By Ussiju Medaner
Was I surprised that U.S President, Donald Trump ordered the attack on ISIS elements in Nigeria? Yes, totally surprised. Was I more surprised that of all times and days, his choice was Christmas day? Yes, absolutely surprised. Am I against efforts to end insecurities in Nigeria? No, absolutely no. Addressing and ending insecurity in Nigeria is a task second to none, and one that every Nigerian is expected to support.
Twice in the last month, I have made clear my unwavering stand against insecurity across Nigeria as much as Trump’s negative narrative about the insecurity in Nigeria. I have rejected absolutely as a Nigerian the insulting and false designation of Nigeria as a country of particular concern based on false christian genocide claims which does not reflect the general insecurity that affects all.
As Nigerians, we cannot ever afford to play with our sovereignty. A lot will be at risk with not only Nigeria but with the entire Sahel region, if we give Americans the leeway to set their foots on our soil as it is beginning to happen. It will be tantamount to selling off our soul to America on a platter of gold. Soon, if not stopped, Trump will demand for a military base on our soil and we won’t be able to say no if we don’t stop him now. We must, like South Africa, stand our ground and protect our sovereignty with everything at our disposal.
A Strike That Shocked a Nation
According to official statements, over a dozen Tomahawk missiles and drone strikes targeted several camps in the Bauni forest of Sokoto State — an area near Nigeria’s northern border with Niger — where foreign ISIS elements and affiliates were believed to be operating. The Nigerian government confirmed the strikes were done with coordination and approval, and no civilian deaths were reported, though debris affected nearby towns. This is a narrative that Nigerians would pray is true, because anything to the contrary would mean the beginning of the end to the jealousy guarded sovereignty of the Nigerian nation and the dreaded beginning of the United States usurpation of Nigeria to achieve selfish goals for their nation. We will also wish to know for certain the content of the security pact we currently have with Trump’s America. What is in it for America and President Trump. This is necessary because a few weeks ago, we all shared our worries about how America laid waste to every nation they had intervened in militarily.
President Donald Trump publicly framed the strikes as retaliation for the ongoing “slaughtering of Christians” at the hands of extremists, asserting that his decision was both a message and a warning. U.S. military officials emphasized the operation aligned with longstanding efforts to counter Islamic extremist ideology globally. Well, to what extent this is true will take time for confirmation. Nigeria and Nigerians cannot allow this line of argument.
There is insecurity in the country and citizens, regardless of tribe, region and religion are being killed. We have also agreed so much to tell the world that our position is to root out all perpetrators of these killings against our citizens and restore peace, safety and tranquility to our country.
With Trump’s strikes, what is clear is that they mark one of the first major foreign military interventions directly on Nigerian soil since the country’s independence, signaling a potential shift in external engagement in the country’s security crisis.
If Nigeria was in collaboration on the Sokoto attack, should it be Trump that would address the world to take credit for it. Sticking to his narrative that he is responding to Christian genocide in the country and insisting that we are a disgraced country. How can we expect Nigerians to agree with such a man? Even when Nigerians do not want Trump’s direct attacks on their soil, they would still prefer that even when such attacks occur in collaboration with the Nigeria government, it should be the responsibility of the Nigeria government to communicate it. Trump announcing and taking credit for the attack on Nigeria soil is an insult to our Commonwealth and sovereignty. We cannot afford to let it go beyond where it is now.
America should empower us with technology to fight our wars and not fight on our behalf. We need exactly what America is doing for Ukraine; give them the weapons. The Nigerian military is powerful enough to handle and manage any weapon. We should be wary of a country that refuses to sell the needed weapons to us and when they manage to do so, they restraint our capacity to deploy the weapons, coming to deploy the same weapon on our soil and claiming credit for an attack on a sovereign soil. The right thing should have been to give us the weapons, share intelligence with us and watch us deplete terror on our soil.
