The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) is seen by many as an essential peacekeeping buffer between Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah. But Israeli pressure, US doubts over Unifil’s cost-effectiveness and the fragile state of Lebanon’s politics means there is a risk that instead of being renewed on August 31 the mission could be ended. The stakes are high: an abrupt withdrawal could create a dangerous security vacuum along the Israeli-Lebanese border and this could have broader implications for stability in the Middle East.

The US is keen to reduce its financial commitments to UN peacekeeping, with Washington arguing that expensive and longstanding missions should be downsized or wound down to cut costs. This makes it more receptive to Israeli insistence that the mission has been ineffective in addressing the existential threat posed by Hezbollah.

But Unifil’s mandate has never been to directly disarm Hezbollah. Instead, the mission is tasked with creating and maintaining a space free of armed groups in southern Lebanon by supporting the Lebanese armed forces (LAF). Central to the Israeli narrative is the claim that Unifil failed to uncover Hezbollah’s tunnel network in south Lebanon. This criticism obscures the fact that Israeli intelligence also overlooked the same tunnels for more than a decade — despite the fact that they crossed into Israeli territory.

As part of the agreements it made after the war in 2024, Lebanon has made concrete attempts to confront the military dominance of Hezbollah in the region. The LAF has expanded its deployment in the south, dismantled Hezbollah fortifications, and begun consolidating weapons under state control.

In August 2025, the Lebanese cabinet instructed the LAF to devise a national plan aimed at ensuring a state monopoly on the use of armed force. This step has sparked fierce resistance from Hezbollah and its political allies, underscoring the risks involved in challenging the group’s armed status.

The process remains precarious. Deadly incidents, such as an explosion that killed six LAF troops removing weapons from a Hezbollah arms depot on August 9, highlight how volatile the disarmament effort is. Still, these steps mark the most serious attempt in years by Beirut to assert control over Hezbollah’s armed status. It’s a development that makes Unifil’s continued presence even more significant as a stabilising buffer while this process plays out.

Security Council wrangling

Despite these positive moves, wrangling continues at the UN headquarters in New York. The security council vote scheduled for Monday has been postponed, even though the mission’s mandate expires on August 31, adding urgency to the negotiations.

Fourteen of the 15 security council members are agreed on the need to renew Unifil’s mandate, with the US the only holdout. France, as the security council penholder for the Unifil mandate – the country which will write up the decision – has successively proposed a variety of options that might be palatable to the US, but divisions in Washington remain. Some officials, such as the US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, acknowledge Unifil’s importance, but the US has yet to agree to vote for a mandate renewal that extends beyond a year.

A recent draft resolution proposed a strategic review by March 2026 to assess the conditions for Unifil’s withdrawal. This called for Unifil to pull out no later than August 31, 2026. But currently the US is unwilling to link any withdrawal timeline to conditions on the ground and is insisting on a firm endpoint.

Israel’s political manoeuvring

Israel’s posture toward Unifil reflects a longstanding strategy of delegitimising the mission. During the 2024 war, the Israel Defense Forces obstructed peacekeepers’ attempts to rescue civilians and even targeted Unifil positions. Despite the November 27 ceasefire, Israel continues to occupy five positions inside Lebanese territory and is reinforcing them in direct violation of the agreement.

Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, recently commended the Lebanese government’s steps to disarm Hezbollah. He also promised that Israel would reciprocate by gradually reducing its presence in south Lebanon. It’s a statement that appears conciliatory – yet, by praising Lebanese efforts, Netanyahu risks casting the Lebanese government and LAF as collaborators, which would inflame political tensions inside Lebanon.

At the same time, the gesture functions as a diplomatic sleight of hand, giving Washington cover in the security council debates. It gives an impression that Israel is open to conciliation and compromise, while in reality reinforcing Israel’s determination for Unifil’s mission to be curtailed.

Israel’s persistent efforts to weaken Unifil are part of its current doctrine of privileging military solutions over diplomacy and political negotiation in south Lebanon. By predominantly using force against Hezbollah, Israel has generated retaliation. These flare-ups are then used as evidence by Israel that it is under constant threat and must act in self-defence. In this way, military action produces the very instability that is then invoked to justify further escalation. It’s a cycle of chaos that sidelines diplomacy, privileges military action and perpetuates conflict.

Why Unifil still matters

Amid these political manoeuvres, one core issue remains: Unifil remains crucial to regional stability. Dismantling the peacekeeping force now would strip away one of the last stabilising buffers in an increasingly fragile region. The mission provides an international spotlight on south Lebanon. Its presence, while imperfect, has prevented numerous flare-ups from spiralling into war.

Lebanon’s army remains weak. So a sudden Unifil withdrawal would create multiple risks – including the possibility of a surge in Hezbollah activity in the south. This increases the prospect of another direct conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, and another Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Vanessa Newby, Monash University and Chiara Ruffa, Sciences Po

Read more:

Chiara Ruffa receives funding from the Swedish Research Council, the Fulbright Commission and the European Commission

Vanessa Newby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.