Lebanon and the end of UNIFIL’s mandate in 2026

What is the general situation in Lebanon?

In recent decades, Lebanon has experienced extensive periods of armed conflict and instability, with an often-weak central state.

The World Bank has also described Lebanon’s economic downturn since 2019 as one of the world’s worst. Lebanon’s confessional political system (based on a range of political and religious groups and alliances) has also complicated achieving a political settlement and reforming the state.

Conflict has included civil war and foreign intervention (notably from Israel and Syria) from 1975 to 2005. This period was followed by conflict in 2006 between Iran-backed Hezbollah (a non-state group proscribed by the UK as a terrorist organisation) and Israel and again in 2023-24. While a ceasefire was agreed between in November 2024, Israel continues to target Hezbollah sites in 2025, the Lebanese Armed Forces do not control all of Lebanon, and Israel maintains its forces at five sites in the country’s south.

The Commons Library’s Lebanon: Introductory country profile, March 2025, provides background and further reading on Lebanon.

In 2025, two plans have been announced:

• The UN Security Council has voted for the mandate of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to end by December 2026. UNIFIL has been in place in southern Lebanon from 1978 to support the extension of Lebanese state authority over the area. The UK has been among those to warn a quick draw-down of troops risks creating an opening for Hezbollah, while the United States has argued Hezbollah was sufficiently degraded during its conflict with Israel from 2023 and poses less of a risk.
• The new Lebanese government has agreed a plan to disarm Hezbollah and for the Lebanese Armed Forces to be the sole Lebanese armed force. Disarming Hezbollah is in line with the Taif Accords of 1989, agreed at the end of the civil war, and UN Security Council resolutions passed in 2004 and 2006. Hezbollah rejects calls for its disarmament and wants Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

This page provides information on plans for UNIFIL. The Library has published a separate page on plans to disarm Hezbollah.

What is UNIFIL?

The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has been in place since 1978. It seeks to maintain Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and has a maximum strength of 15,000 personnel. It currently has around 11,000 troops from 48 countries. Italy, Indonesia and India currently provide the largest numbers (only two UK personnel are involved). Its mandate is renewed annually by the UN Security Council (UNSC).

Further background can be found on UNIFIL’s FAQ page.

Following the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict, and the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006), UNIFIL was tasked, together with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), with:

• Maintaining a buffer zone free of any personnel other than UNIFIL and LAF between the Blue Line and Litani River (see the below map—note the land border remains disputed and is not represented by the Blue Line)
• Helping to secure Lebanon’s borders against the entry of any arms and related material without the consent of the Lebanese Government
• Monitoring the cessation of hostilities.

Under its peacekeeping mandate, UNIFIL is not responsible for disarming Hezbollah or ensuring the exit of Israeli forces.

UNIFIL’s area of operations in southern Lebanon

Source: Council on Foreign Relations, Lebanon: How Israel, Hezbollah, and Regional Powers Are Shaping Its Future, January 2025. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Note there is no agreed land border between Lebanon and Israel.

What are UNIFIL’s withdrawal plans?

In August 2025, the UN Security Council voted to renew UNIFIL’s mission for a final time, until December 2026. The decision was made unanimously.

UN Security Council Resolution 2720 (2025) (PDF) says that:

• UNIFIL will cease operations on 31 December 2026 and then start to withdraw its personnel over the next year, in consultation with the Lebanese Government
• During the drawdown period, UNIFIL will continue to provide security and other support for UN personnel and installations, and contribute to the protection of civilians and civilian-led delivery of aid
• The UN Secretary General will prepare options, by 1 June 2026, for the continued implementation of UNSC 1701 (2006) after UNIFIL’s withdrawal

The resolution also calls on other countries to support the LAF, for the LAF to continue to cooperate with UNIFIL, and for Israeli forces to withdraw their remaining forces north of the Blue Line and for the LAF to deploy there.

Why is UNIFIL’s mandate not being extended? Israeli and American criticism

The United States, under the Trump administration, and the Israeli Government, have been critical of UNIFIL’s role. Reports suggest that no other Security Council member other than the United States had intended an end to UNIFIL, with France, who drafted the compromise resolution that passed, warning against premature withdrawal.

Both Israel and the United States have previously sought reforms to UNIFIL’s mandate, arguing it has taken insufficient steps to prevent Hezbollah’s military build-up in Lebanon. Earlier resolutions have been amended in attempts to strengthen UNIFIL’s ability to act independently of the LAF, though this has sometimes drawn Lebanese criticism.

In 2025, Israel has argued that UNIFIL has “completely failed to prevent Hezbollah's ongoing military build-up within its area of operations”. The United States has said the force was only ever intended to be “interim” and the security environment has changed sufficiently in Lebanon following the 2023-24 conflict for the LAF to take responsibility.

