Bessent said Washington was entering the endgame of its campaign against Tehran, pledging to use the full weight of the US government to cut off Iran’s remaining economic lifelines.

“We are now entering the endgame. At dawn begins an economic D-Day, the single greatest financial offensive ever marshaled against an adversary,” Bessent said.

He said the objective was to sever every economic lifeline that sustains the tyrannical regime until Tehran stands alone.

Bessent also warned countries and businesses that continue dealing with Iran that they could face consequences from Washington.

The Treasury Secretary is expected to outline details of the new measures, including secondary sanctions targeting Iran’s trade partners, banks, shipping companies and oil buyers.

The campaign follows President Donald Trump’s warning that countries providing Iran with economic support would face what he called “TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences.”

Trump has described the new measures as an “ECONOMIC D-DAY” and warned that Washington would pursue unprecedented economic isolation of Tehran.

Bessent has also described the strategy as a “one-two punch” combining the existing blockade with what he called the toughest sanctions in history.

The latest US pressure comes as Iran’s economy faces mounting strain.

The Iranian rial fell to a new record low on Monday amid concerns over the impact of further sanctions and economic isolation.

Tehran has responded with a direct threat to disrupt oil exports across the Persian Gulf if Washington continues its campaign.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, warned that Iran could stop all oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere in the Gulf.

“If the economic war continues, not a single drop of oil will be exported, neither through the Strait of Hormuz nor from anywhere in the Persian Gulf,” Rezaei said.

He further warned that Iran would regard any country supporting the US economic campaign as an “act of war.”

The threat has heightened concerns over global energy supplies because the Strait of Hormuz is a critical route for international oil shipments.

Any disruption could send fresh shock through global energy markets.

The escalation comes as diplomatic efforts continue, with Pakistan’s army chief visiting Tehran on Monday in a mediation mission amid the worsening confrontation.

Iran has also warned neighbouring countries against cooperating with Washington, raising fears that the economic confrontation could widen beyond the two countries.

The latest developments mark a significant escalation in the US-Iran confrontation, shifting greater attention toward economic warfare, sanctions and control of vital energy routes.

The post Strait of Hormuz at Risk: Iran Warns No Oil Will Flow Amid US Sanctions Blitz appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The revelation comes as diplomatic efforts intensify, with the Trump administration proposing that Ukrainian and Russian delegations meet in the United States, probably in Miami, in a week’s time, marking the first time peace talks would take place on American soil since the conflict began.

“They say they want to get everything done by June,” Zelenskyy said in remarks published Saturday by the Presidency.

“And they will do everything to end the war. They want a clear schedule of events.”

The timeline reflects President Donald Trump’s determination to deliver on his campaign promise to swiftly end the war, though the path to peace remains fraught with fundamental disagreements over territory, security guarantees, and Ukraine’s geopolitical future.

At the heart of the impasse lies Russia’s demand for control of Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region.

Moscow occupies approximately 20% of Ukraine but is pushing for full control of the Donetsk oblast as part of any settlement, including areas still defended by Ukrainian forces.

“Difficult issues remained difficult. Ukraine once again confirmed its positions on the Donbas issue. ‘We stand where we stand’ is the fairest and most reliable model for a ceasefire today, in our opinion,” Zelenskyy said, referring to Ukraine’s preference for freezing the conflict at current battle lines.

The U.S. has proposed a compromise that would transform disputed Donbas areas into free economic zones, but Zelenskyy expressed skepticism, saying he did not know whether this could be implemented because the sides had different views on it.

Another contentious issue involves the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest, which Russia has occupied since early in the war.

Zelenskyy said no common ground was reached on managing the Russian-held facility.

Despite the challenges, the negotiating process has gained momentum following two rounds of U.S.-brokered talks in Abu Dhabi in January and early February.

The second round concluded with a tangible humanitarian achievement: Ukraine and Russia each handed over 157 prisoners of war on February 5, with officials from both countries and the United States confirming the exchange had taken place .

