On August 14th, the UN-mandated ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon went into effect. There was a rush of UN peacekeeping reinforcements to maintain control over Southern Lebanon; or rather, there should have been. On the 19th, all of fifty conditioned, grit-ironed, protractor-wielding French engineers stormed the shores of Naqoura like modern day Normandy. These engineers came as reinforcements for the almost two-thousand UN troops, from France, Ghana, India, Italy, Poland and Ukraine, already in Southern Lebanon, as part of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). It wasn’t until September 2nd, eighteen days after the ceasefire, that actual troops (150 Italian marines and 250 French soldiers) arrived to reinforce UNIFIL. The second that Israel invaded Lebanon, the UN had to have known that UN troops would be sent in, but some countries are still in the stages of deciding whether or not to send troops. Simply, troops are arriving in Lebanon too slowly.

Even with the assumption that a decent number of troops will arrive in Lebanon, there is little hope that UNIFIL will do any long-term good for Lebanon or Israel. The UN wants to use its standard playbook, which has failed time and time again for the past 30 years in the region.

UNIFIL was created in 1978 in response to Israeli reaction to Palestinian attacks based from Lebanon. This UN force has three main purposes: “confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area….” Between 1978 and 2000, Israel carried out several retaliatory attacks against Hezbollah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Palestinian guerrillas. UNIFIL’s continuing mission has been to reinstitute its three 1978 mandates. These UN troops are referred to as an interim force with much irony, considering that UNIFIL troops have remained in Lebanon since 1978 and have only been able to provide short periods of stability.

According to the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in January 2001, UNIFIL had completed two of its three mandates: the withdrawal of Israeli forces and restoration of international peace. In reference to the third mandate, returning control of Southern Lebanon to the Lebanese government, Annan stated, “UNIFIL cannot, of course, compel the Lebanese Government to take the last step and deploy its personnel down to the Blue Line [the official Israel-Lebanon border].”

Annan’s positive view of UNIFIL’s past progress is nothing short of disturbing. Annan fails to understand (or at least communicate) that the third mandate was the most important. Because the Lebanese government and UN have allowed Lebanon, and especially Southern Lebanon, to become a Middle Eastern “Wild West” for armed groups, various terrorist organizations have been able to base their operations from there. Palestinian groups first took advantage of this situation. In 1982, the then-recently-created Hezbollah followed them.

Apparently, Annan believes that Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon will bring lasting international peace. He fails to consider why Israel invaded Lebanon this past summer and six other times in the past thirty years. Of course the recent thirty-four-day war was triggered by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, but Israel invaded Lebanon in order to remove the threat of a heavily-armed, well-financed terrorist group, whose main goal is the destruction of Israel. Past UNIFIL efforts have only resulted in temporary periods of peace. Every time the UN gets involved in Lebanese affairs, Israel pulls out, the UN watches Israel leave, and the UN watches the government of Lebanon do nothing as a terrorist organization rebuilds Southern Lebanon. Right now, it seems that history will repeat itself yet again.

Annan and the UNIFIL commander, Major-General Alain Pellegrini, have made it clear that the UN will not take action to disarm Hezbollah. Pellegrini said, “[Disarming Hezbollah] is a national issue, and this has to be solved by the Lebanese authorities. My mission is to keep a well-defined area which is between the Litani River and the Blue Line clear of any weapons.” Additionally, early UN statements implied that the UN might aid in border patrol to keep more arms from passing through the Lebanese-Syrian border, but now the UN has made clear that it will not be involved in this capacity. Riddle me this: how can Southern Lebanon be clear of weapons if Hezbollah, the group with the weapons, is not disarmed and allowed to rearm? Furthermore, why should anyone expect the Lebanese government to finally disarm Hezbollah on its own? Even though an armed Hezbollah puts Lebanon at risk of invasions and bloody wars, the Lebanese government will avoid internal strife at nearly any cost due to the memory of the fifteen-year civil war, which only ended in 1990. The UN force has been ordered to make sure that Southern Lebanon is free of weapons, but this requires some action.

