The United States has begun exploring a new security framework for southern Lebanon that could replace the international military presence with joint Israeli-Lebanese patrols, according to Lebanese political sources cited by Erem News, raising concerns over Israel’s potential role in monitoring Lebanese territory after the planned withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers.

The sources said Washington was working on a roadmap drafted by U.S. Gen. Joseph Clearfield, head of the mechanism overseeing Lebanon-Israel military talks. The plan reportedly calls for removing all international military forces from southern Lebanon and introducing new security arrangements, including joint patrols inside an area known as the “Yellow Line.”

According to sources familiar with the discussions in Tampa, Florida, the proposal has circulated during military talks and among decision-makers in Washington. Its stated rationale is to prevent a security vacuum when the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) ends its mission.

But the reported approach could also give Israel a direct role in monitoring Lebanese territory, replacing an international force whose responsibilities include separating the parties and verifying compliance with agreed arrangements.

The plan appears to go beyond conventional military coordination, envisaging new operational arrangements on the ground. Their geographical boundaries and implementation mechanisms remain unclear, leaving unanswered questions about Beirut’s position and whether new security realities could be imposed under the stated objective of preventing Hezbollah from returning to border areas.

The reported roadmap follows earlier accounts of a draft prepared by Clearfield after contacts between Beirut and Tel Aviv. That proposal reportedly envisaged an international military committee tasked with verifying measures taken by the Lebanese Army to disarm Hezbollah.

The latest information obtained by Erem News, however, points to a more far-reaching option: ending the international military presence and replacing it with bilateral arrangements involving joint Israeli-Lebanese patrols.

It remains unclear whether the plan has been formally presented to the Lebanese delegation or is still one of several options Washington is discussing with the parties involved.

The reference to the “Yellow Line” has drawn particular attention because it is associated with proposals to consolidate Israeli deployment areas in southern Lebanon. This has fueled concerns that arrangements presented as temporary could become de facto security boundaries, restricting the movement of Lebanese troops and civilians.

Beirut rejects direct military coordination with Israel

The reported proposal faces a significant political and military obstacle: Lebanon’s refusal to make its army a direct operational partner of the Israeli military.

On Oct. 19, The National reported that Washington had proposed direct military coordination between the two armies. Beirut rejected the idea, insisting that the United States remain involved as a mediator and that a third party oversee verification of the sides’ commitments.

That position highlights the difficulties facing any plan for joint patrols. Replacing an international monitoring mechanism with Israeli-Lebanese military operations inside Lebanese territory would require political and security arrangements for which Lebanon has not publicly expressed approval.

Beirut maintains that any new security framework must be tied to an Israeli withdrawal and an end to attacks on Lebanon. It opposes arrangements that would focus solely on monitoring the Lebanese Army’s actions without addressing Israel’s military presence and violations.

Who will replace UNIFIL?

The discussions come as UNIFIL approaches the end of its scheduled operations on Dec. 31, under U.N. Security Council Resolution 2790, which provides for an orderly withdrawal of the force over the following year.

Although the resolution aims to leave the Lebanese state as the sole authority responsible for security in the south, the future of international monitoring remains disputed.

Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the U.N. under-secretary-general for peace operations, has warned of uncertainty surrounding the next phase. Lebanon continues to advocate a sustained U.N. role to help prevent escalation and monitor violations.

Israel, meanwhile, opposes deploying a new international force. A proposed European mission to train Lebanese security forces would not provide a comparable on-the-ground replacement for UNIFIL, leaving questions about who would monitor developments and verify compliance after the peacekeepers’ departure.

Against that backdrop, the reported U.S. initiative has taken on added significance. If international alternatives are ruled out, security arrangements could emerge that give Israel a direct role in monitoring southern Lebanon.

Military expert warns of a new security strip

Retired Lebanese Brig. Gen. Khaled Hamadeh said Israel appeared to be preparing to intensify its operations in southern Lebanon to consolidate its positions along the “Yellow Line” as UNIFIL begins withdrawing.

Hamadeh warned that Israeli forces could deploy in areas previously occupied by international peacekeepers. Such a move, he said, could turn what is presented as a temporary deployment into a lasting occupation, effectively recreating a security strip along the border and imposing restrictions on civilians’ movement.

He also pointed to the possibility of Israeli operations expanding toward Hezbollah positions in the Rihan highlands and Iqlim al-Tuffah, raising the risk that Israeli military control could extend into additional areas.

Without an effective international force, any joint security arrangements could trigger disputes over Lebanese sovereignty and the limits of each side’s authority, Hamadeh warned.