For the umpteenth time, United States President Donald Trump has decided to threaten the Republic of Cuba. This has been a consistent behavioral pattern since he assumed the presidency in January 2025, evolving from the application of new sanctions and the intensification of the blockade to open military threats—all characterized by his proverbial arrogance and a penchant for the convenient lie of the moment.

This time, the rhetoric emerged from one of his comfort zones: an exclusive neighborhood near his residence during a private dinner in West Palm Beach. Surrounded by the Miami political elite and other millionaires gathered to raise funds for Republican congressional candidates for the upcoming November elections, the setting provided the perfect backdrop for his latest claims.

Were it not for the fact that these words come from the Commander-in-Chief of the imperial military forces, they would be dismissed as mere bluster intended to please potential financiers, some of whom are ideologically committed to returning Cuba to its pre-1959 state.

The warmongering declaration itself is nonsensical in practical and technical military terms. Placing a multi-billion dollar vessel loaded with aircraft—designed to strike an enemy from the greatest possible physical distance—within "stone-throwing" range of the coast is an absurdity. Trump's statements should be interpreted as campaign-season posturing with a strong subliminal charge. While his previous suggestions of intervention were often wrapped in an "enigmatic mode," this latest instance is perhaps his most blunt; paradoxically, this directness strips it of credibility, as it describes a move that is both unfeasible and strategically contemptible.

Other critical factors must be considered if the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln were to be anchored off the Havana Malecón or any other sovereign Cuban shore. Most obviously, such a presence would virtually halt maritime traffic in the Florida Straits.

For Captain Daniel Jacob Keeler, commander of the Lincoln, and his superiors, a basic truth should be clear: if you initiate a conflict by deploying warships in the Florida Straits, you risk becoming trapped in a Caribbean version of the "Strait of Hormuz syndrome." As seen recently, Iran possesses a powerful "nuclear" deterrent: its control over that strategic waterway.

What would an interruption of movement in this "Floridian Hormuz" entail? Within hours or days, it would paralyze the commercial maritime flow of numerous strategic U.S. ports in Florida and the Gulf of Mexico—or the "Gulf of America," to use terminology Trump might prefer. Approximately 70% of all goods imported, exported, or moved via coastal trade consumed by the American South pass through this 90-mile-wide corridor. We are talking about billions of dollars and millions of tons of cargo. The Lincoln would essentially trigger an economic pandemic overnight.

Trump is essentially suggesting—or rather, stating without forethought—that he is prepared to paralyze port operations at Port Miami, Port Everglades, Port Canaveral, and JAXPORT in Florida, as well as the Port of Houston, the Port of South Louisiana, and the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas. Notably, both states are Republican strongholds.

The goods at stake include food, agricultural commodities, miscellaneous consumer goods, fuel, energy carriers (including gas), vehicles, and military and space logistics. Cape Canaveral, located roughly 600 kilometers north of Varadero, would see its NASA operations significantly impacted. Furthermore, a closure would devastate the fishing industry, Coast Guard anti-drug missions, and scientific environmental research.

And then there is the cruise industry—the "heart of the matter." If anyone utilizes the Florida Straits to its fullest extent, it is the cruise lines. Between 30 and 37 million cruise passengers travel through these waters annually, generating roughly $10 billion in profits for Florida alone—one-third of the global total. Moreover, nearly two million jobs linked to this industry in this "Republican land" could be jeopardized just before the November elections.

Even the wealthiest would face their share of "sacrifice" if Washington insists on "regime change" in Havana at the point of a bayonet. The flow of luxury yachts, which find the Florida Straits to be one of their most frequented maritime spaces, would be severely disrupted. This would lead to millions in losses and the disappearance of thousands of jobs.

Prosperous yacht businesses, particularly in Port Everglades—the leading hub for the export of "motorboats and yachts"—and marinas in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and the Keys would likely collapse. For instance, the ChartesLux fleet, which charges $125 per hour or $1,500 for four hours, illustrates the scale of the private maritime economy at risk. If any owners or shareholders of these lucrative businesses were present at the West Palm Beach dinner, it is unlikely they were among those cheering the President's plan to send the Lincoln to Cuban shores.

This is not mere speculation. Major cruise firms like Royal Caribbean International and Carnival Corporation are recognized financiers of the Republican Party. Other "mega-donors" with diversified investments in the tourism and resort sectors, such as Miriam Adelson or Ronald Lauder, would also see their interests severely impacted by such a conflict.

In summary, the Chief Executive should be warned: turning the Florida Straits into a Caribbean Strait of Hormuz would be a major disaster for the U.S. economy, particularly in the South. Given the strategic stalemate in the conflict with Iran, it is difficult to predict if the Lincoln will truly visit Cuba in a state of combat readiness. Internal political conditions are currently unfavorable for the White House to initiate another war, especially one so close to Florida's shores.

Even the supposed social base of Cuban origin in the U.S. is divided. Some, driven by annexationist roots, are anxious to end the Revolution regardless of the cost to Cuba, while a likely silent majority prefers a normal relationship with their birth country to avoid the hardships of conflict.

It has been rightly said that Trump's rhetoric ultimately aids Cuba in the communication arena. By openly announcing military invasions and bragging about cutting off Cuba's fuel through a "blockade," he makes it impossible to deny the cruelty of U.S. foreign policy toward its neighbor. Any "neutral" observer can see the abhorrent nature of this stance.

This is where the situation stands. Since April 10, there have been no new reports of high-level conversations between Havana and Washington. Trump's verbal outbursts may simply be his known tactic of intimidation to gain leverage. However, the position of the Cuban authorities remains unchanged: a dialogue between equals, without interference, focused on addressing the pressing problems caused by the blockade.

While the prospect of closing the Florida Straits looms, Cuba cannot be blamed; it does not even possess an aircraft carrier to anchor off Key West. One knows when a war begins, but never how it ends—or what happens when missiles are traded across a mere 90 miles of water.

A mobilization slogan for both sides of the Straits would be: Cruises yes, aircraft carriers no! The experience gained before Trump’s previous prohibitions speaks for itself. If cruise ships come to the Malecón, they are welcome; but if U.S. Marines come, they will leave their boots—with their feet still inside—on Cuban soil. A forewarned war does not kill soldiers.

Translated by Sergio A. Paneque Díaz / CubaSí Translation Staff