The United States military has drawn up contingency plans for possible strikes in Nigeria and submitted them to Washington, The New York Times reports, after President Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon to prepare options in response to claims of mass attacks on Christians in the West African nation.
“The New York Times” article — titled “US Military Draws Up Nigeria Plans, With Limited Options to Quell Violence”, says U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) compiled three escalation packages this week and forwarded them to the Department of War at the direction of Secretary Pete Hegseth. According to the newspaper, the options are described internally as light, medium and heavy.
Under the plans outlined to the paper:
- The light option focuses on support and assistance to Nigerian security forces.
- The medium option would employ drone strikes and special operations.
- The heavy option, described by military planners as the most forceful, could include deploying a carrier strike group to the Gulf of Guinea and using fighter jets or long-range bombers to strike targets deep inside northern Nigeria.
But military officials and analysts cautioned that even the most robust option may not decisively end the country’s long-running, multi-dimensional violence. Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, a retired U.S. Army officer, told The New York Times that a large-scale campaign “would be a fiasco … like pounding a pillow,” reflecting concerns about effectiveness and unintended consequences.
The New York Times report comes after President Trump last week designated Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” on religious-freedom grounds and publicly urged the U.S. military to prepare to act if the Nigerian government failed to halt what he described as large-scale killings of Christians. In a social-media post cited by multiple outlets, the president wrote: “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter.”
Officials familiar with AFRICOM’s work told the newspaper the planning documents highlight serious operational, legal and political obstacles: nearby bases suitable for drone operations are limited; moving and sustaining a carrier strike group is costly and complex; and any major U.S. action would raise immediate questions about Nigerian sovereignty and regional stability.
Analysts also emphasised that the violence in Nigeria is not a single-thread insurgency. Attacks and communal clashes span Islamist insurgents, herder-farmer conflicts, criminal gangs and communal violence that have affected both Christians and Muslims. That complexity, experts told The New York Times, makes a purely military solution unlikely to produce lasting peace without significant on-the-ground partnerships, intelligence sharing and post-strike stabilisation plans.
Taken together, the reporting suggests Washington is increasing pressure on Abuja while weighing limited and risky military options. But, as the Times notes, senior officials believe the most likely near-term responses are the light or medium packages, partner support, intelligence assistance, targeted special operations or drone strikes, rather than a full-scale “heavy” campaign.
(This story draws on reporting by The New York Times: “US Military Draws Up Nigeria Plans, With Limited Options to Quell Violence,” published Wednesday.)
