Geopolitical and Economic Dynamics of U.S.-Cuban Relations: A Comprehensive Risk and Strategy Assessment

Executive Summary

The bilateral relationship between the United States and Cuba is one of the most enduring, complex, and paradoxical geopolitical anomalies in modern diplomatic history. Situated a mere ninety miles off the coast of Florida, the island of Cuba has occupied a central position in American strategic and security doctrine for over two centuries, long preceding the advent of the Cold War. The modern conflict, largely defined by the 1959 Cuban Revolution and the subsequent six-decade economic embargo, is frequently mischaracterized as a mere ideological relic. In reality, the U.S.-Cuba paradigm is actively and continuously shaped by contemporary great-power competition, complex unresolved legal claims regarding expropriated property, domestic electoral mechanics within the United States, and the intricate architecture of Cuba’s military-controlled hybrid economy.

This comprehensive assessment addresses several fundamental questions regarding the trajectory of U.S.-Cuban relations. It examines why, even during historical periods when the United States had become less adversarial with Russia, Cuba remained a vital security interest, pivoting from a conventional nuclear proxy to a platform for asymmetric disruption and intelligence gathering. The analysis unpacks the geopolitical paradox of why the United States successfully normalized relations with the communist government of Vietnam, yet maintains and periodically escalates a draconian “maximum pressure” posture toward Havana. Furthermore, the report explores the rhetoric of “Western Hemisphere governance,” revealing how multilateral frameworks are frequently utilized as institutional mechanisms to reassert U.S. regional hegemony and address deeper geopolitical conflicts.

Crucially, the assessment evaluates the economic dimensions of the bilateral standoff. It answers why unconditional economic normalization—such as the unfettered allowance of free trade and travel—is viewed with deep skepticism by U.S. policymakers. Because the Cuban military and ruling coalition command a near-absolute monopoly over the island’s economic output through a patron-client symbiosis, the premature lifting of sanctions would likely entrench the regime’s power rather than foster democratic development. Ultimately, the real issue underlying the United States’ relentless campaign to rid Cuba of communism is the strategic imperative to dismantle this military-economic monopoly, thereby allowing the island to transition into a secure, indigent democracy with a hybrid free-enterprise economy akin to its Caribbean neighbors.

The 19th Century Origins of U.S. Strategic Interest

To comprehend the modern intractability of the U.S.-Cuba conflict, it is essential to examine the 19th-century geopolitical doctrines that established the island as a vital interest to American national security. The United States’ fixation on Cuba is deeply rooted in early expansionist theory, the protection of maritime trade routes, and the internal domestic politics of the antebellum era.

The “Ripe Fruit” Theory and Manifest Destiny

In the early nineteenth century, American political figures viewed Cuba as a natural geographic extension of the United States.1 The island’s location at the mouth of the Gulf of Mexico made it a critical strategic asset for maritime defense and commerce.1 In April 1823, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams articulated what became known as the “ripe fruit” theory in a dispatch to Hugh Nelson, the U.S. Minister to Spain.1 Invoking the laws of physical gravitation, Adams argued that if an apple severed by a tempest from its native tree must fall to the ground, Cuba, once forcibly disjoined from its unnatural connection with Spain, could only gravitate toward the North American Union.1

This doctrine established a baseline of U.S. entitlement to the island, framed initially as a necessary acquisition for the preservation and integrity of the American union itself.1 It dovetailed with the Monroe Doctrine, issued later that same year, which declared the Western Hemisphere to be within the U.S. sphere of influence and warned European powers against further colonization or intervention.1 Rather than forceful seizure, Adams advocated for strategic patience, believing the acquisition of Cuba was a historical inevitability.3

The Ostend Manifesto and the Expansion of Slavery

By the mid-19th century, the strategic desire for Cuba became deeply intertwined with domestic U.S. politics, particularly the preservation and expansion of slavery.1 Southern political interests viewed Cuba, with its heavily enslaved population and highly lucrative sugar economy, as an ideal candidate for annexation to bolster the political power of slaveholding states in Congress.1

In 1853, President Franklin Pierce took office committed to Cuba’s annexation.5 Tensions escalated following the Black Warrior incident in 1854, when a U.S. steamer was briefly seized by Cuban authorities in Havana, inflaming expansionist sentiments.5 Seeking to capitalize on this friction, Secretary of State James Marcy directed U.S. diplomats Pierre Soulé, James Buchanan, and John Mason to draft a policy proposal, which culminated in the Ostend Manifesto.4

The manifesto proposed purchasing Cuba from Spain for up to $130 million.4 More controversially, it warned that if Spain refused the offer, the United States would be justified by every law, human and divine, in wresting the island from Spanish control.5 The authors argued this was a matter of national security, driven by fears that Cuba might be “Africanized” like the Republic of Haiti if a slave rebellion occurred.5 However, Soulé’s lack of diplomatic discretion led to the document’s leakage to the press, causing an immediate uproar.5 Northern abolitionists, led by figures like Horace Greeley, fiercely denounced the manifesto as a blatant Southern conspiracy to expand slavery.4 The political backlash, exacerbated by the simultaneous controversy over the Kansas-Nebraska Act, forced the Pierce administration to abandon the acquisition effort.4