The discussions have also yielded progress on procedural matters.

The U.S. has reaffirmed it would play a role in monitoring how a ceasefire would be technically implemented, addressing one of Ukraine’s key concerns about enforcement mechanisms.

Meanwhile, separate economic discussions are underway. Zelenskyy said Russia presented the U.S. with a $12 trillion economic proposal, which he dubbed the “Dmitriev package” after Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev.

These bilateral economic deals between Washington and Moscow form part of the broader negotiating framework.

Even as diplomacy advances, Russia continues to devastate Ukraine’s energy system during one of the coldest winters in years.

Zelenskyy said on Saturday that Russia launched “more than 400 drones and around 40 missiles” overnight, targeting Ukraine’s energy sector.

The attacks have left hundreds of thousands without heat or electricity.

Ukrainian officials said Russia had struck energy infrastructure 217 times this year, with Ukrainian energy minister Denys Shmyhal reporting that 200 emergency crews were working to restore power to 1,100 buildings in Kyiv alone

Zelenskyy said the U.S. again proposed a ceasefire banning strikes on energy infrastructure, noting that Ukraine is ready to observe such a pause if Russia commits.

However, he pointed out that when Moscow previously agreed to a one-week pause suggested by the U.S., it was violated after just four days.

“Moscow must be deprived of the ability to use the cold as leverage against Ukraine,” Zelenskyy wrote on X, calling on all supporters of trilateral negotiations to respond to Russia’s continued strikes.

As negotiations proceed, Zelenskyy has grown increasingly vocal about Ukraine’s bottom lines and concerns about being sidelined in decisions affecting its future.

The Ukrainian leader said he would not tolerate Washington and Moscow making deals behind Kyiv’s back, especially if they related to Ukrainian sovereignty.

This reflects longstanding Ukrainian fears of a grand bargain between superpowers at Ukraine’s expense, echoes of historical agreements that have shaped Eastern European boundaries without local input.

Ukraine has repeatedly expressed frustration at what it perceives as disproportionate pressure to make concessions.

While Russia faces demands to end its aggression, Ukraine confronts expectations to cede territory, limit its military, and potentially abandon NATO aspirations, all while the aggressor maintains most of its gains.

The June deadline and upcoming Miami talks represent the Trump administration’s most concrete effort yet to broker a settlement.

President Trump has dispatched special envoy Steve Witkoff to lead U.S. efforts, with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, also playing a significant role in the negotiations.

Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin had “kept his word” with a weeklong promise not to hit the capital or critical energy facilities, adding “It’s a lot, you know, one week, we’ll take anything, because it’s really, really cold over there”.

When asked if he was disappointed Putin had not extended the pause, he replied he would like him to.

The administration’s approach has faced criticism in Europe and among Ukraine’s supporters for appearing to favor Russian positions, particularly on territorial concessions.

Nevertheless, Washington maintains it is pursuing a realistic path to peace that acknowledges the military situation on the ground.

The diplomatic push comes as Russia continues its grinding offensive in eastern Ukraine, making incremental gains at enormous cost.

Ukraine, meanwhile, faces ongoing challenges with manpower, ammunition supplies, and the relentless degradation of its energy infrastructure.

Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev told state media that negotiations were moving forward in a “good, positive direction”, suggesting Moscow sees diplomatic progress aligned with its interests.

For Ukraine, the calculus is excruciating. Accepting a deal that legitimizes Russian conquests could undermine the very principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that underpin the international order.

Rejecting such a deal risks losing critical U.S. support and facing an indefinite war of attrition against a larger adversary.

The planned Miami talks will test whether U.S. mediation can bridge what remains a vast chasm between the parties.

Beyond the immediate challenges of territory and security arrangements lie deeper questions about Ukraine’s future orientation, Russia’s reintegration into the global economy, and the broader European security architecture.

“If the Russians are really ready to end the war, then it is really important to set a deadline,” Zelenskyy said, endorsing the principle of a timeline while clearly harboring doubts about Moscow’s genuine commitment to peace.

