It has come to light that the United States of America military has drawn up plans for a possible intervention in Nigeria. This development follows President Donald Trump’s claim that a “Christian genocide” is taking place in Nigeria and his statement that the U.S. would invade to deal with the terrorists.
In Trump’s words: “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter.”
He then ordered the military to begin preparations. The Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, promptly replied, “Yes, Sir,” and instructed the Africa Command to present plans for potential strikes.
Officials at the command, headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, sent their recommendations to Washington. The new AFRICOM commander, Gen. Dagvin R.M. Anderson, already has a scheduled visit to Nigeria next month.
Three defense officials confirmed that the command’s plans include three escalating options — light, medium, and heavy.
Option 1
The light option, according to officials, involves what the military terms partner-enabled operations.
Under this option, the U.S. military and the State Department would assist Nigerian government forces in targeting Boko Haram and other Islamist insurgents responsible for attacks, kidnappings, and murders of civilians, mainly in northern Nigeria, where ethnic and sectarian violence has persisted for nearly two decades.
However, the U.S. would have to carry out these operations without the expertise of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), whose Abuja office officially closed in July after being shut down by the Trump administration.
This approach poses several challenges, particularly since much of the northern Nigerian Sahel’s violence is rooted in linguistic, cultural, and religious divides.
Many of the conflicts stem from disputes over land use and tenure, often worsened by corruption within the Nigerian government.
Farmers and herders have clashed for decades over land rights, creating fertile ground for militant Islamic groups to exploit and advance their agenda.
Option 2
The medium option proposed by Africa Command, officials said, involves drone strikes on militant camps, bases, convoys, and vehicles in northern Nigeria.
American Predator and Reaper drones can hover for hours before launching strikes, while U.S. intelligence would monitor targets’ activities to determine attack timing.
But this option presents logistical problems, especially since the U.S. military vacated its two closest drone bases — in Agadez and Niamey, both in Niger — in August. Russian forces now occupy those sites.
Drones previously launched from Niamey or Agadez could reach Nigeria within an hour, a military source explained. Currently, the closest potential launch points for U.S. drones would be in southern Europe or Djibouti in East Africa, where the U.S. maintains a large base.
One official noted that some West African nations eager to curry favor with the Trump administration might allow their territories to host drone operations, though such arrangements remain uncertain. Doing so could also conflict with the Nigerian government’s stance on sovereignty and create new diplomatic challenges in the region.
The Nigerian government has expressed willingness to receive U.S. support against Islamist insurgents but insists that any action must respect Nigeria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Option 3
The heavy option, according to military officials, entails deploying an aircraft carrier group to the Gulf of Guinea and sending fighter jets and possibly long-range bombers to strike targets deep in northern Nigeria.
However, the U.S. is already relocating one of its aircraft carriers, the Gerald R. Ford, from its European mission to the southern Caribbean, where Trump has declared war on drug cartels.
Other U.S. aircraft carriers are currently operating in the Pacific, stationed in the Middle East, or undergoing maintenance.
Deploying a carrier to the Gulf of Guinea to combat insurgents in Nigeria was not considered a national security priority for 2025 as of last Friday, according to several officials.
Americans react
Military analysts argue that the U.S. cannot meaningfully stop the violence in Nigeria unless it commits to a large-scale Iraq- or Afghanistan-style campaign — something no one is currently considering.
Still, American strategists say limited actions could deliver minimal effects against militant groups.
Groups like Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) have targeted Christians in Nigeria, as well as Muslims accused of insufficient piety. Yet, experts say any large-scale U.S. military intervention would likely fail.
“It would be a fiasco,” said Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army officer who served in Iraq and helped oversee U.S. counterinsurgency efforts there.
He noted that the American public has shown little appetite for another Iraq- or Afghanistan-type operation in Nigeria — nor has the president, apart from his recent social media statements.
Analysts also warned that any attempt by Trump to use his preferred strategy — airstrikes — would likely create temporary “shock and awe” but achieve little else. Gen. Eaton compared such a campaign to “pounding a pillow.”
Current and former military and national security officials, including veterans of counterterrorism operations in West and Central Africa, said Trump’s directive left them perplexed.
Boko Haram has killed, kidnapped, and attacked both Christians and Muslims. Previous U.S. administrations supported Nigeria with intelligence and security aid to help target the group but hesitated to sell certain weapons due to human rights concerns involving the Nigerian military.
