The United States military has drawn up contingency plans for potential operations in Nigeria following President Donald Trump’s directive to “prepare for possible action” against militant groups accused of targeting Christians, The New York Times has reported.
However, senior American defence officials cited by the newspaper say Washington has limited options and little prospect of ending a decades-long insurgency without committing to a large-scale Iraq- or Afghanistan-style campaign — a scenario neither the White House nor the American public appears willing to support.
According to the report, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has forwarded three preliminary proposals to the Pentagon, labelled light, medium and heavy options, designed to escalate only if necessary.
The lightest of the plans would see the U.S. military and State Department support Nigerian government forces in targeted operations against Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).
This would involve intelligence sharing, limited raids on militant hideouts and technical assistance without direct American command of combat operations.
Analysts warn that the region’s violence is driven not only by extremism but also by land disputes, ethnic tensions and corruption, making such operations politically complex.
The medium option includes drone strikes on militant camps, convoys and logistics networks in northern Nigeria.
Armed U.S. Predator and Reaper drones could loiter for long periods to track militants before engaging.
But logistics pose serious challenges. The United States vacated two drone bases in neighbouring Niger in August, and Russian forces now occupy those facilities. The nearest viable launch sites are as far away as southern Europe or Djibouti, making operations slower and riskier.
The most forceful proposal would deploy a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf of Guinea, enabling fighter jets and long-range bombers to conduct deep-strike missions in Nigeria’s north.
Military officials told The New York Times this option is unlikely, given current global commitments. Carrier groups are already positioned in the Pacific, Middle East and southern Caribbean, while others are undergoing maintenance.
“It would be a fiasco,” retired U.S. Major-General Paul Eaton warned, likening heavy airstrikes to “pounding a pillow” — dramatic but ineffective against dispersed insurgents embedded in rural communities.
Current and former security officials quoted in the report say no decisive result is expected unless Washington commits tens of thousands of troops to a prolonged campaign — a prospect seen as politically untenable.
Boko Haram and ISWAP attacks have affected both Christians and Muslims, undermining the U.S. president’s framing of the crisis as primarily religious.
The Federal Government has publicly welcomed external assistance against Islamist extremist groups, but insists any foreign deployment must respect sovereignty and territorial integrity — a position that complicates unilateral American strikes.
Hosting American drones or warplanes on West African soil could also strain diplomatic ties across the region.
Despite Trump’s directive, insiders remain unsure how seriously the White House intends to pursue military action. Beyond social media posts, there has been no formal public briefing or congressional debate.
For now, AFRICOM’s options remain plans on paper. As one official familiar with the deliberations noted, American airstrikes may create spectacle — but little sustained progress.
