Everywhere Insiders 29: ISIS in Nigeria, Yemen Proxies, and Japan’s Deterrence

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/01/09

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Irina Tsukerman about three linked security flashpoints. They examine U.S.–Nigeria coordination against Islamic State-linked militants and why counterterror strikes can be framed as Christian protection even though ISIS targets Muslims and Christians alike. Tsukerman argues that battlefield wins are temporary unless governments tackle the conditions that reproduce extremist ideology. Shifting to Yemen, she outlines Saudi-UAE competition, the Southern Transitional Council’s proxy role, and how limited Saudi boots on the ground constrain leverage. Finally, they assess Japan’s record defence budget, China’s rising assertiveness, and the risks of an incoherent U.S. Indo-Pacific policy globally in 2026 and beyond.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right. This one’s actually excellent. U.S. airstrikes have rattled Nigerian villagers. With this context, the most advanced fighter jet and missile technology in the world is rattling villagers in Nigeria. We are not talking about city dwellers in Nigeria; it is an entirely different story. This is the shocking, euphemistic way I could put it. I will give a quick background.

A U.S. strike was carried out on an alleged camp of a militant Islamic State group. And they may have negotiated with the government.  Nigerian government spokesman Mohamed Idris said on Friday that strikes were launched from the Gulf of Guinea in the Atlantic Ocean shortly after midnight and involved 16 GPS-guided precision missiles and MQ-9 Reaper drones. This appears to have been carried out in coordination with the government of Nigeria. In terms of geopolitics and military coordination, that is legitimate, and it is a widely recognized terrorist group.

There are American actions that are highly questionable. These, I do not think, are. What are your thoughts on that Islamic State site and the coordination between the Americans and the Nigerians?

Irina Tsukerman: In terms of ISIS, this has been a long time coming. They have been increasing their activity in Nigeria and across Western Africa and the Sahara for many years. This is not a new development; they have been terrorizing the entire country.

There has been an uptick in attacks on Christian communities as well. It has been growing steadily over the years, but that is also not new. The point about attacking them and degrading their capabilities is not questionable. They are a terrorist group and should be eliminated as much as possible.

However, questions arise. First of all, Trump repeatedly claimed during his first term that ISIS had been defeated and that 100 percent of its territorial caliphate was gone, and yet they have remained active and have clearly made a comeback. In the past week, there was a large strike on ISIS targets in Syria. Syrian authorities near Damascus arrested a senior ISIS figure, and another commander was reported killed in a separate raid. There was also a bombing at a mosque in Homs that killed at least eight people; Syrian officials have linked it to extremist networks that overlap with ISIS cells, although responsibility is still being contested. And in Nigeria, the same pattern has continued.

There has been an attack on a Christian community, and a few days ago, there was also a deadly attack on a mosque. The question is how the U.S. government could claim it was done entirely with that terrorist organization, and now it is back, with no explanation or official statement for how the U.S. missed this for so many years between Trump’s first and second terms.

Second, while I understand that Christian communities are facing increasing and horrifying pressure from extremists who do not view them as human beings, and they require significant international support, this is not new. This is something many have called attention to since the Obama years. And Trump’s first term was very indifferent to their fate, even though the attacks were almost as frequent as they are now.

I am beginning to wonder whether the only reason this strike happened is that a group of Christian supporters of Trump raised concerns about it now, and whether this is really about those Christian communities, or whether it is more about making it appear to be about Christian communities — engaging in virtue signalling and not truly addressing their situation.

Is there consistent interest in these groups? I am inclined to be skeptical because I do not see any other form of support.

The U.S. government cut off most development and humanitarian aid programs in several regions of Africa during the Trump administration, including programs that had supported Christian communities in Nigeria and elsewhere. Not all aid was eliminated, but broad reductions took place. This current approach is not genuinely about supporting Christians in Nigeria.

Another issue is that framing these strikes as protection for Christians overlooks the fact that ISIS, as a terrorist group, threatens everyone, not just Christians. Recent attacks on mosques and on Muslim villagers across the country are consistent with ISIS’s modus operandi, and these realities are being ignored by the very same people claiming this is about defending Christians.

The spread of ISIS, whether or not they continue to target Christians specifically, poses a global threat because militants move between Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, bringing destruction wherever they operate. Whether communities are Muslim, Christian, animist, or belong to other local religions, ISIS has been indiscriminately destructive.

The fact that this administration appears to prioritize religious freedom only when it concerns Christians and seems less focused on ISIS’s threat to everyone else is disturbing.

Finally, another point to raise is that both French and American experience in Africa and elsewhere has shown that combating terrorism militarily is not sufficient to end violent extremist activity. No matter how much you degrade a group’s operational capacity, they return because of persistent extremist ideology. Unless there is consistent effort to address the social, political, and economic conditions that sustain that ideology, these strikes amount to tactical and temporary measures. They may slow ISIS’s growth for a while, but only until the subsequent resurgence.

Unless we plan to repeatedly spend millions of dollars on deploying Reaper drones, there must be a more consistent and long-term strategy. That requires sustained resource allocation, and I do not see either the Trump administration or the Nigerian government undertaking what would be necessary.

Jacobsen: Yemeni separatists claimed that Saudi Arabia launched airstrikes against their forces on Friday. The Southern Transitional Council, backed by the United Arab Emirates, said the strikes occurred in Hadhramaut Governorate.

Amr al-Beidh, a foreign affairs representative for the Council, said STC fighters had been operating in eastern Hadhramaut and had faced multiple ambushes from armed groups, which killed two of their fighters and wounded twelve others.

