By Obinna Uballa
The United States military has submitted contingency plans for possible strikes in Nigeria, following President Donald Trump’s directive to prepare options in response to what he claimed was the mass killing of Christians in the country.
According to a report by The New York Times on Wednesday, the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) has forwarded three graded military options – tagged heavy, medium and light – to the Department of War at the request of Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Military officials familiar with the proposals told the newspaper that the “heavy option” represents the most forceful action Washington could take. It involves deploying an aircraft carrier group to the Gulf of Guinea and conducting airstrikes, either by fighter jets or long-range bombers, on targets deep inside northern Nigeria.
The medium option calls for drone strikes targeting militant camps, convoys and vehicles. US Predator and Reaper drones, capable of loitering for hours, would track targets to identify patterns of life before precision strikes.
The light option would focus on partner-enabled operations, with US advisers and diplomats supporting Nigerian security forces in targeting Boko Haram, ISWAP and other insurgent groups.
Officials said the stated goal of the plan is to weaken Islamist militants in northern Nigeria, protect Christian communities and help end the long-running insurgency.
Trump’s warning and sanctions
The New Diplomat had reported last week that President Trump designated Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” and suspended arms sales and technical support to Abuja. He accused the administration of President Bola Tinubu of allowing what he described as the mass slaughter of Christians.
“The United States cannot stand by while such atrocities are happening,” Mr Trump said, adding that any US action would be “fast, vicious, and sweet.”
The Nigerian government has rejected the genocide claims as misleading and politically motivated.
Military analysts quoted by The New York Times cautioned that none of the options is straightforward. In many parts of the North and Middle Belt, conflict is driven less by religion than by struggles over land, climate pressure and local grievances. Meanwhile, jihadist groups have killed both Muslims and Christians.
“It would be a fiasco,” said retired US Army Major General Paul Eaton, warning that limited strikes could create chaos without solving underlying issues. “It’s like pounding a pillow.”
