A crisis is looming for UNIFIL ahead of a UN Security Council vote to renew its mandate, with the mission under pressure from Israel and the US
In early June, unconfirmed Israeli media reports said that Israel was supporting an alleged move by the United States to halt operations of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), raising tensions ahead of an expected UN Security Council vote to renew its mandate by 31 August.
While the US State Department dismissed the reports as “not accurate” and a UNIFIL spokesperson called them “rumours”, the potential end of UNIFIL’s mandate in southern Lebanon has put the mission in a state of uncertainty, raising concerns about its future.
This comes at a time when UNIFIL is playing a key role in maintaining a fragile ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel following the war with Hezbollah, which is linked to the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
With global attention increasingly turning to the unprecedented military escalation between Israel and Iran, the potential withdrawal of an international mechanism like UNIFIL risks leaving a dangerous vacuum in southern Lebanon amid growing uncertainty.
Lebanese officials seized on the opportunity to clarify their position on UNIFIL’s presence last week following an incident during a patrol near the village of Bedias in the Tyre district, where a man slapped a UN peacekeeper during confrontations with locals.
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam condemned the incident and reaffirmed the country’s commitment to renewing UNIFIL’s mandate. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said that Lebanon wants to preserve UNIFIL’s role despite growing tensions between locals and peacekeepers in the force’s operational areas.
Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad, meanwhile, who met with French presidential envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian, emphasised the party’s support for the Lebanese government’s position on extending UNIFIL’s mandate.
Despite Lebanon’s commitment to UNIFIL, the mission’s future largely depends on the United States, which holds veto power as a permanent member of the UN Security Council that could end the force’s 47-year presence in Lebanon, potentially increasing tensions along the southern Lebanon border.
UNIFIL’s presence comes at a crucial moment for the country. Since the end of the war between Israel and Hezbollah in November, which resulted in over 4,000 people killed by Israeli strikes, the ceasefire brokered by the US and France remains fragile.
Israel continues to conduct strikes across Lebanon, including in Beirut, citing attacks on Hezbollah’s arsenal and members. Lebanese authorities have recorded about 3,500 violations and 172 deaths since the ceasefire began. Israel has also occupied five strategic points along the border.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah, which has ceased attacks on Israel, is urging the Lebanese government to take action against Israel’s violations. The Lebanese Army is gradually reopening the war-torn southern region while also dismantling more than 500 military positions south of the Litani River, in line with the ceasefire agreement.
In these efforts, UNIFIL’s presence is seen as crucial to preventing further escalation along the border and coordinating support with the Lebanese Army. However, Israel’s distrust of the mission may now jeopardise its future presence.
David Wood, senior analyst for Lebanon at the International Crisis Group, told The New Arab that reports of a possible agreement to dismiss or defund UNIFIL might be part of a negotiating strategy to pressure Lebanon and other Security Council members to accept amendments to UNIFIL’s mandate favoured by the US and Israel, or to influence ongoing negotiations more broadly.
“Israel would likely prefer working with the monitoring committee from the November ceasefire over UNIFIL,” he said. “But for Lebanon, especially in the south, UNIFIL helps maintain stability and has been more willing to push back against Israeli military actions. Losing it would mean losing a valuable shield of international protection.”
Washington has not officially stated its position on UNIFIL’s future, but Reuters reported in April that the White House proposed cutting funding for UN peacekeeping missions, including UNIFIL.
The US, which funds 27% of the peacekeeping budget, could effectively shut down UNIFIL if it cuts support, according to Cedric de Coning of the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs, who told TNA this reflects Washington’s broader push to reduce UN spending, potentially leading to a mandate termination or major downsizing.
“The US administration is motivated by a lack of interest in multilateral solutions and prefers bilateral deals between countries. Congress is also discussing reductions,” he said. “While we don’t know the exact cuts yet, we expect significant cuts.”
Established by the UN Security Council in 1978 after Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon, UNIFIL’s original mandate was to confirm Israeli withdrawal, restore peace, and assist the Lebanese government.
