Is it possible that governments start wars to win elections?

In politics, there is a well-known concept called the “Wag the Dog” theory. It suggests that when a government is overwhelmed by internal crises and failures, it may shift public attention by creating an external enemy or launching action across the border.

If we look at US politics, the operation on January 3 this year, “Operation Absolute Resolve,” is presented in this narrative as a clear example. According to the account, the US military launched a sudden attack on Venezuela and detained President Nicolás Maduro.

This so-called “easy win” allegedly boosted President Trump’s declining popularity overnight from 42 percent to 54 percent, as the American public was shown a major victory without significant casualties. However, the celebration did not last long.

Encouraged by the quick success in Venezuela, the Pentagon reportedly expanded its operations toward Iran on February 28. But this time, the calculations are said to have gone wrong. Instead of engaging in conventional warfare, Iran allegedly shifted to guerrilla tactics and drone attacks. It is further claimed that Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20 percent of global oil supply passes.

As a result, crude oil prices in the global market reportedly surged to 130 dollars per barrel. By May 12, the US military is said to have suffered losses of 29 billion dollars, with its naval fleet becoming largely ineffective. Eventually, an “Islamabad Agreement” in June allegedly forced Washington to step back, which some analysts described as a major diplomatic and military setback for the United States.

The narrative then suggests that the real story begins here, as the US midterm elections in November 2026 approach. At this time, President Trump’s party popularity is described as having fallen to a historic low of around 38 percent, raising the risk of losing its parliamentary majority.

History is cited to suggest that whenever a US president’s approval rating drops below 40 percent before elections, their party tends to suffer heavy losses. Under these circumstances, it is argued that the United States cannot afford a prolonged conflict in Iran or the Middle East.

According to this view, Washington think tanks are now searching for a weaker and easier target—one that can deliver a quick and decisive victory for the Pentagon before November. The text claims that Cuba has now come under the White House’s radar.

Part 2: Why Cuba?

Earlier, it was discussed that after setbacks in Iran, the Trump administration allegedly needs an “easy win” for election purposes. The question then is why Cuba is being considered.

The first major reason is geography. Cuba lies just 90 miles from the coast of Florida. The United States has a two-century-old policy known as the Monroe Doctrine, under which it considers the region its backyard and does not tolerate the presence of rival blocs.

In the Florida Strait, even a small US naval fleet could isolate Cuba from the outside world. Unlike Iran, there is no need for the Pentagon to manage long supply lines or spend billions of dollars. It is portrayed as a target that can be immobilized primarily through naval and air power.

The second and most important reason is Cuba’s already fragile internal situation. Historically, Cuba relied on cheap oil imports from Venezuela for around 60 percent of its energy needs. But after the reported removal of Venezuela’s president in January, that supply line has effectively collapsed.

To make matters worse, the text refers to a presidential order Executive Order 14404 which imposed strict sanctions on Cuba. Inflation in Cuba is said to have reached 80 percent, and the country is experiencing severe blackouts lasting 12 to 14 hours daily. In such a weakened state, the argument goes, Cuba would be unable to mount meaningful military resistance.

Finally, the political dimension in US elections is highlighted. Florida is considered a crucial swing state that often decides the outcome. Cities like Miami are home to large Cuban-American communities, many of whom strongly oppose Cuba’s communist government.

Any tough action against Cuba, according to this narrative, could turn these voters into strong supporters of the administration in Florida. In this sense, increasing pressure on Cuba is framed as a low-cost political strategy aimed at restoring credibility after setbacks in Iran and securing victory in the midterm elections.