CBS News has done it again, publishing a "breaking news" style article that essentially attempted to revive the—conveniently crafted—specter of a US military invasion of Cuba. The piece is authored by James Michael Laporta—a former Marine and "expert" on military matters involving third parties—and its headline says it all: "US military prepares for possible action regarding Cuba."

Indeed, Laporta provides details regarding specific movements ordered by the Army Reserve Command, which directed subordinate units under Southern Command to identify six types of units required to assemble a strike force; they were given a window of 90 to 120 days to respond. In English, this process is known as "readiness reporting."

The first "curious" detail is pointed out by Laporta himself: the document makes no mention of Cuba. Nevertheless, he managed to contact the ever-available "anonymous sources" (often fabricated ones) who interpreted the process as preparation for a potential attack on the Cubans.

The primary issue is that this type of request—even as described in the CBS News article—reflects standard bureaucratic procedures. Like any army in the world, the US military maintains plans to update the readiness status of its troops—covering both combat forces and logistics units, as cited in the article. This procedure is governed by "Regulation AR-220-1" under the Unit Status Reporting (USR) system—a protocol that exists regardless of who is in power in Havana, of course, though for the imperial army, there is always an enemy out there that must be confronted. So, if Laporta’s “breaking news” amounts to nothing more than a routine procedure—meaning he hasn’t exactly “reinvented the wheel”—then what gives it any political, and by extension journalistic, interest is the mere fact that it references Cuba. It really looks like a ploy by the former Marine-turned-journalist to bask in the spotlight for a few hours within the fiercely competitive U.S. media landscape. Yet, this noble ambition (to stand out) does not appear to be his primary motivation.

Several analysts reached an immediate and natural conclusion: CBS News is helping keep that threat—that “specter,” as it has been called—alive to intimidate Cubans and attempt to fracture the surprising resilience of the Cuban people and their leadership in the face of ongoing aggression, which now lacks only a military “chapter” to cover every possible scenario.

Laporta himself has previously engaged in these types of anti-Cuba operations from his computer—working in a safe, comfortable, air-conditioned environment—since his days as a Marine, prowling Afghan terrain at combat stations, are firmly in his past.

For instance, one surely recalls another similar article Laporta published in May this year, in which he revealed that U.S. intelligence was assessing how Cuba would respond to an act of aggression. Frankly, it sounds almost comical; it’s astonishing to see the brazenness with which the media publicizes intelligence agency activities—something unheard of in this turbulent world, and likely illegal (just ask Edward Snowden). And besides, why all this prying into how the Cuban patriots will react, they can ask—openly and directly—any of the militiamen who fought at the Bay of Pigs.

Two months later—though without the signature of former Marine Laporta—CBS News revisited the theme of scaring the Cubans. Citing "anonymous sources," the network speculated that the 101st Airborne Division was analyzing an assault and other "military options" against the island.

In short, it was more psychological warfare—an intrinsic part of the multidimensional hostility the northern neighbor is directing at Cuba. The scoundrels call it "unparalleled pressure," boasting of their own cruelty.

The U.S. Side

This story has other angles—pertaining to the U.S. side—that are worth addressing. Doing so is crucial to fully understanding why CBS News is rolling out this story now, at a time when the political and electoral climate is far from ideal for it.

Indeed, the U.S. Federal "Dis-republic" has its own "operating protocols"—including political timing—for each of its outrages. Take, for instance, the growing unpopularity of the "imperial tradition" of fomenting every possible war to keep the military-industrial complex running.

CBS News’s archives surely contain a wealth of historical data on how news of U.S. military involvement in a foreign war affects the outcome of midterm elections.

Certain examples confirm a pattern associated with this type of electoral scenario: the party in the White House tends to suffer, often losing its congressional majorities. This can be seen in the 1966 elections (due to the Vietnam War), in 2006 (during the aggression against Iraq), in 2010 (the conflict in Afghanistan), and in 2014 (when Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama was making his "heroic" foray into Syria).

In the current context—as has already been explained—Trump is heading into these midterm elections with very slim chances of retaining control of Congress. Among the many reasons for this is the debacle of "his" war in Iran, which is considered the most reviled of them all. Some—undoubtedly inclined toward a bloodless end to "communism in Cuba"—suggest that a way to "save face" would be to attack the island, anticipating it would be an easier enemy to defeat. These are mere pipe dreams, of course, but there are always microphones available for spouting idiocies.

In any case, while the story was still making headlines, the Republicans likely began calculating the potential damage from this minor storm—brewed in the offices of CBS News. They asked Trump himself to step in and calm the destructive winds before the situation spiraled into a full-blown whirlwind at the worst possible moment.

