Oil Blockade and Regime Change: How the Trump Administration Pushed Cuba to the Brink
24/01/2026
In January 2026, news from Washington stirred the political landscape of the Caribbean. According to reports from media outlets such as Politico and The Wall Street Journal, citing multiple government insiders, the Trump administration is actively considering a comprehensive oil import blockade against Cuba as a core strategy to force a regime change in this socialist island nation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is an open supporter of this radical approach. Although the White House has not yet made a final decision, this option has been placed on the president's desk, becoming another key move by Washington to reshape the geopolitical dynamics of the Western Hemisphere following the successful overthrow of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.
Energy is a tool to strangle and destroy the Cuban regime. This statement from an anonymous source accurately captures the essence of this game. When Trump warned on Truth Social that no more oil or money would flow to Cuba—zero!—a silent war of attrition around the lifeline of energy had already begun.
Strategic Context: The "Domino Effect" from Caracas to Havana
The Trump administration's focus on Cuba is not an isolated incident, but an extension of its strategic logic in the Western Hemisphere. Analysis indicates that the successful military intervention in Venezuela in early 2026—specifically, the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and the seizure of the country's oil—provided a significant boost to Washington. This operation was not only seen as a tactical victory but was also regarded by some officials as a blueprint that could be replicated in the region.
The Allure and Limitations of the Venezuelan Model
In the operation in Venezuela, a key factor played a role: assets within Maduro's inner circle provided internal assistance to the United States. This prompted U.S. officials, during meetings with Cuban exile groups and civil organizations in Miami and Washington, to focus on finding individuals within the current Cuban government willing to strike a deal with the United States. Jeremy Lewin, the U.S. State Department official responsible for foreign aid and humanitarian affairs, even bluntly stated: What happened in Venezuela should make it clear to the Cuban regime and every tyrant around the world not to play games with President Trump.
However, simply applying the Venezuelan experience to Cuba faces fundamental challenges. Cuba is a single-party Stalinist state that prohibits political opposition, and its social structure and political control differ fundamentally from those of Venezuela. Ricardo Zuniga, a former Obama administration official involved in the 2014-2017 brief U.S.-Cuba thaw negotiations, pointed out: "These guys are a much tougher nut to crack. No one is going to be tempted to work for the U.S. side." Over the past nearly seventy years, the Cuban regime has never been willing to negotiate changes to its political system, implementing only sporadic and minor economic adjustments.
The Fracture of the Cuba-Venezuela Axis
To comprehend the depth of the current crisis, one must trace back the decades-long special relationship between Cuba and Venezuela. Since Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999, Venezuela has supplied oil to Cuba at heavily subsidized prices, and in exchange, Cuba has dispatched tens of thousands of medical, security, and intelligence personnel to Venezuela. This symbiotic relationship has formed a crucial pillar supporting Cuba's economic and social operations.
The collapse of the Maduro regime instantly severed this lifeline. The U.S. blockade of Venezuelan oil tankers in December last year and the arrest of Maduro directly led to the interruption of oil shipments to Cuba. More symbolically, during the operation to arrest Maduro, 32 Cuban military and intelligence personnel responsible for his security were killed, and their remains were repatriated to Havana. The 94-year-old former leader Raúl Castro and current President Miguel Díaz-Canel attended the funeral. This event not only signifies the loss of a strategic ally but also marks a severe setback for Cuba's regional influence.
Lethal Weapon: The Tactics and Impact of a Comprehensive Oil Blockade
According to the disclosed information, the proposed blockade goes far beyond cutting off Venezuela's supply. Its goal is to implement a comprehensive naval blockade to prevent any oil from entering Cuba by sea. This would push Cuba to the brink of the most severe economic cliff since the victory of the revolution in 1959.
The suffocation of the economic lifeline.
Cuba's economy is systematically dependent on oil. Fuel shortages have led to frequent large-scale power outages, paralyzed transportation, and difficulties in the supply of essential goods. U.S. intelligence assessments paint a grim picture: Cuba is facing long-term shortages of basic commodities and medicines, and is likely to deplete its fuel reserves within weeks, leading to a complete economic standstill. A U.S. government source frankly stated: Energy is the most powerful tool the United States uses to strangle and destroy the regime.
Mexico's role becomes a key variable. Following the disruption of Venezuelan supplies, Mexico has become Cuba's largest oil supplier. According to data from Mexico's state-owned oil company Pemex, from January to September last year, Mexico supplied Cuba with an average of 17,200 barrels of crude oil and 2,000 barrels of petroleum products per day, with a total value of approximately $4 billion. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has publicly stated that, based on long-term contracts and the principle of international assistance, the country will continue to supply oil to Cuba. However, Reuters cited senior government sources indicating that this policy is being reassessed due to concerns about potential retaliation from the United States. Mexico is attempting to renegotiate the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and convince Washington that it is doing its utmost to combat drug cartels, thus neither needing nor desiring U.S. military action on Mexican territory. This delicate situation makes Mexico's supply highly uncertain.
The Shadow of Humanitarian Disasters and the Migration Crisis
Supporters of the blockade strategy argue that economic pressure will catalyze internal change. However, opponents, including some voices within the U.S. government, warn that this could trigger catastrophic consequences. Some within the Sheinbaum administration believe that Washington's strategy of cutting off Cuba's supplies will plunge the country into an unprecedented humanitarian disaster and trigger a large-scale migration wave toward Mexico. This is precisely why some members within the Mexican government advocate for continuing to supply fuel to the island.
