Terror in Tehran and Horror in Havana

It is best to start with a serious tone here. First, a brief recap of how we got here. Iran has seen nationwide economic protests followed by an internet blackout and severe state oppression. To quell this unrest, the state has conducted a crackdown of unprecedented scale. As of late January 2026, total death toll estimates range from roughly 3,100 (per the Iranian government) to upwards of 36,500 (per estimates cited by organizations like Iran International), including hundreds of security personnel. This represents the most significant mass violence in modern Iranian history since the 1979 revolution.

Blackout

Due to the internet blackout, media reporting is severely limited, though text based accounts continue to emerge. The intensity of the blackout has fluctuated, largely driven by the severe economic costs to businesses unable to transfer money. It is hard not to feel the weight of these descriptions. It is easy to look away or stop listening, but without acknowledging this human struggle, we risk forgetting the history that preceded it. This serves as a painful but necessary reminder of why certain norms exist. When we lose sight of them, the consequences can be truly terrible. This tragedy has unfolded over many months, slowly escalating before the true scale became apparent.

Cuba and a Lack of Friends

The situation in Cuba is different. The island has avoided violence on the scale of Iran, lacking the same fundamentalist religious drivers. It is best described as stagnation rather than rapid decline, though it remains under severe pressure. For decades, Cuba has relied on external support to survive, and while it has not cracked, the regime has been forced to adapt.

Cuba previously relied on oil from Venezuela and resource exchanges with other allies. However, following the U.S. kidnapping of the Venezuelan president on January 3, 2026, those supplies evaporated. Now, Mexico is Cuba’s primary source of oil, even as President Trump exerts massive pressure through executive orders—such as the January 29th order threatening tariffs on any nation providing oil to Cuba. With oil supplies drying up and tourism declining, the nation faces a severe economic crisis, effectively tightening a long standing blockade.

Differences to Iran, Trump, and Marco

The difference, however, is that there has not been unrest in Cuba; instead, those who can leave are choosing to do so. This policy has had significant impacts on South Florida politics. The parallel to Venezuela lies in the shared experience of mismanagement and poor relations with the U.S.

So why does Trump suddenly care? Marco Rubio holds a personal connection and desires regime change, which aligns with Trump’s vision. While Mexico has attempted to send aid, it is insufficient, and with Cuba reportedly producing only 40% of its required oil, the pressure is mounting. Rubio appears to be getting his way, which is a dire signal for the Cuban leadership. Without firing a shot, the economic pressure may soon force either a collapse of leadership or a major humanitarian and refugee crisis.

Full Measures Never Half

Speaking of which, Iran attempted to target Trump. When given options from 1 to 10, he went straight to 10. In response, Trump ordered the assassination of an Iranian general. Relations are currently at a nadir following the collapse of nuclear deal negotiations and the dismantling of Iranian proxies by the U.S. and Israel. For Trump, this is personal—an ego and legacy project. After the success in Venezuela, he appears ready to roll the dice again.

The Strategic Gap

American power projection is shifting. The U.S. moved its carrier presence from the Middle East to the Caribbean to support the Venezuela operation, but now the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford have been redeployed toward Israeli waters. These movements signal a readiness to act, leaving noticeable gaps in the Pacific. Military planners are watching closely; this buildup, involving two carrier strike groups and massive air support, could provide a template for how a NATO Russia conflict might unfold. With religious fundamentalists potentially cornered and in possession of nuclear capabilities, the risk of a miscalculation triggering a wider refugee and humanitarian crisis is profound.

Turning It Up to 10

Signs point to Trump opting for Option 10. Having already demonstrated a willingness to support coups and target leadership in Venezuela, the administration is now applying that same pressure to Iran. Given Trump’s unpredictability and his history of striking nuclear sites alongside Israel, the move toward a high intensity confrontation appears deliberate.

Special Relationship of Abuse

The British government has denied the U.S. permission to use RAF bases for strikes against Iran, and this is why President Trump has suddenly withdrawn his support for the UK’s Chagos Islands deal. It is a classic case of leverage where the U.S. wants unfettered access to Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, but the UK is citing international law and a desire to avoid complicity as the reason for blocking it. I am surprised the British government has had the resolve to push back so firmly. Without U.S. support, the Chagos deal, already politically toxic and stalled in the Lords, is now on life support.

The fact that so few journalists have reported the direct link between the U.S. base access and the president’s sudden change of heart on the Chagos deal is breathtaking. It highlights a massive gap in political reporting.

Trump’s Threat Against the British

Meanwhile, look at the president’s own words:

“Should Iran decide not to make a Deal, it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime.”