As winter deepens and the humanitarian toll mounts, the June deadline looms as both a hopeful target and a potential source of additional pressure on a country that has already sacrificed enormously in defense of its sovereignty.

Whether this timeline proves realistic or merely another milestone in a prolonged diplomatic struggle remains to be seen.

For now, Zelenskyy said prisoner-of-war swaps will continue with Russia under the agreement, a small but meaningful indicator that even amid profound disagreements, the mechanisms of dialogue remain intact.

The post U.S. Sets June Deadline to End Ukraine War as Talks Move to Miami appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The move, announced through a presidential memorandum, targets entities ranging from UN climate bodies to democracy promotion groups that the administration has deemed “wasteful, ineffective, or harmful” to American interests.

“I have determined that it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support to the organizations listed in section 2 of this memorandum,” Trump wrote in the directive issued.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the president’s concerns in a forceful statement, declaring: “It is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it. The days of billions of dollars in taxpayer money flowing to foreign interests at the expense of our people are over.”

The withdrawal list includes 31 UN entities and 35 non-UN organizations.

Among the most prominent are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the International Renewable Energy Agency, signaling a dramatic shift away from multilateral climate cooperation.

Also targeted for exit: UN Women (the Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women), the UN Population Fund, and multiple UN economic commissions serving Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East.

The directive stems from Executive Order 14199, which Trump issued in February 2025, mandating a comprehensive review of all international organizations receiving U.S. funding or participation.

In his memorandum, Trump noted that he had “considered the Secretary of State’s report and, after deliberating with my Cabinet,” reached his conclusions.

Significantly, Trump indicated the purge may not be finished.

“My review of further findings of the Secretary of State remains ongoing,” he wrote, suggesting additional withdrawals could be forthcoming.

The president ordered all executive departments and agencies to “take immediate steps to effectuate the withdrawal of the United States from the organizations listed” as soon as legally possible.

In his statement, Rubio framed the withdrawals as a rejection of an overreaching international system that has strayed from its original mission.

“What started as a pragmatic framework of international organizations for peace and cooperation has morphed into a sprawling architecture of global governance, often dominated by progressive ideology and detached from national interests,” the Secretary of State said.

Rubio specifically criticized what he described as institutional overreach: “From DEI mandates to ‘gender equity’ campaigns to climate orthodoxy, many international organizations now serve a globalist project rooted in the discredited fantasy of the ‘End of History.’ These organizations actively seek to constrain American sovereignty.”

The administration linked the withdrawals to its broader foreign policy overhaul, with Rubio noting that the work of these organizations “is advanced by the same elite networks—the multilateral ‘NGO-plex’—that we have begun dismantling through the closure of USAID.”

The Trump administration has characterized the targeted organizations as “redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity.”

The sweeping nature of the pullout extends beyond climate and gender-focused bodies to include counterterrorism forums, cultural preservation groups, and even technical cooperation bodies.

The withdrawal list encompasses the Global Counterterrorism Forum, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the Freedom Online Coalition, and the Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories.

Among the UN bodies slated for U.S. exit are offices focused on children in conflict zones, sexual violence prevention, and violence against children, the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict, the Office of the Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, and the Office of the Special Representative on Violence Against Children.

Also on the list: the UN Democracy Fund, the Peacebuilding Commission and Fund, UN Conference on Trade and Development, and various UN training and research institutes.

Rubio laid out the administration’s philosophy going forward: “We will not continue expending resources, diplomatic capital, and the legitimizing weight of our participation in institutions that are irrelevant to or in conflict with our interests. We reject inertia and ideology in favor of prudence and purpose. We seek cooperation where it serves our people and will stand firm where it does not.”

The memorandum specifies that for UN entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law, and that implementation will be consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

The State Department will provide additional implementation guidance to federal agencies as the withdrawals proceed, according to the directive.

The post Trump Suspends U.S. Support to 66 Global ‘Wasteful’ Organizations appeared first on Insider Bits News.

