Washington: The future of UN peacekeepers in Lebanon has become a major point of contention between the United States and its European allies, raising concerns for regional security in the Middle East and adding tension to transatlantic relations. The dispute centres on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), whose mandate expires at the end of August and requires renewal by the UN Security Council to continue operations.
UNIFIL was established to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon following Israel’s 1978 invasion, and its role was later expanded after the month-long 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. The multinational force has monitored southern Lebanon’s security for decades, including during last year’s conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, but it has faced criticism from multiple sides, including US lawmakers who now hold key positions in President Donald Trump’s administration.
Trump administration political appointees have sought to terminate UNIFIL, viewing it as an ineffective use of resources that delays the elimination of Hezbollah’s influence and the full restoration of security control to the Lebanese Armed Forces, which the government says is not yet capable. After securing significant cuts in US funding, Secretary of State Marco Rubio approved a plan to wind down UNIFIL within six months. This move reflects the Trump administration’s broader approach of scaling back foreign affairs priorities, questioning international alliances, and cutting funding to UN missions.
European nations, notably France and Italy, have pushed back against a rapid withdrawal, arguing that ending UNIFIL prematurely could create a security vacuum that Hezbollah could exploit. They successfully lobbied for a one-year extension of the mandate, followed by a six-month wind-down period. Israel also reluctantly agreed to the extension. European officials cited past experiences, such as the early termination of a UN mission in Mali, which allowed Islamic extremists to gain ground, as a warning against ending peacekeeping operations too soon.
The French draft resolution, obtained by the Associated Press, proposes a one-year extension without a specific withdrawal date, indicating the UN Security Council’s intention to work toward a future exit. Even with renewal, UNIFIL could be scaled down due to budget constraints, though technological enhancements may be used to bolster monitoring.
UNIFIL currently deploys about 10,000 peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, while the Lebanese army has roughly 6,000 soldiers, expected to rise to 10,000. The mission has faced criticism from Hezbollah supporters, who accuse it of collusion with Israel, and from Israel, which has accused UNIFIL of ignoring Hezbollah’s military activities. Sarit Zehavi, a former Israeli military intelligence analyst, said UNIFIL has hindered efforts to disarm Hezbollah, pointing to the discovery of tunnels and weapons caches near UNIFIL facilities during last year’s conflict. UNIFIL continues to report unauthorised weapons, including rocket launchers and mortars, to the Lebanese army.
Under the US- and France-brokered ceasefire, Israel and Hezbollah were to withdraw from southern Lebanon, leaving the Lebanese army in conjunction with UNIFIL to maintain security. Israel continues to occupy five strategic positions on the Lebanese side and conducts near-daily airstrikes, claiming they prevent Hezbollah from regrouping.
Lebanese officials have advocated for UNIFIL’s continued presence, arguing that the army is currently overstretched and cash-strapped. Retired Lebanese Army General Khalil Helou warned that an abrupt end could require redeploying troops away from the porous Syrian border or other areas, potentially destabilising the country. He said, “UNIFIL may not fulfil 100 per cent of what Western powers or Israel desire, but for Lebanon, their presence is important.”
The United Nations has emphasised that the peacekeepers are critical to regional stability. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti noted that the renewal of the mandate is the prerogative of the UN Security Council, stating, “We are here to assist the parties in implementation of the mission’s mandate and we’re waiting for the final decision.”
With PTI inputs