Nigeria’s decision to publicly cooperate with the United States on Christmas Day airstrikes against Islamic State-linked militants marks a delicate balancing act between counterterrorism cooperation and domestic political sensitivities. While President Donald Trump framed the operation as a response to attacks on Christians, Nigerian officials moved quickly to clarify that the strikes were aimed at terrorism not religious persecution.
By approving and jointly executing the operation, Abuja may have also avoided a more damaging scenario: unilateral US military action threatened weeks earlier by Trump. However, security analysts remain divided on whether such strikes can meaningfully weaken extremist groups that have entrenched themselves across Nigeria’s vast and difficult terrain.
A Coordinated Strike With Political Calculations
Trump announced on Thursday that US forces had launched airstrikes against Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria, describing the targets as camps responsible for violence against Christian communities. According to Trump, the operation took place at Nigeria’s request.
Local media in Nigeria reported loud explosions near the village of Jabo on Christmas evening, although Reuters could not independently verify casualty figures. A US defence official later told Reuters that the attack involved roughly a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a US Navy vessel positioned in the Gulf of Guinea.
Nigeria’s government confirmed that it had approved the strike. Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar said the operation was conducted jointly with the United States but strongly rejected any suggestion that it targeted militants based on religion.
“Nigeria is a multi-religious country,” Tuggar said in an interview with Channels Television. “Our cooperation with the US is about fighting terrorism and protecting lives and property, not about targeting or defending any one faith.”
Avoiding Unilateral US Action
Analysts say Nigeria’s decision to cooperate openly with Washington likely helped prevent unilateral military action threatened by Trump last month. At the time, Trump warned that the US could intervene directly if Nigeria failed to stop what he described as the persecution of Christians.
That language alarmed Nigerian officials, who argue that while the country faces severe security challenges, including insurgency, kidnapping, and banditry, the violence does not amount to systematic religious persecution.
“After Trump threatened to come in aggressively, we saw a Nigerian delegation travel to the US,” said Kabir Adamu, managing director of Abuja-based Beacon Security and Intelligence Limited. “The attorney general was involved, agreements were signed, and US surveillance missions began mapping militant positions.”
By participating in the strike, Nigeria demonstrated willingness to work with Washington on counterterrorism while maintaining control over the narrative.
Symbolism Versus Strategic Impact
Trump later revealed that he personally delayed the strike by a day for symbolic reasons. “They were going to do it earlier,” he told Politico. “And I said, ‘nope, let’s give a Christmas present.’ They didn’t think that was coming, but we hit them hard. Every camp got decimated.”
Despite the strong rhetoric, security experts caution against overstating the impact of a single operation.
“It’s not realistic to think that a few cruise missiles will fundamentally change the security situation,” said Cameron Hudson, a former US official specialising in Africa. “If the Trump administration wants lasting results, it will need to show sustained engagement, not just symbolic strikes.”
A US defence official echoed that assessment, describing the attack as “partially symbolic” and intended to send a deterrent message. The official said the US carried out the strike because the target area was too remote for Nigerian forces to reach quickly.
Who Was Targeted?
The strike reportedly hit areas affected by the Lakurawa sect, a strict Sunni Islamist group operating in northwestern Nigeria. Originally formed as a vigilante force, the group has since evolved into a jihadist movement enforcing hardline religious rules across hundreds of villages.
Nigeria designated Lakurawa a terrorist organisation earlier this year. The group has been linked to mass cattle theft, extortion, and violent enforcement of its authority, particularly along the Nigeria–Niger border.
“This is almost certainly the group Trump referred to,” said Confidence MacHarry, senior analyst at Lagos-based SBM Intelligence. “They control territory, intimidate communities, and finance operations through organised crime.”
Religion and Political Sensitivities
Nigeria’s population of more than 230 million is almost evenly split between Christians and Muslims, with deep historical sensitivities around religion and identity. While extremist violence disproportionately affects northern regions, authorities have consistently rejected claims that Christians face state-sanctioned or systematic persecution.
Security experts warn that endorsing Trump’s “Christian genocide” narrative could inflame tensions.
“Trump is clearly appealing to domestic evangelical audiences in the US,” Adamu said. “Nigeria cannot afford to adopt that framing without risking internal instability.”
Officials therefore walked a careful line—supporting the strike as counterterrorism cooperation while publicly distancing themselves from religious characterisations.
What Comes Next?
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested that additional operations could follow, saying on social media that there was “more to come.” However, US officials indicated that no immediate follow-up strikes are planned.
For Nigeria, the challenge remains translating high-profile military cooperation into long-term security gains on the ground. Militancy in the northwest has persisted despite years of military operations, driven by poverty, weak governance, and porous borders.
While the Christmas Day strike sent a strong signal of international cooperation, analysts agree it will not resolve Nigeria’s security crisis on its own.
“Airstrikes can disrupt operations and kill leaders,” Hudson said. “But without sustained political will, intelligence-sharing, and local stabilisation, the militants will adapt and return.”
Nigeria’s approval of the US strike reflects pragmatism rather than endorsement of Washington’s rhetoric. Whether the operation marks a turning point or merely a symbolic moment will depend on what follows—both militarily and diplomatically.
