The international presence in southern Lebanon has entered a countdown phase, as United Nations peacekeeping forces (UNIFIL) begin reducing their troop levels. A quarter of the force has been withdrawn in one lump sum move, according to UNIFIL spokesperson Candice Arbel, in an interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestia.
The drawdown is set to continue gradually in implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2790, which extended UNIFIL’s mandate for a final time until Dec. 31, 2026. Under the resolution, troop reductions and withdrawal are to begin on that date and proceed in an orderly and secure manner over the course of one year.
The development marks a notable shift in the international community’s approach to the security file along the Lebanese-Israeli border, and opens a wide debate over the future of stability in southern Lebanon—particularly regarding potential alternatives for monitoring the Blue Line separating Lebanon and Israel, and the Lebanese army’s ability to fill any resulting security vacuum once the international force completes its withdrawal.
Questions Over the Mission’s Effectiveness
In recent years, UNIFIL has faced growing Israeli criticism and accusations of failing to control the border or curb Hezbollah’s activity south of the Litani River. Those criticisms are rooted in UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which restricts armed presence south of the Litani to the Lebanese army and UNIFIL.
Despite this, Hezbollah has succeeded in building an advanced military arsenal, including tunnel networks and weapons depots—some of them located near UNIFIL positions—raising questions about the force’s ability to detect and prevent violations.
In this context, Charles Jabbour, head of media for the Lebanese Forces party, told Alhurra that “UNIFIL has not fulfilled its role since 2006,” the year Resolution 1701 was adopted. He argued that Hezbollah has since built “what amounts to an underground Iranian republic in southern Lebanon, in clear violation of the international resolution,” asking, “Where was UNIFIL all those years?”
During the most recent war between Hezbollah and Israel, UNIFIL limited its role to documenting violations and monitoring developments on the ground, without the ability to influence the course of escalation—an approach some observers viewed as inadequate given the scope of its international mandate.
On Oct. 13, 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on UN Secretary-General António Guterres to withdraw UNIFIL forces, arguing that their continued presence constituted a “human shield” for Hezbollah fighters. He warned that keeping the force in place “turns it into hostages and endangers the lives of both peacekeepers and Israeli soldiers.”
Israel has also expressed concerns that UNIFIL’s authority to monitor Israeli military movements could be exploited to leak sensitive information to Hezbollah, according to Israeli army radio on Nov. 30.
In this context, retired Brig. Gen. Naji Malaeb, a strategic expert, told Alhurra that Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir ordered the collection of around 700 Chinese-made vehicles owned by Israeli officers, citing fears over advanced embedded technology and the potential leakage of sensitive data related to locations, audio and imagery inside military bases.
Unspoken Rejection
At the same time, UNIFIL patrols have repeatedly been obstructed by residents of some southern villages. Tensions peaked in 2022, when two UNIFIL armored vehicles came under fire, killing an Irish peacekeeper and wounding others.
The attacks have not been confined to the south. In February, a UNIFIL convoy was attacked near Beirut’s Rafik Hariri International Airport, injuring several peacekeepers.
Observers argue that these incidents do not reflect spontaneous popular rejection, but rather an organized tactic aimed at restricting UNIFIL’s freedom of movement and weakening its ability to carry out its mandate.
Jabbour says Hezbollah’s opposition to UNIFIL stems from its efforts to pressure the force and prevent it from performing its duties—particularly those related to preventing the presence of weapons outside the framework of Lebanese state authority and international resolutions.
Journalist and writer Majd Bou Majed told Alhurra that “it is clear Hezbollah is uncomfortable with UNIFIL because it can obstruct attempts to reassert control over areas where its influence has diminished in southern Lebanon.” He added that “the presence of an international force south of the Litani also irritates Iran, which remains determined to keep Hezbollah armed.” As for Israel, he said, it seeks to limit UNIFIL’s ability to produce changes that could further reduce Hezbollah’s influence on Lebanese territory.
Political researcher Nidal Saba pointed out that neither Israel nor Hezbollah has “a genuine interest in the continued presence of the international force.” Israel, he said, does not want an international body documenting its violations, while Hezbollah accuses UNIFIL, on the other hand, of providing Israel with intelligence on suspected weapons sites.
By contrast, Saba said, Lebanon’s national interest lies in maintaining UNIFIL as an international guarantee—a position expressed by the country’s three top leaders.
The End of the Mission
From the U.S. side, Washington adopted a position aligned with Israel’s argument, viewing UNIFIL as a financial burden that has failed to deliver tangible results, while delaying efforts to reduce Hezbollah’s influence and extend full control by the Lebanese armed forces. That approach translated into reduced U.S. funding for the mission, paving the way for the decision to terminate its mandate.
In response, the UN Security Council voted unanimously on Aug. 28 to end UNIFIL’s mission at the close of 2026, nearly five decades after its deployment in southern Lebanon.
Israel welcomed the decision, with its UN ambassador Danny Danon describing the end of the mission as “good news.” Several European countries, particularly France and Italy, opposed a rapid withdrawal, warning that ending the mission before the Lebanese army is capable of fully controlling the border could create a dangerous security vacuum that Hezbollah would exploit.
UNIFIL was first deployed in 1978 following Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426, which called for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanese territory. After Israel’s withdrawal in 2000, the United Nations delineated the Blue Line—roughly 120 kilometers long—which UNIFIL has been tasked with monitoring.
Following the July 2006 war, Resolution 1701 expanded UNIFIL’s mandate to include monitoring the cessation of hostilities and assisting the Lebanese army in establishing a weapons-free zone between the Blue Line and the Litani River, and taking necessary measures to prevent its area of operations from being used for hostile activities.
According to UN data, UNIFIL’s strength stood at 9,923 troops as of Nov. 20, 2025, down from about 10,800 previously.
Future Scenarios
As UNIFIL’s withdrawal begins, concerns are mounting over a potential security vacuum in southern Lebanon. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti has stressed the continued need for the mission, warning that its absence would create “a real vacuum in regional stability.”
Bou Majed said that “it is impossible to preserve what remains of stability in southern Lebanon without an international presence like UNIFIL, or without international political sponsorship of relations between Lebanon and Israel.”
He added that progress could be achieved if Lebanon and Israel formed a political committee for direct negotiations. “The mechanism committee overseeing the implementation of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon lacks the capacity to resolve diplomatic and geopolitical issues,” he said, despite the Lebanese delegation now being headed by a civilian envoy.
During a meeting with a UN Security Council delegation earlier this month, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam stressed the need to maintain some form of UN presence after UNIFIL’s mandate expires. He proposed operating under the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), or establishing a limited force similar to UNDOF in the Golan Heights. President Joseph Aoun also expressed Lebanon’s readiness to cooperate with any country willing to maintain forces, or part of them, in the south to support the Lebanese army and strengthen its capabilities.
Bou Majed argued that Lebanon “will continue to need what UNIFIL currently provides,” and may require its mandate for more than a year if ongoing negotiations with Israel fail.
Malaeb, however, believes there is “no real need for international forces,” arguing that the Lebanese army is capable of assuming UNIFIL’s responsibilities and protecting the south and the border—provided it receives adequate resources and logistical support, particularly within a broader strategy to end weapons outside state institutions.
Jabbour, for his part, said it is too early to discuss alternatives to UNIFIL, suggesting that 2026 could bring major regional developments. He emphasized that “true stability can only be achieved by extending full Lebanese state authority over all its territory and preventing any non-state actors from using it as a platform to serve internal or regional agendas.”
