US Strikes in Nigeria Spotlight Religious Tensions and Geopolitical Stakes
DID Press: US President Donald Trump announced that American forces have carried out large-scale and deadly attacks against ISIS militants in northwestern Nigeria. In a post on the social media platform Truth Social, Trump said: “At my direction, the U.S. Department of War conducted a powerful strike against ISIS terrorists. If terrorist actions continue, more attacks will follow.”
He had earlier warned that terrorists would “pay a heavy price” if the killing of Christians continued.
The U.S. action follows policies adopted in 2025, under which Washington placed Nigeria on a special watch list over what it described as the “systematic killing of Christians” and threatened direct military intervention. Trump’s political allies, including Senator Ted Cruz, have also spoken of a “massacre of Christians,” claims that many experts say lack solid evidence.
Three Intertwined Crises
Analysts argue that the American framing of the situation as a case of “genocide against Christians” or a broader “war on Islamic terrorism” dangerously oversimplifies the reality of violence in Nigeria. In practice, the country is facing three distinct but interconnected crises:
- Jihadist terrorism by Boko Haram and affiliated groups;
- Ethnic and economic conflicts between herders and farmers;
- Competition over resources and regional influence, often masked by the rhetoric of “jihad.”
Underlying Motives
According to experts, recent U.S. moves and direct threats by Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are driven less by religious concerns than by economic and geopolitical interests. Washington is seen as seeking to curb Nigeria’s growing energy independence — particularly the massive Dangote refinery — and to consolidate its influence in the region. The discourse of “religious freedom” and a “war on Islamic terror” is widely viewed as a cover for these strategic objectives.
Analysts warn that the recent U.S. military strikes, while justified as protecting Christian communities, risk intensifying local crises, further complicating ethnic and religious tensions, and escalating international friction.
They caution that oversimplifying complex local conflicts and instrumentalizing religion for geopolitical ends could have dangerous long-term consequences for Africa.