In 2000, the UN drew the Blue Line to mark Israel’s withdrawal after 18 years of occupation, with UNIFIL helping reduce the risk of escalation. After the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, Resolution 1701 expanded UNIFIL’s role and troop levels to monitor the ceasefire, support the Lebanese Army, and facilitate humanitarian access.
Despite tensions, UNIFIL continues as a buffer force with over 10,000 peacekeepers from 47 countries deployed between the Litani River and the Lebanon-Israel border.
Vanessa Newby, senior lecturer at Monash University in Melbourne, who has researched UNIFIL’s activities, told TNA that while UNIFIL’s mandate remains relevant, its effectiveness is debated, particularly over whether it should use force to remove Hezbollah’s arsenal from south of the Litani River.
While critics see its restraint as a weakness, Newby argues that force would be counterproductive given Lebanon’s unique context.
“UNIFIL has prioritised building community relationships over force, helping stabilise the region since 2006. However, its credibility suffered after Israel’s 2024 invasion, which led some civilians to view it as ineffective,” she said.
“Despite this, UNIFIL still plays a crucial role by delivering aid, deterring violations, and maintaining international oversight. A withdrawal could embolden both armed groups and Israel to increase conflict risks and overwhelm a Lebanese government currently unable to secure the area.”
UNIFIL has often found itself caught in the crossfire between Israel and Hezbollah, especially during last year’s conflict. Over the years, it has also faced attacks from residents.
In February, a UNIFIL convoy near Beirut airport was assaulted, and another was set on fire. In May, a patrol was attacked by civilians wielding metal rods and axes. In 2022, Irish peacekeeper Seán Rooney was shot and killed when his vehicle was surrounded by a hostile crowd.
Despite tensions and internal political divisions over UNIFIL’s room for manoeuvre, Imad Salamey, a political science professor at Lebanese American University, told TNA there is near-universal agreement across Lebanon’s political spectrum, including Hezbollah, that UNIFIL’s withdrawal is undesirable due to its stabilising role.
“The debate isn’t about UNIFIL’s presence, but about the scope and intent of its mission,” he said.
While it is unclear whether negotiations over UNIFIL’s mandate will include pragmatic changes to improve efficiency, expand its authority, or maintain the current mandate, Israel would be the main beneficiary if UNIFIL were to withdraw, according to Wood, who explained that it has consistently opposed the force’s presence.
By contrast, civilians in southern Lebanon, who depend on UNIFIL as a buffer against Israeli military operations, would face the greatest losses.
“Political groups such as Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, whose support bases are concentrated in the south, would also be impacted because their constituents in the south would benefit much more from UNIFIL being present than it being absent,” he said.
“A sudden withdrawal would have broader negative consequences for Lebanon as a whole, increasing instability, hindering reconstruction, and discouraging investment.”
Salamey said a US veto of UNIFIL’s renewal is unlikely, as neither Washington nor Israel truly wants its exit. Instead, Israel is raising pressure to limit Hezbollah’s influence by pushing for a broader mandate that allows UNIFIL greater freedom of movement without prior coordination.
“A complete withdrawal of UNIFIL would be a lose-lose outcome,” he said. “Hezbollah would become more exposed to Israeli strikes, potentially prompting preemptive or retaliatory escalations. On the other side, Israel would shoulder greater security burdens, heightening the risk of a prolonged confrontation and deepening regional instability. UNIFIL currently acts as a buffer; its absence would remove an essential conflict-containment mechanism.”
A UNIFIL withdrawal could create a security vacuum that the Lebanese Army may not be yet prepared to fill, making France’s role at the UN Security Council critical.
As a key backer of the mission, France is expected to support a stronger but non-provocative mandate, according to Salamey.
“Paris is more invested in preserving consensus among Lebanese factions and would likely advocate a balanced approach: reinforcing UNIFIL’s coordination with the Lebanese Army while avoiding unilateral actions that could escalate tensions.”