The U.N. Security Council has rejected Israeli efforts to weaken or abrogate Resolution 1701, while members held serious discussions over Lebanon’s request for a further, potentially short-term extension of the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

According to Asharq Al-Awsat, the closed-door talks highlighted a growing debate over what role the United Nations should play in southern Lebanon after UNIFIL’s mandate expires at the end of 2026. They also exposed differences between Israel, Lebanon and Washington over whether a future international presence should continue in a form similar to the existing peacekeeping mission or be redesigned around the U.S.-brokered framework between Lebanon and Israel.

Resolution 2790, unanimously adopted by the Security Council in August 2025, extended UNIFIL’s mandate for a final time until December 31, 2026, while providing for an orderly drawdown and withdrawal. It also asked U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to propose alternatives for continuing to support implementation of Resolution 1701. 

According to diplomats cited by Asharq Al-Awsat, council members, meeting at France’s request, discussed how to preserve Resolution 1701 as the “reference framework governing relations between Lebanon and Israel,” as well as Guterres’ report submitted in June.

Three options for a post-UNIFIL force

Guterres has proposed three possible options for a new international presence after UNIFIL, ranging from a relatively large force to a smaller monitoring and rapid-response mission.

The first option would deploy 350 unarmed U.N. military observers, supported by four infantry battalions of 750 armed soldiers each and a 700-member armed reserve force.

The second would consist of 285 unarmed military observers, two 750-member infantry battalions and a 450-member armed reserve.

The third would deploy 215 unarmed observers, two light infantry battalions of 450 soldiers each and a 350-member armed rapid-reaction force to protect the mission.

Lebanon appears to favor the first and largest option.

A diplomat told Asharq Al-Awsat that the debate must also take into account developments since Hezbollah’s intervention in the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. The diplomat argued that initiatives launched since 2024 — including the November 27 ceasefire agreement and the subsequent trilateral framework between Lebanon, Israel and the United States — have increasingly become mechanisms for implementing Resolution 1701.

Resolution 1701 calls for respect for Lebanon’s international borders and the establishment of an area free of armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those belonging to the Lebanese government and UNIFIL. Its broader framework also calls for the disarmament of armed groups in Lebanon.

Lebanon pushes for continued U.N. role

Lebanon has stepped up diplomatic efforts in recent months to secure continued international involvement.

According to diplomats, President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have conducted extensive consultations with countries involved in the Lebanese file, particularly Security Council members and the five permanent members, to present Beirut’s position ahead of the council discussions.

Lebanon argues that the U.N. role remains important as the country seeks to strengthen state authority and implement the existing international framework.

The debate is unfolding as Israel presses for arrangements more directly linked to the trilateral framework and remains opposed to simply reproducing the existing UNIFIL model.

Diplomats said Security Council members nevertheless showed an understanding of Lebanon’s appeal for an extension.

The United States has sought to preserve what officials describe as a “supportive U.N. role” for the U.S.-Lebanon-Israel framework rather than accepting Israeli calls to effectively set Resolution 1701 aside.

Council members, including Washington, stressed the importance of maintaining a U.N. role and ensuring that the U.S.-sponsored negotiations between Lebanon and Israel complement, rather than replace, the multilateral track through the Security Council and the United Nations.

Washington opposes an open-ended mission

The Trump administration has made clear that it does not support simply extending UNIFIL.

Washington’s position is that any new international presence should be closely tied to concrete objectives under the trilateral framework, while remaining open to arrangements that would support Hezbollah’s disarmament.

A U.S. official argued that UNIFIL’s record did not justify simply renewing the mission in its current form.

“Lebanon has seen seven rounds of conflict during UNIFIL’s presence,” the official said, adding that Hezbollah had built a large military infrastructure around its positions and, at times, used the proximity of U.N. peacekeepers to shield its infrastructure or operations.

“We are not interested in replacing an ineffective, open-ended mission with another one,” the official said.