The United States has blocked European efforts to establish a new international military mission in southern Lebanon under French and Italian leadership, as Washington pushes for a security arrangement centered on the Lebanese army and a U.S.-led monitoring mechanism, diplomatic sources told Al-Modon.

UNIFIL's mandate expires on Dec. 31, 2026, but the force is expected to withdraw gradually throughout 2027 in accordance with a U.N. Security Council resolution, rather than leave all at once, information from the United Nations in New York indicates.

As its departure approaches, Beirut is seeking an alternative international presence to support the Lebanese army, monitor the southern border and reduce the risk of renewed fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

Several proposals have failed to gain support, including an Italian initiative to establish a smaller international force tasked with assisting the Lebanese army, protecting civilians and monitoring the ceasefire and disarmament arrangements in coordination with relevant international actors.

Washington, however, considers UNIFIL a failed experiment, arguing that it failed to prevent Hezbollah from maintaining its military presence in southern Lebanon or establish an effective mechanism to monitor compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.

The U.S. administration instead wants the security arrangements reached between Lebanon and Israel through American mediation to serve as the basis for the next phase, with primary responsibility assigned to the Lebanese army.

Washington believes that neither a European-led force nor another U.N. mission would be prepared to raid Hezbollah positions and verify that the group has surrendered its weapons, according to the sources.

This issue lies at the heart of U.S. consultations with France, Lebanon, Israel and other parties, as recently confirmed by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz.

Washington's proposed verification mechanism

Despite the failure of military talks held Oct. 20-22 at U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, Washington has continued exploring alternatives to UNIFIL, diplomatic sources said.

The meetings produced no tangible results after the parties failed to agree on a mechanism to verify compliance with the framework agreement.

The United States concluded that the main obstacle was a lack of political will rather than shortcomings in the Lebanese army's capabilities, insufficient international assistance or the absence of a third-party monitoring force.

Implementation of the framework agreement remains stalled, while the Lebanon Military Coordination Group, headed by Gen. Joseph Clearfield, has concluded that the pilot-area arrangements failed to achieve their objectives in Froun, Srifa and Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh.

Hezbollah worked to reestablish its presence in these areas, taking advantage of the return of displaced residents to conflict zones. Disagreements over access to private properties to search for weapons, coupled with delays in implementation, further undermined the initiative.

A new concern has since emerged in Washington: Iran, Hezbollah's main regional backer, is preparing to revive its demand that the Lebanese file be linked to its own negotiations with the United States.

The development comes only months after Lebanon rejected Iranian interference and sought to pursue a direct agreement with Israel, the sources said.

Under Washington's proposed approach, Clearfield and the Lebanon Military Coordination Group would play a central role in coordinating between the Lebanese and Israeli armies.

But the main unresolved question is who will verify compliance with the agreement and what authority that body would have to ensure both sides honor their commitments.

In particular, questions remain over whether the monitoring body would have the authority to compel Lebanese authorities to take specific measures against Hezbollah or pursue members accused of violating the law.

Washington has so far failed to find another country willing to assume the verification role through a mechanism capable of effectively replacing UNIFIL, or at least one acceptable to both Beirut and Tel Aviv.

The continued deadlock means Israel is unlikely to carry out further withdrawals from Lebanese territory, the sources said.

For now, Beirut's priority is less about identifying a monitoring body than intensifying contacts with the U.S. administration to prevent a renewed confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah. The risk of escalation remains high, with both sides making military preparations, according to the sources.

Intelligence sharing and expanded U.S. coordination

U.S. diplomatic sources say any mechanism established if a new war can be avoided should include arrangements allowing Israel to provide actionable intelligence on Hezbollah's positions and movements through agreed channels.

The information would enable the Lebanese army to enforce the law and conduct independent verification operations.

Israel should also, whenever possible, give Lebanese authorities time to take corrective action, allowing the state to exercise its law enforcement powers and maintain an incentive to do so.

Washington has therefore concluded that Clearfield's team should be equipped to receive intelligence, relay alerts to the Lebanese army, conduct deconfliction operations and monitor the Lebanese response.

A separate, small technical verification team could also be established, comprising countries, international organizations, individual experts, contractors or other institutional bodies acceptable to both sides.

The team would inspect relevant sites and certify that they were clear of obstacles based on jointly agreed standards. Clearfield is considered well positioned to lead the military implementation of the arrangements.

Discussions between Washington and its European and Arab partners are expected to intensify in November and December, with the aim of providing assistance to designated Lebanese army units.

Priority areas would include intelligence gathering, engineering capabilities, weapons disposal, mobility and rapid-response operations.

Additional funding and equipment would be conditional on independently certified verification and sustained control on the ground, beginning with the designated pilot areas.

Donors would also be required to scrutinize implementing organizations and beneficiaries to ensure reconstruction funds were not diverted to strengthen Hezbollah's patronage networks.

The return of displaced residents to their homes must not become a pretext for the group to rebuild its military capabilities in areas from which it is supposed to withdraw, the sources said.

Framework agreement to replace UNIFIL's role

For Washington, the framework agreement itself is emerging as the alternative to UNIFIL, with U.S.-led coordination and a verification mechanism forming the core of the proposed arrangement.

The identity of the country or entity that would assume the monitoring role, however, remains unresolved.

The tense situation in southern Lebanon, coupled with Israeli officials' preoccupation with forming a new government, could further delay progress.

A breakthrough may require Washington to pressure Beirut into accepting a monitoring body considered credible by Israel to oversee implementation of the pilot-area plan.