Faced with this situation, the U.S. president—the very man whose threatening rhetoric had fueled talk of a likely military strike on Cuba—simply dismissed the notion of such a folly. He spoke in his characteristic tone—often described as "calculated ambiguity"—adding that the plan was to negotiate with the Cubans rather than use the military for neo-colonial ends.

What happened? It was simple: classic damage control—a move surprisingly uncharacteristic of Trump, who, despite often being wrong in his statements, rarely backs down so easily or openly. To be sure, Trump frequently contradicts himself, but the nuance here is different: his reaction was intended to prevent a tempest in a teapot ahead of November 3rd—just as he is already contending with gale-force winds on other fronts.

Incidentally, viewed from this perspective, what are we to make of the attitude of Marco Antonio Rubio García? He would seem to be the ideal person to put an end to the speculation fueled by CBS News. Yet, there’s nothing but silence—a stark contrast to the Foreign Secretary's reaction.

To give Rubio García some credit, one might concede that he perhaps disagreed with raising the issue during the current election cycle; strictly speaking, however, he cannot evade responsibility for devising this multidimensional aggression—a strategy he has pursued not just recently, but throughout his varied political career, ever since he began being handsomely paid to attack Cuba.

So yes, the strategic blame for this matter—and for articles like the one produced by CBS News—lies with Rubio García. As the saying goes, if you raise attack dogs, every now and then they break loose, lose control, and take actions that are far from ideal.

What’s clear is that CBS News has sent the Trump administration scrambling; this is precisely when politics can become farcical during election seasons like this one. Hours after the President clarified his plans regarding Cuba, Senator Marco Antonio Rubio García emerged from his lethargic silence when asked about his cruel policy toward the neighboring island by the friendly, Trump-aligned network Fox News.

In this context—and adopting a "tempered" presidential tone as he sought a balance—Rubio García promised mistreatment and further punishment for anyone voicing support for the Cuban Revolution. He was likely acting on instructions from the president himself, as there was no desire to alienate the—supposedly—ever-loyal base of the Miami *Cosa Nostra*. It’s exactly as it sounds: Cubans who believe in their Revolution cannot even say so. Just imagine what democracy would look like in the neo-colony that Batista’s heirs have spent decades planning for Cuba.

But returning to CBS News: it remains something of a mystery why they appear to favor the Democratic campaign—though, in fairness, one can rule out the idea that they are actually working for the Democrats. CBS News’s "hidden reasons" are likely more peculiar—for instance, whether a story helps boost ratings. Ratings are always elusive yet attractive due to the revenue a boost generates; what better way to achieve that than with a news story that, sensibly speaking, has no place in the current discourse?

The problem with the network—and with the great Laporta—is their complete lack of professional ethics. They call this way of operating "rumor-mongering"—a practice that is, incidentally, not exclusive to CBS News but characterizes the entire major U.S. press (with exceptions that merely prove the rule), all of which operate outside the realm of morality.

Thus, this case involves not only a lack of ethics but also cheap manipulation of the issue. It distorts something that Laporta—a recognized "expert" on military matters—ought to understand: the difference between a "normal" organizational procedure and a special contingency. Whatever the reason, with these practices CBS News is shooting itself in the foot and contributing to a loss of credibility; quite simply, they demonstrate that they are utterly useless as a source of information. Cuban authorities are right to keep this specific—yet recurring—evidence firmly in mind. The public—both in Cuba (the apparent target of this media operation) and in the United States (who pay for CBS News’s mediocre service)—ought to react in the same way. It is therefore appropriate to denounce such operations, unmask them, and refuse to let a single fabrication slide.

As for Cuba, it will continue with its own defense contingency plans, free from unnecessary fanfare or journalistic manipulation. If the enemy wishes to know how they would be received on this indomitable island in the event of aggression, they are welcome to find out for themselves—though such information is of little to no use to the dead. Perhaps—just perhaps—Laporta might then report on how mistaken they were, arrogance notwithstanding.

CBS News speculates, while a steadfast Cuba prepares and continues its path of resistance. And to Rubio García, we reiterate: Cubans will remain stubborn and unyielding, loudly proclaiming that *We Shall Overcome!*

Translated by Amilkal Labañino / CubaSí Translation Staff

True to form—in a manner reprehensible from every angle—the imperial foreign policy chief, Marco Antonio Rubio García, issued new anti-Cuban sanctions as this fateful September of 2026 draws to a close. This time, they were designed to punish the private sector.

From a communications standpoint, a new development has emerged: for the first time, the architects of the blockade are stating unequivocally that they intend to sanction Cuban entrepreneurs. As is well known, the effects of the blockade have impacted this segment just as they have any other citizen. The narrative that the economic war was directed solely against the "regime" was always riddled with cheap falsehoods.

