Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu described the attacks as “the final desperate” acts of militants seeking to spread fear, but security analysts said the scale and coordination of the bombings suggest strength rather than decline.

The assault on Maiduguri, the capital of Borno State and the birthplace of the insurgency, involved multiple suicide bombers targeting an urban center long fortified by security forces.

Experts said the incident indicated failures in intelligence and surveillance, allowing militants to penetrate one of the country’s most secured cities.

It remains unclear which group carried out the attack, underscoring the fragmented nature of the insurgency involving Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), an Islamic State-affiliated faction.

Analysts said recent attacks attributed to both Boko Haram and ISWAP raise the possibility of coordination between the rival groups, which have historically operated separately but share overlapping objectives.

“We have to see this as the groups oozing confidence in their ability to wreak terror in that part of the country,” said Ikemesit Effiong, a partner at SBM Intelligence, a Lagos-based risk advisory firm.

“We think this is the start of a spate of bombings, not just in Maiduguri but also less protected urban areas in the northeast,” he said.

The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), a crisis monitoring group, said the attack was the deadliest suicide bombing in Nigeria in seven years.

President Tinubu said he had approved additional equipment and support for the military, reiterating pledges by successive administrations to defeat the insurgents.

Nigeria has fought Islamist militants since 2009, when Boko Haram launched an uprising aimed at establishing an Islamic state. The group was driven from major urban areas after a military crackdown, but it later splintered into factions.

One faction aligned with Islamic State has emerged as the most powerful, controlling parts of northeastern Nigeria and maintaining operational capabilities.

As violence has expanded to other regions, including the northwest, the United States has conducted air strikes and deployed military advisers in support roles, though it remains unclear whether U.S. forces will be involved in responding to the latest attacks.

Despite sustained military operations, analysts said militant groups have entrenched themselves in rural areas, enabling them to regroup and launch attacks intermittently.

Vincent Foucher, a senior research fellow at France’s National Centre for Scientific Research, said insurgent groups have maintained a presence over time, adapting their tactics and exploiting gaps in governance and security.

The latest bombings illustrate the enduring challenge posed by the insurgency, which has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions across the region.

Speaking to reporters at the White House during a St. Patrick’s Day visit by Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, Trump said allied governments had expressed support for U.S. and Israeli actions but were unwilling to provide direct military assistance.

Trump noted that several allied countries had indicated they had no immediate plans to deploy naval forces to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass.

The comments followed calls by the U.S. administration for international support to maintain shipping access after Iran responded to joint U.S.-Israeli strikes with drones, missiles and naval mines that have effectively hindered tanker traffic.

Despite the criticism, Trump said he had “nothing currently in mind” when asked whether Washington would retaliate against allies for their stance.

“I think NATO is making a very foolish mistake,” Trump said. “Everyone agrees with us, but they don’t want to help.”

Earlier in the day, Trump struck a different tone on social media, stating that the United States no longer needed NATO assistance due to what he described as “Military Success” in the ongoing conflict, now in its third week.

In that statement, he also singled out non-NATO partners Japan, Australia and South Korea, without elaborating on their roles.

Trump has previously raised the possibility of withdrawing the United States from NATO, though he did not revisit that position in his latest remarks.

The standoff over the Strait of Hormuz has heightened concerns about global energy supplies, as disruptions in the narrow waterway can have immediate implications for oil markets and shipping routes.

The reluctance of NATO allies to engage militarily underscores divisions within the alliance over involvement in the conflict, even as diplomatic backing for U.S. actions appears to remain intact.

Takaichi will be the first major ally to hold face-to-face talks with Trump since he urged Japan and other partners to send naval vessels to escort tankers through the strategically vital waterway, which has been largely disrupted by Iran during the conflict.

“The biggest risk is that Trump publicly presses her for security commitments that she can’t deliver on,” said David Boling of the Asia Group consultancy in Tokyo, a former U.S. trade negotiator with Japan.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly a fifth of global energy supplies, with about 90% of Japan’s crude oil imports passing through it, underscoring Tokyo’s exposure to the crisis.

Japanese officials said Takaichi had initially planned to steer discussions toward concerns over China’s regional posture ahead of a delayed visit, but shifting U.S. priorities have forced a focus on Iran and maritime security.

