A foreign military presence in Lebanon, what for?
In Lebanon, the question is not only about 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 for the exit, but not the void
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 a last time, with an end scheduled for December 31, 2026. The withdrawal of the approximately 8,000 soldiers currently deployed will therefore take place no later than 2027.
This schedule 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 issue, Washington is now pushing for an orderly exit of the UN presence. The decision taken 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. It 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 holds on to Lebanon
Lebanon has a special place in French foreign policy. The links 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 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 noting that five positions were still occupied. It also condemned several times the tensions and shootings from Lebanese territory.
In other words, the issue is not theoretical. When a mission like UNIFIL fades away, it is necessary to know who will guard the area, monitor the ceasefire lines, and prevent a rapid resumption of hostilities. Without a credible relay, the risk is simple: leaving a void where stability remains very precarious.
What a “coalition of volunteers” would change
The idea of a French presence, or a broader formula involving several volunteer countries, is being discussed as a replacement solution. The principle is well known in diplomacy: when an international organization withdraws or weakens, some states take over under a different, more targeted and political mandate.
In the case of Lebanon, the challenge would be twofold. First, to maintain a capacity for monitoring and support in the south of the country. Then, to prevent the departure of UNIFIL from being perceived as an abandonment of Lebanese authorities, even as the state seeks to regain control over security within its 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, 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 operational multilateral force.
For Lebanon, the issue is sensitive. Authorities want external support, but they also do not want to project an image of a country under trusteeship. For France, the challenge is the same: to remain present without giving the impression of replacing the Lebanese state. The key word here is the right balance.
Between Washington, Beirut, and Paris, different expectations
Positions do not coincide. From the American perspective, the planned 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 standpoint, the objective is to preserve a useful influence, in connection with the Lebanese armed forces and the ceasefire mechanism.
The French government recently reiterated that it remains mobilized for the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and to support the Lebanese army. It also emphasizes the prospect of international conferences aimed at assisting the armed forces and reconstruction once the conditions are met.
Meanwhile, the regional situation remains unstable. Strikes, tensions at the border, and escalation risks continue to weigh on any security discussion in Lebanon. That is why the end of UNIFIL is not just a UN issue. It directly affects 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 timetable and whether or not an international relay takes place. It will also be important to closely monitor the American position at the Security Council, as well as 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, and not just for Lebanon.