Furthermore, with the naval blockade affecting energy supplies since January of this year, the damage to Cuban private businesses became evident and a daily reality; to a certain extent, it triggered a Darwinian selection process—meaning that only those with sufficient adaptive capacity have survived, depending on their type of activity, access to renewable energy, and a long, specific list of other factors. The process, chapter by chapter

In mid-2026, news broke that certain measures taken by the State Department had prompted the departure of foreign investors—some with a long-standing presence in the country. This was not due to a specific, fleeting set of circumstances, but rather the result of unusual and draconian U.S. pressure—and, it must be said, the tolerance shown by the investors' own governments.

Indeed, the governments of these investors' home countries had previously taken a very different stance. For instance, when the Helms-Burton Act—a measure with brazen extraterritorial reach—was passed, several countries with investments in Cuba enacted "antidote" laws; notably, in almost no instances did companies withdraw from the island.

Of course, one can understand how the unusual level of aggression Trump has directed at all quarters triggers defensive reactions. Under the quintessentially capitalist logic of "every man for himself," hardly anyone is willing to effectively sacrifice themselves to save others.

Nevertheless, developments are moving in various directions. Recently, Oscar Pérez-Oliva Fraga, Cuba’s head of Foreign Trade, publicly explained that some of the most emblematic mining corporations—such as Sherritt and Antilles Gold—have not actually left; they are currently on pause, evaluating conditions and the climate for continuing business on the island. One might also speculate on a further nuance: they are waiting for the collapse of Trumpism so that things can return to normal. The official himself clarified that there are no negotiations whatsoever with U.S. investors, friends of Trump, or anything of the sort. And here lies the first stumbling block for the strategy devised by Rubio García to have the Cuban economy "change hands"—to return to the possession of those who held it prior to 1959. It’s essential to reiterate this because, for once, the superfluous rhetoric Rubio García utters so tediously and frequently is stripped away; what remains—what lies beneath the surface—is this quintessentially capitalist/imperialist objective: a change in ownership of resources. It’s simple—straight out of "Chapter One" of a political economy textbook.

Up to this point, it’s easy to understand the reason for such aggression; but then, why target private Cuban entrepreneurs? As far as is known, they neither own nor have purchased the major interests that were once American—such as the refineries, the electric utility, or the telecommunications company—nor do they own a sugar mill or any large-scale industry.

And this is where the Miami *Cosa Nostra* enters the picture, led by the descendants of former Cuban oligarchs who fled the country when the Revolution triumphed—having been deeply complicit with the Batista dictatorship and convinced that they would return "triumphant" within hours, escorted by U.S. Marines, just as had always happened before.

There is a historical circumstance that cannot be overlooked: the Cuban oligarchy—or "sugarocracy," given its role in the sugar industry—was a pioneer in the Americas regarding subordination to the emerging monopolies of the North. This began in the early 20th century, when Cuba transitioned from colonial status to become—also a pioneer in this regard—a neocolony. Thus, at the very root lies the articulation—or subordination—of the island’s bourgeoisie to the US monopoly bourgeoisie; consequently, in 1959, they adopted the "Cuban-origin face" of the aggressive policy directed against the Revolution. This did not happen in Cuba; rather, a different scenario unfolded elsewhere in Latin America with the development of a national bourgeoisie that eventually found itself in conflict with the US plutocracy.

What remains today of that "second-rate" Cuban bourgeoisie—to put it one way—is essentially nothing but nostalgia. The majority of the wealthy Cubans who settled in South Florida have descendants who are thoroughly "assimilated" (*aplatanados*); that is to say, the only traces of their Cuban heritage left are the occasional custom and their surnames.

Trump’s claim that there are Cuban-Americans settled in South Florida who want to return to the island is just as true as any of the lies the man churns out daily. Just think about it: why on earth would they upend their lifestyles, neglect their local businesses, and even abandon common sense to move to Cuba? It’s absurd.

At this juncture, he acts as a "facilitator"—a term used to describe Rubio García—to satisfy these "nostalgic" desires. Of course, this applies not only to those of Cuban origin; as he himself has stated, he defends the interests of all Americans—or rather, of the famous 1%.

First of all, the naval and energy blockade against Cuba leaves only one channel, one route: exports originating in the US. Even goods Cuba imports from third countries only reach the island if they pass through US ports; there have been public reports that at least 7,000 containers are effectively held up in nearby ports—goods that were purchased and paid for elsewhere, yet shipping companies refused to transport them to Cuba. And what is the “commercial” logic behind this? It’s simple: if people in Cuba want to consume a can of tomato, let them buy it from the US. A skeptic might point out that this could drive up retail prices on the Island or make Cubans—unilaterally speaking—dependent on the US market; obviously, that is precisely the idea.