The Spanish-American War and the Platt Amendment

The late 19th century saw a resurgence of U.S. interest in Cuba, culminating in the Spanish-American War of 1898. Cuban rebellions against Spanish rule, such as the Ten Years’ War (1868–1878), had gained wide sympathy in the United States, and by 1877, American markets absorbed 83 percent of Cuba’s total exports, firmly integrating the island into the U.S. economic sphere.8

While the Teller Amendment of 1898 promised that the United States would not annex Cuba following the defeat of Spain, the reality of the subsequent military occupation told a different story.9 Seeking a mechanism to maintain control without formal annexation, Secretary of War Elihu Root drafted the Platt Amendment in 1901.10 General Leonard Wood, commander of the U.S. occupation forces, presented the terms to the Cuban Constitutional Convention.11

The Platt Amendment effectively established American suzerainty over the island.10 It granted the United States sweeping authority to intervene in Cuban domestic and foreign affairs, restricted Cuba’s ability to incur foreign debt, and mandated the lease of Cuban territory for U.S. naval bases, securing the installation at Guantánamo Bay that remains active today.9 The Cuban delegates initially refused to include the amendment, recognizing it as a severe limitation on their sovereignty, but eventually capitulated under the promise of a favorable trade treaty and the withdrawal of U.S. troops.11 This era of neo-imperial dominance fostered deep-seated Cuban nationalism and resentment, establishing the anti-imperialist ideological foundation that future revolutionaries would weaponize.13

The Cuban Revolution and the Architecture of the Embargo

The 1959 revolution marked the abrupt termination of U.S. hegemony over Cuba and the beginning of a prolonged period of hostility. Fidel Castro’s overthrow of the U.S.-backed Fulgencio Batista regime—a government that had safeguarded American economic interests despite its brutal authoritarianism and suspension of constitutional rights—fundamentally reordered hemispheric security.14

Nationalization and the Initiation of Economic Warfare

The bilateral fallout following the revolution was rapid and rooted primarily in economic disputes. In 1960, as the Castro regime pivoted toward the Soviet Union, it embarked on a massive campaign of expropriation, nationalizing all foreign assets on the island.15 This included vast tracts of American-owned agricultural land, utility companies, refineries, and banks, effectively seizing billions of dollars in private property without compensation.15

In retaliation, President Dwight D. Eisenhower initiated economic warfare, freezing Cuban assets in the United States, slashing the highly lucrative import quota for Cuban sugar, and officially severing diplomatic ties.15 President John F. Kennedy subsequently expanded these initial penalties into a comprehensive economic embargo in February 1962, effectively cutting Cuba off from the global financial system anchored by the U.S. dollar.15 Over the ensuing decades, this embargo would cost the trade-dependent Cuban economy an estimated $130 billion, according to Cuban government and United Nations estimates.15

Security Crises of the Cold War

The ideological and economic conflict rapidly escalated into military confrontation. In April 1961, executing a CIA-sponsored plan developed under the Eisenhower administration, President Kennedy deployed a brigade of 1,400 Cuban exiles to overthrow Castro at the Bay of Pigs.15 The invasion was a catastrophic failure, defeated by the Cuban military within three days due to operational mishaps and a lack of direct U.S. military support.15

The geopolitical stakes reached their apex during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. Following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, Cuba allowed the Soviet Union to secretly install nuclear missiles on the island to deter further U.S. aggression and alter the global strategic balance.15 U.S. spy satellites discovered the installations, triggering a tense thirteen-day standoff that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.15 The crisis was ultimately resolved through diplomatic backchannels; President Kennedy demanded the removal of the Soviet weapons and implemented a naval quarantine, while secretly agreeing to withdraw U.S. intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Turkey and pledging not to invade Cuba.15

Following the crisis, the United States maintained a policy of strict diplomatic isolation. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan designated Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism, citing Havana’s active support for communist militant groups and insurgencies in Angola, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua.15 The U.S. also launched Radio Martí in 1985 to broadcast news and propaganda directly to the island, a move Castro fiercely condemned.15

Legislative Codification: The CDA and Helms-Burton

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Cuba lost its primary economic benefactor. Soviet subsidies, which had amounted to approximately $65 billion between 1960 and 1990, vanished overnight, plunging Cuba into a devastating economic depression known as the “Special Period”.18 Rather than easing the embargo to facilitate a soft landing, the United States sought to accelerate the regime’s collapse by codifying the sanctions into binding legislation.15

President George H.W. Bush signed the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) in 1992, which tightened the embargo by prohibiting foreign subsidiaries of U.S. businesses from trading with Cuba and barring vessels that had traded with the island from docking at U.S. ports for 180 days.15

