| While the USA and Israel are waging war against Iran, Donald Trump mentioned in a press conference that ‘A friendly takeover may not be a friendly takeover’ in Cuba. Let me take Trump seriously on that. Cuba is in a difficult position. It has only little help from Russia for a long time, no more help from Iran now that Iran is at war with Israel and the USA. And there are trade blockades. There is a risk of a ‘takeover’. How can that situation be viewed from different points of view by the USA? | In this contribution I give my own opinion, not that of any organization. |
Author: Manu Steens
Contents
Context
Who are the actors who have recently helped determine the news who are involved with the USA? The actors in this story are Cuba and the USA, countries that could be interested parties are Russia, Iran, China.
How can the USA ‘conquer’ Cuba? This can be done through a ‘friendly takeover’ or a ‘not so friendly takeover’ as Donald Trump himself puts it. He has a more threatening way of speaking on this video.
What are the interests of the USA in Cuba
What it is not
Cuba has a few oil fields on land and offshore, but the daily need far exceeds the daily production. So it depends on imports.
Cuba has a dictatorship, in the sense that it is a one-party state that has long depended on Russia and still is. Recently, China and Russia reaffirmed their commitment to Cuba. Until recently, Cuba was dependent on help from Iran.
So economically, Cuba is a small player, with different dependencies. It did not hurt a fly on a geopolitical level.
Military interest
But once upon a time there was the ‘Cuban missile crisis’. That crisis was important because Russian missiles would be placed in the backyard of the USA.
And behold the i.m.h.o. new interest of the USA: better to be on the safe side, better secure the backyard? Because there may not be any ballistic missiles, but drones could also pose a danger, and they are easier to smuggle into Cuba. Or the country could produce them itself. It is therefore in the interest of the USA to replace the regime, just to be on the safe side, with a desired democratic regime, which does not pose this threat.
So now Trump wants to accelerate a fall of the regime with a possible ‘friendly takeover’ instead of the economic pressure weighing on Cuba. Because of a possible military threat due to the geological location of the island. But perhaps also because the exercises with NATO in Europe have shown that NATO is not really ready for a drone war (Defense News, 23° February 2026). So as long as it is suspected that there is no large stock of military drones on the island, it is the time to use better known techniques to make the change of power take place. So being quick enough is one of the messages.
The interest of the USA in Cuba is therefore still that of countering a military threat.
Takeover analysis: “decision significance comparison”
What types of ‘not so friendly takeover’ are in principle possible in Cuba, and how can we look at them?
The fundamental uncertainty is whether Cuba will become a military threat in the short term. The options against the regime are stricter sanctions, indirect regime change or direct regime change.
| Cuba is a military threat (whether or not through its allies) | Cuba is not a military threat | |
| Stricter sanctions | Tougher sanctions and military threat | Tougher sanctions and no military threat |
| Indirect regime change (support of an attempted coup) | Indirect action and military threat | Indirect action and no military threat |
| Direct regime change (invasion and occupation) | Direct action and military threat | Direct action and no military threat |
Stricter sanctions are ongoing, but military intervention is more likely if we take Donald Trump seriously.
For each remaining scenario, the indirect regime change and the direct regime change, we make the following cases: (definitions according to ‘Reasoning for Intelligence Analysts’ by Noel Hendrickson)
- Dominant option: we make the best case for each decision for how and why it is better as an option than its alternatives, ‘no matter what’.
- Maximin option: for each option, we make the best case for how and why the worst outcome is a better outcome than the worst outcome of its alternatives. It has the ‘best of the worst outcomes’.
- Maximax option: for each option, we make the best case for how and why the best outcome is a better outcome than the best outcome of its alternatives. It has the ‘best of the best outcomes’
- Minimax option: we make the best case for each option for how and why the decision creates the least regret about ‘what could have been’ if an alternative had been chosen.
Indirect regime change
Dominant Option
Whatever the military threat of Cuba, the military threat would be removed by an air strike on military sites as a support for a coup. Most of the USA military assets remain unused, which guarantees higher future flexibility.
Maximin option
Even if Cuba was not a military threat, not even in the long term, and there is an attempted coup, there is at least the chance that the regime will be eliminated thanks to an air strike on military sites, and in the future it will circumvent a military threat without an invasion and without occupation.
Maximax option
If Cuba poses a military threat and there is an attempted coup, backed by the elimination of military sites by an air strike, a major military threat will be averted without invasion and without occupation.
Minimax
If Cuba has no significant military sites and is not a major military threat and an attempted coup is undertaken while not all the “justifiable other sanctions” have been taken, then Cuba will no longer be a significant military threat in the future. The capacity to do so has been destroyed without invasion, without occupation.
Direct regime change
Dominant Option
Whatever was the military threat of Cuba, the regime will be removed from power and a USA-friendly regime will be brought to power, under the influence of the USA.
Maximin option
Even if Cuba was not a military threat, and there was no real basis for invasion or occupation, at least the hostile regime has been removed from power and the country has a fair chance at democracy.
Maximax option
If Cuba is a military threat, and there is an invasion with an occupation, then the action is proven to be ‘justified’ and a threat to the USA is removed. The country is transformed into an ally. The action sends a strong warning to countries in the region about being a military threat to the USA.
Minimax
Even if Cuba was not a military threat and an invasion does take place, while not all the ‘other justifiable sanctions’ were taken, the regime would still be removed from power and the country would have a fair chance at democracy.
Conclusion
If these types of justifications for a ‘takeover’ prevail, whatever the outcome of the war between the USA and Iran, and if Donald Trump is still in power, one of the two scenarios for a ‘not so friendly takeover’ can be called realistic.
Much will depend on Cuba’s population and the two regime’s behaviors and decisions as to whether it will be a friendly takeover or not.
After all, the USA also benefits from a ‘friendly takeover’.