UN officials hope to have 15,000 troops in Lebanon by the end of September to protect civilians in imminent danger, protect UN humanitarian personnel, and assist Lebanese troops. More or less, troops are being stationed there to maintain the status quo, which has not worked in the past. What will happen when the international community gets bored of watching over Hezbollah and when UNIFIL ranks are reduced to the standard one- to two-thousand? Hezbollah will simply continue to fire rockets and ammunition into Israel as it has done, unprovoked, for years. Then, after a few years, Hezbollah’s attacks will become so aggressive that Israel will respond, putting everything back at square one. Hezbollah must be disarmed. Perhaps through negotiation, perhaps by force; either way it must be done.
If the UN wants to stabilize Lebanese-Israeli relations in the long-term, it must disarm Hezbollah and must enable Lebanon to be accountable for its whole territory. Without these actions, Hezbollah will resume attacks on Israel and Israel will respond. The UN must disarm Hezbollah for the good of both Lebanon and Israel.

TACTICAL REASONS FOR THE PLANNED BUILD-UP

Besides the aforementioned problems, there are some oddities about Lebanon that may play a role in other international issues. These oddities stem from the size and types of forces that are being deployed “for Lebanon.” The most obvious peculiarity is that the UN is planning to send 15,000 troops into Lebanon. This is an extremely large number of troops for any peacekeeping mission and shockingly so for such a small area. For comparison, in 1993 the largest peacekeeping deployment in Somalia was 28,000 troops. Somalia is 246,201squaremiles, while the UNIFIL-controlled area is about twelve square miles. Furthermore, in Somalia, UN troops were ordered to disarm militants and patrol the border, something UNIFIL troops will not be doing. Somalia is an example of a large peacekeeping force; most have less than two-thousand troops. So why are there so many troops doing so little in such a small area?

Another strange aspect of the UN forces gathering in Lebanon is their equipment. French defense officials have announced that France will be deploying heavy artillery including Leclerc tanks, surface-to-surface artillery, short-range anti-aircraft missiles and radar. USA Today points out that this is unusually heavy weaponry for a peacekeeping force, but the oddest part of this report are the anti-aircraft missiles. Possibly, the French are deploying anti-aircraft missiles in case Hezbollah attempts to fly unmanned drones, which Hezbollah has done at least twice. These missiles are most likely not intended for Hezbollah drones, though, since their use is rare and the drones would not normally pose an imminent threat to civilians. It is also possible that these missiles are being installed as a deterrent against Israeli planes, although it is incredibly unlikely the UN would ever attack Israel.

The last peculiarity of the forces traveling to Lebanon is that they are not all UN forces. DEBKAfile, an Internet publication based in Jerusalem, first reported that there are two aircraft carriers and fifteen warships (7 French, 5 Italian, 2-3 Greek, 3-5 German, and 5 American) idling by Lebanon’s shore. So far, the French, Italian and American ships’ presence have been confirmed by the Associated Press and national press releases. These craft are in addition to the Italian-based American Sixth Fleet, Israeli missile ships and submarines, the NATO fleet, and the Cyprus-based British air and sea forces that permanently swarm the Mediterranean. The American ships are officially being deployed to aid the US embassy and US citizen evacuation. The European ships are probably officially allocated to resume the blockade of Lebanon and for the support of the approximately seven-thousand European troops soon to arrive in Lebanon, but why would so much firepower be needed to support UNIFIL’s and US’s non-combat activities? Additionally, two aircraft carriers are not needed for a sea blockade. DEBKAfile speculates that this armada, the largest amassed since WWII, is connected to an anticipated war between the US and Iran. If so, these ships would act as a deterrent against Iran, Hezbollah and Syria, as well as a tactical base from which to attack Iran.

This evidence and speculation also meshes with the size and equipment of UNIFIL forces. The excessive build-up in and around Lebanon may act as a threat to Iran during nuclear negotiations. Additionally, if an impending conflict between the US and Iran is expected, the UN would want such a large force to make it impossible for Hezbollah to fight in conjunction with Iran and prevent Iran or Syria from invading Lebanon. This would also be a more likely and useful purpose for the anti-aircraft missiles and heavy artillery. Under current pretexts, the size and outfitting of UNIFIL troops and of the multi-national sea fleet does not make sense. It appears that the UN, as well as European countries and the US, are fortifying Lebanon as a show of strength to Iran in order to compel it to yield to international demands. If negotiations fail, these fortifications would also be used in a war against Iran and to deter Hezbollah and Syria from joining Iran.

The UN’s actions are still not acceptable, taking into account that it may be preparing for a war with Iran. War or not, Hezbollah will remain dangerous ally of Iran and a threat to Israel and Lebanon as long as it is armed and allowed to rearm. Additionally, if there is a war with Iran, Hezbollah will fight alongside Iran; therefore, Hezbollah should be disarmed before they are given the chance to fight with Iran.