In 1996, the geopolitical environment soured further when the Cuban military shot down two unarmed U.S. civilian planes operated by the exile group Brothers to the Rescue.15 In response, President Bill Clinton signed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, widely known as the Helms-Burton Act.15 Helms-Burton fundamentally altered the policy landscape by stripping the executive branch of the authority to unilaterally lift the embargo.19 It stipulated that sanctions could only be dissolved once the Castro family was removed from power, political prisoners were freed, and a demonstrable transition to a democratic, free-market government was underway.15

The Anchor of the Conflict: Certified Property Claims

A highly critical, yet frequently underappreciated, driver of the ongoing conflict is the issue of certified property claims resulting from the 1960 nationalizations. The Helms-Burton Act was explicitly designed to provide a legal remedy for the “wrongful confiscation or taking of property belonging to United States nationals by the Cuban Government, and the subsequent exploitation of this property at the expense of the rightful owner”.21

The U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC) underwent two extensive review periods, certifying nearly 6,000 claims against the Cuban government with an original principal value of approximately $1.9 billion.22 With decades of accumulated statutory interest, the total present value of these claims is exponentially higher.

Title III of the Helms-Burton Act provides a unique cause of action, allowing U.S. nationals to sue foreign entities in U.S. federal courts if those entities “traffic” in confiscated property.23 The law includes a rebuttable presumption that traffickers are liable for treble damages, creating massive financial exposure for any multinational corporation attempting to do business in Cuba using former American assets.23 For example, the Exxon Corporation possesses a certified claim originally valued at over $71.6 million, enabling the pursuit of significant litigation against commercial actors operating in Cuba’s energy sector.23

This legal architecture makes it functionally impossible for the United States to simply accept Cuba’s current economic model. Full normalization requires a comprehensive settlement of these uncompensated expropriations, a concession the Cuban regime has historically refused to entertain.22

The Geopolitical Paradox: Divergent Paths of Cuba and Vietnam

A frequent question in geopolitical analysis is why the United States successfully normalized relations with the communist government of Vietnam in 1995, yet maintains a draconian posture toward Cuba. Both are single-party, avowedly communist states with a history of severe military hostility toward the United States.17 However, applying a comparative political science framework—specifically the Multiple Streams Framework and policy window analysis—reveals profound differences in geography, domestic politics, economic adaptability, and strategic alignment that explain the divergent diplomatic outcomes.26

The Multiple Streams Framework and the Lawnmower Effect

In political science, the Multiple Streams Framework evaluates how the streams of politics, problems, and policies must align to create a “policy window” for significant diplomatic shifts.26 In the case of Vietnam, these streams aligned perfectly in 1995. The political will existed, the problem of countering China was paramount, and the policy of normalization offered mutual economic benefits.26

For Cuba, however, the streams rarely align. When one or both nations attempt to reopen diplomatic ties—such as during the brief Obama administration thaw between 2014 and 2016—they continually fail to establish enduring relations due to the persistence of underlying political issues, a phenomenon researchers term the “Lawnmower Effect”.26 Whenever the grass of diplomatic progress begins to grow, it is swiftly cut down by structural impediments like the Helms-Burton Act, human rights crackdowns, or geopolitical friction.26

Geopolitical Balancing and Strategic Utility

In 1995, the normalization with Vietnam was heavily incentivized by the rise of China.25 Vietnam, historically antagonistic toward Beijing and having fought a border war with China in 1979, had a strong strategic need to forge alliances with major external powers to balance Chinese influence in Southeast Asia and the South China Sea.25 The United States, recognizing the utility of a militarily capable, anti-Chinese partner in the region, found a perfect mutual geopolitical alignment.29

Conversely, Cuba offers no such strategic utility to Washington. Lacking a great-power patron since the Soviet collapse, Havana has actively courted Washington’s adversaries to ensure its survival. In the context of contemporary great-power competition, Cuba aligns naturally with Russia, China, and anti-U.S. regimes in Latin America, such as Venezuela and Nicaragua.18 Consequently, normalizing relations with Cuba yields minimal strategic dividends for the U.S., while offering a platform for global rivals in the Western Hemisphere.29

The Domestic Electoral Calculus

The impact of domestic politics, specifically the electoral geography of the United States, is arguably the most determinative factor in the divergence.29 The Cuban-American diaspora, heavily concentrated in southern Florida, possesses disproportionate leverage over U.S. foreign policy.28 Florida’s historical status as a pivotal battleground state in presidential elections ensures that both major political parties remain highly sensitive to the demands of conservative Cuban voters, who generally favor retaining the embargo until the communist regime falls and expropriated property is returned.28

There is no equivalent Vietnamese-American lobbying apparatus capable of overriding the economic and strategic incentives that drove the U.S.-Vietnam rapprochement.28 Furthermore, reconciliation with Vietnam was facilitated by highly emotional, joint recovery efforts to find the remains of MIA U.S. soldiers, creating a humanitarian bridge that simply does not exist in the Cuban context.25

