Opinion

Trump threatens military action against Nigeria: Musings on his real intentions

Published

3 months ago

November 3, 2025

By Yusuf Bangura Nyon,

The article, ‘’Hypocrisy as Policy’’, by Global Geopolitics (attached) is a good reaction to Trump’s insane, but self-serving, threat to invade Nigeria under the pretext of stopping a so-called Christian genocide in that country. However, his insanity may not be without material foundations.

As the Global Geopolitics article notes, Nigeria is located within a resource-rich region that is highly important to the supply chains of US hi tech companies and defence industries. That region stretches from Nigeria through Niger and Chad to Sudan and is endowed with vast amounts of uranium, lithium, cobalt, and rare earths.

Apart from oil, Nigeria has vast reserves of lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare earth elements, which are embedded in solid rock and heavy mineral sands. It is ranked fifth globally in rare earth deposits—behind China, the U.S., Myanmar and Australia.

The US has been strategising about how to end its high level of dependence on China for rare earths, which are used in clean energy, such as electric vehicles, solar panels and wind turbines; as well as in electronic consumer products, such as LED screens, computers and smart phones. These minerals are also required to produce jet engines, missile guidance and defence systems, satellites, and GPS equipment.

After threatening China with a 140% tariff when China imposed restrictions on the global supply of rare earths, Trump quickly made a U-turn in his recent meeting with China’s president, Xi. He realised that a trade war with China on rare earths would profoundly hurt the US economy. Under the deal he struck with Xi, Trump agreed to end the tariff threat and lift the ban on Chinese companies’ access to US chips, while Xi agreed to restart China’s supply of rare earths and purchase U.S. soyabeans for one year. Trump praised Xi as a great leader when he returned to the US.

It is clear that the US is in panic mode in the geopolitics of rare earths trade. In his recent visit to Southeast Asia, Trump signed a raft of agreements with several countries in the region to beef up the production and processing of rare earths and exports to the U.S.

Various reports by experts in geopolitics in the US indicate that the Trump administration sees Africa as an important source of critical minerals that will help wean the U.S. from China. The administration brokered a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda in June 2025, which included an investment agreement that allows the U.S. to invest in DRC’s minerals. Deals with other countries, such as Kenya, Tanzania, Angola, Malawi, and Namibia are being discussed or supported.

US interests are not driven by humanitarian concerns

The history of the US’s quest for foreign resources indicates that the US uses multiple strategies to achieve its goals: coercion, war, bribery and diplomacy. Coercion involves suspending aid or other economic opportunities (such as low tariffs) and political support to compel an adversary to bend to the will of the U.S.

When Trump suspended the US’s aid programme and declared a global trade war in April 2025, several African and other leaders rushed to make deals with him. Global Witness revealed in July 2025 that 17 countries (including six from Africa—viz Angola, DRC, Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda and Somalia) have hired Trump loyalists as lobbyists, to help broker deals, ‘’with many bartering key resources including minerals in exchange for humanitarian or military support’’.

The use of war to pursue US strategic and economic interests is well documented. During the Cold War, the US and other Western countries simply intervened in countries that threatened their vital interests without bothering to disguise their actions with lofty humanitarian objectives.

One of the most famous cases was the US invasion of Guatemala in 1954 to stop the land reform programme by a leftist government that threatened the land holdings of the United Fruit Company—a US multinational with considerable power and interests in Central America. The brazen Anglo-French invasion of Egypt in 1956 when Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal is another well known case.

Often, when US interests were threatened, rather than go to war, US leaders relied on the CIA to work with local elements in the military to engineer a change of government or kill the incumbent president. The cases are overwhelming—such as the murder of Congo’s Patrice Lumumba in 1961, and the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran in 1953 and Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973. All these countries had huge mineral resources.

The rationale used by the US and its Western allies for invading countries changed when the Cold War ended in the 1990s and the US emerged as the sole superpower. The concept of humanitarian intervention gained ground within the UN system. This involved the US and other Western powers working through the UN to end wars and rebuild war-battered societies.

During that period, the US felt it didn’t face any more existential threat like communism and could act as a moral policeman of the world while hiding its real interests. That posture rhymed with the political values of the unipolar world: the spread of democracy, human rights, and markets.