Japan has received no formal request from Washington, Takaichi told parliament earlier this week, adding that the government was assessing possible responses within the constraints of its pacifist constitution.

Several U.S. allies, including Germany, Italy and Spain, have ruled out joining a Gulf mission. Kaja Kallas said on Tuesday that no country was prepared to risk personnel in the conflict zone.

Public sentiment in Japan also remains cautious. Fewer than 10% of respondents support U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, according to a poll by the Asahi newspaper.

Trump has alternated between criticising allies for their reluctance and downplaying their necessity, singling out countries like Japan that rely on U.S. security guarantees while depending heavily on Middle Eastern oil flows.

Tokyo has historically limited its role in Middle East operations to logistical and intelligence support. Analysts say deploying Japanese vessels into an active conflict zone would face significant legal and political hurdles.

“It has turned into a discussion that shakes the very foundations of the Japan–U.S. security alliance,” said Kazuhiro Maeshima, a politics professor at Sophia University in Tokyo.

Tusk told a government meeting that Warsaw “does not plan any expedition to Iran,” adding that the decision was understood by the United States and other allies.He said the position applied across Poland’s land, air and naval forces.

Tusk emphasized that Poland’s military posture remains oriented toward its immediate security environment, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict linked to Ukraine.

He noted that strengthening capabilities along Poland’s eastern flank continues to take precedence.Securing the Baltic Sea remains a central pillar of Poland’s defense strategy, he added, underscoring Warsaw’s focus on regional deterrence and stability rather than participation in operations farther afield.

The remarks come after Trump called on allied nations to contribute to efforts to safeguard shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy supplies that has faced attacks and threats attributed to Iranian forces during the third week of a U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran.

Several U.S. allies, including Germany, Spain and Italy, have also indicated they have no immediate plans to deploy naval assets to the region, signaling broader reluctance within Europe to expand military involvement.

Poland’s stance reflects a wider recalibration among European states balancing alliance commitments with domestic security priorities, particularly as military resources remain tied to reinforcing defenses closer to home.

In an interview published Sunday by the Financial Times, Trump said the timing of the meeting could shift depending on progress in restoring navigation through the key oil transit route.

“We’d like to know before (the summit),” Trump said, adding that “we may delay,” without specifying how long a postponement might last.

The Strait of Hormuz, which connects Gulf energy producers to global markets, has come under heightened strain during the conflict with Iran, raising concerns about disruptions to international oil shipments.

Washington has sought diplomatic and security cooperation from major powers to ensure the passage remains open as tensions across the Middle East escalate.

Trump’s remarks suggest the United States is looking to China to play a role in stabilizing the situation. Beijing maintains significant economic ties with Iran and is a major importer of Gulf energy supplies that pass through the strait.

The proposed summit in Beijing had been expected to focus on trade and geopolitical issues between the two powers, but Trump indicated that progress on the maritime corridor could influence whether the meeting proceeds on schedule.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump confirmed that contacts with Iran were taking place but suggested negotiations had yet to reach a decisive stage. “Yes, we’re talking to them,” Trump said when asked whether diplomatic efforts were underway to end the conflict. “But I don’t think they’re ready

. But they are getting pretty close.”The war, which has rattled global markets and spread across parts of the Middle East, intensified after coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets on Feb. 28. The opening day of the campaign killed several senior Iranian officials, including Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Trump offered few details about the nature or level of the contacts, and suggested uncertainty about who currently represents Iran’s leadership after the initial strikes.“I’m not sure I want to make a deal, because first of all nobody even knows who you’re dealing with, because most of their leadership has been killed,” he said.

Iranian officials, however, rejected the notion that talks were underway.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran was not engaged in negotiations with Washington and criticized the United States for pursuing diplomacy after launching military strikes.“We are stable and strong enough. We are only defending our people,” Araghchi said in an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation” broadcast on Sunday.

“We don’t see any reason why we should talk with Americans, because we were talking with them when they decided to attack us,” he added. “There is no good experience talking with Americans.”Trump nonetheless maintained that Iranian authorities were seeking an agreement to end hostilities.

“They want to make a deal badly,” he said, without elaborating on possible terms or channels for future negotiations.