Economic Adaptability: Doi Moi vs. The Special Period

Comparative economic analyses by scholars such as Carmelo Mesa-Lago highlight that prior to 1978, China and Vietnam lagged significantly behind Cuba in most socioeconomic and welfare indices.33 However, the implementation of market-oriented reforms—Deng Xiaoping’s reforms in China and Vietnam’s Doi Moi (renovation) in 1986—fundamentally altered their development trajectories.33 Vietnam allowed sweeping privatization, embraced foreign direct investment, and transformed into a global manufacturing hub integrated into the global capitalist supply chain.29

Cuba, however, staunchly resisted structural liberalization during its Special Period, clinging to a centralized model heavily subsidized first by the USSR and later by Venezuelan oil.33 The U.S. business lobby, which vigorously pushed for access to Vietnam’s booming consumer markets and cheap labor pool in the 1990s, sees little financial incentive in Cuba’s destitute, tightly controlled economy, further reducing the corporate pressure for normalization.30

Contemporary Threat Assessments and Asymmetric Warfare

A critical premise in evaluating U.S.-Cuban relations is the fluctuation of global tensions, specifically regarding Russia. During periods when the United States has experienced reduced adversarial friction with Russia (such as the immediate post-Cold War 1990s or brief diplomatic resets), one might question why Cuba remained a vital security interest. The answer lies in the permanence of geography and the evolving nature of the threat.

During the Cold War, the theory of nuclear deterrence and massive U.S. conventional power guaranteed that Cuba could not realistically wage a direct war against the United States.18 The stabilizing effect of mutual terror, combined with Soviet pragmatism, prevented catastrophic military action.18 Today, Cuba is widely recognized as a “failing nation” suffering from profound demographic and economic collapse.18 Its economy has contracted by over 10 percent in recent years, the vital tourism sector has collapsed to less than half its pre-pandemic levels, and constant energy blackouts paralyze the nation.18 The island has lost approximately 10 percent of its population to migration since 2020, and its once-formidable conventional military capabilities have withered due to severe austerity.18

Therefore, does Cuba possess the means to be a conventional threat to the U.S. today? In traditional military terms, the answer is unequivocally no. However, in the realm of asymmetric warfare, intelligence gathering, and great-power competition, Cuba represents a critical, enduring vulnerability.31

Intelligence Outposts and Great-Power Proxies

Regardless of the relative temperature between Washington and Moscow at any given moment, the mere potential for foreign adversaries to establish a foothold ninety miles from the U.S. homeland constitutes an unacceptable strategic risk.18 In the 2025–2026 threat environment, U.S. intelligence has confirmed the presence of active Chinese spy bases and sophisticated Russian intelligence operations on the island.32 These installations are situated in dangerously close proximity to vital U.S. military installations (such as CENTCOM and SOCOM in Florida) and critical communications infrastructure in the Southeast.32

The periodic arrival of Russian warships, nuclear-powered submarines, and oil tankers to Cuban ports further illustrates Havana’s willingness to host adversarial military assets to signal defiance against Washington.19 U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe have explicitly warned Havana regarding these operations, underscoring that the presence of hostile foreign intelligence on the island elevates Cuba to a top-tier national security threat.19

The Threat of Asymmetric Disruption

Furthermore, U.S. defense planners warn that lessons derived from Iranian drone warfare and Cuban involvement in Russia’s military operations in Ukraine have heightened the island’s asymmetric military relevance.31 Planners fear that Cuba could serve as a localized platform for political coercion, cyber disruption, and pervasive electronic surveillance.31 This geographic reality ensures that even a conventionally weak Cuba remains an unacceptable strategic liability when aligned with foreign adversaries. The U.S. strategy of isolating Cuba is thus less about fearing a Cuban attack and more about practicing strategic denial against Beijing and Moscow.19

Western Hemisphere Governance: Multilateralism or Hegemony?

The rhetoric of “Western Hemisphere governance” is frequently utilized in diplomatic discourse, ostensibly to promote multilateral coordination, democratic institution-building, and regional consensus through bodies like the Organization of American States (OAS).38 However, critical geopolitical analysis reveals that the promotion of hemispheric governance often serves as an institutional mechanism to mask a deeper conflict: the maintenance and projection of U.S. hegemony.35

Post-Hegemonic Regionalism and the Pink Tide

U.S. foreign policy in Latin America has historically been dominated by security imperatives, originating with the Monroe Doctrine’s aim of preventing European colonial penetration.2 Over the decades, U.S. interventions—ranging from the 1980s wars in Central America to the 1989 invasion of Panama—reinforced a neo-imperial dynamic.42 However, the early 21st century saw the rise of the “Pink Tide” in Latin America, characterized by the election of left-leaning governments that pursued post-hegemonic regionalism, creating alternative institutions that deliberately excluded the United States and Canada.35

During the Obama administration, the brief diplomatic rapprochement with Cuba was initiated precisely to protect the institutional power and consensual features of U.S. hegemony.35 By removing the primary irritant in U.S.-Latin American relations—the Cuba embargo, which was universally condemned by the UN and regional bodies—Washington sought to regain regional goodwill and prevent the further erosion of its influence.35

