On September 7, 1963, just over two months before President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Cuban leader Fidel Castro gave a surprising interview to an Associated Press reporter. This interview, which was reported in American newspapers on September 9, contained a chilling warning that has largely been overlooked in the decades since. Let’s dive into this fascinating piece of history and explore its potential significance.
The Unusual Interview
Castro rarely gave interviews to Western journalists, making this particular encounter noteworthy. As one CIA expert noted, “Castro giving an interview at that time was somewhat unusual.” Even more intriguing was Castro’s decision to attend a reception at the Brazilian Embassy, another uncommon occurrence for the Cuban leader.
These unusual circumstances raise an important question: Why did Castro choose this particular moment to speak to the American press?
Castro’s Warning
In the interview, Castro made a startling statement that, in hindsight, seems eerily prophetic. The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported:
“Minister Castro said Saturday night U.S. leaders would be in danger if they helped in any attempt to do away with leaders of Cuba.”
Castro went on to say:
“We are prepared to fight them and answer in kind. United States leaders should think that if they are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe.”
This warning was not subtle. Castro was clearly suggesting that if the U.S. tried to assassinate Cuban leaders, American leaders might face similar threats.
The Context of Castro’s Warning
To understand the full impact of Castro’s words, we need to look at what was happening behind the scenes in U.S.-Cuba relations at the time.
CIA Operations Against Cuba
Unknown to the public, the CIA had been involved in multiple plots to assassinate Castro. Between 1960 and early 1963, the CIA had attempted to use underworld figures for this purpose. While these efforts had supposedly ended, the CIA had recently renewed contact with a high-level Cuban government official code-named AMLASH, who had proposed Castro’s overthrow through an “inside job” with U.S. support.
Increased Covert Activities
In June 1963, a “Special Group” of the National Security Council had decided to increase covert operations against Cuba. This decision led to a series of meetings among major leaders of the anti-Castro movement.
Cuban Exile Activities
Throughout 1963, various Cuban exile groups were carrying out attacks on Cuban targets. In March, there were reported attacks on Soviet vessels off the coast of Cuba by exile groups such as Alpha 66 and Commandos L-66. These actions were causing concern within the U.S. government about potential confrontations with the Soviets.
The Overlooked Significance
Despite the ominous nature of Castro’s warning, it seems to have been largely ignored by U.S. intelligence agencies at the time.
FBI’s Lack of Awareness
When asked about this article years later, a former FBI supervisor admitted:
“No, I don’t [recall seeing that article or hearing that statement from Castro]. In retrospect that certainly looks like a pointed signal… If it had come to our attention… it would have been a typical reaction by headquarters, to instruct the key field offices handling Cuban matters to alert their sources and be aware… of anything that might indicate an assassination attempt but there was no such communication, to my knowledge, ever sent out from headquarters.”
This admission suggests a significant intelligence failure. A clear threat from a foreign leader went unnoticed or was not taken seriously by the very agencies tasked with protecting U.S. leaders.
The Aftermath
Just over two months after Castro’s warning, President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. While there’s no direct evidence linking Castro to the assassination, his earlier warning took on new significance in light of this tragedy.
Castro’s Reaction to the Assassination
On the day of Kennedy’s assassination, Castro was meeting with French journalist Jean Daniel. Upon hearing the news, Castro’s first question was telling: “What authority does he [the new President Johnson] exercise over the CIA?” This question suggests Castro’s ongoing concern about CIA activities against Cuba.
Missed Opportunities in the Investigation
In the aftermath of Kennedy’s assassination, several opportunities to explore the potential significance of Castro’s warning were missed.
The Warren Commission
The Warren Commission, tasked with investigating the assassination, does not appear to have thoroughly examined the potential implications of Castro’s September warning. This oversight may have been due to a lack of information sharing between intelligence agencies and the Commission.
FBI’s Limited Investigation
The FBI’s investigation into the assassination was primarily focused on Lee Harvey Oswald and did not extensively explore potential Cuban connections. As one FBI supervisor described it, their investigation was “primarily concentrated on Lee Harvey Oswald, was he the assassin and to get the complete background investigation of him… it was an investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald, the man.”
CIA’s Compartmentalization
The CIA’s knowledge of its own assassination plots against Castro was highly compartmentalized. Many CIA officials involved in the Kennedy assassination investigation were unaware of these plots, which limited their ability to see potential connections.
The 1967 Revelations
In 1967, the potential significance of Castro’s warning resurfaced when columnist Drew Pearson informed Chief Justice Earl Warren about allegations of U.S. attempts to assassinate Castro. This led to a series of interviews and investigations, but by then, nearly four years had passed since the assassination.
Lessons for Intelligence Agencies
The overlooked Castro warning highlights several important lessons for intelligence agencies:
- The importance of cross-agency communication and information sharing.
- The need to take threats from foreign leaders seriously, even if they seem improbable.
- The danger of compartmentalization within agencies, which can prevent analysts from seeing the full picture.
- The value of historical context in understanding current events and potential threats.
A Call for Continued Research
While we may never know if Castro’s warning was directly related to Kennedy’s assassination, its existence and the failure to properly analyze it at the time raise important questions. As we continue to study this pivotal moment in history, it’s crucial to consider all available information, including seemingly small details like a newspaper article from September 1963.
The Castro warning serves as a reminder that in the world of intelligence and national security, no piece of information should be overlooked. Sometimes, the most significant clues can come from the most unexpected sources.