Under the second Trump administration, the US has also been seeking to reduce its contributions to UN peacekeeping missions, including to UNIFIL. It made no congressional request for UNIFIL funding in 2026 (PDF).

Other criticism

UNIFIL has also faced criticism for not countering Israel’s presence in Lebanon: at the Security Council debate in 2025 Algeria said that UNIFIL had not fulfilled its mandate (PDF) as “Lebanese lands remain under Israeli occupation”. There have also been reported tensions with local communities in Lebanon, some of which have been associated with Hezbollah.

UNIFIL’s response

The UN’s Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations, Jean-Pierre Lacroix, has acknowledged “challenges” for UNIFIL but argued that it can “only succeed in its work if Lebanon and Israel honour their commitments in good faith”.

He also said that UNIFIL had “expanded its support to the Lebanese army” in 2025. This has included UNIFIL resuming joint patrols with the LAF and uncovering unauthorised weapons and equipment in southern Lebanon, including missiles.

Italy, which has provided one of the largest contingents to UNIFIL, has said the mission “has a successful model based on respect for the local culture, impartiality, credibility and closeness to the civilian population”.

UNIFIL said in August 2025 that “right now, the Lebanese army don't have the capacities and capabilities to be fully deployed”, partly due to the continuing weaknesses in Lebanon’s economy.

What has been the UK response?

In December 2024, the UK Government had described UNIFIL as playing an “essential role in maintaining peace along the Blue Line”.

The UK supported the resolution in August 2025. It said it did so as it allows UNIFIL “to operate for 16 months before an orderly withdrawal” but regretted that its withdrawal did not coincide with the complete implementation of UNSC 1701 (2006).

The UK’s deputy representative to the UN Security Council, James Kariuki, said that premature withdrawal “risk[s] fostering a security environment that Hezbollah can exploit” and “comes in the context of continued Israeli presence” in southern Lebanon. The UK called on Israel to withdraw its forces.

What has been the Israeli and Lebanese response?

The Lebanese Government welcomed the renewal of UNIFIL’s mandate into 2026 (PDF) and said that it would cooperate with it during the draw-down period.

However, it warned that it “considers UNIFIL’s presence as essential to guaranteeing security and stability in Lebanon” until UNSC 1701 (2006) is implemented. It also noted continuing Israeli military action in Lebanon and said that the Security Council “must […] prevent Israel from violating Lebanese sovereignty” and ensure that the 2024 ceasefire holds. It had initially requested a one-year extension to UNIFIL’s mandate, as in the past (PDF).

Israel told the UN Security Council in August (PDF) that Hezbollah, though weakened in the 2023-24 conflict, was continuing to re-arm and that “Lebanon has struggled in its response”. Israeli’s representative, Danny Danon, said that Israel would not withdraw from Lebanon “until the ceasefire understandings are fully implemented”.

Hezbollah did not issue a response to the UNSC vote.

What assessments have been made of UNIFIL?

Analysis for the Middle East Institute argues that UNIFIL has historically been “unwilling to absorb the costs that came with confronting Hezbollah”, that more personnel from NATO member states should be attached to it, and that its mandate should have included references to “clearing weapons caches, destroying tunnels, and other such activities that go beyond monitoring”. The Washington Institute similarly argues that “UNIFIL remains a generally ineffective entity” and has not sufficiently confronted Hezbollah. It instead suggests that resources and international support should be transferred to the LAF.

Analysis for International Crisis Group argues that UNIFIL is “imperfect” and may have “historically downplayed” Hezbollah’s infractions of UN resolutions to avoid confrontation. However, it notes that UNIFIL did act as a partial buffer during the Israel-Hezbollah conflict of 2023/24 (refusing to withdraw from its position despite Israeli requests, though it had been unable to stop Hezbollah’s presence in southern Lebanon) and is best-placed to identify unauthorised military assets and to monitor LAF action to remove them.

Analysis for the Italian Institute for International Political Studies says “UNIFIL can only perform its duties if and when the conflicting parties allow it to do so”, noting attacks by Israel and Hezbollah and affiliated groups. Foreign Policy magazine analysis also notes that the LAF has not been deployed in large numbers alongside UNIFIL to support the disarming of Hezbollah and the patrolling of southern Lebanon.

Further reading

• Engelsberg Ideas, The UN has failed in Lebanon, 30 September 2024
• Washington Institute, The pros and cons of salvaging (or ditching) UNIFIL, 20 August 2024
• Carnegie Endowment, Now is Europe’s time to act on Lebanon, 3 October 2024