The United States conducted precision airstrikes against Islamic State (IS) targets in Nigeria's north-western Sokoto state on 26 December 2025. The operation, which Nigerian authorities endorsed, has elicited a complex and divided public response, blending relief with deep-seated concerns over the intervention's long-term implications.
A Welcome Intervention Amid Security Fatigue
For many Nigerians, the strikes arrived at a moment of profound exhaustion with rampant insecurity. The nation grapples with insurgency, terrorism, banditry, and communal violence, stretching its security forces thin. Persistent issues like corruption, equipment shortages, and inadequate training have hampered effective counterinsurgency efforts. In this context, the limited, targeted nature of the Sokoto operation, coupled with no credible reports of civilian casualties, made it a palatable alternative to feared prolonged foreign occupation.
Officially, Nigeria collaborated closely with the US. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yusuf Tuggar, confirmed that Abuja provided crucial intelligence and maintained communication with US forces until minutes before the strike. This cooperation framed the action as a joint counter-terrorism effort, easing sovereignty concerns that might have arisen from a unilateral US operation.
The Controversial 'Christian Genocide' Rationale
Despite operational support, the stated justification for the strikes has been widely contested. The US framed its intervention as a response to alleged genocidal attacks on Christians in Nigeria. However, this narrative is firmly rejected by Nigerian authorities, who argue that armed groups typically do not discriminate based on religion and that communities largely coexist peacefully.
The geography of the strike further complicates this framing. Sokoto is the spiritual heartland of Islam in Nigeria, and violence in the region disproportionately affects Muslim communities. Conversely, attacks on Christian farmers are most prevalent in north-central states like Benue and Plateau, often linked to conflicts with armed Fulani herders rather than explicitly jihadist groups. The strikes targeted IS elements, not herder militias, raising questions about Washington's understanding of the local drivers of violence it labelled as genocidal.
Strategic Risks and the Path to Durable Peace
While delivering short-term tactical gains, analysts warn the intervention risks longer-term strategic setbacks. Framing it as a defence of persecuted Christians could bolster extremist narratives of foreign 'crusader' aggression, potentially attracting more funding and recruits for jihadist groups like Isis-Sahel. This symbolism is a potent tool for recruitment.
Security experts, including Onyedikachi Madueke of the University of Aberdeen, stress that airstrikes alone cannot resolve Nigeria's insecurity. A durable solution requires addressing the structural drivers of violence:
- Deep socioeconomic inequality (Sokoto has one of the highest numbers of out-of-school children).
- Desertification and climate stress.
- Weak state presence in rural areas and porous borders.
- Fragile, under-resourced security institutions.
Strengthening state capacity to manage grievances, regulate competition over land, and counter extremism is highlighted as the only sustainable path to peace, moving beyond reliance on external military power.
