Consultations are underway to establish a new international force in southern Lebanon after the end of the U.N. peacekeeping mission there, with the proposed force expected to have a smaller footprint and a more narrowly defined mandate, Nidaa al-Watan newspaper reported.

The new force would be tasked primarily with verifying the implementation of the pilot zones being established in southern Lebanon, rather than simply monitoring violations. Its mission, composition and deployment rules would therefore differ significantly from those of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL.

The move comes as the international framework governing southern Lebanon undergoes a major shift. Israel and the United States have given the green light in principle to the creation of the new force, signaling that neither wants to see an international vacuum in the south or a return to a period when international troops monitored violations while Hezbollah expanded its presence and capabilities on the ground.

According to the information, the proposed force would monitor and verify the implementation of agreements reached on the ground, particularly in the pilot zones. That would mark a significant departure from UNIFIL's traditional role.

UNIFIL operated within the framework of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which helped end the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. The proposed force, by contrast, would form part of a new post-1701 framework designed around the implementation of more recent security arrangements.

France likely to be excluded

One of the most striking elements of the emerging proposal is the reported exclusion of France.

According to Nidaa al-Watan, Washington is opposed to any French role in the future force. That would leave Paris outside a structure despite its historic presence in southern Lebanon and its longstanding contribution to UNIFIL.

The United States, meanwhile, does not want to deploy troops to southern Lebanon or establish a direct American military presence on the ground.

Washington instead appears to favor exercising influence over the mission, its decision-making and monitoring mechanisms without putting U.S. soldiers in the field.

That could create space for Britain to play a larger role.

London has previously offered to help build observation towers in southern Lebanon, but the precise nature of its involvement has not yet been determined.

Several options remain under discussion. Britain could deploy troops to the south and effectively replace French personnel; it could provide only technical and logistical assistance; or it could become part of a multinational structure designed, in practice, to compensate for the absence of France.

The consultations have yet to produce a final name for the force or a definitive deployment formula. A list of countries acceptable to both Washington and Tel Aviv is expected to determine its composition, while the force could potentially operate under Italian command.

Political and security conditions

The new force is unlikely to be open to all countries that previously contributed to UNIFIL.

Israel and the United States have reservations about the participation of several countries that served in the existing mission, accusing them of having been too accommodating toward Hezbollah and Iranian influence.

The composition of the new force would therefore be determined not only by military or logistical considerations, but also by political and security requirements.

Its size is expected to be another major difference.

Rather than replicating UNIFIL's deployment, which has involved as many as 15,000 personnel, the new force would be considerably smaller and more concentrated in areas where its monitoring role is required.

It would operate in coordination with the Lebanese army rather than replace it.

The objective would not be to establish an international army in southern Lebanon, but to provide an international mechanism for verification and monitoring and to prevent a return to the conditions that existed before the latest understandings were reached.

A new U.N. mandate

The legal basis of the new force is also expected to differ from Resolution 1701 in its current form.

The emerging approach calls for a new U.N. Security Council resolution that would build on the principles established by Resolution 1701 while creating a different mission and deployment mechanism.

Whether the new force would operate under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter remains under discussion and has not yet been decided.

The fact that Chapter VII is being considered, however, reflects the extent of the change being contemplated.

The political message is increasingly clear: southern Lebanon will not be abandoned, but the international community does not want to remain there under the old formula either.

The emerging model envisages a smaller and more focused force with a clearly defined mission — one that provides an international presence on the ground and verifies implementation rather than simply documenting violations in periodic reports.

A new test for Hezbollah and the Lebanese state

For Hezbollah, the significance of the proposed force lies less in its size than in its mandate, powers and the international decision governing its deployment.

The end of UNIFIL, therefore, would not mean the departure of the international community from southern Lebanon. Instead, it could mark its return under a fundamentally different formula.

The clearest message is that the previous model — in which weapons remained outside state control while international forces documented violations — is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

Southern Lebanon is consequently entering a new phase governed by new rules.

The test will not be limited to the international force. It will also test the Lebanese state and Hezbollah: whether southern Lebanon will genuinely come under the authority of the state, or whether the emergence of a more assertive international mandate will lead to a new confrontation over control of the region.