Is Cuba Capable of Responding to Escalations with the U.S. from Within American Borders?

The latest shift in Washington's policy towards Havana suggests a new phase of tensions.

According to a report by The New York Times, discussions within the Trump administration have explored applying a version of the "Venezuela model" on Cuba, a strategy previously used against Nicolás Maduro. This has significantly heightened the political and strategic tension between the two nations.

Adding to this is the potential federal indictment against Raúl Castro for the 1996 downing of the Brothers to the Rescue planes, increased surveillance flights around the island, an energy embargo, and the recent public visit of CIA Director John Ratcliffe to Havana.

Within this context, a question long pondered in U.S. national security analyses has resurfaced: To what extent does Cuba retain operational capabilities within U.S. territory?

This question gains traction in light of revelations from #CiberCubaLeaks, a 2019 investigation by CiberCuba based on leaked documents from Cuban State Security.

These documents revealed how agents linked to Cuba’s intelligence apparatus obtained sensitive information about Miami International Airport (MIA), including access codes, employee credentials, technical documentation, and internal records of aviation companies.

Dated between 2015 and 2017 and classified by the MININT's Counterintelligence Directorate, the files highlighted the Cuban regime's interest in an infrastructure deemed strategic for the United States, especially crucial for South Florida.

One report included messages attributed to an "Agent Charles," containing PIN codes for accessing restricted airport areas, while others contained employee identifications, internal data from cargo airline ABX Air, and technical documentation for Boeing 767-200 aircraft.

Strategic Importance of Miami

Experts consulted by CiberCuba noted the Cuban intelligence’s interest in MIA was no coincidence.

"Miami airport is a key target for Cuban espionage due to its critical role in the flow of people and goods," said Enrique García, a former high-ranking Cuban Intelligence Directorate (DGI) official.

For former officials and analysts, Miami's significance extends beyond its geographic proximity to Cuba or its large Cuban exile community; it lies in its logistical, economic, and political value.

MIA stands as one of the primary air hubs in the Americas, handling millions of passengers yearly and concentrating vital cargo operations for the United States and Latin America. Any security vulnerabilities in such a critical infrastructure could have tremendous implications.

No public evidence suggests the Cuban government has executed or planned sabotage against U.S. facilities. Moreover, there are no signs of active operations against Miami airport stemming from the documents leaked by CiberCuba.

However, intelligence experts argue that systematically gathering information on critical infrastructures is a standard practice in security doctrines and hybrid warfare.

Cuba's Asymmetric Capabilities

The term "hybrid warfare" describes forms of confrontation that do not rely solely on conventional military force. This can encompass intelligence operations, cyberattacks, migratory pressure, disinformation campaigns, institutional infiltration, and the use of human networks with strategic influence or access.

In this domain, Cuba has extensive experience.

For decades, Cuban intelligence services were regarded as some of the most effective in the Western Hemisphere. The Wasp Network, dismantled by the FBI in 1998, showed Havana's ability to infiltrate agents into exile organizations, military installations, and political circles in Florida over the years.

The use of "illegals" — agents operating under false or covert identities — has historically been part of Cuban intelligence's operational doctrine, inheriting structures and methods from the Soviet era during the Cold War.

Infiltration does not always aim to execute direct actions. Often, it seeks to gather information, build influence, identify vulnerabilities, or create pressure capabilities for future scenarios.

Security analysts believe that in a potential extreme escalation between Washington and Havana, the Cuban regime's primary response capability would not be conventional military but rather asymmetric.

Cuba lacks the military capability to directly confront the United States. However, experts suggest it could attempt to increase the political or economic cost of specific actions through indirect tools.

These might include intelligence networks, political influence, information operations, cyber activities, migratory pressure, or access to sensitive infrastructures. The potential existence of Cuban assets within U.S. strategic sectors is one factor that has historically fueled federal agency concerns.

The New York Times article indicates that within the Trump administration, there is awareness that any drastic move on Cuba could have unpredictable consequences. The newspaper notes that Trump and Marco Rubio aim to "end communist control" on the island while avoiding "total chaos."

This concern isn't only about a potential internal Cuban collapse or a new migratory crisis but also about the regional and security impact that an open confrontation might trigger.

Miami is particularly sensitive in this calculation.

The city not only harbors critical air and maritime infrastructure but also financial operations, telecommunications, logistics chains, tech centers, and extensive activities related to international tourism and trade.

It will also be a key host city for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, transforming South Florida into one of the most high-profile international spots in the United States.

For these reasons, experts consulted by CiberCuba in previous investigations emphasized that Cuban intelligence has always considered Miami a top priority. "Cuba was, is, and will be a threat to the national security of the United States," said former officer García in 2019.

Nevertheless, experts caution against exaggerations or conspiracy interpretations. U.S. security agencies have been monitoring intelligence activities linked to Cuba for decades and have extensive surveillance and counterintelligence mechanisms.

Apart from statements by Miguel Díaz-Canel and other regime leaders warning of Cuban "resistance" and "response" in the event of aggression, there is no public information confirming sabotage plans, active cells, or concrete operational preparations within the U.S. related to the current bilateral crisis.

Yet, the increasing pressure from Washington on Havana has brought the issue back to the forefront.

Amid the most significant tension between the two countries in years, the old files of Cuban espionage on U.S. soil no longer seem like relics of the Cold War, but rather pieces that some analysts deem relevant to understanding the delicate strategic chessboard forming between the two governments.