Major General Abdulsalam Abubakar, the theatre commander of Operation Hadin Kai, disclosed that foreign mercenaries, including those from Pakistan, are contributing to a dangerous shift in the operational capabilities of terror groups such as Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).

Speaking during a media tour in Maiduguri, the capital of Borno State, Abubakar warned that these foreign actors are arming and training local terrorist factions, resulting in more sophisticated and deadly attacks on Nigerian forces.

“The infiltration of foreign mercenaries in the joint operations area has significantly escalated the threat posed by terrorist groups like ISWAP and Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad (JAS),” Abubakar told reporters, as quoted by The Cable.

According to military sources, the four Pakistani nationals were detained over suspected links to terrorism and arms smuggling. Their arrests underscore the growing international dimension of Nigeria’s counter-terrorism challenge.

“These individuals were allegedly involved in supplying arms to terrorist groups,” Abubakar revealed, warning that this external support is enabling jihadist groups to adapt modern battlefield tactics.

Among the enhanced tactics observed are the use of drones for surveillance and attacks, production of advanced improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and the laying of strategic ambushes designed to inflict maximum casualties on troops.

Abubakar noted that beyond providing weaponry, the foreign mercenaries are delivering both strategic and tactical training, allowing insurgents to conduct more coordinated and lethal operations. “The growing influence of these mercenaries is evident in the terrorists’ increased sophistication, leading to higher troop casualties and significant equipment losses,” he stated.

He further warned that Nigeria’s fight is no longer against local insurgents alone but against a transnational terror network that is receiving material and strategic support from external actors.

The commander emphasized the urgency of a coordinated regional response, calling for enhanced intelligence-sharing, surveillance, and tighter cross-border security cooperation with neighboring countries.

“Boko Haram and ISWAP are not just fighting our armed forces; they are waging war against Nigeria itself,” Abubakar asserted.

Northern Nigeria has been plagued by insurgency for over a decade, but the involvement of foreign mercenaries—particularly from regions like Pakistan—marks a disturbing evolution in the conflict, demanding swift and unified international action.

Taha, a vocal critic of the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood, said the world is repeating the same mistakes that allowed Osama bin Laden to rise unchecked—this time, in places like Sudan and Gaza.

“The Houthis are now training members of Hamas and jihadists in Sudan to use drones,” Taha revealed. “They have access to Iranian drone technology, and it’s only a matter of time before they choose to strike—maybe tomorrow, maybe years from now. But it’s dangerous if we don’t deal with it.”

His comments come amid heightened concerns over drone warfare being deployed by non-state actors across the Middle East and Africa, as Iran continues to export advanced weaponry and ideological influence through its proxy networks.

A Growing Danger in Sudan

Taha expressed particular concern over Sudan, where, according to his claims, militant groups are preparing for larger-scale attacks using drone capabilities gained through Houthi and Iranian training programs.

“We are just waiting for another Bin Laden to grow in Sudan—to carry out another 9/11,” he warned. “And that’s exactly what’s happening. The world is waiting again.”

The political scientist criticized the international community, particularly Western nations, for ignoring early warnings and failing to act decisively against groups operating under religious or humanitarian cover.

The Muslim Brotherhood and the West

Taha also highlighted the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, calling them the “ideological engine” behind many extremist movements. He applauded the UAE and other Gulf nations for formally banning the group and classifying it as a terrorist organization.

“Countries like mine, the UAE, have banned the Muslim Brotherhood and spoken clearly to the West about the dangers they pose,” he said. “But unfortunately, many of these extremists now operate freely in the West—masquerading as activists, lawyers, or human rights defenders.”

In a controversial segment, Taha referred to specific cases in the United Kingdom, where individuals with extremist ties allegedly defended criminals, including those involved in sexual abuse cases, under the guise of political or religious victimhood.

“When people speak out against these crimes, they’re called Islamophobic,” he said. “That is not Islam. Rape, terrorism, and criminal acts do not represent Islam or any religion.”

He stressed the need for freedom of speech to be protected when addressing such issues, warning against censorship disguised as tolerance.

“British citizens have every right to criticize these radicals. That is not Islamophobia; that is truth. But they [extremists] use the label to silence dissent.”

A Call to Action

Taha’s remarks also took aim at figures like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other leaders whom he accused of using religion as a political weapon, while maintaining ties with Brotherhood-affiliated networks.

He drew parallels between the situations in Gaza, Sudan, Turkey, and even India, warning that the ideological infrastructure underpinning jihadist movements is transnational, and that failure to counter it now could have catastrophic consequences later.

“Whether it’s my brother in the UAE or a citizen in India, we face the same threat. Letting this ideology grow unchecked puts all of us at risk.

Nonetheless, his message is clear: ignore the warning signs now, and pay a much higher price later.

Aimen Dean

Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad loyalists have launched a well-coordinated disinformation campaign to portray the situation as a sectarian massacre.

In light of recent misinterpretations of my comments, I feel compelled to clarify my stance on several key issues. Some have accused me of supporting jihadist groups in Syria or endorsing acts of ethnic cleansing and massacres against the Alawite minority on the Syrian coast. These claims are entirely unfounded, and I want to set the record straight.

Consistent Principles on War and Self-Defense

From the very beginning, I have consistently supported the right of nations to defend themselves against aggression. In 2001, I fully backed the United States’ decision to retaliate against al-Qaeda and the Taliban following the 9/11 attacks because it was a justified response to an unprovoked act of war. However, I did not support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, as Iraq posed no imminent threat at the time.

