UNITED NATIONS — France’s blueprint for postwar arrangements in Lebanon was greeted coolly by America yesterday, exposing competition between Paris and Washington for who should provide the diplomatic leadership to bring to an end the fighting. Meanwhile, Secretary-General Annan will try to bolster the role of the United Nations in Lebanon today.

France, which is expected to lead the multinational force to deploy in south Lebanon once the war is over, yesterday nixed a British-American idea to convene a meeting of countries who might contribute troops to Lebanon. “It is too early, too adventurous,” said one French diplomat. “It could even be counterproductive.”

At the same time, while the Lebanon war rages, the Security Council yesterday was nevertheless able to conclude months of American-led diplomacy by passing what State Department spokesman Sean McCormack characterized as a “clear and strong” resolution on Iran’s nuclear program.

Of the 15 council members, only Qatar ended up opposing the resolution that threatens punitive measures if Tehran’s mullahs fail to suspend all aspects of their uranium enrichment program within a month. For the first time, Iran’s past agreements to suspend uranium enrichment became “mandatory,” top diplomats said. But Iran’s ambassador, Javad Zarif, immediately rejected the resolution, calling it “illegal.”

The resolution, which was ultimately somewhat weakened, was made possible after the ambassadors of the five permanent council members and Germany had for weeks held meetings until the differences between America, Britain, and France on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other were ironed out.

Those five members are expected to meet again today for a breakfast meeting hosted by Secretary General Annan at his residence, attempting to hash out a new formula on Lebanon that will usher in a lasting political settlement in the country once the war is over.

Mr. Annan, according to a diplomat familiar with the secretariat’s thinking who asked for anonymity, wants to ensure a central role for the United Nations in Lebanon at the end of hostilities. Although neither America and Israel, nor Hezbollah trust the United Nations, Mr. Annan believes the force sent to Lebanon should be under U.N. command and not a multilateral force merely authorized by the Security Council. He also wants a larger role for the existing U.N. office in Beirut, which could become a hub of activity on everything from humanitarian aid to advice on elections.

“We’ll have our own thoughts and perhaps circulate our own resolution,” American ambassador John Bolton said yesterday, commenting of the French proposal for a resolution on the post-war political arrangements and indicating that major differences over the future shape of a Lebanese peace remain between the two countries.

The French package begins with “an immediate cessation of hostilities,” but Israel said it is not yet ready for ceasefire, and yesterday expanded its ground operations. A 48-hour suspension of Israeli airstrikes, announced earlier by the State Department, was dismissed yesterday by Prime Minister Olmert. “There is no cease-fire and there will not be any cease-fire in the coming days,” he said.

Israeli diplomats said yesterday that while they accept some elements of the French proposal, they oppose its “sequencing.” Issues such as a cessation of the military campaign and delineation of the border, including the reopening of the question of Shaba farms which Hezbollah contends is occupied Lebanese territory, are dealt with up front, they note.

Israel’s major aim is to ensure that once it ceases the assault on Hezbollah, southern Lebanon will not return to the prewar situation, in which a hostile and heavily armed Shiite army threatened on its northern border.

“At first Hezbollah will have to be disarmed and then there should be a multilateral force that will assure that Hezbollah is not rearmed,” the Israeli U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman told The New York Sun. “Any cease-fire that will not ensure the disarming of Hezbollah is bound to be temporary and not a true cease-fire.”

The cancellation of yesterday’s proposed meeting of potential troop-contributing countries to the multinational force was just one indication of France’s new, more aggressive stance, vying for leadership on the issue. Mr. Bolton said the meeting was canceled because of “a scheduling question.” But a French diplomat said that France opposed such a meeting because America and Britain convened it even though they were not expected to contribute troops. Nor was a Muslim country invited, he added.

It is not clear yet how the new force is to be composed. France, Lebanon’s former colonial power, is expected to take the lead while Turkey and Indonesia were said to be interested in contributing troops. Germany said it would help train Lebanon’s army, which is expected to eventually deploy in southern Lebanon. The major issue, however, is how to prevent a repeat of the incident in 1993, in which a similar, Marines-led force was attacked by Hezbollah and quickly retreated.