ABUJA, Nigeria (FN) — International reactions to recent U.S. airstrikes targeting Islamic State–linked militants in Nigeria’s Sokoto State have underscored differing global perspectives on the country’s long-running security crisis, even as Nigerian officials insist the operation was carried out with their consent and does not threaten relations with Washington.
The strikes, announced by the United States as part of a counterterrorism effort, were conducted in coordination with Nigerian authorities, according to officials in Abuja. That cooperation has sharply limited the likelihood that Nigeria would retaliate against the United States, analysts say, despite domestic and international debate over the operation.
Nigeria: Cooperation, Not Confrontation
Nigeria’s government has framed the airstrikes as a joint security action against extremist groups operating in the country’s northwest, where banditry and militant violence have displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians. Officials have emphasized that the violence affects Nigerians of all faiths and ethnic groups, and that counterterrorism cooperation with foreign partners remains essential.
Given that context, experts say military or economic retaliation against the United States is virtually impossible. Nigeria lacks the capacity or incentive to confront a key security partner and is focused primarily on internal threats. Any Nigerian response, if one emerges, is expected to be diplomatic or rhetorical, centered on sovereignty and messaging rather than punitive action.
European Union: Caution and Sovereignty
The European Union has taken a cautious stance, stressing respect for Nigeria’s sovereignty and warning against framing the country’s violence solely as a religious conflict. EU officials have emphasized civilian protection, human rights and inclusive peacebuilding, arguing that Nigeria’s insecurity is driven by a complex mix of terrorism, criminality, governance failures and economic pressures.
While the EU has not directly criticized the U.S. strikes, its messaging reflects concern that external military actions or religiously framed narratives could complicate efforts to stabilize the country and promote long-term peace.
Israel: Condemnation of Attacks on Christians
Israel, by contrast, has taken a more explicit public position. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently condemned the killings and displacement of Christians in Nigeria, saying such persecution “must stop.” In remarks delivered during the Christmas period, Netanyahu said attacks on Christians or any religious group are unacceptable and urged an end to violence targeting Christian communities.
Though Netanyahu did not directly reference the U.S. airstrikes, his comments align closely with the narrative advanced by U.S. officials, who have highlighted the targeting of Christian civilians by extremist groups in Nigeria. Israel’s position places it rhetorically closer to Washington than to the EU’s more neutral framing.
Outlook
Despite differing international emphases, there is little indication of any diplomatic rupture. Nigeria’s coordination with the United States, the EU’s focus on sovereignty and peacebuilding, and Israel’s condemnation of religious persecution all point to concern over Nigeria’s security crisis rather than confrontation with Washington.
Bottom line: Nigeria is highly unlikely to retaliate against the United States over the Sokoto airstrikes. The operation was conducted with Nigerian approval, and international reactions — whether cautious, supportive or condemnatory of violence — remain centered on stability and civilian protection rather than escalation.
