As clock ticks, Lebanon faces pressure over UNIFIL and Hezbollah's weapons — the details

Report by Bassam Abou Zeid, English adaptation by Laetithia Harb

Negotiations over the renewal of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) have officially begun in New York ahead of the mandate’s expiration in August, with Lebanon’s delayed official position now under review.

Diplomatic sources say the talks are being shaped by differing perspectives between France, the mandate’s penholder, and the United States, UNIFIL’s largest financial contributor.

While both nations support the mission, their approaches reflect broader geopolitical concerns.

According to American officials, Washington views UNIFIL’s future as directly tied to the issue of Hezbollah’s weaponry. The topic is currently under active discussion with Israeli counterparts.

France, meanwhile, appears less concerned about whether the mandate is renewed or significantly altered, but remains focused on preserving the mission’s operational capacity.

French officials are particularly wary of potential amendments that would restrict UNIFIL’s freedom of movement and its coordination with the Lebanese Armed Forces.

They are also reportedly concerned about possible U.S. budget cuts that could reduce the force’s personnel and impact its effectiveness on the ground.

The discussions extend beyond UNIFIL. Lebanon is also preparing its official response to the "step-by-step" roadmap being pushed by Washington, which includes proposals on Hezbollah’s disarmament. That response is expected to be delivered to U.S. envoy Tom Barrack, who arrives in Beirut on Monday.

The roadmap, along with the UNIFIL renewal and domestic reforms, were central to recent discussions held at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut by members of the Quintet Committee.

A Saudi envoy reportedly emphasized during meetings with Lebanese officials that reforms and the exclusive control of arms by the state are essential components of any path forward.

Lebanon’s response to the weapons issue is nearly finalized and awaits Hezbollah’s reply. The group has so far rejected disarmament, with senior officials insisting they are unwilling to hand over their weapons.

Nevertheless, the Lebanese government has communicated a three-point position to Hezbollah: that decisions on war and peace must rest solely with the state; that Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, an end to attacks, and detainee releases must precede any progress; and that the issue of Hezbollah’s arms must be resolved domestically.

In addition, Beirut is requesting binding American guarantees that Israel will uphold its end of any future agreement.

Whether the U.S. will accept Lebanon’s position remains unclear.

U.S. sources have stated that Washington expects Hezbollah to be identified as a militia and for Lebanon to commit to a disarmament timeline.

The sources added that any guarantees sought by Lebanon will depend on the seriousness with which it fulfills its commitments—an issue currently under discussion between Washington and Tel Aviv.

With the renewal deadline approaching, observers say the window for Lebanon to act is narrowing. Failure to deliver concrete results could deepen internal instability—or, some warn, provide justification for further Israeli military action.