During a brief exchange with reporters before departing for Texas, the former President unexpectedly raised the possibility of a shift in U.S. policy toward Cuba, hinting at a potential “friendly takeover.” The remark came as his administration intensified economic pressure on the island nation.
He described a Cuba facing severe hardship, stating they were “in big trouble” and lacked essential resources. This assessment followed the implementation of an executive order designed to disrupt Cuba’s oil supply, effectively enacting an economic blockade.
The former President suggested that many Cuban-Americans, those who had left the island, were observing the unfolding situation with hope, even expressing a desire to return. He alluded to a potential opportunity to benefit those who had been displaced or suffered under the current regime.
This wasn’t the first indication of a hardened stance. Prior to the “friendly takeover” comment, he had labeled Cuba a “failed nation,” predicting its inability to sustain itself. These statements followed a pattern of escalating rhetoric and threats directed toward the Cuban government.
The executive order, signed earlier, declared a national emergency and authorized tariffs against any nation providing oil to Cuba. The justification cited Cuba’s actions as detrimental to U.S. interests and its alignment with perceived adversaries.
The possibility of intervention in Cuba was framed within a broader context of regional policy, drawing comparisons to recent events in Venezuela. Some observers suggested Cuba could be the next target for a change in leadership.
Statements from other political figures echoed this sentiment, with some openly predicting a similar fate for Cuba as Venezuela, emphasizing the vulnerability of the current Cuban leadership and the mounting pressures they faced.