This concern is not unfounded. Cuba is currently experiencing its most severe economic crisis since the revolution, with shortages of food, fuel, and medicine becoming the norm. A comprehensive oil blockade would be akin to applying suffocation therapy to a patient already on the brink of death. The result may not be an orderly regime change, but rather national collapse and social unrest, ultimately generating geopolitical shockwaves that affect the entire region.
Havana's Response: Resistance, Resilience, and the International Chessboard
Facing extreme pressure from Washington, the Cuban government's response is resolute and uncompromising. President Miguel Díaz-Canel made it clear at the rally: the Cuban leadership will not negotiate with the U.S. government under pressure, nor will it make political concessions. This stance continues the tradition of the Cuban revolutionary regime over decades in the face of the U.S. blockade: rallying under the banner of nationalism, strengthening internal unity, while seeking external breakthroughs.
Historical Resilience and Current Dilemmas
The Cuban regime has endured over sixty years of intense pressure from the United States—from the CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 to the punitive embargo imposed in 1962 and continuously strengthened since. This prolonged confrontation has shaped the regime’s remarkable resilience and its emphasis on internal control. However, the current crisis differs from those of the past. The loss of Venezuela, its most crucial economic pillar, has made Cuba’s vulnerabilities more apparent than ever. As The Wall Street Journal put it, the U.S. government’s assessment is that the Cuban economy is on the brink of collapse, and the regime has never been so fragile.
Multilateral Diplomacy and "The Enemy of My Enemy"
To break isolation, Havana is actively consolidating relationships with other adversaries of the United States. The article mentions that despite facing deepening economic and humanitarian crises, Cuba continues to maintain close ties with U.S. adversaries such as Russia and Iran—relationships that heighten Washington's concerns. This strategy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" reflects Cuba's consistent approach to seeking balance in asymmetric confrontations. By introducing the influence of other major powers, Cuba aims to increase the cost and complexity of direct U.S. intervention, thereby securing breathing room for itself.
Additionally, Cuba still holds some soft power leverage, the most prominent of which is its overseas medical delegation program. This is one of Havana's most important sources of hard currency. The Trump administration plans to impose visa bans on Cuban and foreign officials accused of assisting this program in order to target it. This indicates that the U.S. strategy is systematic, aiming to weaken the economic and political foundations of the Cuban regime across multiple dimensions.
The Undecided Chess Game: Challenges, Risks, and the Geopolitical Future
Although the Trump administration has shown a strong offensive posture, the goal of achieving regime change in Cuba remains fraught with challenges. The outcome of this game will depend on the interaction of multiple variables.
The Feasibility Dilemma of Internal Subversion.
One of the core assumptions of the U.S. strategy is that economic collapse will lead to political collapse. However, Cuba's political system, tempered over decades, possesses a far greater capacity to control society and quell discontent than Venezuela. The country lacks organized opposition movements, civil society space is extremely limited, and security agencies permeate every level of society. This means that even if economic conditions worsen further, the regime could maintain control by strengthening rationing systems, propaganda, and security measures. Attempts to find internal defectors in such a highly ideological and tightly monitored environment are of questionable success.
Regional and International Reactions
Any radical action by the United States, particularly coercive measures such as a naval blockade, will trigger complex international reactions. Although many U.S. allies also hope to end communist rule in Cuba, they may have reservations about measures that could lead to humanitarian disasters and regional instability. Latin American countries are still mindful of the historical precedent of the United States openly using military force to intervene in other nations' internal affairs, which could ignite nationalist sentiments in the region and instead garner more moral sympathy for Cuba.
Mexico's stance is particularly crucial. If the United States forces Mexico to halt oil supplies to Cuba, it would severely damage U.S.-Mexico relations and potentially undermine cooperation in key areas such as trade and security (especially anti-drug collaboration). The Mexican President's Office asserts that supplying oil to Cuba is a sovereign decision, hinting at possible diplomatic friction on this issue.
Trump's Political Legacy and Strategic Gambles
For Trump himself, ending the Castro era is seen by his team as a move to solidify his legacy, accomplishing what President John F. Kennedy failed to achieve in the 1960s. The temptation of such historical positioning may drive him to adopt higher-risk strategies. However, the lack of a clear follow-up plan—who and what will replace the current regime—is a notable weakness in Trump's team. Overthrowing a regime is relatively easy, but establishing a stable, pro-American, and sustainable new order is far more difficult, as painfully demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
From a broader perspective, the Trump administration's strategy toward Cuba is part of its Western Hemisphere strategy, aimed at redefining the modern boundaries of the Monroe Doctrine and eliminating regimes perceived as hostile or unwelcome. However, in a multipolar world, this unilateral and coercive approach may encounter unexpected resistance and accelerate other countries in the region to seek deeper relations with major powers such as China and Russia, thereby producing geopolitical effects contrary to Washington's expectations.
Currently, the air in the Caribbean is filled with tension and uncertainty. Oil, that black gold, has once again become a weapon in the great power rivalry. The streets of Havana may grow dimmer due to fuel shortages, but will the city’s will to resist—having weathered countless storms—also fade away? The answer may not lie in the hands of any capital, but rather in the resilience of ordinary Cubans struggling for survival day after day, in the complex calculations of morality and interests within the international community, and even more so beneath the unpredictable waves of history’s long river. While the energy weapon in America’s hands is formidable, regime change has never been a simple physical formula; it is a chaotic equation intertwined with politics, society, and human nature. How this crisis, which began with oil, ultimately concludes will serve as a crucial measure of the limits of power politics in the 21st century.
Reference materials
https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Bericht-US-Regierung-plant-Sturz-des-Regimes-in-Kuba-id30278407.html
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2026-01/kuba-havanna-absetzung-usa-regierung-wechsel