The United States Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, has stirred the ongoing debate regarding Cuba's political future by predicting a potential regime change on the island. However, he suggests this shift will be gradual and unfold over an extended period.
In a recent television interview with Fox Business, Bessent linked this scenario to the broader regional context, stating, "With Maduro out in Venezuela, it seems there could be a slow-motion regime change in Cuba. There might be a gradual transformation there," indicating that political dynamics across Latin America could significantly influence Cuba's system.
These remarks come amidst political controversy in Washington following a New York Times report about possible negotiations between the Trump administration and Havana.
The report suggested that the United States proposed the removal of the current Cuban leader, Miguel Díaz-Canel, as a prerequisite for advancing dialogue with Cuba. However, the official response from the U.S. was swift and emphatic.
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, flatly rejected the report and questioned the reliability of the sources used. "The reason so many American media outlets continue publishing fake news like this is that they rely on charlatans and liars who claim to be well-informed," he stated.
Similarly, the White House echoed this rebuttal. Communications Director Steven Cheung defended the official stance and discredited the report's content, asserting, "The only ones who know the situation in Cuba are President Trump and Marco Rubio," emphasizing that journalists relied on "misinformed sources who know nothing about what's happening."
The article in question claimed that Washington would accept a limited change in Cuba's leadership, focused on Díaz-Canel's exit, without demanding deeper structural transformations. This possibility sparked intense debate, particularly among the Cuban diaspora and within the island itself.
One of the most contentious points was the absence of actions against the Castro family, the true power hub in Cuba. Many viewed this as merely symbolic, leaving political and military mechanisms intact.
Indeed, many reactions highlighted that Díaz-Canel is not at the core of decision-making, serving instead as a subordinate figure within a structure where Raúl Castro's influence remains decisive.
From this perspective, any change not affecting this core would be seen as superficial, failing to bring about real improvements in Cubans' lives.
Within this context, Bessent's remarks introduce a significant nuance: the notion that change might not come from a sudden rupture but from a gradual erosion of the system, influenced by both internal factors and international dynamics.
Beyond Cuba, the Treasury Secretary also addressed other global scenarios. He described Iran as a "horrible sponsor of global terrorism" and indicated that its power projection capacity is weakened.
Additionally, he expressed optimism about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, noting that "at some point, the Russia-Ukraine situation will resolve. I believe gas and energy prices will be lower than they have been in a long time."
Overall, his statements reflect a strategic vision where political changes are not always immediate but are instead long, complex processes conditioned by multiple factors.
In the case of Cuba, the "slow-motion" change Bessent refers to could signal an uncertain transition, where the true extent of change will depend on whether the power core that has ruled the island for decades undergoes transformation.
Cuba's Political Future and Regime Change
What did Scott Bessent suggest about Cuba's regime change?
Scott Bessent suggested that a regime change in Cuba could occur gradually over time, influenced by regional political dynamics.
How did the U.S. government respond to the New York Times report?
The U.S. government, including Marco Rubio and Steven Cheung, strongly denied the report, questioning its credibility and emphasizing that only President Trump and Rubio are informed about the situation in Cuba.
What was the main point of contention in the New York Times report?
The report's main contention was that Washington might accept a change focused on Díaz-Canel's exit without demanding deeper structural changes, sparking debate over the significance and impact of such a move.