A coordinated assault by air, land, and sea forces struck military installations across Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

By Saturday morning, Maduro was aboard the USS Iwo Jima, and by evening, he had been transferred to Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York to face drug trafficking charges.

The operation, which Trump justified as necessary to stop drug trafficking and reclaim allegedly stolen oil assets, has ignited a global firestorm over the legality, morality, and wisdom of unilateral military intervention.

As the UN Security Council prepares for an emergency session and world leaders scramble to respond, one question dominates: Has the United States just fundamentally undermined the international order it spent decades building?

The Trump administration’s justification for the Venezuela operation rests on three pillars.

First, Maduro and his wife face charges in the Southern District of New York related to narcotics trafficking, with an indictment alleging that since 1999, they partnered with international drug trafficking organizations to transport thousands of tons of cocaine into the United States.

Second, Trump and Vice President JD Vance have claimed that Venezuela “stole” oil and assets from the United States when the government nationalized them in the late 1990s.

During his Mar-a-Lago press conference, Trump announced plans to send major US oil companies to Venezuela to “spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure” and “start making money for the country.”

Third, the administration frames the operation not as an act of war but as a law enforcement action with military support, something the President claims falls within his “inherent constitutional authority.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio elaborated on this justification in interviews, characterizing Maduro as “a fugitive of American justice” and describing the operation as advancing US national interests by stopping drug trafficking and preventing Venezuela from cooperating with Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran.

Legal experts, UN officials, and countries around the globe have been swift and nearly unanimous in their assessment: the US operation violates fundamental principles of international law.

International law expert Sarah Heathcote of Australian National University has stated bluntly that the strikes constitute a breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another state.

For such an intervention to be lawful, it would require UN Security Council authorization, justification as self-defense against an ongoing or imminent attack, or consent from Venezuela’s lawful government. None of these conditions were met.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed deep alarm, stating that the developments constitute a dangerous precedent and emphasizing his concern that international law has not been respected.

The UN’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela warned that alleged violations by Maduro’s regime do not justify a military intervention that breaches international law.

The Trump administration’s attempt to frame the operation as a law enforcement action rather than a use of force is, in the view of most international law scholars, legally dubious at best.

As Heathcote notes, this framing appears designed to obfuscate the need for Congressional authorization under US domestic law as much as it attempts to sidestep international legal constraints.

The international reaction to the operation has revealed deep divisions, both geopolitical and ideological.

Russia and China issued strong condemnations. China’s Foreign Ministry stated it was deeply shocked by what it called Washington’s blatant use of force against a sovereign state, while Russia called the action an unacceptable assault on Venezuela’s sovereignty.

European leaders have responded with notable caution. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz acknowledged the complexity of the operation’s legality while stressing that international law must apply.

EU High Representative Kaja Kallas called for restraint and emphasized that the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected, though she stopped short of directly criticizing the US action.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot was more forthright, stating that the operation violates the principle of not resorting to force that underpins international law.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer struck a measured tone, stating that while Britain sheds no tears over the end of Maduro’s regime, he would discuss the evolving situation with US counterparts and seek a peaceful transition reflecting the will of the Venezuelan people.

Latin American responses have been particularly divided. Colombian President Gustavo Petro condemned the operation as aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America, calling for an emergency UN Security Council meeting and deploying forces to Colombia’s border in preparation for a potential refugee crisis.

Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel labeled the US action as state terrorism.

In contrast, right-leaning Latin American leaders offered support.

Argentine President Javier Milei hailed Maduro’s capture as a victory for freedom, while El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele and Ecuador’s Daniel Noboa expressed support for the operation.

Beyond the legal debates, serious questions remain about the wisdom and consequences of the operation.

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, has called for Edmundo González—widely regarded as the legitimate winner of the 2024 Venezuelan elections,to assume the presidency.

However, the situation on the ground remains volatile.

