From a purely gut response (hence, no cites to back up my opinion), the Cuban sanctions only exist to appease the exile Cubans of South Florida and their collective (potential) ability to deliver the electoral votes of Florida, the last election notwithstanding. No more, no less.
It would be interesting to compile a list of countries which abided by the USA sanctions against Cuba beginning in 1962 and the progressive decline in the past 40 years. When you come to think of it, even the USA doesn’t really abide by its own sanctions. If it did, anyone and everyone holding a US passport who visits Cuba for any reason outside of the established rules should be arrested upon arriving back within US jurisdiction. That this is not occuring even under the Bush Administration should tell you something.
The potential punch of Cuba deflated when the former Soviet Union became former. Cuba lost much more than subsidies.
OTOH, Iraq has a well-known history of harsh aggression, both inside and outside of the country. It has the wealth, means, ability, and most importantly, paranoid ideology to construct and deliver weapons of mass destruction.
Remember the Cuban sanctions are imposed by the USA. It is my understanding it never was a UN-sponsored/endorsed sanction system against Cuba. The Iraq sanctions are sponsored/endorsed by the UN. Big difference.
It would also be interesting to compile a list of countries which abided by the UN sanctions against Iraq in the beginning and the progressive decline in the past 10 years, including the USA. I firmly believe had Bush I not stood in the way of Stormin’ Norman, we would not be having many of the problems we are currently facing.
I say drop the Cuban embargo/sanctions/whatever. Open up trade and the markets. Yes, have some restrictions in place. In short, use the free market system and human potential to take down Castro. If Cuba/Catro truly are our “enemy” mayby abiding the old maxim know your enemy is more viable when you hold him close and not isolate him.
In the case of Iraq, I say open up covert means and methods to take out Saddam, even blow up the Iraqi oil pipelines.
Remember diplomacy is based upon compromise. Compromise means the two parties must share at least one thing in common and build upon that. But if one of the parties does not believe in compromise, but believes in the ultimate destruction of the other party no matter what, why continue to play the game?
I have no answer to my own question.
Someone else can fill in with their own thoughts.