Colombia’s Petro Criticizes Potential US Military Attack on Cuba

Written on 05/04/2026
Josep Freixes
Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro criticized a potential U.S. attack on Cuba, asserting that it would have regional repercussions. Credit: Ovidio Gonzalez / Presidency of Colombia.

The president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, flatly rejected the possibility of a United States military operation against Cuba, an idea that President Donald Trump left open last week.

In a post on his social media, Petro said that an aggression against the island would ignite violence in Latin America and the Caribbean, taking a direct stance in the face of a scenario that has once again unsettled the region.

The Colombian leader went further and defended the principle of self-determination as the cornerstone of his response. “Cubans are the sole owners of their country,” he said, making clear that any political change on the island must arise from its own population and not from external intervention.

Colombia’s Petro criticizes potential US military attack on Cuba

In a post on his personal account on the social network X, Gustavo Petro criticized a potential U.S. military action against Cuba, taking the opportunity to recall what, according to him, drives the situation of paralysis on the island.

“Stop telling stories: in Cuba there is hunger and poverty that are mitigated with education and health care because there has been a criminal blockade for decades. Lift the blockade on Cuba and you will see political changes, perhaps not as the current Cuban system wants, but perhaps not as some Cuban Miami residents want either, who do not know that Miami is one of the cities in the world most exposed to its end due to the climate crisis,” the Colombian president wrote yesterday Sunday.

To all this, Petro added that “those who want to invade Cuba will only ignite political violence throughout Latin America and extinguish its nascent democracy.” The Colombian president did not qualify his position. In his view, a potential military action by Washington would not be limited to Cuba, but would have consequences for the entire continent. That is why he described it as an aggression that would affect Latin America as a whole.

The statement falls in line with a position Petro has maintained since the beginning of his administration: defending the region as a zone of peace. Under that approach, the intervention of a foreign power would disrupt a balance that, despite each country’s internal political tensions, has prevented armed conflicts between states in recent decades.

The message also had a regional component. Without making explicit calls, Petro hinted at the need for a joint response to what he considers a common threat. The possibility of an intervention in Cuba, he warned, would not only affect Havana but would also set a precedent with broader implications.

Sovereignty and self-determination in a regional message

The Colombian head of state’s remarks come in response to those recently made by U.S. President Donald Trump, who announced his intention to intervene militarily on the island. “We’re going to take Cuba very soon. After what happened with Iran, we might move the USS Lincoln closer to its shores, and then they will surrender,” the president said at an event in Florida.

That same day, Gustavo Petro criticized this threat. “I do not agree with a military attack on Cuba because that is a military attack on Latin America. We said the Caribbean is a zone of peace, and that must be respected. The Cuban people are the sole owners of their country,” he replied to President Trump’s comment.

The Colombian concluded that “the American continent will live in peace if no one seeks to impose themselves on others. This continent is the continent of Freedom, not of invasions.”

The core of the Colombian president’s criticism centered on sovereignty. His remark that Cubans are the sole owners of their country sums up a stance that rejects any kind of external imposition, especially when framed in military terms.

This view aligns with a Latin American diplomatic tradition based on non-intervention. In Colombia’s case, it also marks a contrast with earlier periods when foreign policy was more closely aligned with decisions made in Washington in the hemisphere.

Petro insisted that regional stability depends on relationships grounded in respect. According to his argument, peace in Latin America is only possible if no country seeks to impose itself on another. In that sense, the statement serves both as a principle and as a warning in the face of a potential armed action.

The Colombian president’s remarks come at a moment of renewed concern in Latin America. The mere possibility of a military intervention in Cuba has triggered reactions from various governments, which are watching with concern the tone of statements coming from Washington.

On the island, on May 1, the Cuban government called for mobilizations to defend its sovereignty and reject what it considers threats of military intervention by Washington. The issue is beginning to generate debate in the United States. In this regard, the Senate will vote in the coming days on an initiative backed by Democrats to prevent President Donald Trump from launching an attack on Cuba.

Although there has been no formal announcement of intervention, Trump’s statements and the tightening of sanctions are fueling the perception that scenarios beyond economic pressure are being considered. That ambiguity is what has set off alarms in the region and is generating positions for and against an escalation that could enter a military phase.