The United States is considering possible military action in Nigeria after President Donald Trump directed the Pentagon to examine responses to what he alleged was the targeted killing of Christians in the country.
A report by The New York Times on Wednesday said the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) has forwarded three separate contingency plans - described as heavy, medium and light - to the Department of War at the request of Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Three military pathways
Military officials familiar with the proposals said the heavy option would be the most forceful of the three. It involves deploying an aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf of Guinea and launching air or long-range bomber attacks against targets in northern Nigeria.
The medium option calls for the use of armed drones, including Predator and Reaper aircraft, to locate and strike insurgent bases, convoys and hideouts.
The light option is designed to support operations already underway by Nigerian forces, offering intelligence, planning assistance and limited on-ground advisory roles to target Boko Haram, ISWAP and related armed groups.
Officials told the newspaper that all three options were framed as efforts to weaken jihadist organisations and prevent further attacks on Christian communities.
Trump escalates rhetoric
The planning comes after President Trump last week listed Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” and suspended US weapons transfers and military technical support to Abuja.
He accused the government of President Bola Tinubu of permitting what he called “mass slaughter of Christians,” and warned that US retaliation could be swift.
“Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria,” he said. “We are ready to act—fast, vicious, and sweet.”
Nigeria has rejected the claims, insisting that violence in the north and middle belt is driven by a mix of terrorism, criminality and competition for land, rather than religious persecution.
Deep conflict, limited solutions
Security analysts and former US military officers cautioned that none of the proposed options would resolve the underlying crisis. Violence in the region often stems from economic and environmental pressures, while jihadist groups have targeted both Muslims and Christians.
Paul Eaton, a retired US Army general, told The New York Times that any direct US strike campaign could create confusion without producing stability. “It would be a fiasco,” he warned. “Like pounding a pillow.”
Operational roadblocks
The proposals also face technical hurdles. The US has limited aircraft carrier availability, while drone-strike capacity has been reduced following the withdrawal from two major drone bases in Niger earlier this year.
Meanwhile, the dissolution of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has complicated plans to coordinate civilian and humanitarian support, after its Abuja office was shut down in July.
Leave a Reply