The UAE issued a statement saying: “The UAE reaffirms its steadfast commitment to supporting all endeavours aimed at strengthening stability and development in Yemen, contributing positively to regional security and prosperity.” Any thoughts?

Tsukerman: The background is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are competing for influence in Yemen. The STC is widely understood as a UAE-backed proxy, but it also pursues its own interests. While the STC publicly pushes for an independent southern state as protection against both Muslim Brotherhood–aligned elements and the Houthis movement advancing from the north, in practice, their immediate priority is securing territory from radical movements of various kinds.

The Saudis and Emiratis have been politically competing. At the same time, the STC has taken control of territories previously held by Houthi forces, moving southward, by Muslim Brotherhood–aligned groups, and by Saudi-aligned militias that are not always ideological but can be tribally loyal to Riyadh. Part of this struggle is about territorial control and power, but it also involves countering extremist movements.

Saudi Arabia has prioritized Yemeni unity and maintaining its influence over fully pushing out extremists, which at this stage is counterproductive. That approach has fueled sectarian tensions, granted the Houthis undue political and military leverage, and enabled Muslim Brotherhood–linked actors to retain influence, each with its own problematic implications.

The Saudis have been willing to integrate all these conflicting interests into their political calculus to dominate the scene. Now they are literally outgunned; their physical presence in Yemen is minimal.

The vast majority of the people being pushed out are militias and tribal groups who are Yemeni. They have loyalty to Saudi Arabia, but they are actually Yemeni, not Saudi. Saudi forces are barely present, and that is part of the problem for them. They are trying to assert authority, yet on the ground, it is the Southern Transitional Council — also Yemeni, trained and supported by the Emiratis but composed of Yemenis — that is taking control of territory.

Saudi Arabia claims that STC actions undermine the Arab coalition, but at this point, there is no real unified coalition to speak of. Saudi troops are not meaningfully deployed, and while the Emiratis maintain some presence in other parts of Yemen, they are primarily relying directly on the STC to carry out operations, which the STC is doing effectively.

If the STC were to withdraw, as Saudi Arabia has demanded, extremist groups would inevitably return, and that would harm everyone involved. Politically, Saudi claims are not backed by force. They are not capable of pushing the STC out of its positions, and if they did, it would worsen security, humanitarian, and economic conditions on the ground. At this stage, what is called the “Arab coalition” is primarily represented by proxies rather than by the direct deployment of either country’s armed forces.

Jacobsen: Interesting. Under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, Japan’s cabinet has approved a record defence budget aimed at deterring China. This reflects long-running geopolitical tensions, though how directly it maps to historical grievances depends on where one draws the timeline — but misgivings certainly have deep roots.

The draft budget for fiscal year 2026, beginning in April, is up 9.4 percent from 2025 and marks the fourth year of Japan’s ongoing five-year program to double annual defence spending to 2 percent of GDP. The budget exceeds 9 trillion yen — approximately 58 billion U.S. dollars. Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi stated, “It is the minimum needed as Japan faces the severest and most complex security environment in the post-war era… it does not change our path as a peace-loving nation.” First: could you shed light on the historical tensions underlying this? Second: What do you think of this five-year plan, now entering its fourth year? Third: What are your thoughts on the Defence Minister’s framing — that deterrence functions as a component of maintaining peace?

Tsukerman: Some of the historical background refers to World War II, including massacres and mass atrocities committed by imperial Japan in China. After the U.S.-led occupation and reconstruction, Japan pursued a pacifist and pro-Western political trajectory focused on economic development. China, by contrast, underwent the Cultural Revolution and ultimately reintegrated elements of past imperial ambition under the authority of the Communist Party.

The two countries’ strategic visions have therefore clashed for decades. In more recent years, as China has become increasingly assertive and persistent in pursuing regional — and arguably global — dominance through cultural influence, economic leverage, military expansion, political pressure, espionage, and aggressive rhetoric, long-buried tensions have resurfaced despite earlier reform and stabilization.

Japan is also facing an increasingly complex political landscape. While the current governing party is center-right and more open to a muscular foreign policy, some factions could be described as far-right, nativist, and strongly anti-immigration. While I would not call them neo-imperialist, they are closer to the populist far right than to the classical liberal center-right, and they are more likely to push their positions toward policy extremes. This internal challenge for Japan is expected to intensify if the United States continues its inconsistent policy approach toward China and the broader Indo-Pacific — and there is no compelling evidence that Washington will suddenly adopt a coherent strategy.

Japan’s increased defence production, expanded defence budget, and military readiness are positive developments. These measures signal strong deterrence and communicate that Japan does not intend to make itself a soft target. The country is becoming more situationally aware and is improving relations with South Korea — historically strained for a mix of political and historical reasons — because specific shared security challenges are now undeniable for both governments.

However, none of this will be sufficient if China continues to militarize at its current pace, backed by vast resources, a large population, and rapid technological expansion. If the U.S. continues allowing exports of advanced technologies to China, continues relying on sensitive Chinese-made components, overlooks cybersecurity vulnerabilities that enable espionage and intellectual property theft, and quarrels with strategic partners like Japan and India over comparatively minor trade issues, those distractions will undermine Indo-Pacific security priorities.

While Japan is, in my view, moving in the right direction, I am not convinced that its trajectory will be enough, given the current pace and scale of China’s rise — particularly if the United States remains strategically unfocused.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Irina.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.