In early November, a social media put up by United States President Donald Trump set off alarm bells throughout Nigeria. The US “Division of Warfare”, he said, was making ready to enter the West African nation “guns-a-blazing” over what he claimed was the killing of Christians in Nigeria.
Nigeria’s authorities below President Bola Ahmed Tinubu swiftly hit again, rejecting the claims, saying that whereas the nation confronted a difficult safety scenario because of armed teams and banditry, it was unfaithful that Christians had been particularly being focused, as Muslim communities and conventional believers had additionally come below assault.
Advisable Tales
checklist of three gadgetsfinish of checklist
However the Trump administration was not appeased. It had positioned Nigeria on its “Nations of Specific Concern” (CPC) watchlist for non secular freedom, and shortly made threats of sanctions, cuts to monetary support, and punitive measures in opposition to Abuja for “failing” to guard Christians.
As Nigerians worried a few potential bombing marketing campaign in opposition to their nation, the Tinubu authorities — although nonetheless denying accusations of a “Christian genocide” — quietly pivoted. As a substitute of aggressive rhetoric, it mentioned it could welcome US assistance in coping with safety challenges which have lengthy proved a thorn within the facet of successive Nigerian governments.
Weeks later, on the evening of December 25, the US launched what Trump described as “highly effective and lethal” strikes in northwest Nigeria however the US army’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) made clear the assaults had been carried out “on the request of Nigerian authorities”.
That cooperation between the US and Nigeria solely seems to have grown, culminating this week in 100 US military personnel arriving within the nation to assist practice Nigerian troopers within the combat in opposition to armed teams.
Nigeria’s Ministry of Defence mentioned US forces will help with “technical assist” and “intelligence sharing”, and regardless of not taking part in a direct fight position, will assist goal and defeat “terrorist organisations”.
To many, the developments come as a shock – as in somewhat over three months, Nigeria seems to have overturned Trump’s “Christian slaughter” declare to as an alternative win US army assist for Abuja’s personal army objectives in opposition to armed teams.
“There’s been a powerful shift,” mentioned Ryan Cummings, the director of research at Sign Danger, an Africa-focused threat administration agency. The narrative has “transitioned utterly from a slap on the wrist to 1 the place there appears to be a holding of palms in tackling this situation collectively”.
Though a notable shift, it’s not absolutely shocking to many analysts, who see Nigeria’s cooperation as a strategic transfer to de-escalate tensions.
“It’s neither surprising nor hypocritical,” mentioned Cheta Nwanze, the CEO of Nigerian threat advisory SBM Intelligence, who famous that Nigeria’s longstanding safety partnerships since 1999 have favoured Western army doctrines.
What has shifted, he mentioned, is the “US posture”: Washington now feels extra entitled to become involved in a rustic the place it sees strategic pursuits.
Lobbyists and dealing teams
Kabir Adamu, an analyst with Beacon Safety and Intelligence in Abuja, feels the Tinubu administration has been “profitable in de-escalating the Trump risk and in establishing a joint working group between the 2 nations”. However the “problem”, he mentioned, is that Abuja has not been clear sufficient in regards to the course of.
“At what price did [the government] do that?” he requested. “It has to this point didn’t be clear in letting Nigerians know what settlement it entered with the US authorities that led to a de-escalation of the scenario.”
In January, the US and Nigeria convened a joint working group to handle Nigeria’s designation as a CPC and the way the nation can work to scale back violence in opposition to susceptible teams. However exterior of that, particulars of what transpired between the primary Trump threats and the primary US strikes are scant.
Nonetheless, Cummings of Sign Danger factors to 1 deal, particularly, that he believes helped flip the tide: on December 17, the Nigerian authorities, by a authorized middleman, employed the DCI Group, Washington, DC-based lobbyists, for a reported sum of $9m.
In accordance with the phrases of the contract printed on-line, DCI would “help the Nigerian authorities by Aster Authorized in speaking its actions to guard Nigerian Christian communities and sustaining U.S assist in countering West African jihadist teams and different destabilizing components”.
In hiring DCI, Nigeria has determined to “combat hearth with hearth”, Cummings mentioned, evaluating Abuja’s method with what South Africa has done within the face of comparable false accusations by Trump’s authorities {that a} “white genocide” is going down there.
In each Nigeria and South Africa, the claims had been first unfold by native minority foyer teams aided by Republicans and evangelicals within the US, Cummings mentioned. These teams fed selectively framed or exaggerated accounts into the Trump administration.
Nigeria employed a foyer group “to principally persuade the Trump administration that what is occurring in Nigeria and what has been informed to the Trump administration by sure foyer teams was not an correct reflection of the established order,” Cummings mentioned.
