Could the U.S. Consider Military Action in Cuba Amid Iran Tensions?

Julio Shiling, a Cuban political analyst and head of the Patria de Martí project, suggested on Monday that the United States should not rule out a military intervention in Cuba. Shiling argued that such an action could shift focus away from the Middle East, providing Washington with more strategic flexibility to handle its operations in Iran.

Shiling elaborated on his viewpoint during an interview with Tania Costa, set against the backdrop of the ongoing armed conflict involving the U.S. and Israel against Iran, alongside ceasefire negotiations and new nuclear agreements in Islamabad.

"Iran's Islamic regime may be militarily weakened, but the jihadist elements are now waging an unconventional war, primarily through public opinion and Western media channels," Shiling stated.

He cautioned that time is a disadvantage for the West: "Every passing day benefits the world's adverse actors, including not just Iran's jihadists but also communist Cuba and other socialist regimes," he declared.

According to Shiling, the U.S. has fallen into a classic strategic trap. "In my assessment, the United States has been ensnared by a tactic beloved by both Islamists and communists—stalling for time," he remarked, linking the strategy to Leninist coexistence theory.

Shiling highlighted a paradoxical outcome: "Despite being militarily weakened, Iran’s regime still dictates the terms of negotiations and agreements, almost as if they had won the war," he said, referring to the ayatollahs’ regime.

This is where Cuba enters Shiling's strategic calculations. "If the U.S. were to take action in Cuba, it could divert attention from the Middle East, allowing for critical operations in Iran, such as dismantling key bridges, disrupting electrical infrastructure, and mining Iranian ports," he suggested.

Regarding the Cuban regime, Shiling was unequivocal: "Cuban communism will not collapse without a military intervention or a credible threat thereof. They’re not going anywhere voluntarily," he asserted. He argued that the regime is prepared to maintain power by any means necessary. "They are ready to become a tropical China or embrace Caribbean Putinism, but they will never relinquish power willingly. They must be removed."

Shiling dismissed the notion that Cuban leaders act out of ideological conviction: "They are more interested in the personal gains derived from their mafioso-like system," he maintained.

Shiling's comments came shortly after the symposium "The Helms-Burton Act and Cuban Democracy," held on April 23 in Miami by Patria de Martí, where discussions also covered the role of GAESA and the dollarization of Cuba’s economy as part of a democratic transition agenda.

His argument is supported by data from a survey conducted by El Toque regarding Cuba’s future options. The survey garnered over 12,100 responses within its first 48 hours, showing that 60.4% of participants support a direct U.S. military intervention, while 92% express significant dissatisfaction with the current system.

This is not the first time Shiling has advocated for such measures. In March, he proposed military intervention in Cuba, suggesting federal charges against top regime officials, legal action against GAESA, and drone strikes on military targets. Nevertheless, President Trump explicitly ruled out direct intervention, and the head of the Southern Command denied such plans, though critics like former British ambassador Paul Webster Hare have warned that military action would benefit neither the U.S. nor Cuba.

In his Monday interview with CiberCuba, Shiling discussed his book "Democratization in Cuba." Interested readers can obtain a free PDF copy by providing their email and personal information.