The Donroe Doctrine and the Reassertion of Dominance

This cooperative approach was entirely dismantled by the Trump administration, which adopted a highly coercive posture toward the hemisphere to counter the rising economic and diplomatic clout of China.35 Coined by analysts as the “Donroe Doctrine”—a modern, aggressive reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine—this strategy required heavy-handed interventions.44

The climax of this doctrine occurred in early 2026, when U.S. military forces executed a raid on the compound of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas, capturing him and dismantling Cuba’s closest regional ally and primary energy supplier.18 Following the operation, President Trump signaled that Cuba was “ready to fall,” and Secretary of State Rubio issued stark warnings to the Cuban leadership.15 By projecting unilateral military power into Venezuela and severely tightening the economic noose around Cuba, the United States forcefully reminded the region of its unipolar dominance. The language of Western Hemisphere governance, therefore, provides a multilateral veneer for unilateral strategic actions aimed at expelling Chinese, Russian, and socialist influence from the U.S. near-abroad.42

The Economics of Normalization and the GAESA Dilemma

A fundamental question arises regarding the utility of the embargo: Would the consequences be undesirable if the United States unconditionally allowed free trade, foreign investment, and free travel between the countries? Proponents of lifting the embargo argue that isolation harms everyday citizens while providing the regime with a convenient scapegoat for its own domestic failures.36 However, an analysis of Cuba’s internal economic architecture suggests that an unconditional opening would likely result in severe unintended consequences, disproportionately benefiting the authoritarian regime rather than empowering the Cuban populace.43

The Public-Private Hybrid Economy

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba did not transition to a free market; instead, it developed a highly manipulated “hybrid economy”.34 In this model, the regime permits a small, heavily regulated non-state sector to exist alongside the dominant, state-planned apparatus to prevent total economic collapse.34 However, this is not a true free-enterprise system. It is a patron-client symbiosis designed to ensure the survival of the hereditary dictatorial regime.34

The evolutionary phases of this hybrid economy illustrate the regime’s control mechanisms 34:

The Threat of Recapitalizing a Military Monopoly

The apex of this economic control is the Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA). GAESA is a massive, opaque conglomerate operated entirely by the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces. It is estimated to control up to 40 percent of the Cuban economy, including the highly lucrative tourism, retail, real estate, port services, and transportation sectors, generating revenues triple the size of the entire Cuban state budget.19 GAESA operates with zero transparency, is not subject to public audits, and is believed to manage an estimated $20 billion in illicitly held international assets.19

Because the military monopolizes the most lucrative sectors of the economy—particularly those geared toward foreign currency acquisition—a sudden influx of American capital, tourists, and corporate investment would flow directly into the coffers of GAESA.43 The dictatorial ruling coalition relies on systematic rent-seeking, exclusive exploitation of the labor force, and monopolistic profits to secure the funds necessary to maintain its security apparatus and vertical loyalty networks.34

While proponents of lifting the embargo argue that doing so would empower the Cuban private sector (micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, or MSMEs), the regulatory reality on the island precludes meaningful capital accumulation by private citizens.49 The Cuban state maintains absolute discretion over economic policy, allowing it to arbitrarily alter regulations to suppress private ventures that could threaten the state’s monopoly.43 Therefore, from the perspective of U.S. policymakers, unconditionally lifting the embargo without securing structural democratic reforms would serve only to recapitalize a hostile military regime.46 It would provide GAESA with the hard currency required to stabilize its rule, suppress internal dissent, and continue funding its intelligence operations in coordination with Russia and China.46

The 2025-2026 Maximum Pressure Campaign

Recognizing the structural vulnerabilities of the Cuban hybrid economy, the U.S. government—across successive administrations, but escalating drastically under the Trump administration in 2025 and 2026—has deployed a “maximum pressure” campaign.15 The strategy is explicitly designed to force a regime transition by depriving the state of the foreign currency and energy resources it requires to function, weaponizing Cuba’s reliance on external lifelines.48

The Pivot to IEEPA and Secondary Sanctions

Historically, the legal framework of the embargo was governed by the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA), which primarily restricted U.S. persons and entities from engaging with Cuba.48 However, in May 2026, the administration engineered a profound structural shift in sanctions architecture by issuing Executive Order 14404 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).48

This order authorized aggressive secondary sanctions against Foreign Financial Institutions (FFIs) and third-country entities.47 Under EO 14404, any foreign bank, insurance company, or multinational corporation that facilitates a significant transaction with a designated Cuban entity—such as GAESA or Moa Nickel S.A.—risks being sanctioned and severed entirely from the U.S. financial system.47 This fundamentally altered the risk calculus for European, Canadian, and Asian firms operating in Cuba, essentially forcing them to choose between maintaining operations in the marginal Cuban market or preserving access to the U.S. dollar and global capital markets.47

The Energy Blockade and Supreme Court Friction

The focal point of the maximum pressure campaign has been Cuba’s fragile energy sector. Historically reliant on subsidized oil from Venezuela, Cuba’s energy grid faced imminent collapse following the U.S. extraction of Nicolás Maduro and the subsequent severing of the Caracas-Havana oil pipeline in early 2026.18