“And that seemingly has been pivotal in altering the stance of the US authorities in the direction of Nigeria,” he mentioned.
Trump’s Africa positions are strongly formed by a conservative evangelical base within the US, Cummings added, displaying concern for Christians globally and sympathy for white minorities portrayed as supposed victims of Black governments.
Within the sense of taking part in to his core constituency, Trump’s issues for these teams are real, Cummings mentioned, however in different methods, they’re instrumental: Trump makes use of points like “Christian persecution” or “white genocide” to strain different nations on broader international‑coverage alignment.
‘Calculated trade-off’
Pressuring states for geopolitical beneficial properties performs out not simply in Africa however exterior the continent as effectively, each Nwanze and Adamu identified, citing the US’s current abduction of Nicolas Maduro, the then-president of Venezuela, which, like Nigeria, holds vital oil reserves.
“Nigeria holds tens of billions of barrels of oil reserves and is Africa’s largest producer. The US Nationwide Safety Technique prioritises securing strategic sources by unilateral motion”, so to some extent, the US’s current strikes concerning Nigeria are about “asserting management over world power flows”, Nwanze mentioned.
“The counterterrorism framing is real however handy as a result of it offers cowl for interventions that additionally serve useful resource safety aims,” he defined.
Additionally citing the instance of Venezuela, Adamu mentioned that witnessing the US’s abduction of Maduro additionally doubtless “made the Nigerian authorities extra disposed to US cooperation”.
Adamu described Nigeria’s choice to permit the US to intervene as “a calculated trade-off” – one that gives safety advantages by US troops and intelligence sharing; and stronger diplomatic ties with a robust nation — whereas additionally sustaining Nigeria-led oversight of US operations.
From Tinubu’s facet, cooperation with the US is an “operational necessity”, Nwanze mentioned. “Nigeria’s safety forces are overstretched, and US intelligence and air energy supply tactical benefits in opposition to militant teams.”
Nonetheless, Cummings cautioned that whereas US assist could enhance Nigeria’s tactical counterterrorism capability, it “treats the signs” and never the socioeconomic circumstances on the root of the violence.
“There hasn’t been sufficient concentrate on how America can truly help the Nigerian authorities in addressing the causes of those insurgencies, which very a lot lies in fundamental economics – creating employment alternatives, making certain governance and entry to public providers in these areas are good, and making certain that you just as a rustic or as a authorities could make a greater deal for native communities than the jihadists can,” he mentioned.
Danger of escalation by armed teams
In reality, a US army presence in Nigeria may very well empower the armed teams, the analysts famous.
“There’s a actual threat of escalation,” Nwanze mentioned, noting that current safety knowledge compiled by his agency has proven “an uptick in assaults” because the US’s CPC designation.
He mentioned armed teams like Islamic State Sahel Province (ISSP) and the al-Qaeda-linked Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) “have persistently exploited narratives of international intervention to recruit and radicalise”.
“The December strikes [on Nigeria by the US] present propaganda materials, permitting them to border native grievances as a part of a world conflict in opposition to Western forces,” he added.
“There may be additionally the chance that militant teams will rebrand themselves as resisting international occupation, gaining propaganda benefits that outweigh tactical losses.”
Adamu mentioned a US presence may encourage armed teams to accentuate assaults, particularly symbolically. However greater than that, “as a result of controversy and distinction in assist between Nigerians for the US presence, it may well result in an extra polarisation of Nigeria alongside non secular and ethnic divides”.
There are “home notion dangers” for Abuja, he mentioned, noting that earlier Nigerian governments had confronted public criticism when permitting US presence in Nigeria, and lots of now really feel Tinubu is “handing the country over to US imperialism”.
The home “optics” are a priority, Nwanze agreed. “The notion of compromised sovereignty feeds nationalist resentment and deepens mistrust in authorities,” he mentioned.
For Cummings, Nigeria was in a tricky spot within the face of US aggression, and “on stability, it was a wiser choice by the Tinubu authorities [to have] larger alignment with the US”.
The analyst argues that Nigeria is traditionally extra professional‑West, with financial, political, social and diaspora ties to the US. He says within the absence of different companions – like BRICS or different South-South alliances – Abuja’s cooperation and seeming alignment with the Trump administration was one of the simplest ways to de-escalate this disaster.
However different analysts like Nwanze are involved that by selecting to concede to Trump the appropriate to violate Nigerian sovereignty — even with Nigerian oversight — the Tinubu authorities had left the nation uncovered to additional crises.
“Including a US army footprint, nonetheless restricted, dangers deepening instability by broadening the battle’s ideological scope,” he warned. “The [armed] teams had been already motivated; now they’ve a extra compelling story to inform.”
