The United Nations Security Council is poised for a consequential vote on Thursday, August 28, 2025, that will determine the fate of the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, known as the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). After more than four decades of acting as a buffer between Israel and Lebanon, UNIFIL’s mandate—set to expire on August 31—faces its final extension, with the mission scheduled to wind down by December 31, 2026, and a complete withdrawal to follow within the subsequent year.
UNIFIL’s story is deeply entwined with the region’s turbulent history. Established in 1978 in response to Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon, the force has since expanded its role, especially after the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. Over the years, the mission has grown to include some 10,800 military and civilian personnel, patrolling the tense border region known as the Blue Line and working closely with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to maintain a fragile peace.
The Security Council’s latest deliberations come on the heels of a devastating 15-month conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, which finally ended in November 2024. The cessation of hostilities brought a tentative calm to the Blue Line, but also left the area’s future security arrangements in question. According to UN News, diplomats have been engaged in intense negotiations, with the United States and Israel pushing for a swift end to UNIFIL’s mission, while France, Italy, and other European nations have advocated for a more gradual transition.
The draft resolution now on the table, crafted by France, reflects a hard-fought compromise. It unequivocally sets December 31, 2026, as the end date for UNIFIL’s operational mandate. From that point, an “orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal” of all personnel and equipment will begin, to be completed within one year and in close consultation with the Lebanese government. The ultimate goal, as outlined in the resolution, is to make the Lebanese government “the sole provider of security” in southern Lebanon north of the Blue Line.
The United States, which previously demanded that the force be terminated within a year, has signaled it will not object to the 16-month timeline proposed by France. However, as Reuters and AFP report, it remains unclear whether the U.S. will vote in favor or simply abstain. The Trump administration had already slashed U.S. funding for UNIFIL, viewing the mission as a costly impediment to eliminating Hezbollah’s influence and restoring full Lebanese state control. In contrast, European members of the Council have warned that withdrawing the peacekeepers too quickly could create a dangerous security vacuum that Hezbollah or other armed groups might exploit.
UNIFIL’s role has not been without controversy. While it has been credited with helping to stabilize southern Lebanon and support local communities, it has also faced criticism from all sides. According to Andrea Tenenti, UNIFIL’s spokesperson, “Criticism goes with the job of any peacekeeping mission. In order to be impartial, staying in the middle and trying to assist the parties in the implementation of the mission’s mandate, you will be criticised by both sides.” Tenenti emphasized that some of the criticism stems from misunderstandings about UNIFIL’s actual mandate, noting, “Resolution 1701 does not call for UNIFIL to disarm Hezbollah. This is not our mandate. We are to support the Lebanese army to do it, and that’s what we are doing right now.”
Resolution 1701, adopted in 2006, remains a cornerstone of the mission. It calls for a complete end to hostilities, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory, and the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south. Yet, as Tenenti explained to UN News, “Right now, the Lebanese army don’t have the capacities and capabilities to be fully deployed. There is a financial crisis in the country, and they need capacity and capability support from UNIFIL, and the financial support of the international community to have a sustainable presence and to bring State authority to the south.”
Indeed, the challenges facing the LAF are substantial. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) positions remain inside southern Lebanon, in violation of Lebanese sovereignty and Security Council resolutions. The draft resolution before the Council explicitly calls on Israel to withdraw its forces north of the Blue Line, including from five positions held in Lebanese territory. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun recently warned that any curtailment of UNIFIL’s mandate “will negatively impact the situation in the south, which still suffers from Israeli occupation.”
Meanwhile, the recent truce that ended the Israel-Hezbollah conflict has seen the Lebanese army deploy more troops to the south and begin dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure, under pressure from Washington. The plan, according to Digital Journal, is for Hezbollah’s withdrawal from the border region to be complete by the end of 2025. The United States is also linking its support for a phased Israeli withdrawal to broader economic development initiatives in southern Lebanon, hoping to reduce Hezbollah’s reliance on Iranian funding and promote long-term stability.
But the road ahead is fraught with uncertainty. The financial crisis in Lebanon has undermined the army’s ability to assume full security responsibilities. Tenenti cautioned, “A lack of renewal would create a real vacuum for stability of the region. It would create a very dangerous precedent and situation for the stability of the country, and it would make impartial monitoring very difficult.” The draft resolution therefore urges the international community “to intensify its support, including equipment, material and finance” to the Lebanese armed forces.
During the one-year withdrawal period, UNIFIL will retain a limited mandate: it is authorized to provide security and assistance to UN personnel, maintain situational awareness around its locations, and contribute to the protection of civilians and safe delivery of humanitarian aid “within the limits of its capacities.” Yet, as the mission winds down, the responsibility for maintaining peace will shift ever more squarely onto the shoulders of the Lebanese state.
For some, the end of UNIFIL’s mission is long overdue. U.S. officials and some Israeli voices have argued that the force has outlived its usefulness, merely delaying the inevitable confrontation with Hezbollah and the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty. Others, especially in Europe and Lebanon, see the peacekeepers as a vital stabilizing presence, whose premature departure could trigger renewed violence.
As the Security Council prepares to cast its votes, the stakes for Lebanon and the wider region could hardly be higher. The coming months will test whether Lebanese institutions—and the fragile calm along the Blue Line—can withstand the pressures of transition. The world is watching, and for the people of southern Lebanon, the outcome may well shape their security for years to come.
With the countdown to UNIFIL’s exit now set, the region stands at a crossroads, facing both the promise of greater sovereignty and the perils of renewed instability.
