Cuba could no longer serve as a staging ground for hostile actors
A distância de 150 quilômetros entre Cuba e a Flórida voltou a condensar décadas de desconfiança hemisférica em uma crise concreta: Washington alega que Havana acumulou mais de 300 drones militares fornecidos por Rússia e Irã, com planos que ameaçariam bases americanas e território continental. Cuba responde que as acusações são pretextos fabricados para legitimar uma agressão já decidida. No espaço entre essas narrativas opostas, a história da rivalidade entre as duas nações encontra um novo e perigoso capítulo.
- Inteligência americana classifica Cuba como ameaça ativa, citando mais de 300 drones militares adquiridos de Rússia e Irã e a presença de assessores iranianos na ilha, a poucos minutos de voo da Flórida.
- O vice-ministro cubano Carlos Fernández de Cossío inverteu publicamente a narrativa, acusando Washington de ser o verdadeiro agressor e reafirmando o direito de Cuba à autodefesa soberana.
- A visita do diretor da CIA, John Radcliffe, a Havana dias antes das revelações sinalizou que os Estados Unidos já estão em modo de pressão direta, com avisos explícitos de que Cuba não pode servir de base para atores hostis.
- O espectro da operação militar americana na Venezuela em janeiro paira sobre a crise: autoridades cubanas temem ser o próximo alvo de uma intervenção apresentada como imperativo de segurança.
- Cuba enfrenta simultaneamente apagões generalizados por escassez de combustível e a ameaça de ação legal americana contra Raúl Castro, comprimindo ainda mais o espaço de manobra do governo em Havana.
A relação entre Washington e Havana entrou em uma fase de tensão inédita nos últimos anos. Autoridades americanas de inteligência afirmam que Cuba adquiriu mais de 300 drones militares fornecidos por Rússia e Irã, e que o governo cubano teria discutido o uso dessas armas contra a base naval de Guantánamo, navios de guerra americanos e possivelmente alvos no território continental dos Estados Unidos. A avaliação, revelada pelo Axios, reflete a preocupação crescente da administração Trump com a presença de armamentos avançados e atores hostis a apenas 150 quilômetros da costa americana.
O governo cubano rejeitou as acusações com veemência. O vice-ministro de Relações Exteriores Carlos Fernández de Cossío classificou as alegações como pretextos cada vez mais implausíveis para uma agressão militar, argumentando que os Estados Unidos são o agressor e Cuba, a vítima que age dentro de seu direito à autodefesa. Essa inversão retórica sintetiza o abismo entre as duas capitais sobre quem, afinal, representa uma ameaça para quem.
O peso do momento se torna ainda mais evidente quando se considera que o diretor da CIA, John Radcliffe, visitou Havana poucos dias antes das revelações, entregando um aviso direto às autoridades cubanas: a ilha não poderia mais servir de plataforma para atores hostis atuarem no Hemisfério Ocidental. A mensagem foi clara — Washington não trata Cuba apenas como uma preocupação de segurança, mas como um potencial ponto de intervenção.
O contexto regional amplifica os riscos. Trump ameaçou repetidamente 'tomar o controle' de Cuba, e a operação militar americana que removeu Nicolás Maduro do poder na Venezuela em janeiro criou um precedente que Havana observa com alarme. A administração americana também teria iniciado ações legais contra Raúl Castro, de 94 anos, relacionadas ao abate de uma aeronave civil há três décadas. Internamente, Cuba enfrenta apagões contínuos provocados pela escassez de combustível imposta pelo embargo americano, enquanto a presença de assessores militares iranianos na ilha alimenta ainda mais as suspeitas de Washington.
No centro dessa escalada está a questão dos drones: para os americanos, prova de agressão; para os cubanos, instrumento legítimo de sobrevivência e dissuasão. Com nenhum dos lados disposto a recuar, a pergunta que permanece é se a diplomacia ainda tem espaço para interromper uma trajetória que, caso siga o padrão venezuelano, pode terminar em intervenção militar no Caribe.
The relationship between Washington and Havana has entered a new and volatile phase. American intelligence officials are now flagging what they describe as a serious threat: Cuba, they say, has acquired more than 300 military drones from Russia and Iran, and has begun discussing plans to use them against the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo, American warships, and possibly even targets in Florida itself. The assessment, first reported by Axios, reflects deep concern within the Trump administration about the convergence of advanced weaponry and hostile actors operating just 150 kilometers from American soil.
