Trump’s Attack on ISIS Camps: An End to Terrorism in Nigeria or a Hit on the Cobra’s Tail?

CO-WRITTEN WITH GIFT EHI

Terrorism has remained one of the biggest security challenges in the world, and Nigeria has not been spared. Groups linked to ISIS, especially ISIS–West Africa Province (ISWAP), have caused pain, fear, and loss of lives in many parts of the country. When news broke that former U.S. President Donald Trump ordered attacks on ISIS camps, many people began to ask an important question: Does this mean the end of terrorism in Nigeria, or is it only a small blow to a much bigger problem?

Background to the Attacks Against ISIS and the Link to Nigeria

In November, Donald Trump announced that the US was going to intervene if the Nigerian government failed to act on the alleged Christian genocide in the country, especially in the Northern part of the country. This statement was made following the viral videos of mass burials of Christians who were killed by unknown terrorists in states like Benue and Kwara, during that period. There was also the kidnapping of 200 children in a Christian school, killings and attacks against some churches in the Northwest.

In lieu of this, on December 25, 2025, the United States launched airstrikes against the ISIS group in the north-western part of Nigeria under the order of President Donald Trump.

These strikes were said to be targeted and reportedly landed in the village of Jabo in Sokoto State and Offa in Kwara State. According to the BBC, Nigeria's Minister of Information confirmed that the operation was carried out with the knowledge and consent of the President of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Watch the video here

In the past years, Nigeria has experienced different waves of security issues and terrorism. Following the rampant killings and kidnappings between October and November, it became very clear that the security of the country is highly threatened. It is said that the major terror threats, especially Boko Haram and ISWAP, have connections to ISIS ideology and sometimes receive support, training, or inspiration from ISIS networks abroad. 

The US' response in collaboration with the Nigerian government was in a bid to stop the alleged genocide of Christians and destroy the operations of ISIS in the country. 

It is important to note that, during Trump’s presidency, the United States carried out several military strikes against ISIS camps in the Middle East and parts of Africa. These attacks were meant to weaken ISIS by killing their leaders, destroying their training camps, and cutting off their ability to plan attacks.

Reactions on the Attack

The United States’ airstrikes have, however, reignited debates on foreign military intervention, religious tensions, and whether such actions can truly address Nigeria’s complex security issues

So far, the news of the launched attack has sparked many reactions online. While those who were in support of the action praised it and expressed their support, some people have raised concerns on the legitimacy and consequences of such a move.

A pertinent question remains: is this move going to end terrorism in Nigeria or is this the beginning of more problems in the country?

A Hit on the “Cobra’s Tail”?

The complexity of the problem of terrorism and security issues in Nigeria has raised a lot of concerns about the step the US had taken in trying to fight against ISIS in the country. Will this resolve the security issues in Nigeria or it is just a hit on a cobra's tail?

The first important concern is the motive behind the US intervening. As said earlier, In November, Trump had said the US would intervene if the Nigerian government failed to act on the alleged ongoing Christian genocide in the country. This implies that the major reason, US is intervening is to end the killing of Christians in Nigeria. 

However, many have denied the truth of the claim that only Christians are the target of these terrorists. Some have claimed that terrorism has also claimed the lives of Muslims in Nigeria and the agenda of Islamization have been debunked. 

The absence of comprehensive and verified data to conclusively support claims of targeted religious genocide raises fears that U.S. intervention could worsen religious tensions rather than resolve security challenges.

This uncertainty has led to speculation that the strikes were not solely aimed at combating terrorism but could be interpreted as targeting Muslim communities, a perception that could further complicate the religious divisions in the country.

Given that ISIS is a known jihadist group with the agenda to Islamize, the situation becomes even more complex. This raises the question on whether or not the U.S. intervention will bring an end to terrorism or it will instead fuel a new wave of violence driven by religious resentment and mistrust. 

Also, Terrorism today is highly spread out. Even if camps are destroyed in one place, fighters often move, regroup, or form smaller cells in other regions. This raises doubt on whether or not this would resolve issues. 

Furthermore, it was reported that some of the strikes landed on empty fields and did not hit any terrorist camps. The United States claimed to have targeted camps belonging to a group known as Lakurawa, an offshoot of the ISIL group, in Sokoto State. 

However, locals in Jabo village, where the missiles reportedly landed, claimed that there was no terrorist presence in the area. According to residents, the village had not experienced any form of violence in over two years, and the debris from the ammunition landed in an empty field, with no casualties recorded. They were, in fact, very surprised when they heard loud noises and explosions in their area. (Financial Times).

This raises doubt on the effectiveness of the presupposed attack and equally makes the attack questionable overall. Some Nigerians have questioned why Sokoto State, which is predominantly Muslim, was targeted, while other states such as Borno, Kebbi, and Niger—areas that have experienced more intense and persistent terrorism—were seemingly ignored.

In addition, Nigeria’s security issues are not limited to ISIS operations alone. The country also faces banditry, which has not been conclusively linked to jihadist groups despite similarities in their methods, as well as kidnapping, tribal conflicts, ritual killings, and farmer-herder clashes. 

As PBS pointed out in one of its interviews, many of these conflicts have religious undertones, particularly between Islam and Christianity. For example, many farmer-herder clashes involve farmers who are mostly Christians and herders who are mostly Muslims. Although tribal and economic factors also play a role, these conflicts often reflect underlying religious tensions. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Muslims have also been victims of terrorism and insecurity in Nigeria.

Moreover, terrorism is driven not only by foreign influence but also by local problems such as poverty, unemployment, weak security systems, corruption, and lack of education. As long as these issues remain, new fighters can still be recruited, even if ISIS camps are bombed.

These layers of insecurity make the situation highly complex. This raises doubts about whether U.S. intervention can truly address the root causes of Nigeria’s security problems.

Although the US has stated that more strikes would come in order to destroy ISIS and its operations in Nigeria, the above complexity of the situation in Nigeria has, thus, made it concerning whether the US intervention would bring an end to terrorism or this is just going to have more negative impact on the country than presumed. If missiles are landing on empty fields, would that resolve the issue on ground or this was a strategy to mark presence? Also, if the US is aimed at fighting terrorism to stop the killings of Christians does that resolve other security issues in the country that overlap this?

Why This could be an end to terrorism in Nigeria.

Although it may seem like the security issues in Nigeria are too complex to be easily resolved, Trump’s attack on ISIS camps is not meaningless. With continuous collaboration of the Nigerian government and the US, Nigeria may finally be free from the operations of radical Jihadists in the country. The freedom of religion and the security of the country will no longer be threatened. This also sends a strong message to terrorists that terrorism will be challenged. It may reduce the strength of terror groups and slow down their operations.

But it is not a final solution for Nigeria. This is because ending terrorism in Nigeria may require stronger local intelligence and security operations, better equipment and welfare for security personnel, addressing poverty and youth unemployment, community involvement and de-radicalization programs.

Conclusion 

Trump’s attack on ISIS camps can be seen as a positive global effort against terrorism, but it is not a magic solution. For Nigeria, it may weaken terrorism from the outside, but the real battle must be fought from within.

Until the root causes of terrorism in Nigeria are properly addressed, such attacks may only remain a hit on the cobra’s tail — painful, yes, but not enough to stop the snake completely