When the United States launched airstrikes on northern Nigeria in late December, it said it had taken out Islamic State jihadists - at Abuja's request - to stop them killing Christians. Yet experts have criticised Washington's claims that Christians are being massacred in Nigeria, a narrative promoted by the American right but that simplifies complex conflicts. Analyst Prince Charles Dickson tells RFI why US intervention is a "warning sign" for Nigerians.
Dickson is a Nigerian policy analyst and team lead at the community peacebuilding organisation Tattaaunawa Roundtable Initiative (TRICentre).
RFI: Did Abuja really ask for the strikes?
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Prince Charles Dickson: On paper, yes. US Africa Command and Nigerian officials have both said the strikes were carried out "in coordination with, and at the request of" the Nigerian government, specifically targeting ISIS-linked cells in Sokoto.
But inside Nigeria it doesn't feel like a sovereign, well-debated decision. There was no transparent public debate, no prior explanation to citizens or parliament, and the announcement came after the missiles had already landed.
So formally, Abuja is saying "we asked for this", but politically it feels more like a government trying to retake the narrative after Washington moved and framed it as a Christmas strike to save Nigerian Christians.
Where did the strikes actually land, and who lives there?
The targets were in rural Sokoto, around Tangaza LGA and the Bauni forest, in communities that are overwhelmingly Muslim and have lived for years in the grey zone between "bandits", jihadist factions, self-defence groups and ordinary villagers.
So, there is a stark disconnect: the political rhetoric in the US talked about protecting Christians and stopping "genocide", but the missiles landed in an area that is not a Christian enclave and is far away from the Plateau/Benue belt that is usually invoked in those narratives.
On the ground, many people don't recognise the neat labels used in Washington: they experience violence, extortion, raids and fear, but they don't necessarily see a clearly branded "ISIS" presence. That doesn't mean there are no jihadist cells; it means the language of "we hit ISIS, therefore we helped the civilians" is far more contested when you talk to those civilians themselves.
Nigerians push back on Trump's military threat over Christian killings
Do you fear further attacks and civilians being hit?
Yes, I am worried. Nigerians were already traumatised by our own military's record of "mistaken" strikes on villages and religious gatherings, like Tudun Biri in Kaduna in 2023, where scores of worshippers were killed by a Nigerian drone.
When you add US cruise missiles into that landscape - long-range weapons guided by intelligence that is partly remote, partly political, and rarely accountable to the communities below - the risk is not abstract. Even if the first round of strikes had hit only militants, people here know how quickly bad intel, pressure to "show results", or misreading of local dynamics can turn into civilian graves.
Is it a scary precedent for Nigeria and for Africa?
I think it is a deeply troubling precedent. For the first time since independence, a foreign power has carried out declared, unilateral combat strikes on Nigerian soil, and our government has essentially validated that as acceptable practice.
It normalises the idea that when domestic security becomes messy and politically embarrassing, you can outsource part of the problem to a foreign military and then wrap it in the language of "joint operations" and "counter-terrorism".
For Africa more broadly, it reinforces the message that external kinetic fixes are still on the table, even when the root causes are governance failures, land disputes, economic exclusion and arms proliferation.
From a peacebuilding perspective, it also hardens the religious framing. Once the US President Donald Trump says he is bombing Nigeria to save Christians, it feeds a dangerous narrative on both sides: in some Christian circles, it confirms a siege mentality; in some Muslim communities, it reinforces the belief that there is a coordinated Western-Christian project against them. That is combustible material in a region already on edge.
Nigerian mixed-faith families sense danger as violence flares
Does Nigeria want regional bodies Ecowas and the African Union to be consulted?
Will Ecowas and the African Union talk about it? They should, at the very least behind closed doors. This touches regional security doctrine, norms on foreign bases and strikes, and the already fragile legitimacy of Ecowas after so many coups and withdrawals.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
My sense is that any discussion will be cautious and quiet. Nigeria is still a central player in Ecowas and in AU peace and security structures. Many leaders will be reluctant to publicly criticise Abuja at a time when they also rely on Western military partnerships.
I would not be surprised if it surfaces on the margins of the AU summit [in Addis Ababa on 11-15 February] as part of a broader conversation about external military actors in the Sahel, rather than as a dedicated agenda item on "US strikes in Nigeria".
How do you see the fight against jihadism unfolding?
From where I sit in Jos, this feels less like a turning point in the "war on terror" and more like a warning sign about how easily African lives can become props in someone else's domestic politics. Nigerians - Muslim and Christian - are exhausted by violence.
They want safety, justice, functioning institutions, and dignity. They want their government to be strong enough to protect them, but also humble enough to be accountable to them, not to foreign applause.
If there is any hope in this moment, it is that it might force a more honest conversation here at home: about how we define threats, whose pain counts, and who gets to decide when bombs fall on Nigerian soil.
