(Washington, D.C. - Right Commentary.com) I love a good cigar. Yes, I know its bad for you. Yes, I’m sure it pollutes the environment. Yes, I know it costs money. Yes, yes, yes. Nevertheless, I like smoking cigars. I get together with a group of like-minded government-types and policy-types about once a month at Shelly’s Back Room in Washington, D.C. to smoke cigars and solve world problems - or at least smoke cigars.

So last month when “El Presidente” - Fidel - finally kicked power to brother Raul, for a moment there was a glimmer of hope, I thought, for legal Cuban cigars in the United States. We’ll have to see if that’s the case - I still smoke them when I’m abroad - and I’m hoping at some point I can legally have them in the United States. It’s a petty concern - I realize - in understanding the whole gamut of human relations with respect to Cuba - but it seems pretty important to me.

Castro was the pain in JFK’s side during his entire tenure as president: failed assassination attempts, Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs and the sheer amount of disinformation campaigns launched throughout the 60’s and beyond. He also haunted Reagan in some respects - being the closet ambassador of the “Evil Empire,” and a noted refueling station for Soviet submarines on patrol. And most definitely, he’s been a thorn in the side of the Bush Administration - and was none too happy about our development of a massive military presence in Guantanamo following the GWOT.

In 1958, the year before Fidel Castro came to power in a revolution and promised prosperity, democracy and the restoration of Cuba’s 1940 constitution, the Caribbean island, while troubled by poverty, a corrupt dictator and the American Mafia, was also better off than most developing nations.

While poor compared to the United States, Cuba in 1958 had a per capita GDP of $3,170 according to the OECD. (Canada’s was $8,947.). But Cuba outranked all other Latin American countries except four: Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Tellingly, in 1958, the island nation’s per person wealth was higher than any East Asian country or colony, save Japan, which barely beat Cuba at only $3,290. Hong Kong had a per capita GDP of $2,924, Singapore’s was $2,294, the Philippines’ was $1,447, Taiwan’s per person GDP stood at $1,387 and South Korea’s was $1,112..

Fifty years later, Cuba is one of the poorest countries in Latin America.

But now Fidel is gone, and his brother, Raul, is in power. This begs the question, “But what is next for Cuba?” Already President Bush and European leaders are clamoring for democracy. But why? The reason goes to the heart of the ‘we don’t trade with despotic dictators or communist nations’ rhetoric of the past. We have subsidized and maintained failed communist and dictatorial regimes throughout the world that committed far more egregious acts of human rights violations. Why then was Cuba so different?

The answer is simple enough, when Castro took control of the country in 1959 he ousted President Batista, a long time friend of America and an adept student in pseudo-capitalist corruption. To Washington though, this was seen as a major affront to their efforts in controlling South America through puppet regimes. To make matters worse Castro nationalized most of the industries and kicked out the corrupt families that were running the Casinos and the tourist businesses. He plowed under many of the cigar fields (the blasphemy!) to grow food - and appropriated land and property as he saw fit to reorganize the Cuban economy. Washington again became increasingly worried over this little revolution taking place 90 miles of its southern most coast - and attempted to influence Castro - but to little avail.

The final straw was the Cuban Missile crisis. Afterwards, the United States cut off all ties and refused to recognize the government. The United States then began a series of complex and catastrophic attempts to kill Castro - from exploding cigars, to exploding cats.

Its clear to me that the United States had a personal grudge against Castro. Plain and simple our leaders didn’t like the man and hated the fact that our neighbors would side with Russians. That explains why we were so resolute in 1960 - but why has the embargo perpetuated for almost 50 years? I have to honestly wonder how much of the sanctions have to do with lobbyists wanting the embargo because the government gave these corporations a monopoly in their relations with Cuba.

At present, the embargo which limits American businesses from trading or conducting business with Cuban interests is still in effect, making it one of the few times in history that United States citizens have been restricted from doing business abroad, and is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history. Despite the existence of the embargo, the United States is the seventh largest exporter to Cuba (4.3% of Cuba’s imports are from the US).

After lobbyists from America’s agribusiness successfully won significant ground with the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act they essentially had a government sanctioned monopoly which limited the amount of competitors allowed to trade with Cuba. Although many in Congress and the Senate favor a free-market approach to Cuba, it is doubtful it will ever happen. For one, free trade with Cuba would impact negatively the US sugar markets - drawing in that constituency to lobby. In addition, if the US adopts a free market approach - it will have to deal with issues relating to the property rights of appropriated brands and products that Castro illegally took back in the 1960’s. What this means for my little Cigar problem is - those cigars can’t be sold in the US until the branding issues get resolved - reparations paid - land reassigned, etc. In short, I may never get my cigars - thanks to the complexity of what it may take to get the intellectual property rights resolved. This is just one problem - but there are may constituencies that will lobby hard to protect their stake; other constituencies will lobby hard to attempt to extract “reparations” from Cuba for what they lost 50 years ago.

And finally - the fact is that Raul is probably as crazy and as dictatorial as Fidel was - and has not demonstrated he will be rapidly moving to a democratized Cuba. Critics would disagree - citing various desires for reforms. I just don’t see it - I don’t see Raul being significantly different from Fidel.

Raul Castro has always been known as Fidel’s enforcer — the ideologically hard-line, iron-fisted watchdog of his big brother’s regime. It’s hardly an undeserved rep, one he started building by overseeing the summary execution of scores of soldiers loyal to former Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista after Fidel overthrew Batista in 1959. Why would Raul want to be the one to end the “party” of being El Presidente? So I think the status quo will continue for awhile - although perhaps over time Raul will push the country slowly into a more agreeable orbit with the United States.

I agree that Raul will probably be easier to deal with than the polemics of Fidel - but that doesn’t mean that anything “real” will change for Cuba - at least not in the immediate future. In its own way, that’s probably a good thing - because the day the dictatorship falls - the United States will be placed in a very difficult position. It will have to deal with the crisis of immigration coming OUT of Cuba following the fall of the Castro government. It will also have to deal with the immigration - mass immigration potentially - of people leaving Miami to reclaim “what’s theirs” with pitchforks, shotguns, and shovels.” The US Coastguard could find itself in a very problematic predicament - trying to keep the two groups at bay.

Plus, the bottom line remains, that unless Cuba is going to be a strategic ally for the United States, isolating and punishing it is the best strategy for national security. Its close proximity to our shores demands we treat it differently - but in some respects - we have also reached a steady state with the Castro regime that need not be unnecessarily tipped. Plus, there is a reputational and value issue here - we fought Communism for 60 years, we fought tyranny in many parts of the world, it is not in our interest to legitimate a Cuba that isn’t reformed in its human rights and committed to be an ally to the United States.

At some point, the United States will normalize relations with Cuba. It’s unlikely to do so with Raul as President - and given how long those Castro men seem to live - I may never legally smoke Cuban cigars in the United States.