They are low on bombs, morale, and their military is stretched thin and already instigating a 3-front WW3 (with 2/3 fronts already active). And they're also incredibly low on international support- the entire world is united in horror of their actions, whether it be due to morality (what's going on in Palestine, or their support of Nazis and terrorist attacks against Russia), to self-preservation of their people (aforementioned WW3), or their finances (weaponization of SWIFT, ever-increasing debt, blatant thefts/seizures of Russian state and private assets, the west essentially trying to destroy the modern international economy to revert it back to their monopolies). And domestic support is also abysmal, material conditions are collapsing for the vast majority of the population, people are horrified at the genocide and threat of WW3, and the former POTUS who they have been waging unprecedented lawfare against is coming back with a vengeance.

All that, and it's election season. Also, things are just as bad or worse across the rest of the Anglosphere and western Europe. And to top it all off, Russian troops are already receiving a warm welcome in Niger.

Can the US bomb Niger? Sure it can. But it'll pull in the neighboring countries, enrage public sentiment across Africa and the entire global south, might even pull in Russia, and will only serve to make the US more of a pariah, make it clear it has nothing to offer the world but terrorism and slavery (more than it has already) thus pushing more nations firmly into the arms of BRICS (the vast majority of humanity is already either in BRICS, or trying to join it- and anyone with sense is bit by bit, divesting from the unreliable, unstable, and untrustworthy west). And it'll be just another black mark against the US domestically as well.

What would be the end result? Even if they just used a few bombs as a symbolic, spiteful measure (so as not to divert from Operation Ukraine, the occupation of Palestine, and encirclement of China), they would only serve to further outrage an already hostile population- any return of the west to Niger will have to be through official or unofficial occupation, akin to Afghanistan and Iraq. And they can't sic ECOWAS against Niger/Burkina Faso/Mali (France already tried), it would be deeply unpopular and serve to further destabilize those comprador countries which follow such commands- though there's considerable reason to believe many at this point wouldn't, as they're wisely divesting from the west as-is. Will the US then spitefully try to bomb those countries too, when they reject being puppets and slaves of the west when push comes to shove?

Meanwhile, global sympathies- and even perhaps, arms or even troops (as in the case with Russia) or aid would come from the rest of the world. And the longer the west stays in Niger, the more it will become a drain- on their finances, on their international reputation, etc... during a time when these things are already shot to hell, and the entire world is moving past them.

The US can certainly bomb Niger. Just like they can certainly bomb most of the countries that are rising up or shuffling away from them. But the contradictions of the empire have already reached such a critical mass, that any action they take to attempt to do so will only ensure that the western demise accelerates and increases in severity, and will only serve to further empower the coalition rising up to defend themselves from western terrorism and exploitation. If they bomb Niger today, tomorrow they'll have to bomb Burkina Faso, Mali, and perhaps even Senegal, Nigeria, etc. as well. But they'll never be welcome back, in fact they'll only serve to strengthen local resolve and solidarity against western occupation, meanwhile due to their actions BRICS will only continue to increase in popularity and strength.