Lebanon Between the UNIFIL Deadline and the Weapons Challenge: Intertwined Security and Economic Pressures
Bottom line
In conclusion, Lebanon faces a dual test: a security deadline marked by UNIFIL’s end without an agreed alternative, and a domestic deadline represented by Hezbollah’s weapons, which the government rejects and Hezbollah insists on keeping. Amid continued Israeli violations and regional and international pressures, the state’s ability to prevent a security vacuum or a new war depends on fragile external settlements and unresolved internal balances.
Current situation
Reports over the past 72 hours indicate that Lebanon is in a delicate phase where security deadlines overlap with economic and political pressures. As the end of UNIFIL’s mandate on 31 December 2026 approaches, Beirut has seen a series of international diplomatic and military visits, notably by UN Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the Qatari Prime Minister, and the French Foreign Minister and Minister of the Armed Forces, alongside US positions rejecting an extension of UNIFIL and pushing for a new security framework. Meanwhile, Israel continues its airstrikes, shelling, detonations, and incursions in southern Lebanon, with threats to expand what it calls a permanent security zone to include Nabatieh and the Litani. Domestically, disagreement over Hezbollah’s weapons is escalating after the government passed a decision banning its military activity and requiring it to hand over its weapons, while Hezbollah refuses to recognize the decision’s effects. These developments coincide with sensitive economic files related to the IMF, the financial gap law, and deposits, as well as Banque du Liban’s revocation of Iran Export Bank’s license, a Qatari electricity development project, and health, security, and judicial matters.
Analysis
The phase’s central axis appears to be the struggle over post-UNIFIL arrangements and the fate of Hezbollah’s weapons, two intertwined files. The United States rejects an extension and pushes for a tripartite framework and gradual measures to disarm Hezbollah and boost the Lebanese Army’s capabilities, while Paris and Brussels seek a European mission and a French-Italian coalition that are not presented as a direct alternative to UNIFIL and do not include a mandate to disarm Hezbollah or force an Israeli withdrawal. This divergence reflects a European attempt to fill a possible vacuum without direct confrontation with Hezbollah or Israel. On the ground, Israel continues its military pressure and expands its threats, placing the Lebanese government in a difficult position between demanding an Israeli withdrawal and implementing international resolutions, and its inability to impose a disarmament decision on Hezbollah, which rejects it and considers it null. Iran, according to an Israeli report, is pushing Hezbollah toward greater escalation, including possible abduction of soldiers, but Hezbollah has not finalized its decision due to disagreement over timing, indicating complex internal and regional calculations. Domestically, the withdrawal of Lebanese Forces ministers from the cabinet session, the memorandum by 86 MPs, and the results of a poll among Shia reflect growing pressures on both the government and Hezbollah. Economically, IMF talks on the financial gap law and deposits are progressing, but remain tied to difficult political decisions, while Banque du Liban’s decisions and the revocation of Iran Export Bank’s license reflect the impact of US pressure on Lebanon’s financial landscape.
Outlook
In light of the available data, scenarios range between three possibilities. First: reaching transitional arrangements before 31 December 2026, through a European mission, a French-Italian coalition, or an indirect extension of a UN role, while international pressure continues for disarming Hezbollah; this could prevent a comprehensive security vacuum but would not fundamentally resolve the weapons file. Second: failure to reach an agreement, opening the door to a security vacuum in the south and broader Israeli escalation, especially if Israel carries out its threats to expand the security zone or responds to any Hezbollah operation. Third: limited or broad military escalation if Iran and Hezbollah decide to move to confrontation, or if Israel launches a major operation, with repercussions on Lebanon’s interior and economy. Economically, the IMF path appears likely to advance if the financial gap law is passed, but any delay or security collapse would postpone financial treatment. The decisive indicators remain the Security Council’s decision on UNIFIL, the course of US-Iranian negotiations, developments on the Lebanese-Israeli border, and the government’s ability to contain the dispute with Hezbollah.