Ridwan Gany, Jamia Ahmadiyya International, Ghana
A dangerous and factually inaccurate narrative is being peddled by powerful figures in the United States, claiming that Nigeria is witnessing a “mass slaughter” and “existential threat” to its Christian population. This narrative, recently amplified by President Donald Trump and his advisors like Dr Walid Phares, is not only a gross misrepresentation of a complex security crisis but also a transparent pretext for geopolitical meddling that has historically left nations in ruins.
A complex insurgency, not a religious war
The claim of a deliberate, one-sided massacre of Christians in Nigeria is a fallacy that ignores the complex reality on the ground. Nigeria is battling multiple security threats, including the Boko Haram insurgency, its splinter group ISIS-West Africa, and rampant banditry. These groups are fundamentally anti-establishment and target all who oppose them, irrespective of faith.
The victims of terrorism in Nigeria are both Muslim and Christian. To claim otherwise is to ignore countless attacks on Muslim communities.
For instance, there is the issue of the bombing of mosques. Boko Haram has repeatedly targeted mosques and Islamic gathering places, viewing worshippers who do not adhere to their extremist interpretation as apostates. A simple review of news archives reveals attacks such as the suicide bombings at a mosque in Mubi.
Even non-religious gatherings are not spared. There are instances where dozens of people have been murdered. For example, there was the brutal attack on a funeral procession in Nganzai.
Then there is random, indiscriminate violence. The primary targets of these groups are often state institutions, security forces, and civilian populations regardless of religion. Market bombings, school abductions, and attacks on villages have claimed thousands of Muslim and Christian lives alike.
Framing this as a Christian-specific genocide is a deliberate act of disinformation designed to provoke sectarian division and justify foreign intervention.
The hypocrisy of the ‘savior’: Funding the problem, proposing the ‘solution’
Even if one incorrectly reduces the conflict to “Islamism”, the role of the United States and its allies in fostering such extremism is a matter of historical record.
The US foreign policy apparatus has a long and documented history of arming and funding jihadist proxies to achieve geopolitical goals, often with catastrophic blowback.
The US and the creation of jihadist networks
Declassified documents and reports from reputable institutions have detailed how the CIA, in collaboration with Pakistani intelligence, funded and armed the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s to fight the Soviets. This pipeline of money and weapons directly fostered the global jihadist movement that later gave rise to Al-Qaeda and ISIS. As reported by Foreign Affairs, the legacy of this intervention is a “blowback” that continues to haunt the world.
Weaponising terror in Syria
In the Syrian conflict, the US and its allies funneled weapons to so-called “moderate rebels”, a significant portion of which ended up in the hands of jihadist factions like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Al-Nusra Front, an Al-Qaeda affiliate).
Investigations by outlets like The Guardian have highlighted how these weapons shipments often “ended up in the hands of jihadists”.
The question then becomes: Is the US genuinely concerned about terrorism, or does it create and sustain problems to later disguise itself as the solution, thereby justifying its military and economic expansion?
A trail of ruin: The catastrophic aftermath of US intervention
The proposed US intervention in Nigeria should be viewed with extreme skepticism, given the unequivocally disastrous results of such actions elsewhere. The United States does not have a history of bringing peace; it has a history of destroying nations and snatching peace from their people. The following are just a few examples:
• Iraq: The 2003 invasion, based on false claims of WMDs, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the rise of ISIS, and a shattered state.
• Libya: The 2011 NATO-led intervention toppled the government, leading to a decade of civil war, slave markets, and a failed state that became a haven for terrorists.
• Syria & Yemen: U.S. involvement and massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia have fueled protracted conflicts, creating the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
The pattern is clear: US intervention is not a remedy; it is a catalyst for total societal collapse.
The real target: Nigeria’s resources, not its people
The proposed intervention is not born of altruism. The US has strategic interests, and the suggestion by Dr Walid Phares to establish a U.S. base in Port Harcourt reveals the true motive.
There are two main that expose the issue:
1. The security pretext is weak: Rivers State, where Port Harcourt is located, is a predominantly Christian state in the Niger Delta. It has not been a primary hotspot for the Boko Haram insurgency, which is concentrated in the northeast. The claim that a base is needed there to “deter Boko Haram” is geographically and logically inconsistent.
2. The resource motive is overwhelming: Port Harcourt is the heart of Nigeria’s oil and gas industry. The Niger Delta is the pioneer and primary source of Nigeria’s petroleum wealth. Establishing a military base in this strategic location has nothing to do with fighting terrorism and everything to do with securing control over vital energy resources. Is the goal to get rid of terrorists, or to get a stranglehold on Nigerian gas and oil?
A call for unity and sovereign resolve
Nigerians must be vigilant. The proposed external intervention is a Trojan horse. The US, knowing Nigeria’s vulnerabilities to tribalism and religion division, is deploying a familiar tactic: weaponising identity politics to create chaos, making the country easier to manipulate.
The solution to Nigeria’s security challenges will not come from a foreign power with a bloody track record and hidden agendas. It lies in:
• National unity: Rejecting divisive narratives that pit Muslims against Christians
• Stronger domestic institutions: Reforming and adequately funding the Nigerian military and police
• Socio-economic development: Addressing the root causes of instability, such as poverty and unemployment
The path forward for Nigeria is not through welcoming a foreign “savior” that has destroyed every nation it has “saved”. The path forward is through unity, sovereign resolve, and a collective rejection of this transparent and dangerous geopolitical game.
The cost of failure is a fate worse than the current crisis, a fate seen in the ruins of Libya, Iraq, and Syria.