Once again, we see what was noted earlier: everything is aimed at reverting the Cuban economy to the level of dependency that existed prior to 1959—a loss of independence, as the term implies, regardless of the political shell. However, the political aspect must be addressed, as even Rubio García understands and publicly laments that without political change in Havana, the other goal—economic dependency—lacks a foothold.

In the meantime, another situation emerges—one that is somewhat more intriguing and warrants deeper study: within the scheme designed with Rubio García as its administrator—that is, the neocolonization of Cuba—what role do the children and grandchildren of that aforementioned proto-Batistian sugar oligarchy assign to themselves?

A deeper study would inevitably require delving into the shady dealings of this tenacious colonialist crust (to borrow Rubén Martínez Villenas’s phrase) in its "2.0" iteration. First, because they remain the "Cuban" face of imperial hostility—hostility that persists and will persist, given the inability to tolerate a socialist, anti-capitalist Revolution just 90 miles away. The class-based and imperialist motivations expressed as early as 1959 remain in force, as do the "dogs of war" ready to defend those interests. Those oligarchs—who grew wealthier after achieving the "American Dream," despite arriving with millions stolen from the Cuban Republic—left a mandate to their descendants: monopolize whatever slice of the pie remains from the neocolonial feast. That is the current agenda of those determining Rubio García’s fate. Yet, a circumstance arose that was not foreseen in the Miami-based plans.

A private sector emerged on the Island through a sovereign decision, independent of any external authority. The very measures intended to blockade the country made this sector indispensable to Cuba's domestic trade. While the exact scale and depth remain unknown, logic suggests that the seed capital for these entrepreneurs—or their business operations in the U.S.—likely originates from sectors (possibly of Cuban descent) that stand apart from the aforementioned small, super-powerful clique—a group with a proto-Batista bent that should not be underestimated.

The context allows for further nuance in this story, as the trade flow between the two shores involves far more than "peanuts." Between January and July 2026, goods valued at approximately $674 million were shipped to Cuba, showing an upward trend. The primary U.S. shipping ports align with the largest concentrations of Latinos and Cubans—specifically Houston-Galveston (Texas) and Miami, which account for 90% of shipments, with only marginal volumes coming from Tampa and New Orleans.

So, returning to the economics textbook—chapter two—it’s capitalist competition, except with a politicized finish, because the aforementioned proto-Batista types know they cannot openly engage with Cuba—short of defeating the Revolution—given their aggressive, criminal track records, for which Cuban laws would duly punish them; some of them are responsible for thousands of Cubans wounded or killed by terrorism originating in Miami—to mention only the most well-known instances.

Information is unavailable regarding who controls the flow of goods from the US to Cuba, or whether these proto-Batista types are participating (covertly)—and if not, who is. What must be assumed, however, is that this trade has specific controllers; it is neither free, spontaneous, nor fragmented. That is how the system works, according to Chapter Three of the manual.

Thus, speculatively, one might presume a "pitched battle" is currently underway among various factions that are—or wish to be—managing commercial exchange between the two countries. This issue lies at the heart of Rubio García’s measures: they are directed not against the private sector in general, but against those outside the diabolical circle of the proto-Batista types. Another move straight out of the manual—Chapter Four: the use of political power to resolve intra-class conflicts.

In short: Washington seeks to displace international competition regarding access to—and eventual control over—resources and the Cuban economy in general (Chapter Five, this time of the "Donroe Doctrine"). For his part, Rubio García intervenes with his sinister agenda to guarantee his backers exclusive control over the spoils—specifically, whatever remains after the major corporations that own the "US Federal Dis-republic" have secured what is "theirs": the plunder, as Trump likes to call it when celebrating the "virtues" of aggression against and subjugation of a third country.

Editor's Note. The use of chapter numbering serves a narrative purpose; it does not correspond to any specific economics textbook. The intention is to demonstrate that the cruel, historic U.S. policy against Cubans was always exactly that—textbook. This makes the war—cloaked in rhetoric about democratization, respect for human rights, and other traditionally used nonsense—all the more reprehensible.

Apparently satisfied with Rubio García’s anti-Cuban antics, the president—in a move driven purely by electoral considerations on Hispanic Day—warned that one must keep a close watch on what his Secretary of State will do regarding Cuba.

In a social media image, a response to Trump suggested he should instead keep an eye on what will happen to Marco Antonio Rubio García; the image shows the middle finger of a left hand raised toward the Island’s unredeemed blue sky, while the other fingers, curled inward, proudly gaze up at the raised digit standing tall on behalf of all; those who get it, get it.

Translated by Amilkal Labañino / CubaSí Translation Staff