Kataeb Lawmaker Selim Sayegh remarked that "the narrative of victory is not aimed at confronting the Israeli enemy, as the true balance of power is well known. Instead, this narrative is directed inward, at the Lebanese people."

"If the agreement leads to the dismantling of Hezbollah's infrastructure south of the Litani River, the group (Hezbollah) will likely strive to retain what it can north of the river. Should this occur, the remaining infrastructure and weapons, even if no longer serving their role in southern Lebanon, will continue to function as tools for maintaining control over the country's power structures," he stated.

This scenario, Sayegh warned, mirrors what transpired after the 2006 war, where UNSC Resolution 1701 was only partially implemented, focusing solely on southern Lebanon, despite its broader provisions for limiting arms to the Lebanese state alone.

In an interview with Al-Mashhad, Sayegh added: "I believe that when the ceasefire takes effect, it will become evident that there is a clear material victory for Israel. The occupation of parts of Lebanese territory, which Israel is now bargaining over for withdrawal, underscores this. Additionally, the Americans convinced the Israelis to halt the war by arguing that political gains could be achieved equal to what military operations might have secured if they continued. This rationale was a key factor in persuading Israel to stop its bombardments, as it recognized diminishing returns. UNSC Resolution 1701 will yield similar results, this time under direct American supervision in partnership with the French. This new dynamic offers Israel additional guarantees to end its military operations."

On the issue of separating battlefronts, Sayegh pointed out several political considerations.

"Firstly, the linkage between the southern Lebanese front and Gaza has been severed, allowing for a ceasefire in the south without impacting Gaza. Secondly, earlier narratives tied battles in the South to political outcomes in Beirut, with military actions dictating political developments, such as electing a president. However, the current balance of power on the ground discourages such linkage. Thirdly, Hezbollah’s long-touted deterrence against Israel has been shattered since October 8, as Israel freely targeted Lebanon without effective retaliation. Fourthly, Hezbollah’s previously marketed "rules of engagement" have collapsed, reducing the group to a player in international negotiations, resembling a conventional army bound by global power dynamics," he said.

Sayegh elaborated: "Certainly, Israel suffered losses, including casualties and the displacement of northern settlers. However, the guarantees provided by the Americans tilt the balance of profit and loss. While it may be premature to conclude, Lebanon is transitioning from Iranian to international, specifically American, guardianship. This shift undeniably marks a significant setback for Hezbollah on the Lebanese stage."

Regarding potential signals from Iran about improving relations with Washington, Sayegh said: "I am not privy to the exact developments between the Americans and Iranians, but clear indicators were visible even before recent events. The withdrawal of the USS Lincoln from the Middle East—originally deployed to deter Iranian aggression—coupled with a de-escalation in rhetoric over strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities or oil infrastructure, suggests a recalibration. Iran benefits from the ceasefire, understanding that it faces encirclement and preferring to negotiate rather than escalate. It appears Iran persuaded Hezbollah to accept the ceasefire, reflecting its influence over the group."

He continued: "It is unlikely that Iran would sacrifice Hezbollah in Lebanon as a goodwill gesture. Instead, Iran seems focused on preserving its regime and its status as a recognized regional power, albeit without disruptive proxies that threaten emerging regional stability."

"The recent events in Gaza and Lebanon suggest the dawn of a new security framework, starting in Lebanon, where non-state militias will have no place. This serves Iran’s existential needs and Israel’s security interests. However, this narrow solution does not serve Lebanon’s interests, nor does it contribute to lasting peace and security in the region. Small-scale security arrangements are insufficient," he added.

"Lebanon must become a stable state through political decisions emanating from Beirut, ensuring it is neither a hub for extremism nor a launchpad for attacks on other nations, as was the case in the past and continues today," Sayegh concluded.