Within the last few days the Nigerian public space and the social media have gone awash with the threat by US President Donald Trump that he would order the US military to launch attacks in Nigeria if the Nigerian Government does not move fast to stop the killing of Christians in the country. Trump had gone ahead to also designate Nigeria as a country of particular concern, further threatening to halt all aids and assistance to Nigeria for what he described as Christian genocide in the country.

Some commentators in Nigeria have strongly criticized the threat insisting that it is not only Christians that are being targeted, and that Muslims and other citizens are also victims. For instance, in his reaction to the threat, the former Aviation Minister, Femi Fani-Kayode, described President Trump as a “deranged and sociopathic megalomaniac”, accusing him of hypocrisy and double standards in his approach to global conflicts. In other words, and to break down the grammar, he is of the view that the sitting President of the United States of America is a mad man and also power-drunk. The Nigerian government had since denied persecution of any religious groups in the country.

On the contrary, many insist that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that Christians are being persecuted especially in the northern parts of Nigeria. Many Nigerians are of the view that any country that desires peace in a society under terrorists’ siege should support Trump in this particular instance, regardless of the religious background of the victims. Both sides of the argument are admissible but the reality on ground is that Nigerians are under attack with many being raped, kidnapped and slaughtered by all manners of armed groups – from bandits, the so-called unknown gunmen, to Fulani extremists and insurgent militia; entire communities are being mowed down like grass with their houses burnt to ashes; and this is happening almost on a daily basis.

Now, America has always made its position clear on issues pertaining to international terrorism. In a White House policy statement issued on September 7, 2002, the then President Bush said, “America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists — because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn.” Given this backdrop, it is not likely that the US would change this position now or in the foreseeable future as long as what they perceive as terrorism persists across the globe.

So, assuming Trump, in his characteristic unorthodox nature, orders the US military to launch the attack against the terrorists and bandits in Nigeria, what will happen? What will the terrorists and bandits, and all the armed groups and their sponsors do? Does the Nigerian military have what it takes to put up the necessary resistance against the United States either through diplomacy or through arms? This is the crux of the matter here.

But first, in our local adage, they say, “The antelope that survived a headshot needs no further lecture on how a gunshot sounds.” So, it is important to look at a few of the countries where the United States had launched similar military operations, vis-a-vis the outcomes and implications of such operations.

The United States has conducted military operations against terror groups in multiple countries, most notably Iraq and Syria against groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. The US has carried out counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and several nations in the Sahel region of Africa, such as Mali and Burkina Faso. In Iraq and Syria the US led a Global Coalition to defeat ISIS. These operations culminated in the destruction of the “caliphate” and the death of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the US has a long history of counter-terrorism operations aimed primarily at neutralizing Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Yemen, Libya, and Somalia had also witnessed interventions by US military against insurgents. The US has engaged in counter-terrorism efforts against groups like Al-Shabaab and ISIS in these countries mostly through drone strikes. In the Sahel Region comprising Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, US forces have supported regional partners to fight groups like ISIS-Sahel and the al-Qaeda-affiliated JNIM. The US has provided assistance and conducted operations against ISIS-linked fighters in Mozambique. The US has supported the Philippines in its fight against groups like Abu Sayyaf and the Maute Group. In Myanmar, US forces have engaged in operations against terrorist groups like the Arakan Army. In Colombia and Venezuela, the US has supported efforts to fight terrorist groups like the FARC and ELN, respectively. Nigeria has also benefited from US Military assistance in the past, and would very likely continue to benefit.

Research and practical experience have shown that international intervention against terrorism has yielded some level of positive results not only for the countries involved but for the larger global community. One major benefit is in the area of Information and Intelligence sharing. The exchange of vital intelligence, best practices, and lessons learned among national law enforcement and intelligence agencies is crucial for identifying, locating, and disrupting terrorist activities and tracking and cutting off their funding networks. Collaborative efforts among countries allow for the tracing, freezing, and seizure of funds allocated for terrorist activities, making it harder for the groups to operate. Cooperation also extends to securing borders and detecting the illicit trafficking of weapons, materials, and drugs across borders; needless to add that a security threat to one nation is a security threat to all nations.

Now, bearing in mind that Americans do not suffer fools gladly, what are the possible dynamics and implications in an event that President Trump makes good his threat and goes ahead to order the US military to commence action against terrorists and their sponsors in Nigeria? The sponsors have four options, likewise the terrorists and bandits themselves. First, they may conjure some diplomatic genius to forestall the military intervention using high-powered connections with the political elite and international figures and organizations that may be sympathetic to their agenda. Second, they may say ‘to hell with Trump’ and mobilize arms and funds as well as necessary supplies through their sources, and attempt to fight back tit-for-tat, “guns-a-blazing”, just like the Americans have threatened. Third, as they are said to be mostly foreigners, they may run away from the country using any available bush-paths through which they came, and then go back to wherever they came from or any other location that suits their fancy. Finally, they may simply surrender and give up their arms, properties, and finances to the Nigerian Government, and then either enjoy amnesty like some of their repentant colleagues, or face prosecution. As they say in Igbo folklore, one does not step on a poisonous snake and expect pleasantries and a handshake from the snake. It is certain that terrorists, bandits, and the so-called unknown gunmen, together with their sponsors, slaughtering innocent Nigerians all these years, have stepped on a poisonous snake and they are now in serious trouble. So, whichever option they may choose; whether to lobby for amnesty, or to fight the Americans, or to run away, or to surrender, one thing is clear: their lives will never be the same again if the Americans proceed with their intended military operation against them in Nigeria.

*Anthony-Spinks is of the Delta State Public Procurement Commission. He writes from Asaba.