To compound this vulnerability and induce systemic failure, the U.S. attempted to impose “secondary tariffs” under Executive Order 14380 on goods from any country that exported oil to Cuba.48 While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the administration’s IEEPA-based tariffs as unconstitutional in early 2026, the White House immediately pivoted to utilizing blocking sanctions to achieve the same effect, severely chilling global maritime shipments to the island.48

This de facto maritime energy blockade has had a catastrophic impact on the island.56 The Cuban government announced that its fuel supply was entirely depleted, leading to nationwide blackouts that lasted for days, the closure of schools and government offices, and a severe compromise of intensive care units in hospitals.19 While Russia has attempted to challenge this blockade by sending shipments of crude oil aboard tankers like the Anatoly Kolodkin, these deliveries offer only fleeting, short-term relief.19

The humanitarian toll of these policies is severe, fueling unprecedented irregular migration to the U.S. southern border, with over 600,000 encounters recorded between 2022 and 2024.18 Critics argue that the embargo primarily harms the populace while the regime remains entrenched, utilizing the sanctions as a convenient scapegoat for its own internal economic mismanagement and rigid centralization.43 Nevertheless, Washington perceives the dismantling of the military’s economic monopoly as a mandatory prerequisite for any future diplomatic normalization.

The Ultimate Objective: Transitioning to Caribbean-Style Democracy

The real issue underlying the United States’ relentless, decades-long campaign to rid Cuba of communism is the strategic imperative to fundamentally restructure the island’s political economy. The objective is to transition Cuba from a hostile, state-monopolized socialist system into an indigent democracy with hybrid free-enterprise economics, integrating it into the broader Caribbean economic sphere alongside nations like the Dominican Republic and Jamaica.58

Breaking the Power-Wealth Symbiosis

Political science literature regarding competitive authoritarianism and dependency theory highlights that regimes survive by controlling access to resources.60 In Cuba, dictatorial institutions are deeply embedded in the economy through systematic corruption and a clientelist “power-wealth symbiosis”.34 The regime utilizes “limited access orders” to distribute state rents, forcing economic and societal actors to remain loyal to the dictatorship to secure access to essential resources and market activities.34

By maintaining the embargo and targeting entities like GAESA, the United States aims to break this symbiosis. As long as the Cuban economy remains a military-run hybrid apparatus, any wealth generated by the island—whether from tourism, remittances, or foreign investment—will be channeled directly into the survival mechanisms of an authoritarian, anti-American state.34 The U.S. objective is to ensure that capital accumulation occurs within independent civil society, thereby creating a decentralized political landscape conducive to a democratic transition.34

Comparative Development and Regional Integration

When compared to neighboring states, the limitations of Cuba’s economic model are stark. The Dominican Republic and Jamaica operate with varying degrees of market regulation but are firmly embedded in the global capitalist system, allowing for significant trade surpluses, foreign direct investment, and dynamic private sectors.58 The Dominican Republic, for instance, maintains robust industrial exports and highly profitable free-trade zones, making it a central development hub in the Caribbean.59

U.S. policymakers envision a post-communist Cuba that adopts a similar model—a nation that respects private property rights, protects foreign investment, and operates a hybrid free enterprise system that balances market dynamics with democratic governance.21 Achieving this requires not only the fall of the Communist Party but also the legal resolution of the $1.9 billion in certified property claims mandated by the Helms-Burton Act.21 The establishment of secure property rights is viewed as the foundational requirement for integrating Cuba into the hemispheric economy.

In conclusion, the U.S. posture toward Cuba is not a mere hangover from the Cold War; it reflects a calculated, multifaceted strategic imperative to maintain hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and eliminate a persistent asymmetric threat. The normalization with Vietnam demonstrated that Washington is willing to overlook communist ideology when it aligns with broader strategic goals (such as countering China) and when property disputes can be amicably resolved. In Cuba, however, the geopolitical calculus runs in reverse. Until the regime collapses, democratizes, compensates victims of expropriation, and severs its intelligence-sharing ties with extra-hemispheric rivals, the United States will continue to utilize a combination of legislative mandates, secondary financial sanctions, and energy blockades to exert maximum pressure on the island.

