Scenarios of the UNIFIL Mission in Lebanon

Following the Israeli ground military operation concentrated in the border regions with Lebanon, UNIFIL is facing a changing field reality in the areas of its deployment and presence. Its mission has been subjected to accusations from both warring parties of being lenient toward the other side, and its positions have been targeted by a series of documented Israeli attacks. This has further complicated its ability to carry out its tasks, placing it at the center of a broader set of security and political challenges. Particularly, the roles that were agreed upon since 2006 are now at risk of change, given the shifting balance of power and the evolving geographical realities on the ground. In light of these developments, questions are increasingly being raised about the future of UNIFIL, its effectiveness, and the options available to the international community to ensure its continuity or to modify its mandate. Therefore, this paper aims to explore the possible scenarios for the fate of UNIFIL, its role and presence.

The Establishment and Roles of UNIFIL

UNIFIL was established in March 1978 following Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. Its mandate was granted by the United Nations Security Council, which later expanded its mission and mandate in response to the ongoing political tensions and military escalations along the border between Hezbollah and Israel. Below are the key UN Security Council resolutions that form the legal basis for the presence of UNIFIL.

UN Security Council Resolution 425 (1978)

This was the founding resolution for UNIFIL as a temporary peacekeeping force in Lebanon adopted after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1978. The resolution tasked UNIFIL with several key responsibilities, including confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, restoring peace and security in the region, and assisting the Lebanese government in reasserting its authority over the southern part of the country.

UN Security Council Resolution 426 (1978)

This resolution, written the same day as Resolution 425, defined UNIFIL’s official administrative and organizational structures. It outlined the deployment of the forces, their specific operational tasks in southern Lebanon, and the frameworks for coordination between UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces.

UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006)

This resolution was issued following the July 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel. It expanded UNIFIL’s mandate to include increasing the number of international troops, providing support to the Lebanese Army, preventing the smuggling of weapons, and ensuring the maintenance of the ceasefire.

UNIFIL is headquartered in Naqoura, a town in the southwest of Lebanon near the border with Israel. The force operates 50 positions spread across an area of 410 square miles, extending from the Litani River in the north to the Lebanese-Israeli border. Known as the “Blue Line,” the United Nations established this temporary 120-kilometer (74-mile) line of demarcation separating Lebanon from Israel and the Golan Heights following Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000. UNIFIL personnel are deployed along the line to ensure that it is not violated. Whether by land or air, any unauthorized crossing by either the Lebanese or Israeli governments is considered a breach of UN Security Council resolutions.

In addition, to support the Lebanese Navy in monitoring and securing the Lebanese shores and preventing arms smuggling by sea, UNIFIL has also deployed a naval force of five ships since October 2006 along the Lebanese coast, extending to the southeastern border toward the Shebaa Farms.

The total number of UNIFIL personnel exceeds 10,000 soldiers from 50 participating countries, with Italy and Indonesia each providing more than 1,000 soldiers. The mission, which has been extended every year by a Security Council vote, is funded by an annual budget of approximately half a billion dollars.

Current Challenges Facing the UNIFIL Mission

Amid the ongoing security and political tensions along the Lebanese border, escalated by the Israeli military’s announcement September 30 of a ground invasion in southern Lebanon, the importance and role of the UNIFIL has once again come to the forefront as an international tool for maintaining peace and stability in Lebanon. However, the force now faces multiple challenges in light of the evolving field dynamics and increasing pressures, particularly as security threats against its personnel and positions continue to rise.

UNIFIL has experienced a series of Israeli attacks, including the wounding of two peacekeepers in Lebanon following an Israeli airstrike on a UNIFIL observation tower on October 10. The following day, Israeli forces targeted UNIFIL’s Sri Lankan Battalion headquarters in southern Lebanon, injuring several military personnel. In total, UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti reported that the force was “targeted more than 50 times during October,” drawing widespread international condemnation.

In addition, the UNIFIL mission has faced repeated accusations from both Israel and Lebanon. Israel has accused UNIFIL of failing to prevent Hezbollah from engaging in military activities along the border and allowing it to establish a military infrastructure that includes weapons storage and depots. Israel also accuses Hezbollah of operating from areas near UNIFIL positions in southern Lebanon. On October 10, 2024, Israel called on UNIFIL to withdraw by 5 kilometers (3 miles) north of the Blue Line to avoid the growing danger from the escalating fighting. However, the peacekeeping force rejected this request, reaffirming its commitment to remain at its positions in accordance with its UN mandate. In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused UNIFIL of acting as a “human shield” for Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, Lebanon plans to hold UNIFIL accountable for a naval landing operation on the coast of Batroun, a city in northern Lebanon, in which Israeli special forces abducted a Lebanese citizen believed to be affiliated with Hezbollah. Calling it “an act of war,” Lebanese Interior Minister Bassam Mawlawi said the kidnapping raised concerns about UNIFIL’s role in ensuring security along the Lebanese coast. Moreover, local sources reported that Hezbollah field commanders have accused Israel of using UNIFIL as “human shields.”

UNIFIL has also come under attack from within Lebanon. On November 17, the mission announced that one of its patrols had been shot at from behind. Two days later, on November 19, UNIFIL experienced three separate attacks, including rocket strikes on the headquarters of its Italian contingent stationed in the region. In both incidents, UNIFIL indicated that the source of the fire came from “non-governmental entities within Lebanon,” implicitly pointing to Hezbollah.

