What we are witnessing is not random attention and it is not sudden concern for Nigeria. It is a familiar geopolitical pattern that emerges whenever a strategically important state begins to drift toward rival power blocs while remaining internally vulnerable. Nigeria today fits that description almost perfectly. Deepening engagement with China, renewed institutional cooperation with France, a worsening internal security crisis, elite fragmentation and economic stress have combined to place Nigeria firmly back on the radar of powerful external actors.
The renewed interest of Donald Trump must first be understood through the lens of American domestic politics. Nigeria has been folded into a moral narrative built around religious freedom and Christian persecution, a theme that resonates strongly with evangelical political networks in the United States. This framing is less about the complexity of Nigerias internal conflicts and more about producing leverage friendly to a specific political base. When foreign policy is filtered through domestic culture wars, it tends to prioritise pressure points rather than long term stability. Nigeria becomes a symbol rather than a society.
Beyond domestic politics lies a harder strategic logic. The recent precedent of US backed military action on Nigerian soil represents a turning point. Once a state accepts external kinetic intervention, even by invitation, it establishes a framework for deeper involvement. Intelligence sharing expands, surveillance becomes normalized, security assistance becomes conditional and sovereignty gradually turns negotiable. What begins as cooperation can quietly evolve into dependency and leverage. Nigeria now sits at that threshold.
There is also the matter of global competition with China. Nigeria has formally elevated its relationship with Beijing to a comprehensive strategic partnership. That language matters. It signals long term intent across infrastructure, industrialisation, technology and critical minerals. For Washington, the objective does not have to be acquiring Nigerian resources directly. Preventing rivals from consolidating long term influence is often sufficient. Pressure does not always arrive as confrontation. It often comes disguised as concern, reform demands, compliance reviews and conditional support.
The interest of Benjamin Netanyahu follows a different but complementary logic. Israels current leadership draws heavily on alliances with evangelical networks abroad and Nigeria offers a powerful narrative platform. A large Christian population, horrifying insecurity and emotionally resonant violence provide fertile ground for messaging framed around protection and solidarity. This narrative also opens doors to intelligence cooperation, surveillance technology and security partnerships that can be politically defended as humanitarian or defensive in nature.
Nigeria also carries diplomatic weight across Africa. Any external power seeking legitimacy or influence on the continent benefits from proximity to Abuja. Engagement with Nigeria is never just bilateral. It signals intent to the wider region.
At this point, attention must turn to the political implications for Bola Ahmed Tinubu. External leverage rarely exists without political ambition. As insecurity worsens and legitimacy comes under pressure, the opportunity arises to upstage an incumbent government not necessarily through open confrontation but through managed replacement. This is where the language of reform, rescue and transition becomes useful. The objective is not chaos for its own sake but recalibration of foreign alignment. A compliant leadership that redraws Nigerias external partnerships away from China and toward Western strategic priorities would be the preferred outcome.
Such a leadership does not have to emerge through elections alone. In modern geopolitics, elections are only one mechanism among many. Elite pressure, judicial leverage, financial strangulation, international delegitimisation and internal fragmentation can all converge to render an incumbent ineffective long before a ballot is cast. A stooge does not always arrive waving foreign flags. More often, he is marketed as a patriot, a technocrat or a stabiliser.
There is, however, a darker and more consequential possibility that cannot be ignored. In certain strategic calculations, a strong and unified Nigeria may be considered more problematic than a weakened or fragmented one. From a purely cold strategic perspective, balkanisation can be more beneficial than alignment. A fractured Nigeria would be easier to manage, easier to influence and less capable of independent geopolitical posture. Smaller successor states would compete for protection, security guarantees and economic lifelines.
The precedent for this thinking exists. The disintegration of Yugoslavia was not merely the result of internal ethnic tensions. It was shaped, accelerated and managed through external interests that found fragmentation more convenient than unity. Nigeria already exhibits the warning signs that make such scenarios plausible. Deep ethnic distrust, religious polarisation, proliferating armed groups and a hollowed out state authority create fertile ground for managed disintegration.
In such a scenario, elections become secondary or irrelevant. If instability escalates sufficiently, the argument will be made that national elections are unsafe, impractical or meaningless. A prolonged emergency framework could replace democratic timelines. In that context, 2027 elections may not occur at all, not because of a formal cancellation but because the state itself is deemed incapable of administering them.
The critical issue is not whether Trump or Netanyahu are holding secret meetings plotting Nigerias future. The real danger lies in the convergence of interests. Nigeria is being repositioned as a leverage theatre. Its insecurity justifies intervention. Its size magnifies influence. Its drift toward China raises alarm. Its institutional weaknesses invite manipulation.
This moment requires clarity rather than panic. Nigeria must understand that attention from great powers is rarely neutral. It is transactional. It is conditional. And it always comes with expectations. Without strategic discipline, internal reform and a unified national vision, Nigeria risks becoming not a partner but a project.
That is the real danger now unfolding.
By Hon. Chima Nnadi-Oforgu
Duruebube Uzii na Abosi
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment