Nigeria’s government has confirmed that it approved and cooperated with the United States in carrying out recent airstrikes on ISIS‑linked targets in Sokoto State, following days of public debate over whether Abuja acted voluntarily or under pressure.
Foreign Affairs Minister Yusuf Tuggar said Nigeria not only authorized the operation but also provided the intelligence that enabled the U.S. strike. He added that he personally spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio before relaying the request to President Bola Tinubu, who then gave the official go‑ahead.
The Defence Headquarters also confirmed that the strikes were a joint Nigerian–U.S. operation, carried out with “the approval of appropriate authorities” and based on “credible intelligence” about foreign ISIS elements operating in the northwest. The Ministry of Information further emphasized that the mission was conducted in “close coordination” with the U.S. government and followed explicit approval from President Tinubu.
The U.S. framed the strike as part of ongoing counterterrorism cooperation, saying it acted at the request of Nigerian authorities and in coordination with local forces.
However, the operation has triggered debate within Nigeria about sovereignty and whether the government agreed freely or felt compelled to cooperate after U.S. President Donald Trump publicly announced the strikes and previously warned of unilateral action. While the government insists the mission was mutually planned and executed, critics argue that Nigeria may have been pressured into endorsing an operation that was already underway.
For now, Abuja maintains that the strike reflects a renewed phase of security collaboration with Washington, even as questions linger about the balance of power in the partnership.
📅 TIMELINE OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE STRIKE
Early December 2025
- U.S. intelligence begins tracking ISIS‑linked foreign fighters operating in northwest Nigeria, particularly in Sokoto State.
Supported by reporting that the targeted locations were used as staging grounds by foreign ISIS elements infiltrating Nigeria from the Sahel
Mid‑December 2025
- Nigeria and the U.S. engage in ongoing security discussions.
Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs later describes this as “structured security cooperation”
December 25, 2025 — Christmas Day
- U.S. President Donald Trump announces that the U.S. has carried out “numerous precise strikes” against ISIS terrorists in northwest Nigeria.
This is confirmed in multiple reports
December 25–26, 2025
- U.S. Africa Command states that the operation was conducted at the request of the Nigerian government and in coordination with Nigerian authorities
December 26, 2025 — Morning
- Nigeria’s Foreign Affairs Minister Yusuf Tuggar confirms that:
- Nigeria provided the intelligence that led to the strike.
- He held a 19‑minute call with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
- He then briefed President Tinubu, who approved the operation.
All confirmed in multiple interviews and statements
December 26, 2025 — Afternoon
- Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters confirms the strike was a joint Nigerian–U.S. mission, carried out with the approval of Nigerian authorities and based on credible intelligence
December 26, 2025 — Evening
- Nigeria’s Ministry of Information issues a statement confirming:
- The operation targeted two ISIS enclaves.
- It was conducted in close coordination with the U.S.
- It followed explicit approval from President Tinubu.
December 27, 2025
- Public debate intensifies in Nigeria over whether the government collaborated willingly or was pressured into supporting the strike.
Critics warn of sovereignty concerns, while the government insists it was a joint operation
Did Nigeria Act Voluntarily — or Under Pressure?
The Nigerian government insists it approved, coordinated, and participated in the U.S. strike. On paper, the cooperation appears deliberate: Nigeria says it provided intelligence, held direct diplomatic consultations, and granted explicit presidential authorization before the operation took place.
But the political context surrounding the strike complicates the picture.
The U.S. had already signaled a willingness to act forcefully against ISIS‑linked elements in the region, and previous public statements from Washington suggested frustration with Nigeria’s handling of extremist threats. When the U.S. president announced the strikes before Nigeria issued its own statement, it created the impression that Washington was driving events — not Abuja.
This dynamic raises a key question: Was Nigeria collaborating as an equal partner, or managing a situation that was already in motion?
From a strategic standpoint, Nigeria may have calculated that endorsing the operation was the best way to maintain control over the narrative and avoid the diplomatic fallout of a unilateral U.S. action on its soil. Agreeing to the strike allowed Abuja to frame the mission as a joint counterterrorism effort rather than an intrusion on national sovereignty.
At the same time, Nigeria’s public messaging — emphasizing intelligence sharing, presidential approval, and structured cooperation — suggests the government wanted to project confidence and authority. In a region where security partnerships are increasingly scrutinized, appearing passive or coerced could carry political costs at home.
In reality, the truth likely lies between the two extremes. Nigeria did collaborate, but the collaboration unfolded in a context where the U.S. held significant leverage. The government’s decision to approve the strike may have been both strategic and pragmatic — a way to assert sovereignty while navigating pressure from a powerful ally.
The episode highlights a broader tension in Nigeria’s foreign policy: balancing the need for international security cooperation with the imperative to maintain autonomy in the eyes of its citizens. As the dust settles, the debate over whether Nigeria acted voluntarily or under pressure will continue to shape public perception of the government’s role in the operation.