The US, however, faced stiff resistance from most countries when it tried to use humanitarianism to overthrow governments that it didn’t like without evidence to support its claims. Matters came to a head in 2003 over Iraq, which the US invaded under the humanitarian pretext of disarming it of nuclear weapons. It turned out that there were no such weapons. The US was simply after Iraq’s oil and helping to dismember a formidable foe of Israel.

As the Global Geopolitical article demonstrates, US interventions under the pretext of humanitarianism have always been catastrophic for the people of those counties. After the old regime has been dislodged, the US often leaves the countries affected to sort out the mess while it retains control of the resources that are the hidden but real reason for the interventions.

Nigeria’s violence has multiple dimensions

Numerous reports and studies have shown that Nigeria’s violence affects both Christians and Muslims. No group is insulated from it. I can think of basically six types of violence in that country. The first three are the Boko Haram, Islamist-inspired violence in the Northeast, whose main victims are Muslims who reject their Islamist ideology; banditry in the Northwest, which affects Muslims and Christians in equal measure; and the herder-farmer conflict in the Middle Belt, which affects Christians and Muslims, although reports indicate that Christians are the main victims of that violence.

The other three types of violence are the herder-farmer violence in the Northwest in which Fulani herders are reportedly pitched against Hausa farmers (both groups are Muslim); the violence inflicted by the Indigenous People of Biafra and bandits in the East against their own people, Igbos, who are Christian; and general banditry in large parts of the country that has rendered travelling by road between cities a risky venture.

As can be seen from this review, while it can be argued that the Nigerian state’s policy of poor economic management, corruption and social exclusion have driven ordinary people to the edge, the state itself is not the key actor that is generating the violence. Non-state actors actively drive it.

I’ve tried to imagine what the US would do if it were to carry out its military threat. Would it bomb the Tinubu government out of existence, which would lead it to confront the real terror groups? Or would it ignore the Tinubu government and carry out a bombing campaign against the terrorists? Either way, the US will be involved in a messy and costly guerrilla war that it will have no stomach to fight.

It is important to note that the US has never been successful in defeating terror groups in their own countries. It lacks the energy, zeal, and commitment to sustain a long drawn out war. US history of intervention to save humanity is littered with abject failure: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia hold sobering lessons. However, the chaos of intervention may not prevent the US from trying to control Nigeria’s rich resources. Mining companies have a reputation of thriving in conflict zones by striking deals with local militias.

Conclusion

Tinubu has released a press statement in which he highlighted his government’s policy of engagement, since 2023, with Christian and Muslim leaders to address security challenges that affect ‘’citizens across faiths and regions’’. He affirmed that Nigeria is not a religiously intolerant country and opposes ‘’religious persecution’’.

However, his conclusion in the press release that his ‘’administration is committed to working with the United States government and the international community to deepen understanding and cooperation on protection of communities of all faiths’’ has raised eyebrows.

Could this be what Trump really wants to achieve with his military threat?: Get the Tinubu administration to open talks with the U.S., which will then try to introduce the issue of rare earths and other minerals in the negotiations.

Switzerland
2 November, 2025
Bangura.ym@gmail.com

Opinion

No More Pipeline Vandalism in The Niger Delta, But…

Published

2 weeks ago

January 21, 2026

Daily Mirror

APPRAISING MILITARY RESOLVE AND THE PATH TO SUSTAINABLE OIL SECURITY

By Aaron Mike Odeh

On a recent media assessment visit by the Director, Defence Media Operations, Major General Michael E Onoja on the 20 January 2026, the General Officer Commanding (GOC), 6 Division of the Nigerian Army and Commander Land Component Operation DELTA SAFE, Major General Emmanuel Emeka, stated that there will be “no more pipeline vandalism in the Niger Delta” indicating a strong affirmation of military resolve and institutional confidence in the ongoing operations within Nigeria’s most economically strategic region.
Far from being a casual statement, the pronouncement reflects the operational posture, command clarity, and renewed determination of the Nigerian Armed Forces (AFN) under the leadership of General Olufemi Oluyede. It signals a clear message: the era of unchecked sabotage of national economic assets is being decisively confronted.

