By Olalekan Adigun
The United States military has reportedly developed a range of contingency plans for potential military action in Nigeria, following a directive from U.S. President Donald Trump. According to The New York Times, the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has submitted a set of operational options to the Department of War at the request of Secretary Pete Hegseth.
This development comes on the heels of Trump’s inflammatory accusation that the Nigerian government permits the “mass slaughter” of Christians—a claim Nigerian officials have strongly denied as false and politically motivated.
Last week, Trump escalated his rhetoric, threatening direct military action against Nigeria and labeling the Bola Tinubu administration as complicit in religious persecution. In a controversial move, he designated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC), suspended U.S. arms sales, and halted technical assistance to the country.
These actions follow months of lobbying by right-wing U.S. lawmakers and evangelical pressure groups calling for sanctions against Nigeria. Their claims, however, ignore the complex, multi-layered realities of Nigeria’s security challenges—rooted not merely in religion, but in issues of poverty, inequality, climate pressures, and governance failures.
The problem with such Western narratives is that they often reduce Nigeria’s multidimensional problems into simplistic ethno-religious categories. This distortion fuels misunderstanding and invites foreign interference under the guise of humanitarian concern.
The irony is that the United States, the self-appointed guardian of global democracy and human rights, has one of the world’s worst records of gun violence and racial discrimination.
Recent data shows that over 117,000 people are shot annually in the U.S., leading to nearly 43,000 deaths—including homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. Black children and teens face a fourfold higher risk of being killed by gunfire compared to their white peers.
This simply means a person of colour or from minority groups is more likely to die from gun violence in the US than in war-torn Sudan.
Yet, no country has ever designated the U.S. as “unsafe for minorities,” despite its deep racial divisions and systemic injustices. No foreign government has proposed sanctions or “interventions” over the habitual violence of American police officers against Black citizens. Are we to ignore the fact that the Black Lives Matter movement emerged precisely from these enduring injustices? Or should we pretend that these problems have somehow disappeared just a few years later?
And what of U.S. complicity in global injustices? The same weapons Washington ships to its allies are being used daily in the Middle East—killing innocent civilians, including Christians in Palestine. Ironically, there are more Palestinian Christians than there are from Israel, America’s closest ally.
If Washington truly cared about “saving Christians,” it would have intervened in Haiti, a predominantly Christian country in its own backyard.
Instead, Haiti—a mere 700 miles from Florida—has descended into chaos, with no elected officials, a collapsed government, and over 1.3 million people displaced by gang violence, according to the United Nations.
Hurricane Melissa’s recent devastation, which killed 43 people and destroyed thousands of homes, has gone virtually unnoticed in Washington. No U.S. rescue mission, no “coalition of the willing.” Haiti’s only “help” came from Kenya, whose police force traveled across the Atlantic to restore minimal order.
Why? Because Haiti has no oil. Unlike Venezuela, Iraq, or Libya, there’s nothing to loot. America’s humanitarian interventions have always followed the scent of resources, not righteousness.
No country has ever remained stable after U.S. military intervention.
Libya was not perfect under Muammar Gaddafi, but after the 2011 NATO invasion—led by the U.S.—it became a failed state, overrun by militias and slave markets. Iraq’s “liberation” produced sectarian war and ISIS. Syria’s civil war was prolonged by foreign meddling. Even Congo’s tragic history bears America’s fingerprints: the CIA orchestrated the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in 1962 and installed Mobutu Sese Seko, whose corrupt rule lasted three decades. Congo has never recovered.
Still, beyond condemning Trump’s reckless rhetoric, Nigerians must confront their own contradictions.
We must ask ourselves: are we truly a secular nation, or merely a country pretending to be one? Can a state that sponsors pilgrimages, funds religious institutions, and embeds faith in governance still claim neutrality? Can a government that refuses to prosecute religious violence credibly defend its commitment to equality before the law?
Our hypocrisy has birthed impunity. It has allowed extremists to act with confidence, knowing there will be little or no consequences. If Nigeria is to withstand external pressures and assert its sovereignty, it must first fix the contradictions within.
READ ALSO:
- NANS condemns remand of ex FUOYE SUG president, plans protests in Ekiti
- NURTW disputes Osun INEC’s position on leadership crisis, reaffirms Baruwa as President
- WAFU B U-20 Championship: Flying Eagles overcome Ghana in opener
- Zlatan Ibile, Wife Davita Announce Plans For Wedding
- WAFCON: Super Falcons Welfare Committee Members Stranded in Abuja
We must choose who we are: a secular democracy that protects all citizens equally, or a divided federation where religion dictates policy and justice. Because until Nigeria resolves this internal struggle, it will remain vulnerable—to foreign exploitation, domestic chaos, and, as Trump’s latest posturing shows, the ever-present shadow of imperial arrogance.
Olalekan Adigun, is a researcher and journalist based in Abuja. He can be reached on @MrLekanAdigun on X (formerly Twitter) or via email: adgorwell@gmail.com
