The United States recently launched airstrikes in northwest Nigeria, specifically targeting Sokoto State, with claims of striking militants linked to the Islamic State. This military action, confirmed by U.S. President Donald Trump and the U.S. military, was presented by Trump using highly inflammatory and religiously charged language. He alleged that Christians were being “viciously killed” in the region and positioned the United States as a self-appointed savior, stating that the strikes were directed at “ISIS terrorist scum” who had been primarily targeting innocent Christians. This move followed Trump’s earlier warnings about an “existential threat” to Christianity in Nigeria and threats of U.S. military intervention.

However, this narrative has drawn sharp criticism for being simplistic and reckless. Critics argue that for weeks leading up to these strikes, Western political figures and media outlets had deliberately overhyped and distorted reports of violence in northern Nigeria. This reduction of a complex crisis, rooted in poverty, state failure, land dispossession, and decades of instability, into a dangerous story of “Christian killings by Muslims” is seen as dishonest. Violence in northern Nigeria has affected Christians, Muslims, and traditional communities alike, driven by banditry, criminal networks, insurgent factions, and socio-economic collapse. By selectively amplifying a religious narrative, the United States is accused of manufacturing moral justification for military intervention, transforming Nigerian suffering into propaganda for imperial violence.

This pattern is not new; the deliberate isolation and branding of enemies as Muslim terrorists to strip entire regions of context, dehumanize local populations, and legitimize foreign bombs is a familiar tactic. The invocation of “ISIL Islamic State” is particularly cynical, as even Western news reports rarely refer to Nigeria in this context. This label has historically been used by the United States across the Middle East and Africa to justify military actions, often leading to destroyed states, mass civilian casualties, and permanent instability. Now, this same script is perceived as being deployed in West Africa, effectively marking a territory as “open season” for American missiles, drones, and airstrikes without meaningful accountability or regard for long-term consequences.

The response of the Nigerian state to these airstrikes has also sparked controversy. Instead of asserting sovereignty and challenging what many consider a dangerous precedent, Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a submissive press release. This statement praised “security cooperation” with the United States and described the airstrikes as lawful and precise. This reaction has been interpreted not as a reflection of a confident or independent state, but as a form of capitulation. It is seen as endorsing the narrative imposed by the United States and signaling to the world that African governments can be pressured, persuaded, or politically cornered into legitimizing foreign military action on their own soil. While the U.S. military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) initially confirmed the operation was at the request of Nigerian authorities, that social media post was later removed, with a subsequent statement only confirming coordination.

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) strongly condemned the United States airstrikes, labeling them a violation of African sovereignty and “American military imperialism on the African continent.” The party criticized the Nigerian government for endorsing foreign military intervention instead of defending the country’s sovereignty. The EFF warned that continued foreign military involvement risks turning Africa into a battleground for global powers, stressing the importance of African-led solutions and a more decisive role for bodies such as the African Union and regional blocs in preventing external military interference.

Nigerian security analyst Denis Amachree offered a nuanced perspective on the intervention. Initially, he welcomed the U.S. military operation as timely, strategic, and long overdue, highlighting the critical role of international cooperation given Nigeria’s more than a decade-long struggle with terrorism. He emphasized the need for external support, stating that Nigeria cannot fight terrorism alone, and saw the U.S. action as a strong message to terrorist groups and a precursor for more strikes. However, Amachree later urged the Nigerian government to look beyond foreign military interventions and address the deep-rooted social and economic challenges that fuel extremism. He cautioned that military strikes, though important, cannot deliver lasting peace if underlying causes like poverty, youth unemployment, political instability, and corruption are ignored. Amachree stressed that a sustainable counter-terrorism strategy must combine security operations with robust social and economic reforms to effectively cut off the supply of recruits to extremist groups.