President Donald Trump has reportedly directed the U.S. Department of Defense to prepare contingency plans for potential airstrikes in Nigeria to protect Christians from Islamist militant attacks a move that has sparked diplomatic reactions from both China and the Nigerian government.
The United States military has reportedly prepared contingency plans for potential airstrikes in Nigeria following a directive from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who ordered the Pentagon to “prepare to intervene” to protect Christians from terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists.
According to The New York Times, the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has submitted a set of strategic options to the Department of Defense. These plans classified into “heavy,” “medium,” and “light” options outline varying levels of U.S. involvement in Nigeria’s counterterrorism operations.
The “heavy” option would see the deployment of an aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf of Guinea, with airstrikes on terrorist camps in northern Nigeria. The “medium” option proposes the use of MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1 Predator drones for targeted attacks, while the “light” option would involve intelligence sharing and logistical support to assist Nigerian forces battling Boko Haram and ISWAP insurgents.
Trump reiterated his position on social media Wednesday evening, writing:
“Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. The United States cannot stand by while such atrocities happen. We stand ready to save our great Christian population around the world.”
In response, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Mao Ning, warned the U.S. against interference, saying:
“China firmly opposes any country using religion or human rights as an excuse to interfere in another country’s internal affairs.”
Meanwhile, Daniel Bwala, an aide to Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, rejected the proposal, urging respect for Nigeria’s sovereignty.
“We do not need the boots of American soldiers on our soil,” Bwala said during a media interview. “Nigeria welcomes collaboration but not invasion.”
The development has generated intense global debate, raising questions about international diplomacy, religious freedom, and the balance between humanitarian intervention and national sovereignty.
Post a Comment