A foreign military presence in Lebanon, what’s it for?
In Lebanon, the question isn’t just when the Blue Helmets will leave. It’s mainly about who can still stabilize the south of the country when the UN mission ends.
UNIFIL heading towards exit, but not empty-handed
Created in 1978, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, has been operating in the south of the country for almost half a century. Its mandate has been extended for the last time, with a scheduled end on December 31, 2026. The withdrawal of the approximately 8,000 soldiers currently deployed will therefore take place no later than 2027.
This timeline is significant. The mission was supposed to be renewed by the UN Security Council, but the threat of a US veto changed the scenario. In this matter, Washington now pushes for an orderly exit of the UN presence. The decision made in 2025 marks a turning point: UNIFIL no longer looks forward to a new cycle but towards its extinction.
At the same time, Paris does not want to leave the diplomatic and security field. France points out that it is already part of the ceasefire monitoring mechanism agreed upon in November 2024, supports the Lebanese armed forces, and remains committed within UNIFIL. It also proposed that the UN mission deploy in certain still occupied positions in the south, to replace the Israeli forces and secure the area.
Why is Paris holding on to Lebanon?
Lebanon holds a special place in French foreign policy. The ties between the two countries are longstanding, and France claims a role in supporting the stability of the country. After the formation of a new Lebanese government in early 2025, Paris reaffirmed its support for reforms, reconstruction, and Lebanese sovereignty.
The security context also explains this mobilization. The ceasefire agreed on November 26, 2024, between Israel and Lebanon remains fragile. France welcomed in February 2025 the Israeli withdrawal from a large part of southern Lebanon, while reminding that five positions were still occupied. It has also repeatedly condemned tensions and shootings from Lebanese territory.
In other words, the issue is not just theoretical. When a mission like UNIFIL fades, it is essential to know who will hold the ground, monitor the ceasefire lines, and prevent a quick return to fighting. Without a credible relay, the risk is simple: leaving a gap where stability remains highly precarious.
What a “coalition of volunteers” would change
The idea of a French presence, or a broader formula involving several volunteer countries, is being considered as a replacement solution. The principle is known in diplomacy: when an international organization withdraws or weakens, some states take over under a different, more targeted, and more political mandate.
In the Lebanese case, the stakes would be dual. Firstly, maintaining a capacity for monitoring and support in the south of the country. Secondly, avoiding that the departure of UNIFIL is perceived as an abandonment of Lebanese authorities, even as the state aims to regain control over its security territory.
This format also has a clear limitation. It relies on the political will of participating states. It does not necessarily have the same legitimacy as a UN mission or the same legal coverage. It is a more flexible but also more fragile tool. In short, it can help but does not automatically replace a fully-fledged multilateral force.
For Lebanon, the issue is sensitive. Authorities want external support but do not want to portray the country as under trusteeship. For France, the challenge is the same: to remain present without giving the impression of substituting the Lebanese state. The key word here is the right balance.
Between Washington, Beirut, and Paris, different expectations
Positions do not align. From the US side, the scheduled end of UNIFIL reflects a desire to redefine the international presence format in Lebanon. From the Lebanese side, the need remains for concrete support in a still exposed area. From the French side, the goal is to preserve a useful influence, in connection with the Lebanese armed forces and the ceasefire mechanism.
The French government recently reiterated its commitment to implementing the ceasefire agreement and supporting the Lebanese army. It also emphasizes the prospect of international conferences to assist the armed forces and reconstruction when conditions are met.
Meanwhile, the regional situation remains unstable. Strikes, tensions on the border, and escalation risks continue to affect any security discussions in Lebanon. This is why the end of UNIFIL is not just a UN matter. It directly relates to the balance among Lebanese sovereignty, regional deterrence, and international presence.
What to monitor now
The crucial point will be the concrete implementation of UNIFIL’s withdrawal schedule and the form that an international relay, if any, will take. It will also be essential to closely follow the US position in the Security Council, as well as discussions between Paris and Beirut regarding a potential French or multinational presence.
In the short term, the real test will be simple: can security be maintained in southern Lebanon without the current UN structure? The answer will reveal much about the future, not only for Lebanon.
