news

On January 14, 2025, the U.S. government announced the decision to: 1) exclude Cuba from the State Department's list of countries that allegedly sponsor terrorism; 2) make use of the presidential prerogative to prevent action in U.S. courts against lawsuits filed under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act; and 3) eliminate the list of restricted Cuban entities that designates a group of institutions with which U.S. citizens and institutions are prohibited from engaging in financial transactions, which has had an effect on third countries.

Despite its limited nature, this is a decision in the right direction and in line with the sustained and firm demand of the government and people of Cuba, and with the broad, emphatic and reiterated call of numerous governments, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean, of Cubans living abroad, of political, religious and social organizations, and of numerous political figures in the United States and other countries. The government of Cuba thanks everyone for their contribution and sensitivity.

This decision puts an end to specific coercive measures that, along with many others, cause serious damage to the Cuban economy, with a severe effect on the population. This is and has been an issue in Cuba's official exchanges with the U.S. government. It is important to point out that the economic blockade and a good part of the dozens of coercive measures that were put into effect since 2017 to reinforce it remain in force, with full extraterritorial effect and in violation of International Law and the human rights of all Cubans.

To cite just a few examples, the illegal and aggressive persecution of fuel supplies that Cuba has a legitimate right to import continues. The cruel and absurd persecution of Cuba's legitimate international medical cooperation agreements with other countries continues, threatening to deprive millions of people of health services and limiting the potential of Cuba's public health system. Cuba's international financial transactions or those of any nationals that are related to Cuba remain under prohibition and retaliation. Merchant ships docking in Cuba also remain under threat.

On the other hand, every U.S. citizen, company and subsidiary entity of a U.S. corporation is prohibited from trading with Cuba or Cuban entities, except for very restricted and regulated exceptions. Harassment, intimidation and threats against the national of any country that intends to trade with or invest in Cuba continue to be official U.S. policy. Cuba continues to be a destination that the U.S. government prohibits its citizens from visiting.

The economic war remains and persists in posing the fundamental obstacle to the development and recovery of the Cuban economy with a high human cost for the population, and continues to be a stimulus to emigration.

The decision announced today by the United States corrects, in a very restricted way, aspects of a cruel and unjust policy. It is a correction that occurs now, on the verge of a change of government, when it should have been made years ago, as an elementary act of justice, without demanding anything in return and without fabricating pretexts to justify inaction, if it was desired to act correctly. In order to exclude Cuba from the arbitrary list of State sponsors of terrorism, it should have been enough to acknowledge the truth, the total absence of reasons for such designation and the exemplary performance of our country in the fight against terrorism, which even U.S. government agencies have admitted.

It is known that the government of that country could reverse in the future the measures adopted today, as has happened on other occasions and as a sign of the lack of legitimacy, ethics, consistency and reason in its conduct against Cuba.

To do so, U.S. politicians do not usually stop to find honest justification, as long as the vision described in 1960 by then Assistant Secretary of State Lester Mallory, and the goal he described of subduing the Cubans by means of economic encirclement, misery, hunger and desperation, remains in force. They would not stop at justifications as long as that government continues to be incapable of recognizing and accepting Cuba's right to self-determination, and as long as it continues to be willing to assume the political cost of international isolation caused by its genocidal and illegal policy of economic asphyxiation against Cuba.

Cuba will continue to confront and denounce this policy of economic warfare, the interference programs and the disinformation and discrediting operations financed every year with tens of millions of dollars from the U.S. federal budget. It will also remain willing to develop a relationship of respect with that country, based on dialogue and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, despite differences.

Havana, January 14, 2025

I'll start with their operations against US Navy aircraft carrier battle groups. Ever since the attack that resulted in the US Navy downing their own F/A-18F aircraft via friendly fire, Ansar Allah have exclusively used cruise missiles and drones to attack the carrier groups and no Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs). I think it's been four times in a row now that they've attacked the US Navy without using ASBMs, according to their own press releases. This is extremely odd in my view, considering that Ansar Allah made use of these weapons in the past in large numbers. The first attack can be explained by a change of strategy, but four times in a row, without achieving the same results as the first attack? Their Iranian designed Manoeuvrable Re-entry Vehicle (MARV) equipped ASBMs are the most sophisticated and modern anti ship weapons in the Ansar Allah and Iranian arsenal, in fact Ansar Allah are the first group in history to use ASBMs in warfare. So why have these weapons disappeared from the battlefield?

