How Washington’s Venezuela Playbook Is Being Rewritten in Cuba

For years, Venezuela denoted a recurring challenge for Washington; an oppositional regime characterised by opposing political ideology and insulated by oil wealth and geopolitical partnerships.

2026, brought with it a change in US policy towards the Caribbean. Gone are the days of diplomatic pressure and sanctions, the strategy now focuses on what seems like philistine use of brute force with the rationale of a high school bully. However, what reveals itself once one scratches the surface it becomes clear that the US’ policy towards Latin America as a whole and especially in the Caribbean is blending economic coercion, control of energy resources, and overt political signalling. When one looks at US’ actions in Cuba with the backdrop of how the Americans have behaved in Venezuela and largely around the world; rhetoric and policy, it becomes clear that the US is beginning to assert dominance in its near-abroad sphere once more after having been on the backfoot in Latin America for a while.

The beginning of this journey lies not in Havana, but in Caracas. For years, Venezuela denoted a recurring challenge for Washington; an oppositional regime characterised by opposing political ideology and insulated by oil wealth and geopolitical partnerships. Sanctions alone proved to be too weak to dislodge it. 2026 bought with itself a change, not merely the intensity of pressure, but its fundamental nature. The United States moved past the realm of financial restrictions into direct structural intervention, targeting Venezuela’s most critical asset; its energy sector. By trying to restructure control over crude oil flows and leveraging maritime and financial mechanisms, Washington is on its way to transform Venezuela from a resistant adversary into a managed one.

This recalibration meant that Cuba was set to be the next logical step in US’ quest for energy supremacy. Cuba’s economic existence has been entwined to Venezuelan oil shipments, a relationship that sustained Havana through intervals of isolation. When that energy lifeline was disrupted, the effects were not predictable. Cuba much like Venezuela is suffering not only because of the sanctions but also because of its own decades of maladministration; however, Venezuela had the saving grace of being home to massive quantities of crude oil reserves, Cuba on the other hand was quite dependent on Venezuelan oil hand-out. The American exploitation of these dependencies has become clear with the steps its taking in the region.

The escalation in rhetoric from Donald Trump reinforces this interpretation. Statements suggesting that the United States could “take over” Cuba, even if hyperbolic, mark a departure from traditional diplomatic signalling. They shift the conversation from containment to transformation from managing adversaries to actively reshaping political systems. This mirrors earlier messaging around Venezuela, where regime change evolved from an implicit goal into an increasingly explicit objective.

What separates this emerging doctrine from before, is its sequencing. Rather than confronting several regimes simultaneously, the US is now targeting the structural foundations of regimes they find less than cooperative. Venezuela, as the region’s energy hub, was the logical first step. Once its capacity to sustain allies was weakened or redirected, countries dependent on them like Cuba become more vulnerable.

At its core, this strategy is driven by energy geopolitics. Control over oil does not just confer economic advantage; it reshapes political possibilities. US is now using the vulnerability in Cuba, and later possibly elsewhere to create dependencies on American controlled oil supply and extend control over politics as a function of exploitation of energy insecurity,

While this seems like effective strategy, the efficacy of this approach remains uncertain. History offers a cautionary note; Cuba has stood in face of external pressure and sanctions for more than 6 decades. The Cuban regime has certainly lasted longer than American Presidents, and with Trump quite surely on his way out; Cuba has to last just enough to be at the negotiating table with the next President, one who would possibly be willing to listen more as they would have to build a campaign and focus on re-election. Sustaining itself in the face of adversity in not new for the Cubans. There is little reason to assume that a more intense version of the same strategy will yield a fundamentally different outcome. Indeed, it may deepen the very dynamics it seeks to disrupt. Which again would not be something new for the Americans, who have a knack of creating future generations of enemies, as they usually unsuccessfully try and eliminate the present lot.

This move by the US has not only strengthened the anti-American sentiment, it has also opened up possibilities of the Russian and China, intervening and asserting their presence in the region; both the countries have shown willingness to expand their presence. US wanted an American backyard in Latin America and the Caribbean; but have ended up opening the region up to multipolar players.

There is also a humanitarian component that cannot be overlooked. Economic strangulation, particularly when linked to energy shortages, has direct consequences for ordinary citizens. Food insecurity, limited access to medicine, and increased migration are not abstract risks; they are predictable outcomes. Whether this approach succeeds will depend on factors beyond Washington’s control; the resilience of targeted regimes, the responses of regional actors, and the evolving dynamics of global power competition. What is clear, however, is that the Caribbean is once again emerging as a central arena of geopolitical contestation.