Condemnation, Support and Confusion
In the aftermath of the early hours of Christmas Day 2025, precision‑guided U.S. airstrikes struck what were described as ISIS‑linked militant camps in northwest Nigeria’s Sokoto State, killing multiple extremists and destroying infrastructure claimed to be used to plan attacks. The operation carried out by the U.S. Africa Command in coordination with Nigerian authorities as claimed, has drawn reactions from across the globe; some supporting and others expressing worries at the attack they claim do have ulterior motives that are bound to be exposed with time when it is impossible to turn back the arm of the clock
The timing of the attack, on one of the most sacred days in the Christian calendar, drew immediate international attention — and nationwide debate. For many Nigerians, the striking coincidence of Christmas and bombs falling on their soil evoked mixed emotions: gratitude to see militant cells disrupted, but deep unease over foreign military action conducted so publicly. This episode encapsulates the broader struggles of a nation wrestling with both violent extremism and narratives that too often oversimplify complex realities.
Why Christmas day? Is it Trump playing deep to reach out to the Christian population that the fight is for them? Breaking our already fragile unity further?
Abroad, U.S. allies such as the Israeli government issued broad calls for an end to violence targeting Christians worldwide — including Nigeria — framing the strikes in terms of religious freedom. All ignoring the reality of our insecurity and sticking out with Trump’s choice of narration about our country and the one that will continue giving him access to what he plans to achieve in Nigeria and our sub region.
Some commentators, particularly in Africa, criticized the strikes as potentially destabilizing or misdirected. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in South Africa condemned the airstrike as reckless and imperialist, arguing that unilateral military action against an African nation undermines sovereignty.
Within Nigeria, reactions were mixed and sharply divided: Groups like Afenifere, a major socio‑political organization, described the U.S.Nigeria operation as “timely and necessary,” especially given long‑standing terror threats. Prominent activist Omoyele Sowore lambasted the action as “imperialist,” warning of dangers to national sovereignty and regional stability. Well this response from Sowore is surprising, given that he was among the vocal voices urging Trump weeks ago and praising his pronouncement against Nigeria.
Some religious leaders, including revered Islamic scholars, decried the decision, terming it a symbolic “neo‑Crusade” against Islam and questioning the logic of striking Sokoto , a region with deep historical Islamic significance — instead of more established insurgency hotspots in the north east.
Additionally, many Nigerians on the ground including residents of Jabo in Niger State were bewildered, pointing out that their communities have no history of ISIS presence and coexist peacefully across religious lines.
Motive or Misrepresentation? Analyzing the Rationale
The U.S. framed its action as part of its global fight against Islamic State extremism, arguing the strikes were aimed at alleged militants who had murdered civilians and targeted Christians. However, independent analyses point to a broader and deeper picture of insecurity in Nigeria that cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of Christian victimization by ISIS:
Nigeria has faced multiple overlapping security threats from Boko Haram in the northeast to banditry, kidnappings and communal conflicts in the northwest, and militias in the Middle Belt often driven by local grievances, weak governance, and economic desperation. Experts question whether the Christmas strikes effectively target the main drivers of violence or merely symbolic affiliates.
Thus, the narrative of “Christian genocide” amplified by some U.S. political figures risks oversimplifying the violence and feeding polarizing rhetoric abroad without fully reflecting realities on the ground.
Insecurity Knows No Tribe, No Religion
One of the most unfortunate and unhelpful outcomes of this episode is the reanimation of ethnic and religious scapegoating that has plagued Nigerian security discourse. It is tempting for commentators and politicians to attribute violent acts to broad communities such as Fulani herders or to any religion when there is strong evidence that crimes in Nigeria are committed across ethnic, religious, and regional lines. Arrests overtime of perpetrators have shown the miscalculation of stereotyping.
Extremist groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP have killed Muslims and Christians alike, targeting anyone perceived to oppose their ideology. Local communal conflicts including clashes between farmers and herders, and banditry are driven by resource competition, governance failures and economic inequalities, not monolithic ethnic identities and definitely not religion.
This underscores that violent crimes and insecurity cannot be pinned on a single tribe or religion. To do so not only misrepresents Nigeria’s security landscape but exacerbates tensions and fuels mistrust among communities. Relying on simplified narratives distracts from addressing root causes such as poverty, weak institutions, and lack of inclusive governance.