Similarly, when Hamas launched its attacks on October 7, 2023, I unequivocally supported Israel’s right to defend itself, just as I supported Israel’s actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon. I recognize that war is never clean, and civilian casualties are an unfortunate and tragic reality. Anyone who believes in the possibility of a “clean war” is ignoring history and human nature. Even in the most “civilized” parts of the world, such as Europe, the 20th century bore witness to some of the worst massacres and genocides in history.

Modern warfare is fought not only on the battlefield but also in the realm of information. The manipulation of media, particularly through social media, has become a powerful tool. We saw this when Hamas claimed that Israel had bombed hospitals and killed hundreds of civilians, claims that, upon closer inspection, were exaggerated or entirely fabricated. Propaganda is an inseparable part of war, and recognizing this is crucial in understanding modern conflicts.

The Syrian Conflict and My Perspective on Ahmad al-Shar’a

Much of the controversy surrounding my recent comments stems from my discussion of Ahmad al-Shar’a, also known as Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, and the ongoing conflict in Syria. To be clear: I do not view al-Shar’a as ISIS. While he was originally part of al-Qaeda in Iraq before it became the Islamic State of Iraq, he later split from the organization when he moved to Syria.

Since 2018, I have spoken with multiple intelligence officials who confirmed that al-Shar’a had been cooperating with Turkish intelligence as early as 2013 and later provided valuable intelligence to Western agencies, including those of France and the United States, in the fight against ISIS. His motivation may not have been purely altruistic, he saw ISIS as a rival, but his actions nonetheless contributed to the fight against one of the most brutal jihadist groups in history.

I have publicly acknowledged that I see elements of my own journey in his transformation. I, too, was once a committed jihadist until I saw the light and shifted my perspective to focus on geopolitical strategy rather than sectarian or ideological allegiances. Today, my positions are determined by strategic interests, not religious or sectarian affiliations.

Why I Support the Current Syrian Government Over Assad

Between al-Shar’a’s government and the Assad regime, I believe the former offers a better path forward for Syria. While al-Shar’a has a controversial past, his current trajectory suggests a willingness to reform. Unlike the Assad regime, which has kept Syria trapped in a failed socialist Arab nationalist system, his administration has demonstrated a commitment to economic modernization. The most developed areas in Syria today—Idlib, Jisr al-Shughur, and Sarmada—show clear progress, in contrast to the stagnation of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, and Hama.

Critically, I reject the notion that what is happening on the Syrian coast is an organized ethnic cleansing campaign. Instead, it is a military operation aimed at dismantling remnants of the Assad regime, whose security forces have been targeting not only Sunni opposition members but also Alawites who are seen as traitors.

Reports indicate that some of the atrocities being widely shared on social media were, in fact, carried out by former regime officers—Alawites exacting revenge on their own community members for siding with the new government. Other reports suggest that Iranian and Hezbollah-backed Assad loyalists are fueling chaos to destabilize the current government. The Syrian government under al-Shar’a has deployed significant manpower to block roads and prevent large-scale sectarian revenge attacks, particularly from Sunni militants who see this as an opportunity for retaliation.

Propaganda and Disinformation in the Syrian Conflict

Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad loyalists have launched a well-coordinated disinformation campaign to portray the situation as a sectarian massacre. Many of the images and videos circulating on social media are, in reality, old footage from ISIS-era Iraq and Syria. Claims that Christians are being systematically targeted are also false, there have been no reports of Christian casualties in this conflict.

Additionally, many of the “atrocity” videos currently being used to condemn the new government are actually recycled footage of massacres committed by the Assad regime itself. The goal of this propaganda is clear: to manipulate Western audiences into believing that Syria is descending into sectarian genocide, thereby pushing Syria further into the Iranian-Russian-Chinese geopolitical axis.

A Call for Justice and a Rational Perspective on Syria’s Future

I do not deny that war crimes and atrocities have occurred in the Syrian conflict. I call upon the government of President Ahmad al-Shar’a to ensure accountability and bring those responsible to justice. However, we must recognize that this is not a case of systematic ethnic cleansing. The reality on the ground is far more complex, with various factions—Sunni and Alawite alike—engaging in revenge killings and power struggles.

Western observers must avoid falling into the trap of Iranian and Hezbollah propaganda. Syria has an opportunity to move away from the Russian-Iranian-Chinese sphere of influence and integrate into the Mediterranean and Gulf economic frameworks. It is in the best interest of Syria, the region, and the world that we support efforts to stabilize the country, promote economic recovery, and prevent it from becoming another puppet state for Tehran, Moscow, or Beijing.

A Geopolitical, Not Sectarian, Perspective

To those who accuse me of reverting to my “jihadi roots,” I ask: how could someone who opposed both Hamas and Hezbollah—a Sunni and a Shia militant group—be labeled as a jihadist sympathizer? My approach is based purely on geopolitical logic, not religious bias. I support what makes sense for the people of the Middle East, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sunni, or Shia, liberal or conservative.

What is happening in Syria is not a black-and-white sectarian war but a geopolitical realignment. We must approach it with rationality, not emotion, and recognize the broader stakes involved. Let us not allow misinformation and propaganda to cloud our understanding of the realities on the ground.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.