As the end of August 2025 approaches, the fate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) stands at the heart of a heated diplomatic standoff, with France, the United States, Israel, and Lebanon all vying to shape the future of the mission that has patrolled the volatile Lebanese-Israeli border for nearly five decades.
On August 19, the United Nations Security Council began deliberating a French-drafted resolution to extend UNIFIL’s mandate for another year, until August 31, 2026. The move comes amidst growing tensions: Israel is pushing for UNIFIL’s withdrawal, the United States is leaning closer to Israel’s position, while France and its European allies insist that the force remains essential for regional stability. According to Reuters, the draft resolution also signals the Council’s intention to work on a phased withdrawal of UNIFIL, but only if the Lebanese government can fully control its territory and all parties agree on a comprehensive political arrangement.
UNIFIL, first deployed in 1978 and expanded after the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, currently fields around 10,000 international troops. Its mission: to act as a buffer along Israel’s northern border, support the Lebanese army, and monitor compliance with Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for the disarmament of all armed groups in southern Lebanon except the Lebanese army.
The debate over the mission’s future has become a flashpoint between Washington and its European partners. As RFI reports, the Trump administration has made no secret of its desire to curtail the operation, echoing longstanding Israeli frustrations. Senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have described UNIFIL as an “expensive failure” that has done little to weaken Hezbollah’s grip in the south. Rubio has endorsed a plan to wind down the mission over six months, as part of a broader retreat from multilateral commitments and UN spending.
Israel’s position has been equally clear. According to Israel Hayom, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar recently told Secretary Rubio that Israel wants UNIFIL’s operations terminated. Sa’ar criticized the mission’s 47-year presence as “ineffective,” claiming it failed to enforce UN resolutions—especially the disarmament of Hezbollah after the 2006 war. Israel has proposed a six- to twelve-month extension to organize an orderly withdrawal, after which the mission would cease. During this interim period, Israel argues, the Lebanese army could take over security responsibilities in the south, while UNIFIL would focus on clearing mines and training forces for its departure.
Yet, for France and its European allies, the prospect of a rapid UNIFIL withdrawal is fraught with risk. France, backed by Italy and Britain, has mounted a determined diplomatic campaign to keep the mission alive, warning that a premature pullout could create a dangerous security vacuum. Drawing on the example of Mali—where a rushed UN withdrawal left government forces overstretched and paved the way for extremist groups to expand—French diplomats argue that southern Lebanon could face similar instability. As one French official, speaking anonymously, put it: “If you leave too soon, others will rush to fill the space—and not the kind of actors anyone wants.”
After a week of intense negotiations, France and its allies managed to secure a provisional U.S. agreement to a one-year extension of UNIFIL’s mandate. Israel, though long hostile to the peacekeepers, reluctantly accepted the compromise. The French draft resolution, now before the Security Council, deliberately avoids setting a fixed withdrawal date. Instead, it extends the mandate for a year while signaling the Council’s “intention to work on a withdrawal.”
Lebanon, for its part, is adamant that UNIFIL’s presence remains indispensable. President Joseph Aoun reiterated on August 19 that “Lebanon remains committed to the continued presence of international forces in the south for as long as needed to implement Resolution 1701 and to complete army deployment to the border.” Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri echoed this stance, telling Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that “most Security Council members support an extension, but we await the US position.” Mitri pointed out that Washington had previously cut 25% of the mission’s funding, raising concerns about future support.
Beirut is requesting a one-year renewal with the same mandate, though new responsibilities were added last November linked to security arrangements and the ceasefire agreement with Israel. Under the truce that ended the recent war between Israel and Lebanon—a conflict that escalated in September and October 2024 and ended with a ceasefire on November 26—Hezbollah was mandated to withdraw north of the Litani River, and 5,000 Lebanese troops were deployed to the south. However, Israeli forces have retained five positions in southern Lebanon beyond the agreement’s timeframe and continue military activities, including a drone strike on August 18 that injured four Syrians.
Lebanon’s government is wary of any rapid pullback. With only 6,000 troops currently deployed in the south, Beirut says it needs time and resources to scale up to the planned 10,000. Retired general Khalil Helou warned that without UNIFIL, the army would have to divert soldiers from the Syrian border or other critical posts, risking wider instability. “For Lebanon, their presence is important,” Helou emphasized.
Meanwhile, UN officials continue to champion the mission’s contributions. UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric underlined UNIFIL’s “crucial role” during a press briefing, telling Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that the mission is vital for monitoring and reporting, as well as for implementing Security Council Resolution 1701. “UNIFIL has always represented stability along the Blue Line,” Dujarric said, noting the force’s ongoing support to the Lebanese army in clearing unauthorized weapons caches and infrastructure, and in training soldiers in tactical communications. He added that UNIFIL also monitors Israeli military activities in its area of operations.
On the diplomatic front, US envoys Thomas Barrack and Morgan Ortagus arrived in Beirut on August 18 for high-level talks with Lebanese leaders. Their discussions focused on UNIFIL’s future and the US proposal for resolving ongoing Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement. Barrack noted that “progress was expected soon,” highlighting Lebanon’s recent actions and emphasizing that it was now “Israel’s turn to respond.” He called on Israel to fully honor its ceasefire commitments, including withdrawal from the five Lebanese border points it still occupies, and praised Beirut’s steps to disarm Hezbollah.
Russia, too, has weighed in. Deputy Ambassador Dmitry Polyanskiy signaled Moscow’s strong support for renewing the mission, stating, “We back our Lebanese brothers and sisters, and we take into account, first and foremost, what they want from the mission. We believe it plays an extremely important role and should be preserved, perhaps adapted to certain interests. But above all, the interests of the Lebanese host state must be respected.”
Financial constraints may yet force adjustments to the mission. With UN budgets under strain, diplomats acknowledge that troop numbers could be reduced, offset by greater use of surveillance technology. Nevertheless, as the Security Council prepares to vote on August 25, the stakes remain high: for Lebanon’s fragile stability, for Israel’s security, and for the credibility of international peacekeeping itself.
Whatever the outcome of the vote, the next year will be decisive for UNIFIL and the region it has sought—sometimes imperfectly, but always at great risk—to keep at peace.