The threat is explicit and yet it is barely being unpacked. Read the bit I have bolded and let that sink in. Trump is saying, “I use your bases however I see fit and I do not care what you think.”

This goes beyond just base access. If you look at the pressure on the Chagos Islands deal, it’s not hard to see Trump essentially threatening to seize control of the islands anyway and daring the British government to stop him. He is making it clear that for this administration, “sovereignty” is a negotiable commodity one that will be revoked if the UK prioritizes international legal standards over U.S. operational needs. This demand for unfettered base access represents a far more fundamental challenge to the UK’s global standing than any pressure we saw with previous administrations.

The most telling part of this whole affair isn’t the threat itself it’s the silence that followed. This silence is primarily from a media that is supposedly Eurosceptic, yet remains deeply, almost reflexively, enamored with American power. They worry about sovereignty when it comes to the EU, but when Trump threatens that same sovereignty, they’d rather hit Keir Starmer over the head. Worse, they offer no reflection on how we got here, acting instead as cheerleaders for whatever Trump does, blinded by that power and the money behind it. It is mirrored by an elite class that seems all too comfortable with the UK functioning as an American colony or client state. I’m not sure which is worse: the fact that the previous government negotiated this deal and their buddies in the press are ignoring that, or the fact that those who did the negotiations and tied us to the Americans seem unable to admit what that means in practice. Devoid of morals and ethics, they are more hollow than a talking Russian doll. We are watching a fundamental shift in our autonomy. We should be having a serious national conversation about it. Starmer should be leading that chat about moving closer to Europe, not offering silence and the bare minimum. Yet nobody but me seems to pick up on these points or care. This confirms my worst fears: pushback happened, but without a constant, united front, it means nothing. When sovereignty becomes a condition, the “special relationship” is functionally over.

What does it mean?

I am proud of the British government for using its political capital here. However, this is not just diplomatic theater; it has real operational consequences. Because of this refusal, the bombers the Americans have positioned cannot be easily used for a sustained campaign, forcing the Pentagon to rethink its logistics on the fly. While U.S. global reach is vast, these logistical bottlenecks such as the time required to reposition assets for a potential crisis in Taiwan highlight just how essential alliances are, and how fragile they become under such aggressive pressure.

Unreliable Alliances

The U.S. has become an unreliable ally, aggressive toward both friends and foes—with the notable exception of Russia. There appears to be a deep, personal motivation for avoiding conflict with Putin. While the U.S. seeks to normalize relations to save Russia from its economic failures, Putin is increasingly pivoting toward China. The U.S. strategy seems to rely on the “might is right” doctrine, ignoring the nuanced outcomes that experts have failed to adequately explain.

Madness of America?

So, what are the potential outcomes?

• Internal Coup: A faction within the leadership decides to oust the current head to preserve their own power, similar to the events in Venezuela. A clash between the Army and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a likely possibility.

• Civil War: A messy, chaotic scenario where various repressed groups unite to take down the leadership. Given Iran’s ethnic and political diversity, this could lead to widespread destabilization, mirroring the Syrian experience.

• Regime Change: The leadership collapses, leading to a total shift in governance, driven by deep-seated public resentment against the military and guard leadership.

Trump’s actions risk unleashing forces he cannot control, potentially causing damage that will long outlast his administration.

The Endgame

Trump’s decision to poke his nose into already volatile regions could worsen the situation significantly. The core question remains: what is the gameplay? Is he aiming for a nuclear deal, or is this purely about vengeance?

The U.S. Supreme Court has created a president who is less accountable than the British Royal Family, and Congress has gifted Trump the power of a king, bypassing checks and balances. Such a thought should weigh on people’s minds, and people should be shaking their heads in shame. It appears that what is coming will be far bigger, looking much more like a war than the operation in Venezuela. I believe he will strike Iran regardless of the obstacles. The danger is that Iran, feeling trapped, may react in kind.

The rest of the Middle East is desperate for stability, yet the current path threatens to trigger a refugee and humanitarian crisis with massive, long lasting consequences. If Trump ignores the UK’s wishes, the hard choice of who truly cares about sovereignty will be laid bare. If he ignores the wishes of Arab nations, the hard choices they face will be just as painful. Let us hope he makes one choice, not two, that could blow up these critical alliances.

Perhaps this is a great big bluff, and there is still time to walk back from the edge. Emboldened by Venezuela, Trump will roll the dice on Iran and open a Pandora’s box. The question remains: does Trump want a nuclear deal, or vengeance?