Trump’s declaration that the United States would “run” Venezuela until a proper transition could take place raised alarm bells worldwide.
Though Secretary of State Rubio later attempted to walk back this claim, insisting the US has no intention of long-term occupation, the initial statement evoked uncomfortable parallels to failed nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The humanitarian implications are equally concerning. Caracas remains tense, with businesses closed and streets unusually quiet.

The FAA’s temporary closure of airspace throughout the Eastern Caribbean stranded tens of thousands of travelers, requiring airlines to scramble to add dozens of extra flights.

More critically, the operation has already claimed lives—Trump himself acknowledged that some US personnel were wounded, though he claimed no deaths.
The economic dimension cannot be ignored. Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with experts estimating some 303 billion barrels.

However, years of mismanagement, corruption, and sanctions have left the country’s oil infrastructure in shambles.

The Orinoco Belt, where much of this oil is concentrated, consists of ultra-heavy crude that requires significant processing.

Whether US oil companies will actually invest the billions needed to rehabilitate this infrastructure, and on what terms, remains unclear.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this operation is what it signals for the future of international relations.

If the world’s most powerful nation can unilaterally decide that another country’s leader is a criminal, launch a military operation to capture him, and then claim the right to temporarily run that country, what prevents other powers from doing the same?

Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico captured this concern when he stated that the operation provides further evidence of the breakdown of the world order created after World War II, noting that military force is now used without UN Security Council mandate by those who are powerful enough to advance their own interests.

This is not mere abstract theorizing. Russia has already justified its actions in Ukraine by appealing,however spuriously, to international law exceptions to the prohibition on armed aggression.

China has taken careful note of the US operation as it considers its own territorial ambitions in Taiwan and the South China Sea.

What message does the Venezuela operation send to these and other powers?

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk emphasized that the protection of the Venezuelan people is paramount and must guide any further action.

But protection from whom? From Maduro’s authoritarian regime, which has documented patterns of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, and torture?

Or from a unilateral US military intervention that, whatever its justifications, sets a precedent that other powers might eagerly exploit?

Within the United States, reaction has largely split along partisan lines.

Republican leaders in Congress have praised the operation, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressing support and anticipating further briefings when lawmakers return to Washington.

However, the fact that the Trump administration conducted this operation without prior Congressional notification has raised serious constitutional questions.

Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, told NPR that lawmakers received no advance notice.

Even Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed concerns about the precedent the operation has set.

The administration’s claim of “inherent constitutional authority” to conduct what amounts to a war of regime change without Congressional authorization is, at minimum, constitutionally questionable and represents a significant expansion of executive power in matters of war and peace.

As the UN Security Council convenes and Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodríguez denounces US control while promising that the country will remain free, several critical questions demand answers.

First, what exactly is the plan for Venezuela’s political transition? Trump’s vague statement about running the country “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition” provides no clarity about timeline, objectives, or metrics for success.

History suggests that open-ended commitments to foreign occupation rarely end well.

Second, how will the United States respond to the nearly universal international consensus that its actions violated international law? Will it simply dismiss these concerns as the complaints of the weak against the strong? Or will it engage in good faith diplomatic efforts to address the legitimate questions being raised about the precedent being set?

Third, what happens if Maduro loyalists mount an insurgency? What if other Venezuelan military leaders refuse to cooperate with US directives?

What if neighboring countries, particularly those that have condemned the operation, provide safe haven or support to opposition elements?

The United States could find itself drawn into a protracted occupation far more costly in lives and treasure than the initial operation.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, what will be the cumulative effect of this operation on global stability and the rules-based international order?

If international law can be set aside whenever a powerful nation decides it has sufficient justification, then international law has no meaning.

Maduro was, by nearly all accounts, an authoritarian leader who presided over economic collapse, widespread human rights abuses, and the exodus of millions of Venezuelans.

Few will mourn his removal from power, and many Venezuelans will celebrate his downfall.

But the manner of his removal matters immensely. The principle of sovereignty, however imperfect, has been the foundation of international order since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

The UN Charter, forged in the aftermath of World War II, was designed precisely to prevent powerful nations from unilaterally deciding which governments they would tolerate and which they would overthrow by force.

