The United States military has reportedly developed a series of detailed contingency plans for potential airstrikes in Nigeria following a direct order from President Donald Trump instructing the Pentagon to prepare to “intervene” in order to protect Christians from ongoing terrorist attacks across the country.
According to The New York Times, the directive was issued after a classified briefing in which Trump expressed deep concern over what he described as “a silent genocide” against Christians in Nigeria. Following the president’s instruction, the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was tasked with formulating multiple operational responses, leading to the drafting of several strategic options—each designed to vary in scale and intensity of U.S. involvement.
Sources familiar with internal Pentagon discussions told the paper that these plans have been grouped into three main engagement levels — “heavy,” “medium,” and “light.” Each option outlines different methods and degrees of U.S. military participation, ranging from full combat deployment to intelligence support for Nigerian forces.
Breakdown of the Military Options
Under the “heavy option,” Washington would deploy an aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf of Guinea. The operation would be backed by fighter jets, naval warships, and long-range bombers capable of carrying out deep strikes inside northern Nigeria. The objective would be to destroy major terrorist strongholds belonging to Boko Haram, ISWAP, and affiliated militant networks.
The “medium option” involves precision drone strikes using MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1 Predator drones, targeting known insurgent camps, convoys, and logistical routes. The plan emphasizes “timely and surgical” operations, aided by advanced U.S. intelligence to minimize civilian casualties.
Meanwhile, the “light option” centers on enhancing cooperation with Nigerian forces through intelligence sharing, logistics, and joint operations. This plan would see U.S. advisers embedded with Nigerian troops to assist with planning and reconnaissance missions against insurgent cells responsible for kidnappings, massacres, and church bombings across northern and central Nigeria.
Despite the ambitious scope of these plans, U.S. military officials reportedly warned that limited drone operations or short-term airstrikes are unlikely to end Nigeria’s 15-year-long insurgency unless Washington launches a full-scale intervention comparable to its campaigns in Iraq or Afghanistan — an approach that currently lacks political backing in the U.S. Congress and among senior Pentagon leaders.
Diplomatic Reactions and Global Response
The development follows Trump’s earlier threat to deploy American forces to Nigeria if the alleged persecution of Christians is not halted. However, the Nigerian government, led by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, swiftly dismissed the allegations, describing them as “inaccurate, misleading, and politically motivated.”
In a surprising diplomatic twist, China voiced strong support for Nigeria on Tuesday, warning against what it called “foreign interference under religious pretenses.”
“As Nigeria’s comprehensive strategic partner, China firmly opposes any country using religion or human rights as a pretext to interfere in another nation’s internal affairs,” said Mao Ning, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, during a press briefing in Beijing.
Beijing’s statement aligns with its broader stance against Western interventions in Africa, underscoring its growing influence in Nigerian military and economic affairs.
Nigeria’s Official Response
Reacting on Wednesday, Nigeria’s Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, rejected the U.S. inclusion of Nigeria on its list of countries violating religious freedom. He emphasized that Nigeria’s security crisis is rooted in terrorism, not religious persecution.
“The Nigerian government disputes claims of religiously motivated violence. Both Christians and Muslims have suffered heavily from extremist attacks,” Idris said.
“Since 2023, President Tinubu’s administration has neutralized over 13,500 terrorists and rescued more than 11,000 hostages. Nigeria welcomes U.S. cooperation in counterterrorism efforts, but such cooperation must be based on mutual respect for sovereignty.”
The minister further noted that the federal government continues to prioritize the protection of all citizens, irrespective of faith or ethnicity, reaffirming its stance that religion should not be politicized for foreign agendas.
Trump’s Renewed Warning
Despite these responses, President Trump appeared unwavering in his stance. During a televised address late Wednesday, he reiterated that his administration would take decisive action if the violence against Christians in Nigeria continues unchecked.
“Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria,” Trump said. “The United States cannot remain silent while atrocities unfold. We stand ready, willing, and able to defend our great Christian population across the world.”
The statement has intensified global discussions on U.S. military involvement in Africa and raised concerns about escalating tensions between Washington and Abuja. Diplomats fear that a unilateral American strike could strain U.S.-Nigeria relations and destabilize regional security alliances in West Africa.
Analysis
Security analysts have cautioned that any American military engagement in Nigeria could have far-reaching implications for regional stability. Analysts warn that such an operation could provoke retaliation from militant groups or inflame existing ethnic and religious divisions.
Experts also note that this development comes at a time when Nigeria is seeking to diversify its defense partnerships, strengthening cooperation with China, Russia, and Turkey. Should the U.S. proceed with unilateral military actions, it could push Nigeria further toward non-Western allies.
