A Cuban Uprising Could Be Crisis for Clinton, Advisers Warn : Foreign policy: The island might join the short list of trouble spots, and options are studied to minimize aftershocks in the U.S.

Weighing the prospect of new foreign policy crises, government advisers to President Clinton are warning that an uprising in Cuba is likely during his term and that a number of options should be considered to minimize potential aftershocks in this country.

Thousands of Cuban-Americans living in Florida might quickly rush to involve themselves in an upheaval on the island as soon as one begins, say officials who have analyzed Cuba’s precarious condition. The U.S. Navy and other government agencies could find themselves forced to contend with an armed armada of Cuban-Americans headed from South Florida to Cuba, or a flood of refugees headed the other way.

In an extreme scenario, an embattled President Fidel Castro might even react to a perceived threat to his rule by lashing out at a South Florida target, perhaps a power station or other large facility, one leading government analyst said.

Because of these possibilities, which underscore the close ties between the two countries, an upheaval in Cuba would rapidly become as much a domestic problem as a foreign policy dilemma, the officials say.

Confronting challenges in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Somalia, Iraq and other hot spots, the Administration has been focusing on crises that demand immediate attention, hoping Cuba will not boil over soon in a way that forces the United States to act.

“Too many things are already blowing up,” an Administration official said.

But these government advisers warn that Cuba could join the short list of foreign-policy trouble spots, and believe that the Administration needs to consider how to head off a crisis. The warnings may force a troublesome issue for the Administration, because they raise the question of whether Washington should try to improve relations with Cuba--perhaps by lifting the trade and tourism embargo--to help ease Cuba’s transition from Castro’s rule to another regime.

Some advisers urge such a course, arguing that it might strengthen market forces in Cuba and sweep the country toward an American-style system.

But improving relations would collide with Clinton’s campaign promises to conservative Cuban-Americans that he would maintain a hard line toward Castro and do nothing that could be interpreted as appeasement.

The warnings from within the new Administration reflect the views of many outside analysts, who assert that the economic chaos that has followed the end of Soviet aid to Cuba has made the island a powder keg.

The lack of visible opposition may mean little, some believe.

“It’s so repressive that there may be no ground between what looks like total calm and mass rebellion,” said Susan Kaufman Purcell, vice president at the Americas Society in New York. “Ten minutes before Romania collapsed (former President Nicolae) Ceausescu looked strong.”

Without $4 billion in annual Soviet subsidies, Cuba’s economy has shrunk 40% in two years; there have been widespread shortages of food and fuel, growing inflation and the withering of many basic industries. Castro’s 34-year-old regime has responded with harsh repressive measures.

Although the timing of Castro’s end is a subject of debate, analysts say a change in regime could mean trouble for the United States in a variety of ways.

If a military coup or some uprising brings civil war, there could be an exodus of as many as 1 million Cubans to the United States, some analysts believe. One in 10 Cubans has a relative in this country.

Some analysts theorize that Castro could try to defuse a threat by opening his borders and allowing a huge emigration of unhappy Cubans to the United States, as he did in 1980 with the 128,000-emigrant Mariel boat lift. In that exodus, many Cuban-Americans sailed for Cuba to pick up relatives, suggesting that if violence broke out in Cuba, the same might happen--perhaps with violent results.

For several years, the U.S. military has planned for the possibility that a domestic upheaval would trigger a huge Cuban exodus. It has plans to house fleeing Cubans in huge refugee camps at the U.S. base on Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay; recently, the area has been used to shelter Haitians who have fled their country for the United States.

And with Cuba only 90 miles from Florida, the possibility of a Cuban military strike by Castro in the waning hours of his rule is taken seriously by many experts. In October, 1991, a defecting Cuban MIG pilot said Castro had told Cubans he had laid plans to attack the Turkey Point nuclear plant south of Miami.

“You can’t rule out the possibility of a military action,” said Mark Falcoff, a Cuba specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

Falcoff believes that the end of Castro’s regime could create so many problems for the United States that policy-makers’ best hope may be for no change in Cuba.

So far, the new Administration has sent out mixed signals about its Cuba policy.

Last month, it decided not to nominate Mario Baeza, a Cuban-American corporate lawyer in New York, as assistant secretary of state for Latin American affairs. Conservative Cuban-Americans objected to Baeza on grounds that he might be too accommodating to the Castro regime.

The rejection of Baeza, who was backed by Clinton transition chairman Vernon Jordan and Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown, was considered a measure of the strength of the conservative Cuban-American groups. Their political backing was important for Clinton in Florida and New Jersey.

But more recently, the Administration has given key policy jobs to two men who are seen as moderates on Cuba.

One is Peter Tarnoff, who as undersecretary of state for political affairs has the agency’s No. 3 position. During the Jimmy Carter Administration, Tarnoff was among the officials who went to Cuba seeking, unsuccessfully, some kind of normalization.

A second is Richard Feinberg, who this week took a post on the National Security Council. Feinberg takes a centrist position; he has written that the United States should cooperate with Cuba on such issues as anti-drug enforcement, and should work toward a freer exchange of information.

Some outside analysts believe these appointments signal that the Clinton Administration plans to move to a middle ground on Cuba, or that it wants officials in place with the background to be ready for a Cuban upheaval.