Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Graham: After strikes on Iran — "Cuba is next." Implications for international stability

The senator's rhetoric on Fox News aligns with a series of moves by the U.S. administration — will it become policy? We analyze what that means for global security and for Ukraine.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 3, 2026 · 2 min read

Graham: After strikes on Iran — "Cuba is next." Implications for international stability
Ліндсі Грем (Фото: Abir Sultan/EPA)

In high diplomacy, quiet agreements matter more than loud statements

Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican from South Carolina) on Fox News praised recent US strikes on Iran and said that “Cuba is next”. This remark is notable not because of its emotional charge, but because of the combination of political rhetoric and steps already taken by the US administration — from sanctions to public plans to pressure the Havana regime.

What Graham actually said

"Cuba is next. It’s a domino effect that hits Cuba. Their days are numbered"

— Lindsey Graham, US senator (Republican, South Carolina)

Graham also called the Iranian regime "the flagship of international terrorism" and claimed that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is allegedly dead; these assertions were presented on air as the senator's position and require independent verification. He also called for pressure on Lebanon’s Hezbollah and for coordination between US and Israeli actions.

Context — US strikes and the administration's response

On February 28 the US and Israel launched a joint operation against targets in Iran; media reports say key officials of the regime were killed in the strikes. President Donald Trump said further strikes could continue "for another four to five weeks" and hinted at accelerating the operational tempo. At the same time the US government has stepped up economic and political pressure on Cuba: media outlets (The Hill, Politico) document a series of measures — from threats of an oil blockade to declarations of a state of emergency and potential customs measures against countries supplying fuel to the island.

Pressure on Cuba: facts, not assumptions

According to The Hill and Politico, the Trump administration has long been considering tools of economic pressure on Havana — from a fuel embargo to diplomatic measures. In January the president urged Cuban authorities to reach an agreement with the US; on January 29 a state of emergency was declared, and on February 27 a statement was made about the possibility of a "friendly takeover" of Cuba.

Why this matters for Ukraine

The rhetoric and real operations are far from purely regional politics: they divert diplomatic and military resources, shift allies’ priorities, and affect global supply chains for energy and food. For Ukraine, this means partners may recalibrate their efforts and attention — while risks of escalation in other regions increase, complicating coordination of assistance and deliveries.

Conclusion — cool heads instead of loud predictions

Senator Graham’s remarks reinforce a picture in which the US administration combines military strikes, sanctions pressure, and political rhetoric. The question is not the loud words, but whether the rhetoric will turn into a consistent strategy against Cuba — and with what political, economic, and security consequences. Analysts point out that US operational capabilities and the reaction of international partners will be key — and that will determine how long the domino effect lasts.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026