Trump's Rhetoric on Cuba.

Since the 1959 revolution and the failed US "Bay of Pigs" invasion in 1961, the US and Cuba have been sworn enemies. During the Obama years in 2014, sanctions were lifted, and the relationship was normalised. He also reopened the US Embassy in Havana. American ships, planes, and citizens were allowed to visit the Communist state and vice versa.

However, since Trump took office again, sanctions and travel bans were reimposed. Trump felt the Obama policy only helped the Cuban government, not the people. He also forbade American military hardware from being sold to Cuba. Trump's policy is peace through strength. It worked out in Venezuela (or did it?), but it seems to have come unstuck with Iran.

Cuba had been getting oil from the regime of Nicolas Maduro. However, after US forces grabbed Maduro and took him to trial in New York, along with Mrs. Maduro, the US imposed a blockade on Cuba. Thus, Cuba cannot easily get fuel and other supplies from nations like Venezuela as it used to. Merchant vessels trying to run the blockade, which is more to do with the Coast Guard than Naval power, have the power to stop, board, capture, or turn these vessels away. Trump has threatened to impose sanctions on any nation still doing business with the country.

This has put Cuba in real trouble. Blackouts of up to 20 hours are now standard. Transportation, like ambulances and food deliveries, has run out of fuel. The US has not said that ultimatums have been imposed on Cuba. Meetings between the US administration and Cuban government officials have apparently demanded the resignation of current Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel. Trump, after his apparent successful operation in Venezuela, said: "Cuba was next". What did he mean by "next"?

Well, Trump's peace through strength, as I said, is his policy. It has worked in Venezuela, or so it seems. Delcy Rodriguez was nominated as Maduro's successor, and the same regime is still in power. However, according to Trump, he has a good working relationship with Delcy. And everything is on the up for Venezuela, apparently. With Iran, it's a different picture. Iran has been bombed, missiled, and droned from east to west and south to north. Its naval capability is smashed largely; its air force still exists, but to what extent it can still operate is open to question, and much of its infrastructure has been hit. However, Iran fought back, causing death and destruction to Israel, Gulf nations, and to some extent, US bases and forces. The ceasefire between the US and Iran was extended indefinitely this week. Despite losing military, religious, and political leaders, the Iranian regime still stands. Iran is operating a blockade on the Straits of Hormuz. In return, because peace talks did not go well in Pakistan, the US has imposed a blockade of its own on Iranian ports.

The US, with its alleged "Peace Through Strength" policy, seems to be pursuing a twin-track policy with Cuba. Yes, talks are ongoing between the US, led by Cuban-American Marco Rubio. But at the same time, Trump has made it plain that if Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel does not step down and the so-called political prisoners are not released, the US has spoken of military intervention.

Meanwhile, the Cuban President himself, during a gathering to commemorate the Cuban Revolution, has spoken defiantly that any US military intervention would be resisted. Just as the US "Bay of Pigs" invasion failed in 1961, any US action against the regime would be resisted. And in Mr. Diaz-Canal's mind, hopefully fail as that past invasion did.

On paper, Cuba could not resist a full invasion by the US. However, like Iran, Cuba would fight in an asymmetrical pattern. This is what nations that are weaker facing a stronger opponent do. Make no mistake, Cuba, which is a nation only 90 miles long, would be conquered. However, the Cuban army and every citizen in the country are trained to be guerrilla fighters. The US would be fighting an insurgency war for years, and does the US want that?