UNIFIL's successor: Washington's vision meets Lebanon's red lines

Report by Nada Andraos, English adaptation by Yasmine Jaroudi

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Michael Waltz is expected to present several options for a force to replace the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) during his talks in Beirut. 

The proposals reportedly include a model based on the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in Sinai, as well as a civilian monitoring arrangement.

The Sinai model involves a multinational force operating independently of the United Nations to monitor military arrangements agreed upon by Egypt and Israel. Its responsibilities include verifying troop deployments and weapons, reporting violations and ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Tiran. UNIFIL, by contrast, operates under a U.N. mandate to assist the Lebanese army, implement Resolution 1701 and monitor the cessation of hostilities, while also having the authority to protect civilians within its capabilities.

However, replicating the Sinai model in Lebanon faces a fundamental obstacle: Egypt and Israel recognize each other and are bound by a peace treaty and diplomatic relations, whereas Israel remains an enemy state of Lebanon, continues to occupy Lebanese territory and carries out attacks against the country.

According to the information, Lebanon will listen to the proposals without giving prior approval to a joint force whose composition has yet to be determined. Questions remain over which countries would contribute military personnel, which would provide civilian participants, and who would ultimately make up the proposed force.

President Joseph Aoun's position remains that UNIFIL should stay in Lebanon to prevent a security vacuum in the south. Beirut is not seeking merely a civilian presence tasked with documenting violations, but a force with monitoring capabilities and clearly defined responsibilities. 

Key questions remain over the scope of those responsibilities, the authority to which the force would be accountable, and who would intervene when an attack occurs.

Lebanon continues to insist on the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and is backing the French proposal to maintain UNIFIL and ensure the resolution's implementation, alongside the framework agreement, in consideration of Washington's position.

If UNIFIL's continued presence proves impossible, Lebanon is interested in the French-Italian proposal for a European force open to participation by other countries, with U.N. approval rather than a U.N. mandate, and based on an understanding with Washington.

Nonetheless, the Americans have taken a firm stance against extending UNIFIL's presence, holding the force responsible for failing to prevent Hezbollah from developing its capabilities, building tunnels, expanding its weapons infrastructure and maintaining its deployment in southern Lebanon.

Washington, which is treating UNIFIL's continued presence as an option off the table, has yet to make clear whether it intends to negotiate with Lebanon over the composition and mandate of a replacement force or seek to impose one.

Informed sources say the lack of clear positions from both the United States and Israel, coupled with Iran raising the stakes regionally, is further complicating the situation. They also assess that Hezbollah is unlikely to make concessions unless Tehran does so first.