Works cited

1. Annexation Nation – JSTOR Daily, accessed May 22, 2026, https://daily.jstor.org/cuba-annexation-nation/
2. Eyes on Cuba from the Start – Guantánamo Public Memory Project – University of Minnesota, accessed May 22, 2026, http://gtmoproject.umn.edu/slide1.php
3. “Ripe Fruit” Theory – 4score.org, accessed May 22, 2026, https://4score.org/historical-documents/ripe-fruit-theory
4. Video: Ostend Manifesto of 1854 | Overview & Significance – Study.com, accessed May 22, 2026, https://study.com/learn/lesson/video/ostend-manifesto-1854-overview-purpose.html
5. Ostend Manifesto – Wikipedia, accessed May 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto
6. The Ostend Manifesto – Teaching American History, accessed May 22, 2026, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-ostend-manifesto/
7. The Ostend Manifesto Embarrasses President Pierce – Road To The Civil War, accessed May 22, 2026, https://roadtothecivilwar.org/the-ostend-manifesto-embarrasses-president-pierce/
8. Cuba–United States relations – Wikipedia, accessed May 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93United_States_relations
9. accessed May 22, 2026, https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-platt-amendment-definition-summary.html#:~:text=At%20first%2C%20the%20Teller%20Amendment,%2C%20foreign%2C%20and%20economic%20policy.
10. Teller Amendment – Wikipedia, accessed May 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller_Amendment
11. The United States, Cuba, and the Platt Amendment, 1901, accessed May 22, 2026, https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/ip/86557.htm
12. Platt Amendment | History | Research Starters – EBSCO, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/platt-amendment
13. Platt Amendment (1903) | National Archives, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/platt-amendment
14. THESIS WITHOUT PAUSE BUT WITHOUT HASTE: ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CHANGE IN CUBA – Mountain Scholar, accessed May 22, 2026, https://mountainscholar.org/bitstreams/b9f43a62-d42a-4276-a5d0-afeef5c61900/download
15. U.S.-Cuba Relations Explained | Council on Foreign Relations, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/us-cuba-relations
16. Why is Vietnam Recovering, while Cuba is Sinking? – Active History, accessed May 22, 2026, https://activehistory.ca/papers/history-paper-4/
17. SSRC/AU Forum – American University, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.american.edu/centers/latin-american-latino-studies/upload/2015-au-ssrc-brown-cuba-vietnam-and-normalization-final.pdf
18. Move on from Washington’s outdated Cuba policy – Defense Priorities, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.defensepriorities.org/explainers/move-on-from-washingtons-outdated-cuba-policy/
19. US Expands Embargo on Cuba as Secondary Sanctions Pose New Risks for Foreign Entities | Steptoe, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/stepwise-risk-outlook/us-expands-embargo-on-cuba-as-secondary-sanctions-pose-new-risks-for-foreign-entities1.html
20. U.S. Certified Claims Against Cuba: Legal Reality and Likely Settlement Mechanisms, accessed May 22, 2026, https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=umialr
21. 22 USC CHAPTER 69A, SUBCHAPTER III: PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES NATIONALS – OLRC Home, accessed May 22, 2026, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter69A/subchapter3&edition=prelim
22. Supreme Court of the United States, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-699/386577/20251205150758593_24-699%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
23. New Ruling Serves as Guidepost for Future Claims Involving Cuban Agencies and Instrumentalities | Steptoe, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/new-ruling-serves-as-guidepost-for-future-claims-involving-cuban-agencies-and-instrumentalities.html
24. Title III Suits Under The Helms-Burton Act — A Primer – Quinn Emanuel, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.quinnemanuel.com/the-firm/publications/title-iii-suits-under-the-helms-burton-act-a-primer/
25. Implications of Normalization – Brown | American University, Washington, DC, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.american.edu/centers/latin-american-latino-studies/implications-normalization-brown.cfm
26. “Diplomatic Normalization between the US and Cuba in Light of Recent Ch” by Ethan Zawatsky and Ashley Gemma – DigitalCommons@URI, accessed May 22, 2026, https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/427/
27. Normalizing Relations from the Cold War to the Present: Continuing War, Pursuing Peace, and Building Empire | Modern American History, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-american-history/article/normalizing-relations-from-the-cold-war-to-the-present-continuing-war-pursuing-peace-and-building-empire/7A25EDB34357AE21B69BF4B525FF303D
28. If Vietnam and the USA have cordial relations, why doesn’t the Cuba-USA relationship improve (United States, diplomacy, Cuba, and politics)? – Quora, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.quora.com/If-Vietnam-and-the-USA-have-cordial-relations-why-doesnt-the-Cuba-USA-relationship-improve-United-States-diplomacy-Cuba-and-politics
29. If Vietnam and the USA have normal relations, why doesn’t Cuba-USA relationship improve?, accessed May 22, 2026, https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/54364/if-vietnam-and-the-usa-have-normal-relations-why-doesnt-cuba-usa-relationship
30. Why is it the US could normalize relations with Vietnam but not Cuba? – Reddit, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/cuba/comments/oi5dh7/why_is_it_the_us_could_normalize_relations_with/
31. Cuban drone crisis: US fears Russia-China Caribbean threat – Asia …, accessed May 22, 2026, https://asiatimes.com/2026/05/cuban-drone-crisis-us-fears-russia-china-caribbean-threat/
