Snapshot

On Christmas morning, while most Nigerians were waking up to family chatter, leftover rice, and the quiet relief that comes with a rare public holiday, missiles were already in the air. Far from the warmth of living rooms and church pews, Tomahawk cruise missiles streaked toward the Bauni forest axis of Tangaza Local Government Area in Sokoto State. By the time United States Africa Command announced the operation, the message was already clear. This was not just a counter-terrorism strike. It was a statement.

President Donald Trump, arguably the most transactional occupant of the Oval Office in recent history, had delivered what he framed as a Christmas gift to Nigeria. Each Tomahawk missile costs an average of $1.3 million dollars. At least twelve were reportedly fired. In a single operation, the United States spent no less than $15.6 million dollars on Nigerian soil. For an administration famously allergic to altruism, the price tag invites scrutiny. Why would a president known for a rigid quid pro quo approach to foreign policy authorize such an expensive intervention?

The explanation offered to the public was morality; concern for Nigerian Christians and a moral imperative to act. Yet this framing feels less like truth and more like a smokescreen. It redirects attention away from intent towards sentiment, allowing Washington to act while the audience debates ethics instead of interests.

Behind the scenes, Nigeria offers far more than a humanitarian cause. It offers leverage over regional security priorities, access to strategic minerals, and a reliable anchor in West Africa when global power competition is intensifying. The timing also served domestic purposes. The strike shifted attention away from Trump’s reappearance in the Epstein files, muted criticism over Gaza, and reinforced an image of decisive strength for a right wing base that thrives on spectacle and force.

On the ground, clarity is elusive. Initial battle damage assessments point to impacts in Offa, Kwara State, and Jabo in Sokoto State. Yet, there is no public confirmation of who was killed, how many died, or whether high-value targets were neutralized. Neither Abuja nor Washington has released verifiable evidence. Intelligence is cited, but not shown. In security operations, silence often speaks louder than statements.

This strike did not occur in a vacuum. It followed months of diplomatic tension sparked by Trump’s portrayal of Nigeria’s violence as a genocide against Christians and the country’s designation as one of particular concern. Against this backdrop, the airstrike represents a historic escalation. It is the first known US military strike on Nigerian territory, a precedent that quietly shifts the boundaries of sovereignty and partnership.

Labeling Nigeria’s insecurity as a genocide against Christians is not just inaccurate; it is harmful. Available data does not support it. Sokoto State itself is overwhelmingly Muslim, and Muslim communities bear much of the violence used to justify foreign intervention. The crisis is rooted in state weakness, criminality, and insurgency, not religious targeting.

Nigeria’s greatest failure in this episode may be narrative control. Washington announced the strike, not Abuja. Nigerian officials responded with mixed and contradictory statements, exposing coordination gaps and strategic confusion. The Minister of Information's statement claiming that 16 GPS-guided munitions were deployed using an MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial platform raises more questions, as drones do not leave debris or craters after hitting the target, as seen in Jabo.

In geopolitics, narrative is power. It frames legitimacy, intent, and sovereignty.

As the Sahel realigns and the AES bloc deepens ties with Russia, Nigeria’s strategic value to the United States grows. This raises uncomfortable questions. Will Nigeria become a staging ground in a proxy contest for West Africa and the Gulf of Guinea? The risk is real, and the costs could be lasting.

Airstrikes alone are not solutions. Somalia is proof. Years of American strikes have not reduced violent attacks. Without strong ground operations, local intelligence ownership, and accountability, air power becomes symbolism rather than strategy. Nigeria must also guard against mission creep, the same slow slide that destabilized Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Partnership must be clearly defined. Foreign involvement should strengthen Nigeria’s capacity, not substitute for it. The country’s non-alignment posture, carefully preserved since the Cold War, is under strain. Collaboration must not become capitulation. In international affairs, morality is rarely the deciding factor. Power and interests are.