By Collins Nweke
The apparent divergence between Washington and Abuja’s accounts of the reported airstrikes on terrorist targets in Nigeria is best understood not as a contradiction, but as a function of different diplomatic responsibilities and political audiences.
The United States framed the action through the lens of power projection and domestic political messaging, while Nigeria emphasised sovereignty, legality, and cooperative consent to safeguard national unity and international norms.
Both narratives can be simultaneously valid: one describes who executed the strike, the other explains under what authority and partnership it occurred. In contemporary counter-terrorism diplomacy, alignment of actions matters more than uniformity of language. On that score, the evidence suggests coherence rather than conflict.
The public confusion triggered by the statements by Donald J. Trump and Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the said airstrikes against ISIS-linked targets in north-western Nigeria is to be expected. While Abuja describes the action as the outcome of structured security cooperation and intelligence collaboration, the American President’s message makes no mention of Nigerian involvement, presenting the strikes as a unilateral U.S. action.
At first glance, this appears contradictory. In reality, it is neither unusual nor necessarily inconsistent. Rather, it is a textbook illustration of how the same security event can legitimately generate different political narratives, each shaped by audience, legal considerations, and strategic intent.
Different audiences, different responsibilities
The American President’s communication was clearly tailored to a domestic audience. Its tone emphasised decisiveness, military capability, and moral clarity in confronting terrorism. This style is familiar in U.S. presidential messaging, particularly when addressing counter-terrorism. The emphasis is placed on American action, resolve, and capacity, rather than on the mechanics of alliance management or host-nation consent.
Nigeria’s statement, by contrast, was crafted for a far broader and more delicate audience. These are Nigerian citizens, regional neighbours, international partners, and legal observers. Abuja therefore highlighted sovereignty, international law, intelligence sharing, and bilateral cooperation. Silence on these points would have been diplomatically risky, potentially inviting speculation about unauthorised foreign military action or erosion of Nigeria’s sovereign control.
In short, Washington projected power. Abuja asserted legitimacy. Both are performing their respective statecraft duties.
The operational reality behind “Joint” actions
Modern counter-terrorism cooperation rarely involves equal visibility or shared public credit. “Joint” operations often mean that local intelligence identifies targets if it has the capacity to do so. Airspace access and political consent are equally granted by the host state. Conversely, advanced strike capabilities are provided by a partner with superior assets. And execution is swift, discreet, and operationally compartmentalised.
In such scenarios, it is entirely plausible, if not common, that the striking state publicly claims responsibility, while the host state emphasises cooperation and consent. These positions are not mutually exclusive. They describe different layers of the same operation.
Why Nigeria must speak carefully
Nigeria’s statement also performs an important legal and social stabilising function. By stressing that terrorism is condemned irrespective of faith or ethnicity, Abuja deliberately avoids sectarian framing. This is critical in a religiously plural society where security challenges must not be interpreted as a war on, or in defence of, any single community.
The U.S. President’s religious framing may resonate with his domestic political base, but Nigeria must neutralise any narrative that risks inflaming internal fault lines. This is not diplomatic defiance. It is responsible governance.
Strategic ambiguity is not deception
I had previously argued that in diplomacy, strategic silence or ambiguity is no deception. Crucially, the absence of explicit Nigerian attribution in Washington’s statement should not be read as a denial of cooperation. Strategic ambiguity is often intentional. Naming partners can expose local collaborators, complicate regional diplomacy, or trigger domestic political debates in either country.
Conversely, Nigeria cannot afford ambiguity. In matters of territorial security, asserting consent and partnership is essential to preserving both sovereignty and public confidence.
One operation, two political communications
What we are witnessing, therefore, is not a discrepancy but a divergence in political grammar. The United States speaks the language of power projection. Nigeria speaks the language of sovereignty, legality, and cohesion. Both narratives can coexist without invalidating each other.
In concluding, I should posit that in an age of instant communication and fragmented public trust, it is tempting to read every difference in official statements as evidence of discord. Diplomacy, however, does not operate on the logic of social media unanimity. It operates on calibrated messaging, purposeful silence, and layered truth.
The real test is not whether partners use identical words, but whether their actions remain aligned. On the evidence available, they appear to be. In counter-terrorism, as in diplomacy, what is left unsaid can be just as strategic as what is declared.
