Members of a military junta that organized a coup in Niger participate in a rally in a stadium in Niamey, Niger (Anadolu Agency)

In a step that appears to be unprecedented and unexpected at the same time, the Nigerien coup plotters, or what is known as the “National Council for the Protection of the Homeland,” which was formed after the overthrow of President Mohamed Bazoum last July, decided to cancel the military agreement that former President Mohamed Issoufou signed with Washington. 2012, with immediate effect.

It allowed Washington to build a military base for drones in Agadez in the north, known as Base 201, which gives American forces the ability to monitor and launch attacks against armed groups in the countries of the region, and it has already been used to target ISIS fighters and the Group to Support Islam and Muslims, Al-Qaeda affiliate in the Sahel region, as well as Boko Haram.

Perhaps ironically, the “March 17” announcement came shortly after the visit of the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Molly Fee, and the Director of AFRICOM to the country.

Reasons for the escalation of the coup leaders against Washington

The spokesman for the military junta in Niger gave a set of “formal” justifications for this decision, including American indifference to the transitional council, as there was no coordination with him regarding the date of Molly’s visit, the composition of the delegation accompanying her, as well as the agenda of the visit, as well as the language of the threat. American retaliation against the military junta, especially with regard to the necessity of setting a specific date for the democratic transition.

As well as Washington's desire to determine the strategy of Niger and its allies in dealing with the file of jihadist groups. Perhaps all of these factors prompted Council President Abdel Rahman Tiani to refuse to meet the American delegation.

The new alliance, and Russian support, will give coup leaders in these countries, not just Niger, the ability to confront armed groups at home, as well as any counter-coup attempt supported by Paris or Washington.

If these are the stated reasons to justify canceling the agreement, then there are a group of other reasons that explain that the decision was not random or “reactive,” but rather was planned, waiting for “just” the right moment to announce it, which are:

First: The end of the temporary honeymoon period between Washington and the coup leaders

It only lasted about three months. Then Washington announced, “later than France,” that what happened in the country constituted a coup, and that this required the suspension of military aid to the country, which was estimated at about half a billion dollars, which is a huge amount for a country classified as one of the poorest countries in the world.

This American step came after Washington supported the coup leaders, and was reluctant to describe what happened as a coup, to spite France. Rather, it was reported that Washington exploited its influence with the active countries in the ECOWAS organization, to urge them not to intervene militarily against the coup plotters, and it also appointed an ambassador to it. In Niamey, after the position was vacant before the coup, what was interpreted at the time as almost official American recognition of the military.

However, it seems that the American bet on the new coup plotters collided with the unlimited Russian support for them, which prompted Washington to escalate by threatening the necessity of setting a specific time frame for the Transitional Council, “which I set at a year and a half at most,” and considering this a main condition for the resumption of aid, which the Council interpreted as a kind of... From American dictates, especially since this escalatory tone became clear after French President Macron announced the start of withdrawing his country’s forces from Niger.

Second: The coup leaders felt that they would not benefit militarily from Washington

The inability to benefit from confronting the armed groups that pose the greatest threat to the country. The canceled 2012 agreement, according to the Council, does not oblige the American side to provide military support in confronting the threat of these armed groups. Rather, it is an agreement that only serves American interests in carrying out its attacks from From Niger, against armed groups in various countries of the region, which made the opposition forces denounce it when it was signed 12 years ago, and accuse President Issoufou of exploiting the armed groups’ card to conclude these deals and profit from them.

Third: Formation of the regional alliance “Sahel Alliance” or the “Liptako-Gorma” regional alliance.

Between Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso to confront the threat of armed groups. It is the coalition that enjoys Russian support, sponsorship, financing and military training within the framework of the African Corps, which Moscow announced its formation early this year. It consists of approximately 50,000 fighters, most of whom are from the former Wagner forces, and is spread in 5 countries of the region, including the three countries of the Sahel Alliance, as well as Central Africa and neighboring Libya were chosen as the central command center for this new corps.

There is no doubt that this step gave the coup plotters great weight vis-à-vis Washington, especially since Moscow did not set conditions for the three coup countries that make up the Sahel coalition to set a timetable for the democratic transition.

This new alliance, and Russian support, will give coup leaders in these countries, not just Niger, the ability to confront armed groups at home, as well as any counter-coup attempt supported by Paris or Washington.

Fourth: ECOWAS retreated from its previous pressure regarding the need for President Bazoum to return to power

Last month, it eased its “harsh” economic sanctions against the coup leaders, which is considered a victory from their point of view in the face of this organization that was threatening military intervention to force them to hand over power.

But it seems that the division of the ECOWAS countries regarding this intervention, in addition to the obstacles associated with the problem of forming forces, their financing, and their tasks, made it impossible. Rather, we found, on the other hand, Niger’s announcement, along with Burkina Faso and Mali, of withdrawal from the organization, which prompted the latter to reduce its escalatory tone. By easing sanctions, in the hope that these countries will return to them again.

Will American forces withdraw?

Although the United States escalated last October by describing what happened in Niger as a coup, it kept the door ajar with the leaders of the military junta regarding the possibility of resuming aid if it announced a specific period for the democratic transition, and it did not threaten to withdraw its military forces from the country. Due to the great importance it attaches to Niger and the military base located there.

This importance was stated in a study issued by the Congressional Research Center and published by Al Jazeera Net last August, which reveals that Niger is a base for all intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities in the Sahel region and the Lake Chad Basin, and it is also a starting base for carrying out missions through drones in some countries of the region. "Like Libya and some Sahel countries."

This is what Judd Devermont, Director of African Affairs at the US National Security Council, confirmed to the British Financial Times newspaper last October, that his country has no intention of leaving Niger, “If we leave Niger, it will not only be about Niger’s security. There will be consequences.” Also for Ghana, Togo and Benin… The United States has a contingent of about a thousand men in Niger dedicated to combating terrorism, and it has no intention of demobilizing them and imitating France in this regard.”

This means that Washington was aiming, through its escalation against the Council and waving the aid card, to make it more subservient to it and distance itself from Moscow.

What is behind the escalation of the coup plotters?

On the other hand, we find that the Military Council, despite its recent announcement of ending the military agreement, has not demanded, “as of this writing,” the withdrawal of American forces from the country. Which means that it may also aim to work with some degree of independence from Washington, and to pressure it to resume providing aid without requiring it to impose a specific time period for the democratic transition (which the Council set as a maximum of three years through the national dialogue).

It seems that Washington may have to respond to the pressures of the coup leaders, for fear of further falling into the arms of the Russians on the one hand, and out of concern for its security interests in this country, which, despite its extreme poverty, is among the top ten countries in uranium reserves in the world, and seventh in its production.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.