By Mohammed Bello Doka
Nigeria’s dramatic military intervention in neighbouring Benin Republic may go down as the boldest foreign-policy gamble of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration — and possibly his most dangerous mistake.
Yes, Nigeria helped stop a coup. Yes, democratic order was restored. But beneath the celebration lies a troubling question Nigeria has refused to ask honestly: who nudged Abuja into this intervention — and who walked away once Nigerian boots crossed the border?
A dangerous first for Tinubu
Until Benin, President Tinubu had never ordered Nigerian forces to cross borders to stop a coup anywhere in Africa.
Not in Mali.
Not in Guinea.
Not in Burkina Faso.
Not in Niger — even when Nigeria was most affected.
Benin was the first.
That alone makes the episode historic — not routine ECOWAS business. It marked a clear doctrinal shift: Nigeria, under Tinubu, signalled it was ready to project force beyond its borders to protect democratic order.
But foreign policy is not judged by bravery alone. It is judged by consequences.
Macron’s long silence — until Benin shook
For years, Nigeria has been hemorrhaging blood at home:
terrorism, banditry, kidnappings, mass killings.
During all that time, Emmanuel Macron never publicly framed Nigeria’s insecurity as worthy of a presidential emergency call.
Not when Boko Haram expanded.
Not when bandits ruled highways.
Not when villages were erased.
Then suddenly — December 7, 2025 — a coup attempt rattles Benin Republic, a former French colony, and Macron publicly announces a call with Tinubu, stressing Nigeria’s security challenges and France’s concern.
Coincidence? Possibly.
Convenient? Absolutely.
Because once Benin was secured, once democratic order returned, France stepped neatly back into the shadows — no jets, no troops, no fingerprints. The firefighting was left to Nigeria. The risks stayed in Abuja’s hands.
Tinubu took the risk — alone
Nigeria deployed airpower.
Nigeria put troops on the ground.
Nigeria absorbed the political precedent.
Yet France — whose strategic backyard was threatened — paid no visible price.
And that is where Tinubu may have miscalculated.
Enter Trump — “guns blazing”
Only weeks earlier, Donald Trump had threatened “guns-a-blazing” action in Nigeria over the killing of Christians. That threat was reckless, inflammatory — but geopolitically revealing.
Trump’s logic was simple and brutal:
If a state cannot protect people I care about, I might do it myself.
By intervening in Benin, Nigeria unintentionally strengthened that logic.
If Nigeria can say:
> “We crossed borders to protect democracy and stability,”
then a hostile or opportunistic power can say:
> “We will cross borders to protect Christians or human rights.”
That argument does not need to be fair.
It only needs to be useful.
Trump does not need justice — he needs precedent.
And Tinubu just created one.
The asymmetry trap
Here is the trap Nigeria has walked into:
Regionally, Nigeria is powerful.
Globally, Nigeria is vulnerable.
Nigeria’s Benin logic works in ECOWAS — but it collapses at the level of superpowers. What Nigeria frames as regional responsibility, stronger nations can reframe as permission.
Not necessarily to invade — but to:
apply diplomatic blackmail
demand security concessions
threaten “protective” intervention
weaponise religion or human rights narratives
And when that happens, France will not shield Nigeria. Paris has shown its priority: protect its space, then retreat quietly.
The unasked questions
Before sending troops, Nigerians deserved answers:
What precedent does this set for foreign intervention in Nigeria?
Who bears the cost if others invoke the same logic?
Why did Macron speak publicly only when Benin — not Nigeria — burned?
Why did Nigeria move at lightning speed abroad while insecurity festers at home?
Those questions were never debated.
Tinubu’s greatest mistake
This is not about opposing democracy.
It is about understanding power.
Tinubu acted like a regional hegemon — without securing global cover. He projected strength — without defining red lines for others. He solved France’s immediate problem — without guarantees of reciprocity.
Now Nigeria owns the precedent.
Nigeria owns the risk.
Nigeria carries the target.
And if tomorrow a foreign power says,
“If you can do it for Benin, we can do it for Christians in Nigeria,”
Abuja will struggle to answer convincingly.
Final thought
History rarely punishes leaders for acting — it punishes them for acting without calculating who benefits most.
Benin was saved.
France exhaled.
Nigeria stepped forward.
But as the dust settles, one chilling question remains:
In stopping a coup next door, did Tinubu walk Nigeria closer to Trump’s crushing jaws — while Macron quietly slipped away?
Abuja Network News
Tags
News