Lebanon has begun preparing a comprehensive proposal for a new international force in the south as the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) approaches its scheduled end at the close of this year, according to exclusive information obtained by Erem News.

The proposal under discussion would keep the force under the United Nations umbrella while giving it a field role during a transitional period, particularly in areas covered by provisional security arrangements between Lebanon and Israel.

Informed Lebanese political sources said a small committee comprising representatives of the Lebanese army command, in coordination with the Foreign Ministry and the office of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, is drafting the proposal. Working papers and assessments have already been prepared and are being reviewed, with the aim of producing a formal Lebanese initiative that can be presented to the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council before any vote is held.

Beirut has also begun preliminary, informal contacts with Washington, Paris, London, Moscow and Beijing through its diplomatic channels and mission in New York. The goal is to address potential objections from the major powers while the proposal is still being shaped, rather than waiting for the Security Council to consider it and risking a veto or rejection.

Bridging Two Agreements

The most sensitive obstacle is expected to come from the United States, which has opposed simply reproducing UNIFIL under a different name. Washington wants stricter guarantees that areas where the Lebanese army deploys are free of Hezbollah weapons and unauthorized military activity.

The Lebanese concept seeks to bridge two existing frameworks: U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which provides the international legal and political basis for the deployment in southern Lebanon, and a separate "framework agreement" between Lebanon and Israel that is intended to provide practical mechanisms for implementing security arrangements on the ground.

Lebanese officials believe combining the two could address a gap that has persisted for years. While Resolution 1701 provides international legitimacy, the framework agreement could supply implementation mechanisms that were lacking in the enforcement of the resolution.

The issue has become particularly important as UNIFIL prepares to leave. The trilateral framework does not clearly define a role for the Security Council, UNIFIL or a successor U.N. force in overseeing its implementation. In some security arrangements, verification has instead been left to a mutually agreed "third party."

At the same time, the Security Council has asked U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to develop options for maintaining implementation of Resolution 1701 after UNIFIL's withdrawal.

Lebanese sources told Erem News that the proposed force would serve as an international "third-party guarantor and verifier." It would deploy alongside the Lebanese army in designated provisional areas and verify that they were free of weapons and unauthorized armed activity.

Its findings could then be used to help consolidate an Israeli withdrawal and halt violations, rather than leaving the verification process to Israel or to an arrangement operating outside an international framework.

Not "UNIFIL 2"

The size of the proposed force has not yet been determined. It could be close to UNIFIL's current strength or significantly smaller, with Lebanese officials emphasizing that its mission would be fundamentally different.

The focus would be on verification, technical expertise and field operations rather than maintaining a large troop presence.

The Lebanese study draws on options presented by Guterres for the future implementation of Resolution 1701, particularly models that combine a stronger role for the Lebanese army with international monitoring and verification.

Lebanon also insists that any new force operate under the U.N. flag and a Security Council mandate. Beirut rejects the idea of a multinational force operating entirely outside the U.N. framework.

France and Italy are viewed as leading candidates to command or form the military backbone of such a mechanism. Paris and Rome announced in June their intention to participate in leading an "international coalition" to support Lebanon during the post-UNIFIL phase, although the coalition's final form and mandate remain unresolved.

The U.S.-Israeli Hurdle

Lebanon will have to overcome strong opposition from both Washington and Israel if the proposal is to move forward.

Israel has explicitly rejected the creation of a new international force after UNIFIL's departure. Its U.N. ambassador, Danny Danon, has said Israel wants to deal directly with the Lebanese army and argued that thousands of international troops would hinder rather than strengthen Lebanese sovereignty.

The United States shares Israel's position on ending the current UNIFIL mission and has not indicated that it is prepared to reconsider that decision.

Still, assessments at the Security Council suggest that a majority of members could support some form of continued international presence in southern Lebanon.

Beirut's approach is therefore aimed at making the proposed mechanism sufficiently different from UNIFIL to address U.S. and Israeli objections while retaining the U.N. framework.

Lebanon hopes that stricter verification requirements from the outset could produce a force that is more effective in monitoring the implementation of security arrangements without leaving Israel with a unilateral role in verifying conditions inside Lebanese territory.

A Force Alone Will Not Be Enough

But analysts caution that the creation of an international force, whatever its name or size, would not by itself resolve the underlying security and political disputes.

Imad Salameh, a political science professor at the Lebanese American University, told Erem News that the central issue was not the force's size or designation but the political and security settlement underpinning its deployment.

The existing international force was never established with a mandate to enforce Resolution 1701 by force. Its role has primarily involved monitoring the resolution, coordinating with the parties and assisting the Lebanese army.

Replacing it with a smaller European or multinational force would not fundamentally alter that equation without a clear agreement on the status of Hezbollah's weapons, an Israeli withdrawal and mechanisms for addressing violations by both sides.

Giving a new international force responsibility for imposing a settlement, rather than monitoring and supporting one that has already been agreed, would risk repeating the shortcomings of the existing arrangement, Salameh argued.

For Beirut, the objective is therefore not simply to create "UNIFIL 2" under another name, but to establish different rules for the period after the current mission leaves.

The proposed U.N.-mandated force would give Resolution 1701 new implementation tools drawn from the framework agreement and fill the "third-party" role envisaged in some of the provisional security arrangements.