A foreign military presence in Lebanon, but for what purpose?
In Lebanon, the question is not just when the Blue Helmets will leave. It is mainly about who will still be able to stabilize the south of the country when the UN mission ends.
UNIFIL heading towards departure, but not to an empty void
Established 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 one last time, with a planned end on December 31, 2026. The withdrawal of the approximately 8,000 currently deployed soldiers will therefore take place by 2027 at the latest.
This timeline is not insignificant. The mission was supposed to be renewed by the UN Security Council, but the threat of a US veto changed the situation. In this matter, Washington is now pushing for an orderly exit of the UN presence. The decision made in 2025 marks a turning point: UNIFIL is no longer looking towards 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 participating in the ceasefire monitoring mechanism agreed upon in November 2024, supporting the Lebanese armed forces, and remaining committed within UNIFIL. France has also proposed that the UN mission be deployed in certain positions still occupied in the south, to replace the Israeli forces and secure the area.
Why Paris is holding onto 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 the sovereignty of Lebanon.
The security context also explains this mobilization. The ceasefire reached on November 26, 2024, between Israel and Lebanon remains fragile. France praised in February 2025 the Israeli withdrawal from a large part of southern Lebanon, while pointing out that five positions remained occupied. France has also repeatedly condemned tensions and firefights originating from Lebanese territory.
In other words, the issue is not merely theoretical. When a mission like UNIFIL fades away, it is important to know who will hold the ground, monitor the ceasefire lines, and prevent a quick return to combat. Without a credible relay, the risk is clear: leaving a void where stability is still very precarious.
What would change with a “coalition of volunteers”
The idea of a French presence, or a broader formula involving several volunteer countries, is circulating 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 case of Lebanon, the stakes would be twofold. First, maintaining surveillance and support capabilities in the south of the country. Second, avoiding the departure of UNIFIL being perceived as abandonment of Lebanese authorities, even as the state seeks to regain control of security on its territory.
This format also has a clear limit. It relies on the political will of participating states. It does not necessarily have the same legitimacy as a UN mission, nor the same legal coverage. Therefore, it is a more flexible, but also more fragile tool. In short, it can help out, but it does not automatically replace a fully-fledged multilateral force.
For Lebanon, the issue is sensitive. The authorities want external support, but they also do not want to give the impression of a country under guardianship. For France, the challenge is the same: to remain present without giving the impression of replacing the Lebanese state. The key word here is balance.
Between Washington, Beirut, and Paris, different expectations
The positions do not align. From the American side, the planned end of UNIFIL reflects a desire to redefine the international presence format in Lebanon. From the Lebanese perspective, the need remains for concrete support in a still exposed area. From the French point of view, the objective 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 the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and to supporting the Lebanese army. It also emphasizes the prospect of international conferences to help the armed forces and reconstruction when conditions are met.
Meanwhile, the regional situation remains unstable. Strikes, tensions at the border, and the risk of escalation continue to weigh on any security discussions in Lebanon. This is why the end of UNIFIL is not just an issue for the UN. It directly concerns the balance between Lebanese sovereignty, regional deterrence, and international presence.
What to watch for now
The crucial point will be the concrete implementation of the UNIFIL withdrawal schedule and the form that an international relay may or may not take. It will also be important to closely monitor the American position at the Security Council, as well as the discussions between Paris and Beirut regarding a possible 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 say a lot about what comes next, not just for Lebanon.
