HIKMA SUMMIT
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

A nation in the dark: the current crisis

The energy crisis is unprecedented: currently, the Cuban government can only cover around 40% of the country’s energy needs according to the government’s figures. The root causes are structural and contextual: Cuba’s energy infrastructure relies heavily on outdated oil-fired thermoelectric plants, while at the same time fuel imports, primarily diesel and crude oil, have declined. Since early 2026 Venezuela, once Cuba’s main ally and energy source, has cut off supplies following Maduro’s overthrow. Russia has provided limited shipments in recent weeks, yet insufficient to cover the crisis.

The consequences are clear: entire cities experience prolonged blackouts, sometimes lasting over 24 hours especially outside of Havana. Water supplies are cut short without electricity that mainly depends on fuel, while public transportation has been severely reduced due to shortages, isolating entire areas and restricting access to essential services.

The healthcare system is the most affected: once a pillar of Cuban investments that exported medical personnel as part of a medical diplomacy plan, it is now under strain. Hospitals face shortage of medicines including cancer treatment, and it is estimated that over 96.000 people are reportedly waiting for surgical procedures, while medical care is increasingly rationed.

Without fuel, waste management has ceased, leading to piles of trash lining the streets of Havana, fueling outbreaks of diseases like dengue fever. Food shortages further complicate the crisis, exposing the failure of domestic agricultural policies to ensure self-sufficiency.

While the Cuban government blames the situation on the US embargo, the reality is more complex: decades of absent economic reform and dependence on external commercial partners, first the Soviet Union, then Venezuela, and now partially Russia and the increasing presence of China, have exacerbated the vulnerability of the country, while Trump’s administration acts as a threat and external pressure on a collapsing system.

US – Cuba relations

The current crisis cannot be fully explained without considering the longstanding and complex relationship between Cuba and the US. Tensions date back to the Cuban Revolution, when Fidel Castro nationalised industries that were before largely controlled by American companies. This rupture intensified during the Cold War, as Cuba aligned with the Soviet bloc, which led to the embargo in the early 1960s, cutting off trade and financial ties. Over time, the embargo evolved into one of the longest-running sanction regimes in modern history. Laws such as the Helms-Burton Act in the 1990s, extended its reach to foreign companies engaging with Cuba. Although there have been periods of détente, for instance during the Obama administration, sanctions were tightened under Trump’s first presidency, with over 150 measures targeting the Cuban economy, restricting inflows of foreign currency including through the tourism sector that is one of the pillars of the Cuban economic system.

The US military is currently indirectly blocking oil tankers approaching the island, by impeding any merchant international ship that docks in Cuba from entering US ports for six months, therefore leaving the island starved of food and medicines. While a small humanitarian flotilla landed 40 tons of aid on March 24, it’s only a drop in the ocean in the generalised crisis.

Washington’s strategy at the same time reflects broader geopolitical concerns: Cuba’s location in the Gulf of Mexico places it near key maritime routes critical for the US energy and agricultural trade routes: any foreign military or intelligence presence on the island, as the allegedly Chinese increasing one, raises alarms.

Why does the US seek influence over Cuba?

The current US approach towards Cuba is driven by a series of factors: economic, political and symbolic. Under the “Trump Monroe Doctrine”, the US is looking to secure its regional backyard in a fragmenting global trade system, and sees Cuba as a potential economic frontier. Cuba, in fact, holds the world’s third-largest reserves of cobalt and over 5.5 million tons of nickel, essential components for the global battery market. Moreover, its tourism and real estate sectors also offer opportunities for investment, especially if the economy gets liberalised.

Furthermore, Cuba plays a significant role in domestic US dynamics. The Cuban-American community, particularly in Florida, remains a powerful electoral pool strongly opposed to the Cuban regime and with a strategic representative in Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State. With the 2026 mid-term elections approaching this November and Trump’s declining popularity due to Middle-Eastern conflicts and the “Epstein files” scandals, openly “taking Cuba” would be a risky move. At the same time, the Caribbean island remains an unresolved issue in American foreign policy and a symbol of defiance: gaining influence over Cuba would align within a broader effort to consolidate Trump’s position in the Americas, especially relevant in the wider context of a shifting global order, where regional blocs are becoming more prominent and control over strategic areas is prioritised.

What’s ahead: transition or intervention?

The future is uncertain but not completely unpredictable according to analysts. US Southern Command, led by Francis Donovan, already has planned American action in case of a total island collapse, including mass reception camps in Guantanamo Bay where the US military base is placed, to prevent a potential exodus of refugees. If food shortages worsen and basic services continue to collapse, large numbers of Cubans may attempt to leave the island towards Florida. At the same time, social tensions erupted on the streets leading to protests and including attacks on Communist Party headquarters in the last few weeks. In this context, Washington could justify an intervention to protect the American embassy and the military base in Guantanamo.

The most plausible path for now seems a guided transition towards a regime change. Reports suggest that Marco Rubio is in negotiations with “Raulito” Castro, the grandson of Raul Castro. Analysts suggest that rather than pursuing an outright regime change, the US may seek a gradual shift towards a cooperative leadership that would lead to economic concessions such as easing energy restrictions, trading political transformations for the lifting of the oil blockade. This approach would mirror the strategy used in Venezuela in some ways, though focusing less on ideological confrontation and more on reshaping internal power structures through economic pressure.

Conclusions

Trump right now is not fighting an ideological battle, but leveraging economic pressure and scarcity. The Cuban economy is deteriorating, creating the conditions for the US to exert external influence, whether diplomatically or militarily. Time is a critical factor: what happens if the island collapses under the strain of the power grid system before any transition can be managed? Would the Cuban population be willing to accept a US involvement if the lights are turned on again? As Trump’s administration has to navigate multiple crises on different fronts at the moment, while losing international credibility and internal consensus, what will be the future of the Cuban island in this context?