First Iran and then Cuba? Donald Trump bets big but can also lose big

Yesterday, during his speech presenting the U.S.-led Americas Counter Cartel Coalition, Donald Trump, again, insisted that the communist political regime of Cuba is coming to an end, and that this America's long-held goal will be realized very soon once they manage to get out of Iran. This last point, by the way, does not seem to be something that will happen any time soon when one looks at how resolved the Iranians are beyond the substantial civilian and military casualties, and the intense damage suffered to their defense infrastructure. Tehran's success lies in resisting and making the unprovoked escalation by Israelis and Americans costly in time, taxpayer money, and regional and global economic impacts.

And then, potentially, Cuba, a matter that, according to Trump, would not take Rubio much time after taking a brief rest. "He'll take one hour off [after Iran], and then he'll finish up a deal on Cuba," Trump said yesterday. "That'll be an easy one," he assured. Committing to such very high expectations can backfire on the Republican, hawkish administration. The political tradition of the Cuban Revolution is irreconcilable with the now so-called Donroe Doctrine. As I have said before, the White House could try to sell as a success that Cuba moves towards a Vietnam-type political-economic regime, moreover, commercially dependent on Washington. But the former is something the country owes itself organically, and the latter is not happening right now because it is the very U.S. that prevents such a surely natural dynamic since the twilight of the Eisenhower administration.

The veteran hawk is looking for blood 👇

The other option would be a direct military action against the Island, but the probable rationales for such a step do not, per se, lead to regime change. This week, it was reported that the Justice Department is trying to build—read invent—a case against Cuban authorities, opening the possibility of repeating the Venezuelan January 3 here. However, Havana is very far from being Caracas, which is under the de facto control of Washington, and there would be no guarantee that the assassination of Cuban leaders would contribute to the overthrow of the entire system. I can´t see Delcy Rodríguez here, and although popular alignment with the revolutionary political process is at its lowest point in the last 67 years, the support that many Cubans still swear to it cannot be dismissed, which implies the possibility of civil conflict. The last gamble would be to fuel the unfounded narrative that Cuba is a refuge for terrorist groups or Chinese or Russian military bases. But there is not much to go on there either in military matters beyond the potential bombing of the alleged locations, which would have no impact on the political regime. Stay tuned.

The obsequiousness of the Latin American right 👇