In recent discussions surrounding international military actions, especially during sensitive times such as Christmas, significant scrutiny emerges. A notable examination by Andrew Korybko suggests that the U.S. might be leveraging such events to fulfill regional agendas while simultaneously appealing to supporters of former President Trump. This raises questions about the morality of conducting military strikes during a period associated with peace and goodwill, especially when the narratives presented may not hold up under closer scrutiny.
In exchange for assisting Nigeria in combating long-standing terrorist threats that its armed forces have struggled to address—partly due to systemic issues like corruption—the U.S. is likely seeking advantageous access to Nigeria’s emerging mining sector. This aligns with the broader strategy of encouraging Nigeria to distance itself from BRICS, with the U.S. aiming to outpace China in capitalizing on these opportunities.
Realizing these objectives could enable Nigeria to regain its regional leadership under U.S. guidance. The U.S. has expressed discomfort with the recently formed Russian-backed Sahelian Alliance, composed of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, particularly after they announced a joint military initiative to combat terrorism. While these anti-terror efforts may seem aligned with U.S. interests, the example they set of a multipolar world does not.
The wave of patriotic military uprisings in these nations has effectively diminished French and Western influence within their military and government structures. This shift has opened up lucrative mining prospects for Russia, particularly in uranium-rich Niger, which borders conflict-ridden Northern Nigeria. It is reasonable to speculate that the U.S. aims to support Nigeria’s reassertion of Western influence in the Sahel, albeit not immediately.
I opted to feature Common Dreams’ report on Trump’s recent military actions due to Korybko highlighting the misleading justification framed by Trump concerning ISIS in his article titled: Why’d Trump Bomb ISIS In Nigeria On Christmas? A reader’s comment effectively underscored this point:
Luis A. Melendez Albizu
Because he didn’t. ISIS is a CIA/Mossad mercenary force. The U.S. is not, and will not, bomb its mercenaries. It is akin to Syria, where Clinton, Trump, and Biden claimed to target ISIS, while they ultimately bombed innocent people, aiding ISIS instead. So, Trump likely just bombed some innocent goat herders to assert he was attacking ISIS.
By Brett Wilkins, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams
President Donald Trump—who has labeled himself the “most anti-war president in history”—has ordered bombings in more countries than any of his predecessors, with recent strikes conducted on Christmas day targeting what the White House claimed were ISIS militants in Nigeria, allegedly responsible for attacks on Christians.
“This evening, under my directive as Commander in Chief, the United States executed a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS terrorists in Northwest Nigeria, who have been ruthlessly targeting innocent Christians at unprecedented levels,” Trump stated Thursday on his Truth Social platform.
“I previously warned these terrorists that if they did not cease the slaughter of Christians, there would be severe consequences, and tonight, those consequences were realized,” he added. “The Department of War executed precise strikes, as only the United States can.”
“With my leadership, our country will not permit Radical Islamic Terrorism to flourish,” Trump asserted. “May God bless our military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the deceased terrorists, of whom there will be many more if their violence against Christians persists.”
.@POTUS “Tonight, under my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States struck ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria… pic.twitter.com/ct7rUW128t
— Department of War 🇺🇸 (@DeptofWar) December 26, 2025
A U.S. Department of Defense official, speaking anonymously, reported to the Associated Press that the U.S. collaborated with Nigeria in executing the bombings, with the approval of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu, a Muslim.
Details regarding casualties resulting from the strikes remained unclear, including potential civilian impacts.
The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated, “Terrorist violence, irrespective of its target—whether Christians, Muslims, or others—represents a violation of Nigeria’s principles and disrupts international peace and security.”
The U.S. bombings came on the heels of a warning from Trump last month, threatening aggressive responses if the Nigerian government did not tackle attacks on Christians.
Northwestern Nigeria, which includes areas like Sokoto, Zamfara, Katsina, and parts of Kaduna State, grapples with a multifaceted security crisis exacerbated by armed criminal factions, conflicts between herders and farmers, and militant groups like the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP/ISIS) and Boko Haram. Both religious groups face violence.
Since its emergence in Borno State in 2009, Boko Haram has waged war on the Nigerian state, rejecting it as apostate, rather than targeting a specific religious faction. Notably, a significant portion of its victims are Muslims.
“Data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project shows that more Muslims than Christians have suffered violence in recent years,” wrote Chloe Atkinson for Common Dreams. “Boko Haram has massacred worshippers in mosques, set ablaze markets within Muslim-majority areas, and terrorized their co-religionists.”
“It is indeed true that Christian communities in the north-central regions have endured unspeakable tragedies as raids have decimated villages, leading to children murdered in their homes, and churches reduced to ashes,” she continued. “The massacre in Zike in April and the bloodbath in Yelwata in June are stark examples of the ongoing atrocities in Nigeria.”
“It is crucial to emphasize that the crisis in Nigeria does not constitute a holy war against Christianity,” Atkinson added. “Instead, it encompasses a tragic mix of poverty, climate-induced land disputes, and radical ideologies affecting all communities, rather than any one specific group.”
“By framing the conflict in Nigeria as a dire threat solely to Christians, Trump fails to highlight the actual victims,” she argued. “Rather, he is manipulating right-wing conspiracy narratives to incite Islamophobia, using the same harmful tactics that facilitated his Muslim ban and led to a devastating impact on refugee families at America’s borders.”
Former Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) remarked on X that “there’s no authority for strikes on terrorists in Nigeria or anywhere on Earth,” noting that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)—backed by nearly all Congress members except then-Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—applies solely to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.
“The War Powers Resolution does not extend beyond constitutional limits,” Amash added. “Any offensive military actions require congressional approval. The Constitution’s Framers designed a division of war powers to safeguard the American populace from overly aggressive executives. Decisions regarding international conflict should rest in the hands of elected representatives, not the president.”
What constitutional authority supports these strikes without a Congressional declaration of war?
— Patrick Jaicomo (@pjaicomo) December 26, 2025
In addition to Nigeria, since 2017, Trump—who claims he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize—has ordered strikes in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. He has also targeted vessels purportedly involved in drug trafficking in the Caribbean and Pacific. Furthermore, Trump has positioned warships and thousands of U.S. troops near Venezuela, which may face military action from a president who campaigned on a “peace through strength” slogan.
This rate of military intervention exceeds the bombings ordered during the terms of former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama throughout the so-called War on Terror, which resulted in the deaths of over 940,000 individuals—including at least 432,000 civilians, according to the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.
Trump has continued the anti-ISIS operations initiated by Obama in Iraq and Syria, having promised to “bomb the hell out of” ISIS fighters and “wipe out their families.” This approach has shifted the U.S. strategy from one of “attrition” to “annihilation,” as outlined by his former Defense Secretary, Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis. Thousands of civilians lost their lives as cities like Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria were devastated.
Trump declared victory over ISIS in 2018, and again in the following year.
Some social media users have suggested that Trump’s “warmongering” might be a tactic to distract from the Epstein files scandal and alleged cover-ups within his administration.
“Bombing Nigeria won’t erase the Epstein files from memory,” remarked one user on X.
In conclusion, the complexities of military interventions raise moral questions, particularly in light of their timing and justification. The ongoing conflict in Nigeria is deeply rooted in multiple issues beyond mere religious persecution, underscoring the need for a more nuanced understanding of the situation. As history demonstrates, framing conflicts solely through a particular lens can lead to oversimplified narratives that fail to capture the broader humanitarian crises at play.
