Nearly Five Decades Later: U.S., Israel Shape Lebanon’s New Security Realities
When the United Nations voted to end its almost fifty year peacekeeping operation in Lebanon, it marked a turning point in Middle East diplomacy. The last matured extension of the mandate of UNIFIL in Resolution 2790 will come to an end in 2026. A complete withdrawal would be completed by 2027. It is not merely an administrative measure, but is re-establishing the security framework of southern Lebanon, or the zone of the Blue Line, where there has been repeated war between Israel and Hezbollah.
The end of the mission is met by increasing lack of satisfaction by both the United States and Israel who believe that UNIFIL has failed to prevent the military buildup of Hezbollah. This departure is then being framed as the transition to ineffectiveness, as the proposed change in the regional security functions with a new emphasis on whether Lebanon can patrol its southern border.
UNIFIL’s evolving legacy and final mandate
The main goals of UNIFIL’s establishment in 1978 were to monitor Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and to bring peace and security back to the nation. Following the Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006, its mission was greatly enhanced turning it into a large multinational organization. Having a workforce exceeding 10000 employees of over forty-five nationalities, UNIFIL was now symbolic of the international determination to handle the Lebanese/ Israeli tensions.
Criticism of the mission grew stronger over the past few years, even though attempts were made to avoid the recurrence of conflict. Officials in Israel were constantly complaining about the lack of mandate and incapacity by UNIFIL to break up the operations of Hezbollah in the South. The US raised these reservations and asked the Security Council to include a two-year extension clause in the 2025 resolution under a mission termination deadline.
Reduced credibility amid regional developments
The perceived neutrality of UNIFIL was further compromised especially as Hezbollah was able to operate with ever greater sophistication and fire power. Critics point out that the force has not been able to carry out its mandate as it has been limited by host-countries, and also due to the rise of the power of non-state actors. The mission pullout is even a greater shift of international peacekeeping in an age of competing sovereignty and multipolar relationship.
Lebanon’s armed forces face operational and political pressure
The Lebanese government has seen the withdrawal as a chance to exercise more power of sovereignty. Both President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have presented the transition as a national responsibility/stability challenge. However, the military of Lebanon remains weak due to dismal budget deficits, run-down infrastructure, and insufficient human resources and is aggravated by the fact that the country has persisted in a financial crisis.
Nonetheless, the LAF is likely to slowly seek to fill the gap left by the leaving army during the UN. Training and logistical support has been promised by Western governments, including the United States and some members of the EU. However, the plausibility of such a transition will rely on the ability of the Lebanese military to operate without Hezbollah presence in those regions that have been historically affected by or controlled by Hezbollah.
Political entanglements complicating command structure
The Lebanese Armed Forces work with a disintegrated political system. Part of the Lebanese parliament and society, Hezbollah retains a large presence in the southern part of Lebanon. This makes it difficult to disarm the group or limit its operations through any national effort. Although technically an independent entity, the LAF has to deal with pressure posed by Hezbollah to the one hand, and foreign forces such as the U.S. and Israel to the other.
This relationship brings uncertainty on the part of the military. Unless the Lebanese government devises a viable formula to reconcile all these internal contradictions, analysts feel that the pullout of the peacekeepers will not help lower security instability in Lebanon but instead increase the same.
U.S. and Israeli strategies reshape regional priorities
The US was the first security council champion to terminate the UNIFIL mandate on the basis of inefficiency and strategic realignment. The decision was described by acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea as a historic moment in which Lebanon was required to own its internal security. Future aid, American policymakers have stressed, would depend on whether or not the LAF was successful in decreasing the operational freedom of Hezbollah in the south.
This movement can be viewed as a larger American plan to reverse Iranian dominance in the Levant and destroy dependence on established global occupations. The policy represents a change of direction where multilateral peace enforcement, direct security partnerships, increased bilateral assistance, and advisory support on broad scale operations are approved.
Israel’s regional deterrence recalibrated
Israel vehemently backed the U.S. led resolution on grounds that UNIFIL has been unable to intercept Hezbollah weaponizing and cross-border tunneling activities. The aerial security surveillance and the frequent raid of Hezbollah installations by the Israeli army under the guise of pre-emptive security continues.
Israeli leaders have exulted in the change as an opportunity to allow Lebanon to take charge of their fate and not have to be dependent on what they consider undeserving international intermediaries. But military readiness is still high and Israeli troops are likely to continue with an aggressive stance along the border.
Uncertain future for stability and international involvement
The most delicate issue of southern Lebanon is resolving the desire of the state to restore territorial control against the long-term strength of Hezbollah. It becomes internalized because the social service network, the political legitimacy to the group and high military presence are unlikely to be disarmed or marginalized in the short run.
The international players hope that one day LAF will be used to stabilize the situation, but its work is not always possible unless a domestic political agreement is achieved. The results of such a process may be the concentration of national unity or the beginning of new internal divisions and external conflict.
Civilian protection and enforcement gaps
Security analysts complain that there could be an unsustainable or unplanned departure that would plunge the civilian population into insecurity. The border area has no recent experience with outbursts and there is no neutral occupation that can turn it into a potentially perilous place that grows rapidly. A well managed and responsible transition has been urged by the UN Security Council but onground realities show that over time this could be very difficult to bridge the capacity gaps.
Even with no official peacekeeping force, some international observers have emphasized the importance of an ongoing diplomatic involvement and humanitarian presence. Formal operations might end but there is a possibility that support of local stabilization efforts will continue to be critical.
Strategic reflections and longer-term regional outlook
The drawdown of UNIFIL concludes a significant chapter in Middle East peacekeeping. It simultaneously challenges the international community to reassess the role of such missions in modern conflict zones. The decision to end the mission reflects a broader global trend toward localizing security responsibilities and minimizing external commitments.
This realignment may serve as a model or a warning for future transitions in conflict-prone regions. As the LAF attempts to navigate a complex political and security landscape, the outcome will offer valuable insights into the effectiveness of security-sector reform, international partnerships, and the risks of premature disengagement.
Military strategist Jacob Stoil has spoken on the topic and summarized the situation accordingly, noting that:
“The UNIFIL withdrawal is both an opportunity and a risk, it puts local forces to the test while removing a long-standing buffer that many took for granted.”
The transition in Lebanon’s south will be closely watched in 2025 and beyond as a test of whether fragile states can maintain security and sovereignty amid the competing pressures of internal fragmentation and international realignment.