The United States has now joined the long list of nations that have chosen might over right when it suited their interests.

The question is not whether Maduro deserved his fate, many would argue he did.

The question is whether American exceptionalism justifies exceptional violations of the very international norms the United States once championed.

As Slovak Prime Minister Fico observed, we are witnessing the breakdown of the post-war international order.

What replaces it, a world where international law still has meaning, or a return to pure power politics where the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must, may well depend on how the international community responds to this moment.

The United States has made its choice. Now the rest of the world must make theirs.

The post A Dangerous Precedent: How Trump’s Venezuela Raid Tests International Law appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a statement released late Thursday, President Trump said the operation targeted ISIS fighters he accused of being responsible for deadly attacks against Christian communities.

In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, President Trump said he had ordered what he described as a “powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum” operating in Nigeria’s Sokoto State, asserting that the extremist fighters had been viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians at levels not seen for many years, and even centuries.

“Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief… there was hell to pay, and tonight, there was,” the president wrote.

He described the strikes as decisive and warned that further military action would follow if the violence continues.

“The United States will not stand by while radical terrorists murder innocent people,” Trump said, adding that the operation was conducted under his authority as commander-in-chief.

The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) confirmed the strikes in a post on X (formerly Twitter), saying the operation was conducted in coordination with Nigerian authorities, reportedly at the request of Nigeria’s government, and that multiple ISIS militants were killed.

A Pentagon video released shows what U.S. officials describe as munitions fired at known extremist camps in the region, though independent verification of the footage and casualty figures remains limited at this time.

Details on the scale of the operation, including the number of casualties and whether civilians were affected, were not immediately available.

Nigerian authorities have not released independent casualty figures.

A spokesperson for Nigeria’s security agencies acknowledged continued cooperation with international partners but emphasized that the country remains in charge of its counterterrorism operations.

Nigeria has faced persistent insecurity from extremist groups for more than a decade, including Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).

While violence has often taken on a religious dimension, Nigerian officials and analysts frequently note that attacks affect both Christian and Muslim communities, particularly in rural and conflict-prone regions.

The Christmas night strikes came amid renewed international attention on Nigeria’s security challenges, with banditry, kidnappings, and militant attacks stretching security forces across several states.

President Trump has repeatedly criticized Nigeria’s handling of extremist violence, particularly attacks on Christians, a position that has drawn mixed reactions from Nigerian officials and rights groups.President Trump has spent weeks criticizing the Nigerian government for what he claims is a failure to protect Christian communities from extremist violence.

Earlier this year, his administration designated Nigeria a “country of particular concern” over alleged religious persecution, especially targeting Christians, and threatened military action if the situation did not improve.

In Thursday’s announcement, Trump reiterated his stance that the United States will not tolerate radical Islamist terrorism, framing the strikes as part of a broader commitment to counter violent extremist threats globally.

Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged the operation as part of “structured security cooperation” with international partners, emphasizing intelligence sharing and strategic coordination in efforts to counter terrorism and violent extremism.

However, Nigerian officials have consistently stressed the complexity of the country’s security landscape, noting that violent attacks affect both Christians and Muslims, and rejecting narratives that single out one religious community.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in a Christmas message posted earlier in the day, called for national peace and reiterated his commitment to protecting all Nigerians regardless of faith, urging citizens to come together to end the cycle of violence

Nigeria has long been beset by a complex web of security challenges, including insurgencies by Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), ethnic militia clashes, and criminal banditry.

These groups have been responsible for thousands of deaths and mass kidnappings in recent years.

Just hours before the U.S. strikes, a suspected suicide bombing at a mosque in northeastern Nigeria killed at least five people and injured dozens more, underscoring the persistent threat from extremist groups.

As details continue to emerge, the international community is watching closely to see how this intervention impacts Nigeria’s security dynamics and broader U.S.–Africa relations.

The post U.S. Hits ISIS in Nigeria on Christmas Night appeared first on Insider Bits News.