Scenarios for the Future Role of the UNIFIL Mission

In light of the escalating tensions between Hezbollah and Israel, the future of UNIFIL remains uncertain. It is dependent on several factors, including field developments, political changes, security dynamics between Lebanon and Israel, as well as the stance of the international community and the direction of the UN Security Council. Given these variables, the following scenarios can be envisaged.

Scenario 1: Continuation of UNIFIL’s Current Mandate

This scenario assumes that UNIFIL will continue to operate under its current UN mandate, maintaining the status quo as outlined by Security Council Resolution 1701. The mission would likely make only minor adjustments to enhance the protection of personnel and reduce potential risks. This could involve increasing the number of troops or improving their equipment to better respond to potential threats. Additionally, the coordination between UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces could be strengthened, particularly in border monitoring, to improve surveillance and response capabilities.

In this scenario, the EU countries, which agreed on October 16 to bolster the Lebanese Armed Forces through training support and international funding, would contribute to stability by working alongside UNIFIL. Equally important to this scenario is both sides agreeing to the American-proposed ceasefire plan. This would require the resolution of a number of complex and highly detailed issues, including the enforcement of Resolution 1701 by a monitoring committee led by both an American and French general. The ceasefire proposal also grants Israel operational freedom within Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its military strength and organizational structure, as well as Israel’s right to respond militarily should Hezbollah violate the ceasefire.

On the other hand, the continuation of UNIFIL under the same mandate and deployment depends on the stability of the field situation after the war. However, Israel’s actions on the ground and its ongoing calls for UNIFIL to draw back from the border aim to create a new field reality by establishing a buffer zone with a depth ranging from 3 to 5 kilometers (1.8 to 3 miles). To this end, Israel has carried out operations inside Lebanon to evacuate border towns and systematically destroy them. Satellite images from early November revealed the destruction of 11 Lebanese villages near the border.

This approach aligns with Israel’s strategy in Gaza, as well as with the nature of its operations and tactics in Lebanon. Israeli forces follow an operational pattern that includes raiding and then withdrawing after carrying out the demolition and destruction of infrastructure, border villages, and military facilities belonging to Hezbollah. This marks a departure from their tactics during the 2006 war, when Israel sought to hold territory and maintain its positions of advance.

Scenario 2: Expanding the Mandate or Amending Resolution 1701

This scenario envisions an amendment to Resolution 1701, shifting its mandate towards a more robust protection framework with three layers of security extending from the Lebanese-Israeli border to Beirut. The first step would involve the creation of a buffer zone, likely to be established at a depth of 5 kilometers (3 miles), followed by the establishment of a security strip along the Litani River in southern Lebanon that would be monitored by UNIFIL. The mission’s mandate would then be expanded, granting it a more powerful military role with enhanced tasks to ensure more effective operations. These tasks would include preventing arms smuggling and monitoring Hezbollah’s presence in areas where UNIFIL is deployed.

On October 19, EU Foreign Minister Josep Borrell called for strengthening UNIFIL’s mandate, stressing that “the current situation requires a stronger and more effective role for the UNIFIL mission.” In this scenario, the Lebanese Army would be granted control over areas north of the Litani River and extending up to Beirut. Additionally, Israel’s forces would be granted “active” participation to ensure that Hezbollah does not rearm and rebuild its military capabilities. This would involve allowing Israeli air forces the freedom to operate in Lebanese airspace and coordinating intelligence with both UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army to prevent Hezbollah’s resurgence.

This scenario is linked to the deepening of the war and Israel’s ability to severely damage Hezbollah’s military infrastructure in southern Lebanon, undermining the operational capabilities of its armed units to deploy south of the Litani River. This is the key variable that could enable UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army to operate effectively in their areas of deployment and missions, particularly in preventing Hezbollah from rearming. The likelihood of this scenario decreases if Hezbollah is able to maintain its positions in the south and prevent the Israeli army from operationally advancing beyond its current activities along the border strip. Additionally, obtaining a new Security Council mandate would be required, which could face a Russian or Chinese veto.

Scenario Three: Withdrawal of the UNIFIL Mission or a Shift in Its Roles

In this scenario the United Nations either decides to end the mission by pulling out UNIFIL troops from Lebanon or alters their roles to become an advisory mission rather than a combat one. In this case, its role would be limited to providing non-military advice and support to the Lebanese Army, fully transferring UNIFIL’s tasks and security responsibilities to the Lebanese Army.

This scenario is linked to the realization of one of the following conditions.

The first is military escalations that impede the ability of contributing countries to protect their UNIFIL troops, exposing them to repeated attacks, increasing security risks for personnel, and causing significant damage to the forces. This undermines their ability to effectively carry out their mission, especially regarding the implementation of Resolution 1701.

The second is the Security Council’s failure to approve the renewal of the mission’s mandate, which is proposed annually, due to one its member states executing its veto power. This could happen due to disagreements among member states either over opposition to renewing the mandate, changing the mission’s role, or converting it into an advisory mission.

The third is Israel’s ability to decisively resolve the conflict with Hezbollah and establish a one-sided reality in southern Lebanon.