CONTEXTUALISING THE GOC’S DECLARATION
Statements of this magnitude from a serving GOC carry both symbolic and operational weight. They are rooted in firsthand command experience, intelligence assessments, and measurable gains on the ground. In this regard, Major General Emmanuel Emeka’s assertion should be understood as a projection of confidence derived from sustained military engagement, improved coordination with sister security agencies, and enhanced operational discipline within the 6 Division’s area of responsibility.
The Niger Delta has long posed complex security challenges due to its difficult terrain, extensive pipeline networks, and the activities of organised criminal syndicates. Against this backdrop, the GOC’s declaration underscores a belief that the Nigerian Armed Forces has reached a level of operational advantage sufficient to deter, disrupt, and dismantle pipeline vandalism networks.
OPERATIONAL GAINS AND MILITARY PROFESSIONALISM
Under Major General Emmanuel Emeka’s command, the 6 Division has intensified patrols, improved intelligence-led operations, and sustained pressure on illegal refining camps and crude oil theft routes. These efforts align with the Federal Government’s strategic objective of securing oil infrastructure as a matter of national economic security.
The GOC’s statement therefore reflects not mere optimism, but a professional assessment of the division’s growing capacity to dominate the operational environment. It also reinforces the Nigerian Armed Forces constitutional role as a stabilising force, committed to safeguarding national assets in support of economic recovery and investor confidence.

THE “BUT”: BEYOND KINETIC SUCCESS
While commending the resolve and achievements of the 6 Division, it is equally important to situate the declaration within a broader national framework. The “but” in the statement should not be interpreted as doubt or contradiction; rather, it represents an acknowledgment of the multifaceted nature of pipeline security in the Niger Delta.
Pipeline vandalism has historically been sustained not only by criminal intent, but also by socioeconomic pressures, environmental degradation, and the absence of alternative livelihoods in some host communities. Military success, while indispensable, achieves greater durability when complemented by effective civil governance, economic inclusion, and community trust-building.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER
One of the strengths of recent military operations in the Niger Delta has been improved civil-military relations. The success of the Armed Forces is closely tied to cooperation from local communities, traditional institutions, and credible stakeholders.
Sustainable pipeline security is most effective when host communities become partners in protection rather than passive observers. The GOC’s declaration implicitly places responsibility on all stakeholders—government agencies, oil companies, community leaders, and youths—to consolidate the gains made by the Armed Forces.

INSTITUTIONAL SYNERGY AND NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
The efforts of the 6 Division do not exist in isolation. They form part of a wider national security ecosystem involving regulatory agencies, intelligence services, law enforcement bodies, and policy institutions. The GOC’s confidence should therefore inspire complementary actions across these sectors.
Oil companies must uphold environmental standards and transparent community engagement. Regulatory bodies must enforce accountability. Development agencies must deliver visible dividends of peace. These non-military actions reinforce the security umbrella provided by the Nigerian Armed Forces.

LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGIC MESSAGING
Major General Emmanuel Emeka’s statement also serves as strategic communication—boosting troop morale, reassuring investors, and reinforcing public confidence in the Armed Forces of Nigeria. Such leadership messaging is essential in shaping national narratives around security, discipline, and state authority.
By articulating a firm stance against pipeline vandalism, the GOC is not only commanding troops, but shaping expectations and setting benchmarks for operational success.

CONCLUSION
The declaration that there will be “no more pipeline vandalism in the Niger Delta” should be seen as a reflection of strengthened military capacity, improved leadership focus, and renewed institutional confidence under Major General Emmanuel Emeka, GOC 6 Division of the Armed Forces.
The Nigerian Armed Forces has demonstrated readiness to secure critical national assets. The task ahead is to consolidate these gains through sustained operations, inter-agency synergy, and socio-economic interventions that address underlying vulnerabilities.
In this context, the GOC’s statement stands as both an assurance and a call to collective national responsibility—one that deserves commendation, support, and strategic follow-through.

Aaron Mike Odeh, a Public Affairs Analyst Media Consultant and Community Development Advocator wrote from Post Army Housing Estate Kurudu Abuja

Opinion

Appraising NUPRC’s New Tempo

Published

3 weeks ago

January 16, 2026

Daily Mirror

By Grace Ameh

As a woman who has spent years admiring the quiet strength of sisters carving paths in Nigeria’s demanding energy sector, my heart swelled with genuine joy the moment Chief Mrs. Oritsemeyiwa Eyesan’s appointment as Commission Chief Executive of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission was announced.

Here stands a remarkable daughter of the Niger Delta, graceful yet fiercely determined, becoming the first woman to lead our nation’s upstream regulator. Her rise feels deeply personal, like watching a beloved sister finally claim the spotlight she has long deserved.

