Paris Talks Shape Lebanon’s Security Future After UNIFIL

European and Arab military leaders meet in Paris to plan support for Lebanon as UNIFIL prepares to end operations and withdraw from southern Lebanon.

What happens to security in southern Lebanon when the United Nations peacekeeping mission begins its withdrawal? That question is at the center of talks in Paris, where European and Arab military leaders are examining how to strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces and prevent a security vacuum as UNIFIL prepares to end its operations at the close of 2026.

Paris Talks Focus on Lebanon’s Military Future

French President Emmanuel Macron is hosting Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Jordan’s King Abdullah II in Paris as France and its partners seek to build international support for the Lebanese Armed Forces. The meeting brings together senior military and government officials from Lebanon, France, Jordan, the United Kingdom and the United States to examine practical ways of supporting Lebanon’s military and planning for the period after the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, begins its withdrawal.

The discussions come at a particularly sensitive moment for southern Lebanon. The area remains affected by the continuing confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah, while the Lebanese government is attempting to expand the authority of the state and strengthen the Lebanese military. The situation has created a difficult security equation: Israel maintains military positions in parts of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah retains military capabilities, and the Lebanese Armed Forces are being asked to assume greater responsibility despite long-standing financial and logistical constraints.

The immediate objective of the Paris meeting is not simply to discuss another peacekeeping deployment. The participants are looking at the practical requirements for the Lebanese military, including equipment, financing, intelligence support, training and potentially operational assistance. French officials have described the discussions as focused on concrete operational requirements and on helping the Lebanese state develop the capacity to provide security in the south.

The meeting also forms part of a broader international effort to determine what comes after UNIFIL. France and Italy have been working on the possibility of a new multinational arrangement, while European Union officials have indicated that several member states are prepared to contribute personnel or resources to a future civilian or military mission supporting Lebanese forces.

Why UNIFIL Is Preparing to Leave

UNIFIL has operated in southern Lebanon for decades. The mission was established by the UN Security Council in 1978 following the Israeli military intervention in Lebanon and was later expanded after the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. Its responsibilities have included monitoring the cessation of hostilities, supporting the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701 and maintaining contact between the parties through established mechanisms.

In August 2025, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2790, extending UNIFIL's mandate for what it described as a final period, through December 31, 2026. The resolution calls for UNIFIL to cease operations on that date and then conduct an orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal over the following year.

The decision does not mean that all United Nations personnel will immediately disappear from southern Lebanon on January 1, 2027. Instead, the resolution establishes a withdrawal process lasting up to one year. During that period, UNIFIL will continue certain functions related to the safety of its personnel, facilities and equipment and will maintain situational awareness within its area of operations.

The longer-term objective set out in the resolution is for the Lebanese government to become the sole provider of security in southern Lebanon. That objective places increased responsibility on the Lebanese Armed Forces and makes international assistance to Lebanon increasingly important.

The UN framework also calls for the implementation of Resolution 1701, including respect for the Blue Line and the cessation of hostilities. It calls on Israel to withdraw its forces north of the Blue Line and on the Lebanese authorities to deploy their forces and extend state control across Lebanese territory.

The Security Vacuum Question

The central concern surrounding UNIFIL’s departure is what happens if the Lebanese state is not ready to assume the full security role when the transition begins.

Lebanon’s military has faced severe financial and logistical pressures following the country’s economic crisis. International assistance has helped maintain parts of its operations, but questions remain over its ability to rapidly expand deployments, maintain equipment and operate throughout southern Lebanon without significant external support.

For Lebanon, the challenge is therefore broader than replacing UN personnel with another international force. The government wants the Lebanese military itself to become the principal security institution in the south. A temporary international presence could assist that transition, but the stated objective of several participating governments is to strengthen Lebanese capacity rather than establish another permanent foreign security structure.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has emphasized the need to avoid a security vacuum and has indicated that Lebanon would accept different forms of international assistance if they help the Lebanese military deploy effectively. He has also argued that a temporary international force could operate until the Lebanese Army is capable of taking over the required responsibilities.

That distinction is important. A successor mission could have a substantially different mandate from UNIFIL. Rather than functioning primarily as a traditional UN peacekeeping force, it could focus on training, advising, equipment, intelligence cooperation and assistance to Lebanese institutions.

France and Italy Explore a Successor Arrangement

France has emerged as one of the principal European countries attempting to shape the post-UNIFIL security framework. Paris has longstanding political and historical ties with Lebanon and has repeatedly supported strengthening the Lebanese Armed Forces.

France and Italy announced earlier in 2026 that they would work together on efforts to establish a possible international coalition supporting Lebanon after the UN mission's departure. The concept remains under discussion, and its final composition, mandate, legal authority and rules of engagement have not yet been established.

The European Union is also examining a possible role. EU foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas said earlier in September that more than 10 EU member states were willing to provide personnel and resources for a civilian and military mission designed to advise and train Lebanese forces.

Such a mission would not automatically constitute a direct replacement for UNIFIL. European officials have stressed that the objective would be to invest in Lebanon’s ability to provide security itself.

This distinction could become one of the most important issues in the negotiations. A large multinational peacekeeping force would require a clear mandate, participating countries, funding and political support from the major parties. A smaller training and advisory mission would face fewer requirements but would also have a more limited ability to respond to a major escalation.

