The U.S. must consider using military force in Cuba, or the threat of it.

Cuba is not merely authoritarian. It is a totalitarian regime. For over six decades, the Castro-Communist apparatus has exercised total control over every sphere of Cuban life: political, economic, cultural, and personal. Unlike authoritarian systems that tolerate limited private spheres or gradual openings, totalitarianism in Cuba demands absolute ideological conformity and the eradication of independent civil society. This distinction is not semantic. It is decisive. Transitions to genuine democracy from totalitarian regimes require a complete overhaul of the political sphere. Half-measures that focus on economic tweaks here and limited private enterprise there do not erode the foundations of power. Instead, they entrench the dictatorship by providing it with new resources and legitimacy.

History proves this point. Economic reforms without radical political change and the establishment of the rule of law only solidify totalitarian control. China, Vietnam, and Russia are examples. The regime’s survival strategy has always been to extract concessions from the West while preserving its monopoly on violence and ideology. Today, Castro-Communism is buying time. It hopes to dupe the Trump administration into believing that dialogue and incremental gestures will lead to power-sharing. This is a delusion. The dictatorship will never voluntarily relinquish control. The mere credible threat of viable military action—or the action itself—remains the only mechanism capable of forcing an end to the regime. 

Talks between Castro-Communism and the Trump administration, viewed through the lens of U.S. national interests and the aspirations of freedom-loving Cubans, are doomed to fail without the backing of force. Soviet communism collapsed, not through endless conversation sessions, but because the Cold War assumed an offensive character under President Reagan. Moral clarity, military pressure, and strategic resolve shattered the illusion of permanence. Cuba demands the same approach. Without belligerent action or the extraction of key figures from the power structure to face justice, the Venezuelan model—removing Maduro while allowing the Chavista system to implode, followed by stabilization and elections—simply does not apply. Venezuela operated as a neocolony of totalitarian Cuba, yet it tilted more toward authoritarianism than full totalitarian control. Cuba’s deeper entrenchment makes superficial deals impossible.

The Cuban people themselves are sending an unmistakable signal. As of early March 2026, consistent protests have swept the island, with young Cubans at the forefront demanding freedom and outright regime change. These demonstrators are not begging for an end to the U.S. embargo or the so-called “oil blockade.” They are blaming the communist dictatorship for blackouts, hunger, repression, and the theft of their future. On March 13—mere hours after dictator Miguel Díaz-Canel’s choreographed press conference in which he confirmed early-stage talks with the United States—young Cubans in Morón, Ciego de Ávila province, stormed the local headquarters of the Cuban Communist Party. They entered the building and set fire to furniture, propaganda materials, and symbols of the regime. This was no isolated outburst. It was a direct assault on the heart of totalitarian power.

These events expose the regime’s fragility and the futility of negotiation. Until the Cuban dictatorship truly feels heat at the highest levels, it will cling to power with every tool of coercion at its disposal. The United States possesses the technological means to deliver precisely that pressure without committing large numbers of ground troops. Strategic attacks—using drones, precision munitions, and other standoff capabilities—targeted at the upper echelon of the regime’s command structure, key military installations, and centers of ideological control can dismantle the apparatus that sustains totalitarianism. This would not be an invasion. It would de a calibrated preemption and support for a people already rising.

The alternative is unacceptable. If Castro-Communism survives this moment of crisis, it will evolve into a Caribbean China or a tropical Putinism. A hybrid totalitarian state with Cuban characteristics, leveraging geography, migration flows, and alliances with adversaries to project power across the Western Hemisphere, will condemn the region for decades. Such an outcome would eviscerate core U.S. national security objectives. Venezuela’s fate is inextricably linked to this development. A fortified Cuban regime would continue to export instability, ideology, drugs, and operatives across Latin America and the U.S. Democracy and stability in the Americas would remain perpetually at risk. Either Cuba is freed, or the hemisphere drifts deeper into tyrannical shadow.

The time for half-measures has passed. President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have demonstrated great resolve, and they must be commended. This stouthearted endeavor must be taken to a higher level. The Cuban people have shown courage in the streets and inside party strongholds. The United States, as the indispensable defender of liberty in the hemisphere, must now match that courage with strategic steadfastness. A credible threat of decisive action—or the action itself—can produce the regime change that decades of engagement have failed to deliver. The fall of Cuban communism would not only liberate 11 million people; it would secure the Western Hemisphere for generations. America must act—preemptively, surgically, and without apology.

© The CubanAmerican Voice. All rights reserved.

🖋️Julio M. Shiling es politólogo, escritor, conferenciante, comentarista y director de los foros políticos y las publicaciones digitales, Patria de Martí y The CubanAmerican Voice y columnista. Tiene una Maestría en Ciencias Políticas de la Universidad Internacional de la Florida (FIU) de Miami, Florida.