When it was initiated, it was to kick the Soviets out. Presently, it signals how seriously D.C. takes the issue. (Cuba is presently allying with Beijing [1].)
I don't think we should embargo or even sanction non-violent actors. (Threatening to blockade the port of New Orleans would be tantamount to a violent threat.) But the history of Havana's actions explains the embargo's origin. Havana's mismanagement of the Cuban economy explains why there isn't a material incentive to prioritize reversal.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/politics/cuba-china-spying-fa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
Like many actions taken by nation states it mostly resulted in the opposite of the intended effect. Cuba became closely aligned with the Soviet Union because of the sanctions which have been widely regarded as complete policy failure.
People who consider the future.
For a few minutes, maybe, before whoever attempted to use control of Cuba for that purpose ceased to exist, along with all of the facilities they were using for that purpose.
The US military may fail at constructing stable democratic regimes on the far side of the globe, but obliterating someone doing that from Cuba wouldn't be a challenge.
> But keeping the island out of foreign hands is a legitimate geopolitical priority for D.C.
Its a foreign country. Unless the US invades and annexes it, whatever hands its in are going to continue to be foreign.
Fair enough. Out of an adversary's hands.
The Gulf of Mexico is of enormous strategic importance to America. Control of Cuba could blockade New Orleans and thus the Mississippi. I think the embargo has far outlived its usefulness. But keeping the island out of foreign hands is a legitimate geopolitical priority for D.C.