The United Nations (U.N.) has long been a central player in managing international crises, particularly in conflict zones. Its peacekeeping forces, theoretically neutral and aimed at de-escalating violence, have often been deployed to prevent wars or ensure that ceasefires hold. One of the most contentious and prolonged conflicts in which the U.N. has been involved is the Israel-Hezbollah war, a simmering issue in the Middle East that has led to multiple outbreaks of violence. A cornerstone of the U.N.’s efforts in this region has been the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), created in 1978, and its mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted in 2006. However, despite decades of deployment, UNIFIL’s effectiveness has come under intense scrutiny. Its role—or failure—in disarming Hezbollah and preventing the militarization of southern Lebanon has exacerbated tensions and set the stage for future conflicts.
UNIFIL was initially deployed in 1978, following Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon in response to attacks from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Its original mandate was simple: confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restore peace and security, and assist the Lebanese government in reasserting its authority in the region. Over the years, however, UNIFIL’s mission became far more complicated, especially after Hezbollah emerged as a dominant military and political force in Lebanon following the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990).
The most significant escalation occurred in 2006 when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, sparking a full-scale war between Israel and the group. In response, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1701 to bring an end to the hostilities. The resolution called for an enhanced role for UNIFIL, tasking the force with ensuring the cessation of hostilities, monitoring the withdrawal of Israeli forces, assisting the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in deploying in southern Lebanon, and preventing the rearming of Hezbollah. However, the ambitious mandate soon collided with the stark reality on the ground.
One of the key provisions of Resolution 1701 was the disarmament of Hezbollah and other militias operating in Lebanon. Israel, having withdrawn from southern Lebanon in compliance with the resolution, expected that UNIFIL would ensure that Hezbollah could no longer use the area as a staging ground for attacks. Yet, 18 years after the adoption of Resolution 1701, Hezbollah is not only still armed but has amassed an arsenal that now includes over 150,000 rockets and missiles, making it a far more formidable military force than it was in 2006.
UNIFIL’s mandate was to monitor and ensure that Hezbollah and other militias were disarmed, but the mission has been a glaring failure. Hezbollah has managed to rebuild its military infrastructure under UNIFIL’s watch, including the construction of sophisticated underground tunnels and fortified positions near the Israeli border. According to Israeli intelligence, these developments have occurred despite the presence of thousands of U.N. peacekeepers, who either turned a blind eye to Hezbollah’s activities or were simply incapable of intervening.
Part of the problem lies in the limitations of UNIFIL’s mandate itself. The force was never given the authority to forcibly disarm Hezbollah. Instead, it was tasked with “assisting” the Lebanese government in doing so, which, in practice, has meant very little. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), which was expected to take the lead in disarming Hezbollah, is not only militarily weaker than Hezbollah but also politically constrained, as Hezbollah holds significant sway within the Lebanese government. This has created a situation where UNIFIL’s presence is more symbolic than practical, offering the illusion of stability while Hezbollah has become stronger.
Critics of UNIFIL argue that far from preventing Hezbollah’s militarization of southern Lebanon, the U.N. force has unintentionally acted as a shield, allowing Hezbollah to operate with relative impunity. There are numerous reports suggesting that Hezbollah has used U.N. equipment, such as vehicles and uniforms, to carry out attacks against Israeli forces. Additionally, the presence of U.N. peacekeepers has made it more difficult for Israel to strike Hezbollah positions, as any such action would be seen as a violation of U.N. mandates and could lead to international condemnation.
Moreover, Hezbollah has exploited UNIFIL’s restrictions on freedom of movement. According to Israeli reports, UNIFIL has been blocked from entering certain areas by Hezbollah forces, effectively allowing the group to maintain military installations in areas off-limits to international observers. These so-called “closed military zones” are often where Hezbollah has concentrated its weapons stockpiles and military infrastructure. Despite these well-known violations, UNIFIL has largely remained passive, citing the need to avoid direct confrontations with Hezbollah fighters who are often embedded within civilian populations.
A particularly stark example of UNIFIL’s ineffectiveness occurred during the 2019 discovery of a network of Hezbollah attack tunnels crossing from Lebanon into Israel. Despite U.N. resolutions forbidding such infrastructure, Hezbollah was able to construct these tunnels under UNIFIL’s nose, further undermining the credibility of the U.N. mission. The discovery prompted Israel to launch “Operation Northern Shield,” aimed at destroying these tunnels, raising serious questions about UNIFIL’s ability to fulfill its primary task of maintaining security along the border.
Another significant issue undermining UNIFIL’s mandate is Hezbollah’s deep entrenchment within Lebanese politics. As one of the most powerful political parties in Lebanon, Hezbollah wields significant influence over the government and, by extension, the LAF. This relationship makes it highly unlikely that the Lebanese government would take meaningful action against Hezbollah, much less work towards disarming the group. UNIFIL, therefore, operates in a politically compromised environment where the local authorities are unwilling or unable to enforce U.N. resolutions.
Furthermore, Hezbollah has managed to infiltrate Lebanese society to the extent that it enjoys broad popular support, particularly in southern Lebanon, where UNIFIL is stationed. This support, combined with its political clout, has enabled Hezbollah to undermine UNIFIL’s operations. There have been multiple instances of Hezbollah-organized protests and threats against U.N. peacekeepers, limiting their ability to conduct patrols or inspections freely. In some cases, Hezbollah operatives have attacked UNIFIL patrols, creating an atmosphere of intimidation that further hampers the force’s mission.
The failure of UNIFIL to disarm Hezbollah and prevent the group from rearming has profound implications not only for Israel’s security but for the broader Middle East. Hezbollah’s military buildup poses a significant threat to regional stability, and its ongoing conflict with Israel has the potential to draw in other actors, including Iran, which is a major sponsor of Hezbollah. The U.N.’s inability to control the situation has allowed the conflict to fester, raising the specter of future wars that could be even more destructive than the 2006 conflict.
In this context, the role of the U.N. as a peacekeeper in the Middle East must be critically reassessed. While UNIFIL was initially conceived as a temporary measure to stabilize the region, its long-term presence has failed to achieve its objectives. The peacekeeping mission has become part of the status quo, providing a veneer of international oversight without addressing the root causes of the conflict. Hezbollah’s continued militarization under U.N. supervision has eroded trust in the U.N.’s capacity to manage security in the region effectively.
The United Nations, through UNIFIL, has failed to live up to its mandate in Lebanon. By allowing Hezbollah to amass a sophisticated military infrastructure and failing to enforce disarmament, the U.N. has contributed to the worsening of the security situation in the region. If peace is ever to be achieved, the U.N. must reassess its approach, perhaps by revisiting Resolution 1701 and strengthening the enforcement mechanisms available to UNIFIL. Until then, the current state of affairs represents a dangerous equilibrium where conflict is merely postponed rather than resolved.