Cuba's government flatly rejects these accusations. Vice Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío took to social media to characterize the American claims as increasingly implausible pretexts for military aggression. He reframed the narrative entirely: the United States, he argued, is the aggressor; Cuba is the victim, acting within its right to self-defense. This rhetorical reversal captures the fundamental disagreement between the two capitals about who poses a threat to whom.
The timing of these revelations carries its own weight. Just days before the Axios report, CIA Director John Radcliffe visited Havana, where he delivered a stark warning to Cuban authorities. According to an unnamed U.S. intelligence official, Radcliffe made clear that Cuba could no longer serve as a staging ground for hostile actors to advance their agendas in the Western Hemisphere. The message was unmistakable: the United States views the island not merely as a security concern but as a potential flashpoint requiring direct intervention.
The broader context sharpens the stakes. Trump has repeatedly threatened to "take control" of Cuba during his presidency, framing the removal of the communist regime as a matter of American national security. This rhetoric has intensified in recent months, particularly following the U.S. military operation in January that removed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power. Cuban officials have suggested, based on American media reports, that their island may be next on Washington's list. The Trump administration has also reportedly begun pursuing legal action against Raúl Castro, the 94-year-old former president and brother of the late revolutionary leader Fidel Castro, based on an incident from three decades ago involving the downing of a civilian aircraft operated by Brothers to the Rescue, an anti-Castro exile organization based in Florida.
Cuba itself faces mounting internal pressures that complicate its security posture. The island is experiencing rolling blackouts caused by fuel shortages resulting from the American embargo—a blockade that has persisted for more than six decades. The presence of Iranian military advisors on the island, confirmed by American officials, adds another layer of concern for Washington, which views Iran as a regional adversary. For Cuban leadership, however, these partnerships represent legitimate means of survival and deterrence against a far more powerful neighbor.
The drone question sits at the center of this escalating tension. American officials describe the acquisition and deployment of such weapons as evidence of Cuban aggression and a direct threat to regional stability. Cuban officials counter that the United States is manufacturing a crisis to justify military action it has already decided to pursue. Neither side appears willing to step back from the brink. The question now is whether diplomacy can interrupt this trajectory, or whether the pattern established in Venezuela—military intervention presented as a security imperative—will repeat itself in the Caribbean.
Citas Notables
The effort to justify military aggression against Cuba intensifies by the hour, with increasingly implausible accusations. The United States is the aggressor; Cuba is the victim, protected by the principle of legitimate self-defense.— Carlos Fernández de Cossío, Cuban Vice Foreign Minister
When you have these technologies so close, combined with bad actors ranging from terrorist groups to drug cartels to Iranians and Russians, that is concerning. It is a growing threat.— Unnamed U.S. administration official
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the U.S. care so much about Cuban drones when they have overwhelming military superiority?
Because proximity changes the calculus. A drone launched from 150 kilometers away doesn't need to be sophisticated to cause damage. It's not about capability parity—it's about the ability to strike without warning, to make American territory itself a potential target.
But Cuba says it's being framed. How do we know the threat is real?
That's the genuine problem here. We have American intelligence officials making claims, and Cuban officials denying them. There's no independent verification. What we do know is that Cuba has acquired drones from Russia and Iran—that's not disputed. What those drones are intended for is where the disagreement lies.
Is this about the drones, or is it about regime change?
It's both, and that's what makes it dangerous. The drones give Washington a security argument for action it may have already decided to take. Trump has been explicit about wanting to remove the Cuban government. The drones become the justification rather than the cause.
What about the Iranian advisors? That seems like a real escalation.
It is, from an American perspective. But from Havana's view, it's survival. Cuba is isolated, under embargo, facing a hostile superpower ninety miles away. Iran offers military support and political alliance. The U.S. sees a threat network forming; Cuba sees a lifeline.
Where does this end?
That depends on whether either side blinks. The CIA director's visit was a warning. The question is whether Cuba will heed it or whether the U.S. will interpret any Cuban defiance as confirmation that military action is necessary. History suggests the latter is more likely.