UNIFIL Was Intended to Be a Temporary Force, and It Has Now Outlived Its Utility

After nearly five decades, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon’s (UNIFIL) mission may be ending. Israel supports the Trump administration’s decision not to extend the force’s mandate, according to a June 8 report in the newspaper Israel Hayom.

Washington reportedly wants to cut the high costs of maintaining the force, while Israel believes coordination with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) through the November 2024 Israel-Lebanon ceasefire deal oversight committee has made UNIFIL redundant.

UNIFIL’s Mandate Doesn’t Include Disarming Hezbollah

UNIFIL was created after Israel’s 1978 invasion of south Lebanon to fight Palestinian militant groups. As its name implies, its mission was intended to be temporary — certifying the withdrawal of the IDF from south Lebanon pursuant to UN Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426, “restor[ing] international peace and security,” and “help[ing]” Lebanon “restore its effective authority” in the area. In short, UNIFIL was meant to be an LAF auxiliary.

But the LAF, for various reasons, failed to reassert its control over south Lebanon, even after Israel withdrew from the area on May 25, 2000. Hezbollah filled the vacuum.

In some cases, Hezbollah built positions and underground installations less than a kilometer away from UNIFIL posts. During the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, the group launched attacks near UNIFIL positions.

Security Council Resolution 1701 ended that war. The measure, which determined “that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security,” sought to address “the causes that have given rise to the current crisis.” To that end, the council upgraded UNIFIL’s mandate — Western officials often used the word “robust” to describe its new responsibilities — to include “monitoring” the cessation of hostilities, “accompany[ing] and support[ing]” the LAF’s deployment in south Lebanon, and “helping them enforce” Resolution 1701’s prohibition on illegal weapons.

UNIFIL, then, remained an LAF auxiliary and was never tasked with disarming Hezbollah or taking the lead in countering the group — even as some of its prerogatives were upgraded.

Fix or Nix UNIFIL?

France, per Lebanese television station Al Jadeed, opposes disbanding UNIFIL, expressing its desire to “expand the force’s mandate” instead. But absent authorizing UNIFIL to forcibly disarm Hezbollah — which is unlikely to happen — such an upgrade would be meaningless.

Lebanon, as the sovereign, would never allow it — greenlighting foreign armed action against the group would upset Beirut’s delicate stability, which its leaders are keen to preserve. Nor would UNIFIL’s troop-contributing countries, none of which would support risking the lives of their soldiers in armed confrontations with Hezbollah. Some, like Turkey and China, may not want to weaken a counterweight to Israeli and American regional influence.

Finally, authorizing UNIFIL to disarm Hezbollah — like any change to UNIFIL or its mandate — would require the approval of the Security Council’s permanent members. Russia would likely side with the Chinese, and for similar reasons. France would also be unlikely to agree to this expansion of the mandate for fear of destabilizing Lebanon.

The Ceasefire Oversight Mechanism Has Made UNIFIL Superfluous

With more than 10,000 troops, UNIFIL is the UN’s fifth-largest peacekeeping force and, with a 2024 budget of $582,625,000, one of its costliest. If past is precedent, this budget will only grow. The United States is the force’s largest financial backer, contributing $143 million in fiscal year 2023.

But UNIFIL provides little return on this investment. Its one area of added value — hosting the IDF-LAF deconfliction mechanism — has been superseded by the ceasefire oversight committee, which is also actively working to degrade Hezbollah. Meanwhile, the force cannot even fulfill its existing mandate. Since November 2024, south Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah supporters have begun regularly obstructing UNIFIL’s patrols. In the past, UNIFIL’s troops have been subjected to harassment, violence, and even murder by Hezbollah supporters.

UNIFIL’s exorbitant budget can be diverted to more productive bodies, like the ceasefire oversight mechanism, or to an effective force that could help Lebanon seal its borders with Syria.

David Daoud is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where he focuses on Israel, Hezbollah, and Lebanon affairs. For more analysis from David and FDD, please subscribe HERE. Follow David on X @DavidADaoud. Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.