Nigeria: Questions Mount Over U.S. Airstrikes in Northern NigeriaF

By Leslie Varenne, MondAfrique: The American strikes carried out in Nigeria on Christmas Day raise serious questions. Beyond the confusion surrounding the objectives of the operation, inconsistencies in official statements, and the unclear nature of the targets, the episode risks further destabilizing an already fragile security environment.

On the night of December 25 to 26, the United States conducted airstrikes in northwestern Nigeria, in the Sokoto region. According to information reported by Reuters, sixteen Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from U.S. naval vessels positioned in the Gulf of Guinea. These strikes were reportedly supplemented by GPS-guided munitions fired by MQ-9 Reaper drones. The Pentagon stated that the targets were camps linked to the Islamic State located in the Bauni forest area of Sokoto State.

However, almost immediately, conflicting information emerged from Nigerian sources on the ground. Several local officials and witnesses reported that the locations struck did not show any evidence of jihadist presence. In one case, a missile reportedly landed in an empty field roughly 300 meters from a hospital, causing no casualties or material damage. In other locations, elected representatives who visited the sites stated that they found no signs indicating that armed groups had been operating there.

These discrepancies have fueled growing skepticism within Nigeria’s political class. Some lawmakers have openly questioned the credibility of the intelligence used to justify the strikes. Others have asked whether the operation was primarily symbolic, designed to send a message rather than eliminate an immediate threat. At this stage, the precise targets and operational goals remain difficult to determine.

Part of the confusion stems from the identity of the group allegedly targeted. U.S. officials referred to an organization known as “Lakurawa,” described as affiliated with the Islamic State. However, several Nigerian security experts argue that Lakurawa is not a clearly structured jihadist organization. Instead, the term is often used locally as a catch-all label for a mix of armed actors, including bandits, criminal gangs, and fighters operating along Sahelian routes.

The communication on the operation has further complicated matters. In an announcement posted on social media, U.S. President Donald Trump stated that the strikes had been carried out at the request of Nigerian authorities and were aimed at protecting “primarily innocent Christians” from attacks by the Islamic State.
Nigerian officials responded more cautiously. In statements issued the following day, Abuja emphasized intelligence cooperation with the United States but avoided confirming that the operation had been formally requested by Nigeria. The Nigerian foreign minister, during a phone call with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, stressed that the strikes should not be interpreted as targeting any specific religious group.

U.S. Africa Command later revised its own public messaging. Initial statements referring to strikes conducted “at the request of” Nigeria were modified to say they were carried out “in coordination with” Nigerian authorities. This adjustment highlighted the lack of alignment between the different actors involved and reinforced the perception of confusion surrounding the operation.

In Sokoto State and across much of northern Nigeria, Christians represent a small minority. Armed violence in the region has affected Muslim and Christian civilians alike. For many observers, framing the strikes as an effort to protect Christians risks misrepresenting the nature of the conflict and inflaming religious tensions where they are not the primary driver of violence.

Several analysts warn that such rhetoric could prove counterproductive. By introducing a religious narrative into an already complex security landscape dominated by banditry, local militias, and loosely connected extremist networks, the operation risks deepening mistrust and misunderstanding among local populations.

At a time when Nigeria faces persistent insecurity, fragile state authority in rural areas, and growing pressure from multiple armed actors, the lack of clarity surrounding the American strikes raises broader concerns. Without transparent objectives, verified targets, and coherent messaging, the operation may ultimately contribute more to uncertainty than to stability.