The conflicting statements highlight uncertainty over whether diplomatic efforts could emerge alongside the continuing military confrontation that has expanded across the region since late February.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said the missiles were launched from an area near the capital Pyongyang toward waters off the country’s east coast. The launches occurred during large-scale allied military drills aimed at strengthening defense readiness against potential threats from the North.

Japan’s coast guard also detected what it said could be a ballistic missile that later fell into the sea. Public broadcaster NHK, citing Japanese military officials, reported the projectile appeared to land outside Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

The missile activity came as U.S. and South Korean troops conducted major annual exercises across South Korea this week. Officials from both allies say the drills are defensive in nature and designed to test military preparedness in the event of a conflict with North Korea.

On Saturday, hundreds of American and South Korean troops carried out river-crossing exercises involving tanks and armored combat vehicles. The drills were overseen by the commander of their combined forces.

The United States maintains about 28,500 troops in South Korea along with squadrons of fighter jets as part of its longstanding security commitment to the country

North Korea has routinely condemned such military exercises, describing them as rehearsals for an invasion. The country has repeatedly responded to the drills with weapons tests or military demonstrations.

For more than two decades, Pyongyang has tested a wide range of ballistic and cruise missiles as part of its effort to develop systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

It is widely believed to have successfully built nuclear devices.The missile and nuclear programs have prompted multiple rounds of sanctions by the United Nations Security Council since 2006, targeting the country’s trade, economy and defense sectors.

The launches came days after South Korean Prime Minister Kim Min-seok met Trump in Washington to discuss ways to revive dialogue with North Korea.

Kim told reporters that Trump remains eager to hold talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un if an opportunity arises.

The latest missile launches underscore continuing tensions on the Korean Peninsula even as diplomatic channels remain under discussion.

David Sacks, who serves as the White House crypto and artificial intelligence adviser, made the remarks during an appearance on the “All-In Podcast,” describing the current moment as an opportunity for the United States to step back from the conflict.

“This is a good time to declare victory and get out,” Sacks said, adding that U.S. operations had degraded Iran’s military capabilities. He also said Washington should look for what he described as an “off-ramp” to prevent further escalation.

Sacks said avoiding a prolonged conflict would require diplomatic efforts aimed at reducing tensions. “If escalation doesn’t lead anywhere good, then you have to think about how do you de-escalate,” he said. “De-escalation involves reaching some sort of ceasefire agreement or negotiated settlement with Iran.

”The remarks marked a rare public call from a prominent figure within Trump’s administration for an exit strategy from the war, which has intensified regional tensions since late February.

The United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, triggering retaliatory strikes from Iran and its ally Hezbollah against Israel and other targets across the Middle East.

The fighting has rattled global financial markets and pushed oil prices higher amid concerns that wider hostilities could disrupt energy supplies from the region.

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations said more than 1,300 people have been killed in Iran as a result of U.S. and Israeli attacks.

Israeli authorities say Iranian strikes have killed 12 people in Israel.The U.S. military has reported seven service members killed since the conflict began.

Writing in the Saudi-based outlet Arab News, Egyptian journalist and analyst Abdellatif El-Menawy said the conflict has exposed the limits of American power, the reach of Israeli military deterrence and Iran’s enduring role in the regional balance, while simultaneously revealing vulnerabilities in the Gulf’s security architecture.

The war, he argued, may prolong the Middle East’s crises rather than produce the stable “new Middle East” often invoked in policy debates.

The United States’ strategic thinking surrounding the conflict reflects an assumption seen during the Iraq war era that weakening a hostile regional power could pave the way for a more favorable political order.

.Under this logic, military pressure on Iran’s leadership and infrastructure was expected either to weaken Tehran to the point of strategic retreat or trigger domestic unrest that could alter the country’s political trajectory.

But Iran’s position in the region extends beyond the structure of its government, he argued. The country has established institutions, a complex social structure and networks of influence across several parts of the Arab world.

Because of those factors, analysts say the collapse or severe weakening of Iran could introduce additional instability rather than immediately stabilize the region.

The war has already expanded beyond limited strikes, with Iranian attacks targeting Israel, U.S. military installations and other strategic locations across the Gulf region, according to the analysis.

The conflict’s effects have also spread into global economic systems, particularly energy markets and maritime shipping routes.

