The United States military has developed plans for potential intervention in Nigeria following former President Donald Trump’s assertion that “Christianity is facing an existential threat” in the country.
Trump alleged that a “Christian genocide” was unfolding, ordering the Pentagon to prepare a response to what he described as the mass killing of Christians by “radical Islamists.”
In a swift reaction, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) to submit operational plans. The command, headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, presented three escalating options—light, medium, and heavy—to Washington.
The light option involves partner-enabled operations where U.S. forces and the State Department would assist Nigerian security forces in targeting Boko Haram and affiliated insurgent groups in northern Nigeria.
However, the absence of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), whose Abuja office closed earlier this year, poses challenges to coordination and post-conflict stabilization.
The medium option includes deploying Predator and Reaper drones to strike militant camps, convoys, and vehicles. Yet, logistical hurdles have emerged as the U.S. vacated its drone bases in Niger—Agadez and Niamey—now occupied by Russian forces.
Launching from alternate locations like Djibouti or southern Europe would significantly reduce operational efficiency.
The heavy option proposes positioning an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Guinea and conducting deep airstrikes across northern Nigeria. However, military officials have cast doubt on this scenario, citing limited naval resources and competing priorities in the Pacific and Middle East.
Despite Trump’s directive, several defense analysts and former officials caution against direct military involvement. Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, a retired U.S. Army officer, warned that any such campaign would risk repeating the missteps of Iraq and Afghanistan. “It would be a fiasco,” he said, describing large-scale airstrikes as “pounding a pillow.”
Nigeria’s government has acknowledged U.S. offers of support but insists that any assistance must respect the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Officials in Abuja also noted that the root causes of northern Nigeria’s violence stem from land disputes, ethnic divisions, and corruption—issues that extend beyond religion.
Militant groups such as Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) have attacked both Christians and Muslims, fueling a complex conflict that defies simplistic labels.
As AFRICOM’s new commander, Gen. Dagvin R.M. Anderson, prepares to visit Nigeria next month, Washington faces a delicate diplomatic balance. Any U.S. move risks straining relations with African nations wary of foreign intervention, while failure to act could deepen perceptions of neglect amid ongoing atrocities.
Whether Trump’s claim translates into actual military engagement remains uncertain, but the renewed debate underscores the fragile interplay between faith, politics, and security in one of Africa’s most volatile regions.
