The immediate goal of the US’ de facto oil embargo on Cuba is a “regime tweaking” that achieves at least some of Trump’s demanded foreign policy goals and initiates a phased regime change that averts the impending US-instigated humanitarian crisis which could spill into Florida ahead of the midterms.

Trump promulgated a “national emergency” last week for granting himself the power to impose tariffs on any country that supplies Cuba with oil. This primarily affects Mexico, which replaced Venezuela as Cuba’s top oil supplier after the US’ capture of President Nicolas Maduro resulted in it obtaining proxy control over the Bolivarian Republic’s energy industry through his successor. Just prior to Trump’s decree, Mexico temporarily paused its oil shipments to Cuba, which now has only 15-20 days of oil left.

It was assessed here in January that “Cutting [Cuba’s oil imports] off could accelerate the economy’s collapse and thus subordinate it to the US, with or without regime change, like Washington has sought to achieve for decades already.” Trump predicted in the run-up to promulgating his latest “national emergency” that “Cuba is really a nation that is very close to falling” while Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee that “we would like to see the regime there change.”

Nevertheless, the Venezuelan precedent proves that the US can accept “regime tweaking” in lieu of regime change, which refers to keeping the targeted state’s power structure in place after some (at times significant) changes that advance the meddling state’s interests. Trump’s “national emergency” decree makes it clear that he wants Cuba to cut off ties with Russia, China, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. He also wants Cuba to implement “meaningful reforms” that strongly imply initiating a phased regime change.

Cuba’s location in proximity to Florida means that any US-instigated humanitarian crisis due to the de facto oil blockade, which might become a formal one if the Venezuelan blockade is expanded to encompass Cuba, could lead to a large-scale influx of Cuban refugees by sea. That could complicate the Republicans’ prospects ahead of this fall’s midterms, especially in Florida with its massive Cuban-American community, so Trump has a domestic political incentive to avert Cuba’s full-blown collapse.

To that end, the US might propose a “regime tweaking” compromise whereby Cuba would cut ties with its earlier mentioned partners (whether all at once or just some at first) and initiate a US-guided phased regime change in exchange for emergency oil aid. If it refuses to cut a deal, then the US might carry out targeted strikes against political, military, and/or other targets, possibly in parallel with special forces raids, none of which Cuba could deter since it has no means of inflicting unacceptable costs on the US.

Cuba doesn’t militarily threaten the US, nor does it have any significant natural resources, so no tangible US interests are served by overthrowing its government. The only interests that are advanced are intangible and partisan ones such as symbolically consolidating the US’ control over the hemisphere, encouraging more Hispanics to vote Republican, reopening the island’s real estate industry to US developers, and turning it into a new US tourist hotspot for boosting the Republicans’ overall popularity.

Given the importance to Trump 2.0 of advancing these interests before this fall’s midterms, the US might coerce Cuba into subordination through its new de facto oil blockade by spring. The immediate goal is a “regime tweaking” that achieves at least some of the demanded foreign policy goals and initiates a phased regime change that averts a humanitarian crisis which could spill into Florida. If that’s not possible, then military means might be employed, but it’s unclear what the ultimate costs would be.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.