Fearing a security vacuum if UN peacekeepers leave southern Lebanon when their mandate expires December 31, the Lebanese government is desperately seeking an extension of the United Nations Interim Force (UNIFIL) or the creation of a European-led multinational force to take its place.
Israel, which has occupied dozens of villages south of the Litani River since its latest invasion of the country earlier this year can't wait for the Blue Helmets to leave. It has long lobbied against UNIFIL’s extension, deeming it ineffective in taming and disarming Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militia.
But Tel Aviv hasn't opposed an international force once UNIFIL leaves; it just doesn’t want one tied to the UN. Israel is lobbying for a U.S.-led force, while the Lebanese government prefers a European-led mission to aid the Lebanese army if UNIFIL’s mandate is not renewed or extended.
An even bigger question is how exactly any such force can subdue battle-hardened Hezbollah, the country’s most powerful armed force. The group has long enjoyed widespread support in the Shiite community, which makes up about a third of the country’s total population.
Days before the UN General Assembly meeting in New York this week, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun visited Paris where he met with French President Emmanuel Macron and Jordan's King Abdullah. They discussed the need for the continued presence of foreign troops and the importance of making that clear to President Donald Trump.
Israel occupied five key points in Southern Lebanon after Hezbollah joined the war between Israel and Hamas in 2023. Israel rained bombs on a region inhabited mostly by Shiite Lebanese and forced them to flee to other parts of the country. A ceasefire was inked first in November last year although Israel never fully stopped bombing. Clashes broke out again in March after U.S. and Iran assassinated Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and Hezbollah attacked Israel, offering it an excuse it needed to keep the war going and a justification to hold the occupied territory.
The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are ill-equipped to push back against the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in the south. Residents there fear that UNIFIL's withdrawal could leave them vulnerable to a prolonged or even permanent Israeli presence.
UNIFIL's exit would also mean losing a neutral party and "the world's eyes and ears" in a region where misunderstandings can quickly escalate into armed conflict. Roughly 7,500 troops from 46 countries have monitored airspace violations and land incursions, offering a vital de-escalation liaison since the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war.
Moreover, UNIFIL troops have served as a lifeline for people in Lebanese villages who refused to leave their homes after the Israelis arrived and established their “security zone.” For instance, UN troops navigate Israeli checkpoints to deliver humanitarian aid, medicine, and food convoys to the residents of a Christian town called Rmeich. Their departure could halt the delivery of supplies and sever the link between these villages and the rest of the country.
Considering the circumstances, an extension of six months to a year appears to be a reasonable ask.
But Israel is preoccupied with disarming Hezbollah and seemingly unconcerned about Lebanon’s internal political dynamics. It has long derided UNIFIL as ineffective and has been waiting for it to leave. It got its wish last year, when, under U.S. pressure, the UN Security Council extended UNIFIL's mandate only until the end of this year.
Since it was created in 1978 after the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon, UNIFIL has always been an irritant for Israel. It was reinforced after the 2006 war under UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for the area between the Blue Line — the de facto Israel-Lebanon border — and the Litani River to be completely demilitarized apart from deployments there by the LAF and UNIFIL.
Israel, which was supposed to withdraw its forces from the area as the LAF and UNIFIL deployed there insists that the peacekeepers never fully enforced the resolution, while UNIFIL argues it was never tasked with forcibly disarming Hezbollah.
This has been a source of major tension between Israel and the UN, and, by extension, with Lebanon. Now, Israel wants a force empowered to disarm Hezbollah, militarily if necessary, and prefers a U.S.-led mechanism to carry that out.
A problem with that plan, however, lies in Washington’s unwillingness to deploy its own troops. Europeans, on the other hand, are willing to provide troops, as they have in the past, but prefer to deploy them under a UN mandate. However, if Israel manages to convince Washington to keep the UN out – which Washington can do by virtue of its veto power on the Security Council – the Europeans will likely resort to a “coalition of the willing” model – mustering a group of countries willing to deploy troops and aid the LAF on a multilateral basis.
Several European countries have already established an Italian-led technical military support group to aid the LAF and enhance its capacity. The European Union (EU) has said that more than 10 countries are ready to contribute troops to a post-UNIFIL international force.
The UN itself has tabled three options with varying numbers of uniformed soldiers constituting the actual force who would also be accompanied by armed soldiers for force protection. It has also listed requirements for monitoring equipment such as radars, helicopters, and satellite imagery. The proposal calls for a deployment that ranges from 2000 to 5000 troops, depending on the plan.
Under the first option, UN troops could potentially conduct joint operations with the LAF even north of the Litani River, closer to Beirut. The second option proposes "some" joint operational activities with the LAF, only south of the Litani, although it also offers verification of any violations of UNSCR Resolution 1701 north of the river "on a limited basis." The third would have more limited means, and limited capacity to coordinate between the IDF and the LAF.
The key question, however, remains unanswered: What kind of joint operations are European nations willing to carry out alongside the LAF?
Israel does not trust the LAF’s willingness or ability to disarm Hezbollah and wants an international force capable of carrying out a door-to-door search and seizure of Hezbollah's weapons. That is a risky undertaking for any international forces, however.
EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas said the objective of such a force is to "strengthen the Lebanese armed forces and the ability of the Lebanese state to provide security across its territory." That presumably covers less dangerous tasks, such as training and providing key equipment.
There is no clarity on what an international post-UNIFIL force would eventually look like. But several plans could potentially merge: the U.S. could join a UN-led mission composed of European forces. Israel hopes that Washington will at least provide its state-of-the-art satellite surveillance systems to ensure Hezbollah’s adherence to UNSCR 1701. And it demands that any post-UNIFIL force operate with a much stronger mandate and more teeth than either the EU or the UN have so far proposed.
But the kind of force Israel wants – one that will go door to door to disarm Hezbollah – is a nightmare for the Lebanese government which is worried. A large number of Shiites in the country support Hezbollah. Any such force may have to confront Hezbollah’s supporters and that may lead to civilian casualties, even a civil war. Moreover, Shiites are a part of the LAF, a coercive disarmament could lead to mutiny.
And if Israel’s plan is to occupy southern Lebanon indefinitely, as some top Israeli officials have suggested , Tel Aviv risks strengthening Hezbollah and its calls for resistance, while weakening the state authorities. Improving ties with Beirut is Tel Aviv's best shot at achieving a mutually acceptable arrangement that ushers in a functioning peace.
Disarming Hezbollah is not solely a military endeavor; it will require a painstaking intra-Lebanese political process that eases concerns among the Shiites about their standing in a deeply sectarian society. Regional actors, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, will also want a say. And the elephant in the room will have to be addressed at some point. Iran will not just walk away and abandon Hezbollah, an ally, especially not when it appears to be winning the war started by the US and Israel.
Israel wants US-led force to disarm Lebanon's Hezbollah
Aggregated summary from an independent source. Read the original at ResponsibleStatecraft.