. Cuba categorically rejects any intervention doctrine under the guise of national sovereignty, even when it involves stopping crimes against humanity. This stance, however, is selectively applied: it has never issued a clear condemnation against the repressions by strategic allies like Russia in Chechnya and Ukraine, Venezuela, Syria, or Iran.

Cuba's Double Standards: Sovereignty for Us, Intervention for Others

One of the most striking — and unsustainable — aspects of the Cuban regime's diplomatic discourse is its systematic appeal to the principle of national sovereignty and non-intervention. For decades, from UN forums to official communiqués, Havana has maintained that no state should meddle in the internal affairs of another, even when there are blatant violations of human rights or crimes against humanity.

However, this defense has been inconsistent with its foreign policy history. Throughout much of the twentieth century, the Cuban regime was directly involved in military interventions and covert operations in Africa, Latin America, and other regions, under the guise of "revolutionary internationalism."

In Africa, more than 300,000 Cuban soldiers participated in the Angolan civil war between 1975 and 1991, supporting the MPLA in one of the largest military interventions of the century outside the superpower framework. It also deployed troops to Ethiopia, provided military advice to governments and armed movements in Congo, Guinea-Bissau, and Mozambique, and trained fighters in its military schools.

In Latin America, Cuban support for guerrilla/terrorist movements was a constant from the 1960s: the Sandinista Front in Nicaragua, the FMLN in El Salvador, the FARC in Colombia, and numerous smaller groups in Venezuela, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina. Even Che Guevara's failed expedition to Bolivia in 1967 was a direct revolutionary intervention operation.

To justify these actions, the regime developed its own narrative: it was not intervening, but providing "solidarity aid"; it was not sending troops, but "internationalist fighters"; it was not promoting war, but the "liberation of peoples."

This manipulative use of language allowed it to build a moralistic facade that it now uses, without irony, to attack other powers when they invoke principles of security or human rights protection. Ultimately, Cuba's defense of sovereignty is not a firm legal principle but a strategic tool activated or ignored as it suits the regime.

The Reaction to Iran: Fear of a Chain Reaction

The underlying message from Rodríguez Parrilla seems driven more by fear than criticism. The recent escalation between the United States and Iran — involving crossed threats, military movements in the region, and bombings of nuclear facilities — raises alarms in Havana, which sees Tehran as a key partner. Iran has been a source of technological cooperation, intelligence, and fuel during critical periods for Cuba, especially after Venezuela's collapse as a reliable energy partner.

An intervention against the Ayatollahs' regime, whether armed or through covert means, would weaken one of the few international allies with whom the Cuban regime shares geopolitical interests and authoritarian models of internal control. Therefore, the minister's message not only seeks to delegitimize the U.S. but also to diplomatically shield Iran, raising the political cost of potential action against the Persian regime.

International Law, Sovereignty, and the R2P Doctrine

The most delicate point in this debate is the legal one. In international law, the use of force is regulated by the United Nations Charter. It is only permitted in cases of self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Within this framework, the "Peace through Strength" doctrine should be interpreted cautiously: as a deterrence strategy, not as a carte blanche for military intervention.

Meanwhile, since 2005, the international community has advanced in formulating the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which states that sovereignty entails duties, and if a state does not protect its population from heinous crimes, the international community must act, even — ultimately — by force.

The Cuban regime, however, outright rejects this doctrine. It does so because a coherent interpretation of R2P would imply intervening against states committing systematic crimes, as occurs in Havana's allied regimes and, according to some experts, on the island itself. Ironically, this places Cuba on the opposite side of international human rights law, even as it claims to defend it from a sovereignist rhetoric.

Regime Change: The Concept that Terrifies Havana

One of the Cuban discourse's obsessions is denouncing alleged "regime change" attempts promoted from abroad. It is true that in contexts like Libya or Iraq, interventions based on protection criteria ended up destabilizing countries and fostering ungovernability, generating a valid debate about the limits of humanitarian interventions.

However, equating all intervention or deterrence doctrines with regime change is, once again, a vested distortion. R2P does not endorse government changes as an objective, and international law requires multilateral mechanisms for its implementation. The problem is not the doctrine itself but the fear of repressive regimes of any mechanism that could end their impunity.

The message from Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla is not about protecting peace or international law. It aims to shield the Cuban regime and its authoritarian allies from any external threat, disguising that defense with a supposedly principled discourse. His criticism of "Peace through Strength" is not based on ethical concern but on the real fear that, one day, the international community will stop tolerating those who, under the sovereignty banner, systematically violate their citizens' fundamental rights.