Vostok — delo: UN considers options for future presence in Lebanon

The aggravation of the situation in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel threatens to disrupt negotiations between the United States and Iran. The escalation of the conflict undermines the diplomatic efforts of the parties and increases the general instability in the Middle East. In these circumstances, the UN Security Council is discussing options for a new format of presence in Lebanon after the end of the mandate of the UN Interim Force. This was reported to Izvestia by the official representative of the Secretary General of the world organization, Stephane Dujarric. Three options for deploying a contingent are currently being explored, which should consist of unarmed observers and UN military units to protect them.

The future UN mission in Lebanon

The format of the continued presence of UN forces in Lebanon is under discussion. Earlier, the Security Council asked the Secretary General to explore options for security assistance and monitoring of the Blue Line, the temporary border between Lebanon and Israel. Antonio Guterres offered three scenarios in response.

"The council is currently considering these options," Stephane Dujarric, the official representative of the UN Secretary—General, told Izvestia.

The essence of all three options is the same: there will definitely be unarmed observers on the border, and UN military units to protect them. The main differences are in the size of the contingent, budget and coverage area. The UN chooses whether the forces will stand only at key posts or patrol the entire border.

This initiative should completely replace the UN Interim Force in Lebanon— a historic peacekeeping mission that has been operating in the south of the country for decades. Her mandate ends definitively on December 31, 2026. Meanwhile, alternative proposals are emerging outside the UN framework. For example, France and Italy want to assemble their own coalition, which will work in close coordination with the European Union and the United Nations. In fact, this is a "plan B" in case the Security Council reaches an impasse and does not approve any of Guterres' options.

— So far, as far as I understand, there is no unequivocal acceptance of alternatives to the UN mission. It is important to understand the Government of this country itself, and the signals that we receive from within the secretariat, which is associated with peacekeeping. It's not that they love themselves very much and see no one else as effective, but these signals are quite alarming. It is unlikely that any alternative models of the presence of the armed forces of external countries will be as effective as the current UN peacekeeping mission operating in this country," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alimov told Izvestia.

Russia's permanent Representative to the world Organization, Vasily Nebenzia, earlier noted that Moscow considers it necessary to maintain a significant UN presence along the Blue Line, without which it is impossible to monitor the implementation of Security Council resolution 1701. According to him, Russia is ready to participate constructively in future discussions on this issue in order to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Currently, the number of the peacekeeping contingent exceeds 10,000 people — these are military personnel from 48 countries. Since the beginning of the March escalation, provoked by a large-scale escalation between Israel and Hezbollah after the elimination of Iran's supreme leader, the UN mission has recorded unprecedented levels of violence in southern Lebanon, mass flight of the population and total destruction of infrastructure. As the UN Interim Force in Lebanon told Izvestia, despite the lull after the agreements in Washington, local clashes continue, which makes statements about complete stabilization premature.

According to official data from the Lebanese Ministry of Health and relevant UN agencies, the conflict has claimed the lives of more than 4,000 people since the beginning of the March escalation. In addition, 1.2 million civilians were forced to hastily leave their homes and flee the war zone in the south of the country.

Mediterranean condominium: Italy and France share the Lebanese heritage of the United Nations

Rome and Paris agreed to intercept the peacekeeping function by creating their own coalition

US-Iran Talks

The conflict in Lebanon between Israel and the Hezbollah group directly determines the future of the dialogue between Washington and Tehran. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said earlier that the republic would enter into negotiations with the United States on the final agreement only after fulfilling all the points of the Iranian-American memorandum, which the parties concluded in June. The memorandum gives Washington and Tehran 60 days to reach a final agreement.

However, a direct military clash between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Shiite group undermines the basic articles of the memorandum declaring a cease-fire on all fronts and jeopardizes the resumption of full-scale peace talks.

Washington believes that Tehran is able to fully control its proxy forces. However, Iran cannot or does not want to completely contain Hezbollah, which refuses to disarm. On June 26, Israel and the Lebanese Government, headed by President Joseph Aoun, signed a framework agreement. This document assumes the gradual withdrawal of Hezbollah units across the Litani River and their subsequent disarmament by the Lebanese army.

The Litani River serves as a key strategic boundary: according to previous UN resolutions, there should be no armed formations south of this waterway, all the way to the Israeli border, except for regular Lebanese government troops. Nevertheless, the implementation of the new agreement remains questionable due to the weakness of the Lebanese army and the uncertainty surrounding the continued international presence.

The main stumbling block in resolving the crisis remains the fundamental mutual claims of the parties, which make any compromise extremely fragile. Israel strongly demands that Lebanon fully implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which means the elimination of Hezbollah's entire military infrastructure south of the Litani River, the cessation of regular rocket attacks on the northern territories of the Jewish state and the creation of a reliable buffer zone that will allow tens of thousands of evacuated citizens to return home.

In turn, Hezbollah justifies the right to armed resistance by Israel's continued occupation of the border territories, as well as by the IDF's constant violations of Lebanese airspace and maritime space. The group emphasizes that they will not lay down their arms until Israel completely stops military operations in the entire region and withdraws its troops from all the land areas occupied, according to Beirut.

According to Middle East expert Dmitry Brije, the most realistic prospect is not the complete disarmament of Hezbollah, but an interim formula: cessation of active hostilities, withdrawal of forces from the border, strengthening the role of the Lebanese army and international monitoring. Complete disarmament of the movement in the short term is unlikely, since for Hezbollah it is not only a matter of security, but also of political survival inside Lebanon. There is currently no force in the region capable of disarming Hezbollah.

For Iran, the Lebanese conflict is a matter of preserving the main regional asset within the framework of the "Axis of Resistance." The US-backed agreement between Israel and Lebanon is actually aimed at dismantling Hezbollah's military infrastructure, which Tehran regards as an attempt by the White House to consolidate Israel's dominance in the region contrary to the spirit of the US-Iranian memorandum.