32. US Sounds Alarm: Cuba Hosting Russian & Chinese Intelligence? #china #us #russia #cuba – YouTube, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WkPvN1C3cZM
33. Comparing China, Cuba, and Vietnam – New Politics, accessed May 22, 2026, https://newpol.org/review/comparing-china-cuba-and-vietnam/
34. Hybrid Economy in Cuba and North Korea: Key to the Longevity of …, accessed May 22, 2026, https://ascecubadatabase.org/asce_proceedings/hybrid-economy-in-cuba-and-north-korea-key-to-the-longevity-of-two-regimes-and-difference/
35. The Normalization of U.S. Policy Toward Cuba? Rapprochement and Regional Hegemony | Latin American Politics and Society | Cambridge Core, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/latin-american-politics-and-society/article/normalization-of-us-policy-toward-cuba-rapprochement-and-regional-hegemony/E2733914BC9C94F16E972B6A54B18DE9
36. US-Cuba Relations, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/177385/p11113.pdf
37. The U.S. Considers Cuba a Threat to Its Security Because It Hosts Russian and Chinese Military Activities, accessed May 22, 2026, https://translatingcuba.com/the-u-s-considers-cuba-a-threat-to-its-security-because-it-hosts-russian-and-chinese-military-activities/
38. Overcoming the Power Gap: Reorienting the Inter-American System for Hemispheric Security, accessed May 22, 2026, https://loveman.sdsu.edu/supplement/docs/ColonelWeidnerJune1998.pdf
39. Regional and Global Axes of Conflict – – DOES THE ORGANISATION OF AMERICAN STATES MATTER? Monica Herz, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/57413/WP34.2.pdf
40. Diplomacy and Small States in Today’s World, accessed May 22, 2026, https://learn.diplomacy.edu/pool/fileInline.php?&id=20932
41. Regionalism and Governance in the Americas: Continental Drift (review) – ResearchGate, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236753218_Regionalism_and_Governance_in_the_Americas_Continental_Drift_review
42. Why U.S. action in the Western Hemisphere now? – MR Online, accessed May 22, 2026, https://mronline.org/2025/11/24/why-us-action-in-the-western-hemisphere-now/
43. No, lifting the U.S. embargo on Cuba won’t have any impact unless the regime relinquishes its grip on the nation. – Reddit, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/cuba/comments/1hsq40p/no_lifting_the_us_embargo_on_cuba_wont_have_any/
44. Redrawing global boundaries? The United States, China, and the viability of spheres of influence in the 21st century | Brookings, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/redrawing-global-boundaries-the-united-states-china-and-the-viability-of-spheres-of-influence-in-the-21st-century/
45. Latin America Amid Trump’s Hemispheric Dominance, accessed May 22, 2026, https://gjia.georgetown.edu/conflict-security/latin-america-amid-trumps-hemispheric-dominance/
46. Cuba Embargo | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Communism, Cuba, United States, & Trade | Britannica, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/procon/Cuba-Embargo-debate
47. Cuba Sanctions Alert – Significant New Risks for Non-US Persons, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.westpandi.com/news-and-resources/news/may-2026/cuba-sanctions-alert-significant-new-risks-for-non/
48. Trump’s New Cuba Sanctions Are ‘A Shot Across the Bow’ for Foreign Companies—Including in Europe, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.kharon.com/brief/trump-cuba-news-sanctions-risk
49. Understanding the Failure of the U.S. Embargo on Cuba, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.wola.org/analysis/understanding-failure-of-us-cuba-embargo/
50. Cuba’s Economic Change in Comparative Perspective – Brookings Institution, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/cubas-economic-change-english-web-1.pdf
51. Challenges for the Private Sector in the Cuban Economic Model. Part One, accessed May 22, 2026, https://horizontecubano.law.columbia.edu/news/challenges-private-sector-cuban-economic-model-part-one
52. Trump Has Finally Found a Small Enough Enemy, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/05/trump-cuba-castro-blockade-embargo-venezuela-oil-military-rubio/
53. New Cuba Sanctions Broaden Targeting Authorities—and Risk to Foreign Financial Institutions | Morrison Foerster, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/260508-new-cuba-sanctions-broaden-targeting
54. New Cuba Sanctions Raise Risks For Foreign Banks, Cos. – Troutman Pepper Locke, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.troutman.com/insights/new-cuba-sanctions-raise-risks-for-foreign-banks-cos/
55. Cuba Runs Out of Oil Amidst Suffocating US Blockade, accessed May 22, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/cuba-runs-out-of-oil-amidst-suffocating-us-blockade/
56. The United States-Cuba Oil Embargo and International Law, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.justsecurity.org/137325/us-cuba-embargo-international-law/
57. Defend Cuba From US Efforts to Crush It | Progressive International, accessed May 22, 2026, https://progressive.international/wire/2026-03-18-defend-cuba-from-us-efforts-to-crush-it/en/
58. Sustainable development in the Caribbean: a comparative analysis of Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Jamaica, accessed May 22, 2026, https://d-nb.info/135446351X/34
59. Cuba and the Dominican Republic, a development hub in the Caribbean | UNO Magazine, accessed May 22, 2026, https://www.uno-magazine.com/number-25/cuba-and-the-dominican-republic-a-development-hub-in-the-caribbean/
60. Cuba The Process of Socialist Development, accessed May 22, 2026, https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/16587955.pdf
61. The Survival of a Revolutionary Regime: Politics and Economics in Post-Soviet Cuba – Knowledge UChicago, accessed May 22, 2026, https://knowledge.uchicago.edu/record/7166/files/RevolutionaryRegimeSurvival_Alex%20Jimenez.pdf