Nigeria’s Responsibility and the Struggle for Security
At home, the Nigerian government led by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu finds itself between the proverbial Red Sea and Pharaoh’s army attempting to balance national sovereignty, international cooperation, and internal pressures to deliver security. Critics have leveled varying degrees of blame at the federal government for perceived lapses in security, yet it is important to recognize that: The federal authorities have pursued multiple strategies from intelligence sharing to joint operations to address terrorism and banditry.
Security challenges in Nigeria are multifaceted, requiring not only kinetic military responses but also long‑term investment in development, community resilience and state presence in neglected regions.
It is equally significant to acknowledge that external pressure such as threats to cut aid or military intervention can complicate the domestic context, potentially undermining collaborative efforts and feeding narratives that the government is powerless or indifferent. In reality, the presidency is navigating a complex security matrix that demands diplomacy, national cohesion and multi‑layered strategies.
A Way Forward — Diplomacy, Strategy and National Unity
This Christmas episode should serve as a wake‑up call for all; government, citizens, and international partners, to rethink how Nigeria confronts insecurity. We must return to the drawing board and evolve a multi‑dimensional security strategy. One that Nigeria and Nigerians must invest in. The solution to our insecurity would be more local and requires more localized action than we are offering now. We must invest extensively in local intelligence gathering and community engagements to preempt violence before it escalates. The grassroots participation is the country’s best bet at combating insecurity within their domain.
Secondly, economic development in rural and marginalized areas to reduce the pool of recruits for armed groups is a policy direction we must take more seriously than ever. For as long as our citizens are easy recruits for insurgence, all efforts to end the problem will be futile. We must up our investment in education, social development and youth development not just to address insecurity but also to reposition the national social economic growth and development.
If there is any challenge that requires Nigerians coming together for a dialogue, it is this insecurity. It is about time we called a national confab to agree on what has to be done to restore peace to Nigeria. A dialogue and deradicalization programmes that address grievances, settle animosities and integrate youths into productive pathways is a must for the country.
It is also very important that we address the misrepresentation in media narrative in the country. Especially emotional, biased and screwed sensational reporting tradition that has become a norm with us and which continues to pose more harm to our unity and capacity to weather our storms. Balanced storytelling based on consciousness of our national realities is as important as any other effort and policy.
Our leaders, media, and civil society must avoid ethnic or religious scapegoating of communities. Simplistic blame narratives that ignore systemic drivers of violence must be wholly jettisoned. We must see our problems as they are and address them as they are.
We must as well strengthen our diplomatic engagement with international partners. Nigeria should work with allies in a framework respectful of our sovereignty, ensuring that cooperation enhances and not overrides Nigerian authority. Joint counterterrorism efforts must be calibrated with clear objectives and accountability, avoiding actions perceived as unilateral or punitive.
A broad national dialogue that brings together religious, ethnic, youth, women and community leaders can help build common understanding of insecurity. Voices that have been silent or selective in their outrage should be challenged to contribute constructively to peace discourse rather than reacting only when global headlines emerge.
Conclusion — Nigeria’s Most Pressing Challenge
I have extensively reviewed Trump’s actions in Nigeria and I find it difficult to see the benefits in them for Nigeria. It is all about America’s interests. It is more about solving America’s problems. It is about using Nigeria and the sahel region to leverage relationships with China, Russia and other nations threatening America’s economy and war strengths. We cannot allow ourselves to be used. Like South Africa, we must stand strong against the projected and cunning American incursion. It is very important that we carefully examine how bowing to America affects our bilateral relationship with other nations that appear more beneficial to us.
The Christmas Day airstrike signifies more than a military moment; they reflect an inflection in how global powers view Nigeria’s security challenges and how easy it is for narratives to be co‑opted for domestic and international politics.
Nigeria stands at a crossroads: between reactive military responses and sustained strategies that build peace from the ground up; between divisive narratives and inclusive national identity; between external noise and internal resolve.
To protect its citizens without capitulating to mischaracterizations or foreign pressures, Nigeria must pursue a holistic approach to security, stability, and unity. In doing so, it can transform tragic headlines into tangible progress, proving that while violence may strike the nation, it does not define its destiny.
Medaner is reachable via: justme4justice@yahoo.com