Secondly, we can look at their recent attacks against Israel. In the last few weeks, Ansarallah started using Zulfiqar series ballistic missiles in their attacks against Israel and not just Palestine-2 ballistic missiles, as confirmed by their own press releases and photos of missile debris from a new type of missile. The only missile in the Zulfiqar series that has the range to hit Israel from Yemen is the Haj Qasem missile, named after Qasem Soleimani. The debris found a few weeks ago matched this missile. And today, a missile booster stage that got lodged in the attic of a house in Israel was removed, and this booster stage matches the Haj Qasem missile, I'll post an image below. Also a cruise missile was launched against Israel, the first in a long time as usually only ballistic missiles and drones are used.

So Ansar Allah is now using Zulfiqar series ballistic missiles cruise missiles on attacks against Israel, and not exclusively using Palestine-2 missiles and drones as they did previously. Now while both the Haj Qasem and Palestine-2 ballistic missiles are MARV equipped, the Palestine-2 is the more advanced missile. I've seen it described as a battlefield prototype using technologies from both the Kheibar Shekan series and the Fattah-1 missiles, the most advanced operational missiles in Iran's arsenal, with highly manoeuvrable and aerodynamic MARVs capable of long glide phases, and a sustainer rocket motor attached to the MARV itself on the Fattah-1. This is why Iran and Ansar Allah call these weapons hypersonic weapons. Fattah literally means "the opener". These are special purpose weapons. By contrast, the Haj Qasem missile is a way of extending the range the common MaRV of the Zulfiqar series missiles to 1400+km by fitting it to a giant booster stage, this same MARV is used on the Zoheir, original Zulfiqar, Dezful and Haj Qasem. So it's more of a general purpose weapon.

With the trend of Ansar Allah using less sophisticated weapons to carry out their recent attacks now being established, the question is why is this happening. Is Iran no longer giving Ansar Allah the shipments of the parts and materials needed to assemble and manufacture these weapons because they expect a ceasefire? Or have Ansar Allah themselves made the decision to stop producing these weapons because of an upcoming ceasefire? I think such is a definite possibility.

Ballistic missiles with a long enough range to hit Israel from Yemen are expensive, and highly advanced bespoke weapons like the Palestine-2, even more so. We're taking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars per missile. Iraq bought SCUD B missiles for 1 million US dollars per missile (including long term support) back before the Gulf War. That works out to over 2.5 million US dollars per missile today. And solid fueled MARV capable missiles are more sophisticated than SCUDs. The first MARV capable missile, the United States' Pershing II missile, the cost per unit works out to 10 million US dollars in today's money, when adjusted for inflation. ASBMs require advanced terminal guidance systems in the warhead itself such as radars and electro optical sensors that can survive atmospheric re-entry, this is obviously very expensive. Yemen is one of the poorest countries on earth, they will not spend the money and resources required to produce or acquire such missiles unnecessarily. If there's a ceasefire on the horizon, there's no need for these weapons or to burn through the stockpiles of the most advanced stuff, deterrence can be established using cheaper and less sophisticated systems, at least for now.

The United States maintains as the core objective of our policy the need for more freedom and democracy, improved respect for human rights, and increased free enterprise in Cuba. Achieving these goals will require practical engagement with Cuba and the Cuban people beyond what is outlined in NSPM-5, and that takes into account recent developments in Cuba and the changing regional and global context.

Accordingly, I hereby revoke NSPM-5.

Section 1. Revocation. NSPM-5 is hereby revoked. Accordingly, the Secretary of State shall immediately rescind the list developed in accordance with Section 3(a)(i) of NSPM-5, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall initiate a process to adjust current regulations as a result of this revocation of NSPM-5.

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.