The NUPRC, as a young agency born from the transformative Petroleum Industry Act of 2021, has shouldered enormous responsibilities in a complex and evolving landscape—navigating fluctuating production levels amid global energy shifts, addressing delays in data dissemination that can affect investor planning, tackling the persistent menace of crude oil theft that impacts national revenue, and working to enhance transparency in licensing rounds and asset management for greater stakeholder confidence.

This institution emerged with bold ambitions to modernise regulation, attract investment, and optimise Nigeria’s hydrocarbon resources, yet it has operated in an environment marked by inherited challenges and the need for continuous adaptation to deliver on its mandate.

Then, in December 2025, President Bola Tinubu nominated Chief Mrs Eyesan as the first woman to lead NUPRC, a move swiftly confirmed by the Senate.

My spirit lifted immediately. Chief Eyesan’s journey inspires every woman dreaming big in this field. She holds a Bachelor of Education in Economics from the prestigious University of Benin, graduating in 1986 with a solid foundation in economic theory, market analysis, and project evaluation—skills that would prove invaluable in the complex world of energy finance and strategy.

Her academic grounding equipped her to navigate large-scale investments and regulatory frameworks with precision. Early in her career, she honed her financial acumen in banking, serving as Branch Manager at People’s Bank of Nigeria and later as Treasury Officer at Gulf Bank, before joining NNPC in 1992.

Over nearly 33 years, she rose steadily through roles in planning, procurement, corporate strategy, and sustainability, culminating as Executive Vice President, Upstream, until her retirement in November 2024. In that position, she oversaw strategic management of Nigeria’s upstream operations, led sustainability initiatives, strengthened financial discipline, and guided critical reforms aligned with the PIA.

Since assuming office, Chief Eyesan has brought a refreshing wave of purpose and collaboration to NUPRC. Her patriotic commitment shines brightly as she aligns the Commission’s work with President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda, emphasising increased crude oil production to enhance energy security and revenue, accelerated gas monetisation to advance the Decade of Gas vision, and robust transparency measures to rebuild investor trust.

I admire her focus on digitisation; she is thoughtfully integrating digital tools to improve operational efficiency, accountability, and ease of business, cutting through layers of bureaucracy that once slowed progress. Her leadership style feels deeply relatable—inclusive and engaging. With an open-door policy and regular town halls, she encourages staff input while forging stronger ties with stakeholders, labour unions, and professional bodies.

She champions environmentally sustainable practices, ensuring growth does not come at the cost of our land and waters. Her strategic vision unfolds organically: boosting crude reserves and output for economic stability, scaling gas utilisation for power generation and exports, fortifying regulations to attract long-term investments, nurturing technical expertise through partnerships and capacity building, and embedding digitisation hand-in-hand with transparency to foster dynamic, confidence-inspiring growth.

In these early weeks of January 2026, tangible steps are emerging. She has advanced the 2025 licensing round, scheduling a key pre-bid conference for January 14 in Lagos to draw fresh capital into exploration and development. Partnerships, such as deepened synergy with the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority, highlight her collaborative spirit.

What touches me profoundly is how Chief Eyesan views challenges as opportunities. She inherited an agency needing revitalisation but approaches it with grace, strategy, and unyielding diligence—that workaholic patriotism we so admire in trailblazing women. Her experience positions her uniquely to resolve legacy issues, unlock stranded assets, and position NUPRC as Africa’s premier regulator.

Reflecting on this new era, sisterly pride overwhelms me. Chief Mrs. Oritsemeyiwa Eyesan is truly an Amazon—resilient, visionary, and devoted to Nigeria’s progress. In her capable hands, the upstream sector is not just recovering; it is poised to soar, delivering sustainable wealth for generations.

Dear sister, you embody the hope we renew daily. The light of your leadership illuminates our path forward, proving once again that when a woman of substance rises, the nation rises with her.

*Ameh an Oil and gas expert writes from Kaduna.

Opinion

FIFA World Cup: Counting the costs of Super Eagles missed opportunities

Published

1 month ago

December 29, 2025

Daily Mirror

By Victor Okoye

As the football world prepares for the expanded 48-team 2026 FIFA World Cup, Nigeria is facing the prospect of missing the global showpiece for the eighth time since its inception in 1930, a development that has drawn concern from football stakeholders and sports administrators in the country.

