The fate of Unifil, the UN interim force in Lebanon, whose renewal is scheduled in August, may be hanging by a thread. According to the Hebrew version of the Israeli daily Israel Hayom on June 8, the US and Israel have agreed to end the force’s operations, with Washington having a major say in the matter as it funds around a quarter of its budget.

The final outcome remains unclear, however, and the Lebanese authorities remain optimistic that Unifil’s mandate will be renewed. More relevant today, however, is that the context has substantially changed in the past six months, encompassing the uncertainties surrounding the conflict involving the US, Israel and Iran.

When Lebanon and Israel reached a ceasefire agreement last November, one aspect of the deal was the strengthening and expansion of a committee whose role would be to “monitor, verify, and assist in ensuring enforcement of [the agreement]”. The parties agreed it would be headed by a US general and include a French representative, in addition to Lebanese, Israeli and Unifil representatives.

In parallel, the administration of former US president Joe Biden had sent Israel a letter on the side in which it gave the Israeli government the right to strike militarily against any violation of the agreement – immediately in south Lebanon and only after giving the Lebanese army time to do so first in other parts of the country. The Donald Trump administration has maintained the same approach, and Israel continues to attack Hezbollah targets to this day.

Not surprisingly, this situation has encouraged Israel to go along with any American decision to terminate Unifil. There is nothing more the Israeli government would like than to exploit the free rein that Washington has accorded them in Lebanon, without the burden of international oversight through the UN force.

At a time when Israel has significantly expanded its regional ambitions and is operating freely in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and now Iran – in preparation for what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called a “new Middle East" – Unifil represents a hindrance. Today, the Israelis can achieve their objectives more forcefully and directly through a hegemonic military approach that doesn’t require them to navigate through international institutions, for which they have contempt.

One would assume that unconditional US backing for Israel, coupled with US President Donald Trump’s antipathy towards spending his country’s money on UN endeavours, means that Unifil may be doomed. While that may be the case, the regional situation simply cannot be ignored in assessing the force’s future.

Mr Trump, whatever his commitment to Israel, is not someone who relishes being dragged into conflicts not of his choosing. Southern Lebanon creates such a risk. While there are indications he knew of the recent Israeli attack on Iran, the fact that Israel did not deliver a knockout blow and that the US intervened last weekend has created political problems for Mr Trump. It not only divided his base, there were never any guarantees Washington had a silver bullet guaranteeing victory against Iran.

If this invites more caution from the US President, he may have an interest in ensuring that Unifil remains in place, as it may bring an added level of stability to southern Lebanon. In other words, while the US may cut its spending for the UN force, it may also be more amenable to compromises that keep Unifil alive.

Among the potential ideas circulating is that Unifil be retooled and made to adapt to the new political environment in Lebanon – what Assaf Orion, an Israeli general at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has called “forging Unifil 3.0”. This would involve cutting the force’s numbers to make it leaner, satisfying the cost-cutting preferences of the Americans, while allowing it to more effectively support the Lebanese army in asserting its authority in the country's south.

Mr Trump’s recent statements in Saudi Arabia implied that he would like to calm the situation in the region. This doesn’t square with Israel’s plans to impose its will by force on surrounding countries. What kind of tranquillity can be achieved if Israel continues to bomb Lebanon, Syria and Iran, while threatening Turkey because of its expanding influence in Syria? In other words, a peaceful Middle East cannot follow from Israel’s desire to sustain its regional military supremacy.

Whether any of the people close to the President who are of Lebanese origin will have a say on Unifil is an interesting, speculative question. It can’t be ruled out that Thomas Barrack, Mr Trump’s envoy to Turkey and Syria, Michel Issa, the new ambassador to Lebanon, and Massad Boulos, whose son is married to one of Mr Trump’s daughters, may be asked privately to weigh in on Lebanese affairs.

It would be in character for Mr Trump to consult with those around him if Unifil renewal were brought to his attention. While nothing indicates that the ethnic origins of these individuals would shape their advice if they were asked for their views, Mr Barrack and Mr Issa might seek outcomes that benefit them in their respective roles. Anything that avoids rocking the Lebanese boat may be such a thing.

It is too early to say what will happen to Unifil. However, one thing seems increasingly evident: the force cannot go on as it is. The situation in Lebanon and the region has changed too much, so that it makes sense to assimilate these changes into Unifil’s role, which has to be reinforced. Killing Unifil, on the other hand, would merely create an uneasy vacuum that only makes matters worse.