Oil infrastructure across the Gulf has faced rising risks, with key pipelines, refineries and export terminals in countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq and Bahrain placed under heightened security pressure as hostilities intensify.

At the same time, the Strait of Hormuz one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints through which roughly one-fifth of global oil trade passes has come under renewed scrutiny amid the conflict.

Any disruption to shipping through the strait could quickly reverberate through oil prices, insurance markets and international trade flows, analysts note, underscoring the region’s continued strategic significance to the global economy.

The broader implication, is that the Middle East’s geopolitical stability cannot be separated from the vulnerabilities of the global energy system.

The conflict has also raised questions in the Gulf about the long-standing security model built around U.S. military protection.

For decades, American bases in the region were viewed primarily as deterrents against external threats. However, the current conflict has highlighted how those same installations can also become targets during periods of confrontation.

This concern has roots in earlier regional shocks, including the 2019 attack on Saudi oil facilities that temporarily disrupted global oil supply and raised doubts about the effectiveness of external security guarantees.Such developments have already encouraged Gulf states to diversify their diplomatic and strategic relationships.

A notable example came in March 2023, when Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to restore diplomatic relations in a deal brokered by China. The agreement was widely viewed as part of a broader effort by Gulf states to reduce regional tensions while balancing relations among major global powers.

Despite such diplomatic efforts, the current war has underscored the limits of de-escalation initiatives in a region shaped heavily by geography and military positioning.

As long as U.S. bases remain in the Gulf and Iran perceives those deployments as a strategic threat, regional states will remain exposed to confrontation regardless of their diplomatic preferences, analysts say.

Even if Iran emerges weakened from the conflict, the country is unlikely to disappear from the Middle East’s strategic landscape.

Instead, Tehran may rely more heavily on asymmetric strategies that aim to raise the costs of confrontation for its adversaries.

These strategies could include leveraging maritime chokepoints, economic pressure points and regional alliances to challenge what Tehran views as an American-led security structure.

Iran has historically used such methods as part of a broader deterrence approach that extends beyond conventional military confrontation.The evolving dynamics also raise questions about Israel’s role in the region.

Israel is widely viewed as having demonstrated strong intelligence and airpower capabilities through strikes deep inside Iranian territory. Yet military superiority does not necessarily translate into a stable regional order under Israeli leadership.

Accordingly a weakened Iran could in some ways heighten concerns among Arab states about the emergence of a more assertive Israel.The resulting regional balance may therefore resemble a complex triangular dynamic involving a militarily capable Israel, an injured but resilient Iran and Gulf states with substantial economic resources but growing security uncertainty.

Beyond the Middle East, the conflict also carries wider geopolitical implications.A prolonged confrontation with Iran could absorb American military and diplomatic attention, potentially creating opportunities for rival powers such as Russia and China to expand influence in other regions.

Some analysts have also warned that a shift in U.S. focus toward the Middle East could affect Washington’s ability to manage simultaneous international crises.For now, however, the conflict’s long-term consequences remain uncertain.

While the war has challenged assumptions about the durability of the existing regional order, analysts say it has not yet produced a clear alternative.Instead, the emerging picture is of a Middle East entering a period of greater fluidity, where established security arrangements face new tests and geopolitical alignments continue to evolve.

Her remarks came as Seoul and Washington proceeded with their annual joint military exercises, which the two allies say are designed to strengthen defensive readiness against potential threats from North Korea.

Kim Yo Jong described the military exercises as provocative and warned they could undermine security in the region. Statements from North Korean officials have frequently portrayed joint U.S.-South Korean military activities as rehearsals for invasion.

The criticism reflects longstanding opposition from Pyongyang to the annual exercises, which typically involve large-scale troop deployments and coordinated operations between the two militaries.

Officials in South Korea and the United States maintain that the drills are defensive in nature and aimed at ensuring readiness and coordination between allied forces.

The exercises form a central component of the long-standing military alliance between the two countries, which maintains a substantial U.S. troop presence on the Korean Peninsula.

Analysts say North Korea’s leadership remains focused on maintaining strong deterrence capabilities amid shifting geopolitical tensions. One analyst said Pyongyang is determined not to face the same fate as Iran amid the ongoing conflict involving the United States and its allies.

The comments come as regional tensions remain elevated amid global security concerns and ongoing military activity across several geopolitical flashpoints.