Israel’s Military Presence Complicates the Transition

The future of southern Lebanon cannot be separated from Israel’s military presence and the continuing dispute over Hezbollah’s weapons.

The UN Security Council’s Resolution 2790 calls on Israel to withdraw its forces north of the Blue Line and on Lebanese authorities to deploy in areas where UNIFIL has been operating. The resolution also links long-term stability to the implementation of Resolution 1701 and the restoration of Lebanese state authority.

The situation on the ground, however, remains unsettled.

Israel has argued that Hezbollah must be disarmed and that its military infrastructure must be removed from southern Lebanon. Lebanese authorities have also committed themselves to establishing a state monopoly over weapons, but implementing that policy has been politically and militarily difficult.

The Lebanese government faces a particularly complicated task because Hezbollah is both an armed organization and a major political force inside Lebanon. Any attempt to impose the government's authority by force could carry serious domestic consequences.

For this reason, the international strategy under discussion emphasizes strengthening Lebanese institutions rather than creating another mechanism for direct confrontation.

Hezbollah Remains a Central Factor

The question of Hezbollah's military capabilities is one of the main obstacles to a stable post-UNIFIL arrangement.

Israel has repeatedly argued that Hezbollah's continued military infrastructure represents a direct threat to Israeli territory. Lebanese authorities, meanwhile, have said that state institutions must eventually become the country's sole providers of security.

The challenge is determining how that transition can occur without triggering another major conflict.

President Aoun has publicly supported the disarmament of Hezbollah while emphasizing the need to avoid an internal confrontation. The Lebanese government's approach therefore depends heavily on strengthening the authority and capabilities of the Lebanese Armed Forces while maintaining political stability.

International assistance could play a role in that process. Equipment, salaries, training, intelligence and logistical support could help the Lebanese military expand its presence. However, external assistance alone cannot resolve the underlying political dispute over Hezbollah's weapons.

International Reactions

French President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly emphasized the importance of supporting Lebanon's government and armed forces. In June, Macron said that the priority was to support President Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and the Lebanese Armed Forces so they could restore state authority and establish a monopoly on weapons.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has taken a broader position on the composition of any future international force. Ahead of the Paris meeting, he said Lebanon could accept a European, non-European, American, Asian, Arab or mixed force if it helped stabilize the south. He has also indicated that a temporary force could operate until the Lebanese Army is capable of deploying throughout the area.

European Union foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas has said that more than 10 EU member states were prepared to provide personnel and resources for a future civilian and military mission to advise and train Lebanese forces. She has described the approach as supporting Lebanon's capacity to provide security rather than simply replacing UNIFIL.

The United Nations position is defined by Security Council Resolution 2790. The resolution established December 31, 2026 as the end of UNIFIL's operational mandate and authorized an orderly drawdown and withdrawal over the following year. The UN framework places the eventual responsibility for security in southern Lebanon with the Lebanese government.

What Happens Next

The Paris meeting is unlikely to produce an immediate final blueprint for southern Lebanon. The more difficult negotiations will involve defining the mandate, size, financing, participating countries and legal framework of whatever international mechanism eventually emerges.

The Lebanese Armed Forces' requirements will also have to be assessed in practical terms. A transition cannot depend solely on political declarations. It requires personnel, vehicles, communications systems, intelligence capabilities, logistics, border monitoring and sustained funding.

The timing is equally important. Because UNIFIL's operational mandate ends on December 31, 2026, governments have only a limited period to develop an alternative framework before the withdrawal process begins.

A donor conference expected later in 2026 or in early 2027 could become an important part of that effort. Financial support would be particularly significant for Lebanon's military, which has struggled with years of economic pressure.

The international community also faces a broader question: whether a successor arrangement should concentrate primarily on training and institutional development or maintain enough operational capacity to respond to serious security incidents.

A Critical Transition for Southern Lebanon

The end of UNIFIL's operational mandate represents one of the most significant changes to the international security presence in southern Lebanon in decades. The UN mission has provided a multinational presence, monitoring mechanisms and a channel of communication between the parties for many years.

Its departure does not by itself determine what the next security arrangement will look like.

The Paris discussions indicate that France, Lebanon, Jordan and European partners are attempting to prepare for several possibilities, including a multinational successor arrangement and stronger direct support for the Lebanese Armed Forces. The United States and Israel will also remain important factors because of their positions on Hezbollah, Israeli troop deployments and the future security structure of the border.

For Lebanon, the central objective is to ensure that the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers does not create a gap that armed groups or renewed military confrontation can exploit. For European governments, the challenge is to provide meaningful support without creating another open-ended military commitment.

The coming months will therefore be focused on converting political commitments into an operational plan.

If a credible transition can be established, the end of UNIFIL could become part of a longer process in which the Lebanese state assumes greater responsibility for its territory. If the political and security disputes remain unresolved, however, the withdrawal will take place against a far more complicated regional backdrop.

For now, Paris is being used as a forum to address that uncertainty. The immediate task is to determine what Lebanon's military needs, what international partners are prepared to provide and how those commitments can be coordinated before UNIFIL begins its final withdrawal phase.