The Super Eagles, who made their World Cup debut at USA 1994, have qualified for the finals six times but failed to reach the tournament on seven previous occasions.

Should Nigeria fail to qualify for the 2026 edition, it would mark the eight miss and a second consecutive absence, further highlighting the rising cost of non-participation in an era of unprecedented financial rewards.

Historically, missing the World Cup was largely a sporting setback. Financial incentives were modest in earlier tournaments.

In USA 1994, FIFA’s total prize money stood at about 62 million dollars, with champions Brazil earning roughly four million dollars.

France 1998 offered about 131 million dollars in total prize money, while winners received around six million dollars.

The figures rose steadily to 300 million dollars at Brazil 2014 and 440 million dollars at Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022.

However, FIFA’s recent review has significantly raised the stakes.

The FIFA Council has approved a record 727 million dollars financial package for the 2026 World Cup, to be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.

At an estimated exchange rate of 1,500 naira to the dollar, the total sum translates to about 1.09 trillion naira.

Of this amount, 655 million dollars (approximately 982.5 billion naira) will be shared as prize money among the 48 participating teams.

Champions will earn 50 million dollars, runners-up 33 million dollars, third place 29 million dollars and fourth place 27 million dollars.

Teams finishing between fifth and eighth will receive 19 million dollars, ninth to 16th are to receive 15 million dollars, 17th to 32nd will pocket 11 million dollars, while teams ranked 33rd to 48th will earn nine million dollars.

Each qualified nation will also receive 1.5 million dollars as preparation funds.

This guarantees every participating team a minimum of 10.5 million dollars — about 15.75 billion naira — before the tournament begins.

Nigeria’s 2026 qualification campaign ended in disappointment after the Super Eagles finished second behind South Africa in their group and lost the African playoff final to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) on penalties.

To date, no public official report has broken down the total operational costs or expenditure to prosecute the 2026 World Cup qualifying campaign (travel, allowances, camps, logistics) but there are concerns and scrutiny over Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) finances.

The scrutiny includes how funds received from FIFA and CAF have been used over the years following the House of Representatives move to probe more than 25 million dollars in FIFA/CAF grants given to the NFF between 2015 and 2025, citing accountability questions.

However, the NFF has petitioned FIFA over alleged player-eligibility breaches by DR Congo, a move that has reopened debate within the football community.

Reacting to the situation, former Super Eagles captain and 1994 AFCON winner, Mutiu Adepoju, described the possibility of another World Cup absence as “a huge setback”.

“Missing one World Cup is painful, but missing two in a row is unacceptable for a country like Nigeria. Beyond pride, the financial loss is enormous and affects football development at all levels,” Adepoju said.

Former NFF Technical Director, Austin Eguavoen, said qualification had become more critical than ever due to the new prize structure.

“In the past, the World Cup was more about exposure. Now, the money involved can change the entire football ecosystem. Missing out means missing an opportunity to invest in grassroots and infrastructure,” Eguavoen said.

Chairman of the Nigeria Premier Football League (NPFL), Gbenga Elegbeleye, said the impact would also be felt in the domestic league.

“When the national team is at the World Cup, it attracts attention to our league and players. Absence reduces visibility, sponsorship interest and confidence in the system,” Elegbeleye said.

Similarly, former Minister of Sports, Solomon Dalung, said Nigeria must treat World Cup qualification as a national project.

“The Super Eagles missing the World Cup repeatedly shows deeper administrative and structural issues. The financial consequences alone should force stakeholders to rethink planning and accountability,” Dalung said.

On the legal challenge before FIFA, NFF Secretary-General, Dr Mohammed Sanusi, confirmed that the matter was under review.

“We have submitted our petition and we are waiting for FIFA’s decision. The rules are clear on nationality and eligibility, and we believe the issues raised deserve careful consideration,” Sanusi said.

If FIFA rules in Nigeria’s favour, the Super Eagles could be reinstated into the intercontinental playoffs, restoring a pathway to qualification and access to guaranteed earnings of at least 15.75 billion naira.

Failure would confirm Nigeria’s eighth World Cup absence, with consequences ranging from lost revenue and reduced global visibility to diminished influence in international football.

With the 2026 World Cup set to deliver the highest financial rewards in FIFA history, stakeholders agree that Nigeria can no longer afford repeated absences from football’s biggest stage.