Pop quiz: which of these countries, all deemed "State Sponsors of Terror," seems most unlike the rest: Iran, Sudan, Syria or Cuba? 


If you picked Cuba, you're not alone. Yesterday, in response to a Wire post on the TSA's tighter screening measures, one of our readers, Jay, curiously pointed out Cuba's lack of "extremist Islamists." The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson is equally puzzled. In his Tuesday column, he writes:

Cuba is not a failed state where swaths of territory lie beyond government control; rather, it is one of the most tightly locked-down societies in the world, a place where the idea of private citizens getting their hands on plastic explosives, or terrorist weapons of any kind, is simply laughable. 


There is no history of radical Islam in Cuba. In fact, there is hardly any history of Islam at all. With its long-standing paranoia about internal security and its elaborate network of government spies and snitches, the island nation would have to be among the last places on Earth where al-Qaeda would try to establish a cell, let alone plan and launch an attack. Yet Cuba is on the list because the State Department still considers it -- along with Iran, Sudan and Syria -- to be a state sponsor of terrorism.
Is it logical to keep Cuba on the terror-sponsors list?