Kataeb Lawmaker Selim Sayegh emphasized that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not have a clear, defined strategy.

"Netanyahu is exploring all possible options for every strike. He initiates operations in Gaza, scouting and preparing for a Gaza campaign, while keeping all alternatives open. Once finished, he shifts focus from Gaza to the front he considers the greatest threat," Sayegh said in an interviw with "Alghad" television.

"Today, Netanyahu opened the West Bank front before Lebanon, but when he had an opportunity to make a breakthrough on the Lebanese front, he decided to enter Lebanon. While there may not be a clear political objective, Netanyahu’s extreme geopolitical ideology drives him to use maximum force to keep his options open. This is evident in Lebanon, where he seizes upon the justification of daily attacks from Lebanon linked to the ‘support front’ that displaced the residents of northern Israel. When the moment came, he acted with full force against Lebanon," he explained.

Sayegh further noted that, in Netanyahu's view, there was no immediate necessity to link the fronts at first.

"However, after deploying maximum force on each front, Israel is now considering the possibility of connecting the battlefields, such as linking Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. This becomes viable once all opposing elements have been neutralized," he went on to say.

"What happened in Gaza is now happening in Lebanon," Sayegh said, "but all without a political horizon, as Netanyahu is unable to create one. A political settlement requires international backing, which is available for the war but not yet established for the day after. Currently, everyone is waiting for the outcome of this full-force strategy to organize the political landscape accordingly."

The Kataeb Lawmaker highlighted that Israel initially used selective force, targeting Hezbollah cadres in assassinations that weakened the party’s nerve center.

"After these initial security strikes, Israel’s capabilities increased, moving on to target political, military, and security leaders before launching the third phase of strikes aimed at destroying Hezbollah's infrastructure. This was akin to breaking Hezbollah's skeletal structure. Israel benefitted from the silence of the international community, which supported Israel’s operations in Lebanon under the premise that its strikes were precise and justified," he indicated.

"However, the international reaction to the situation in Lebanon differs from that in Gaza, where the Palestinian cause, regardless of the October 7 events, is seen as a legitimate resistance for existence. Israel’s actions in Gaza, which included violations of humanitarian law, led to its international isolation. In contrast, Israel portrayed itself as the victim in Lebanon, securing additional international support, which has given it more options. This support raises the question: if Israel can go all out, why limit itself to merely protecting its borders?" Sayegh added.

"Israel’s new strategy is to extend its defense beyond its northern borders, starting in Beirut, as the decision-making and organizational centers are located there. One significant development, which has not been sufficiently discussed, is Israel’s strike on Hezbollah’s intelligence command center, which encompasses its data, networks, and agents within and outside Lebanon," he explained.

Sayegh stressed that Israel has achieved devastating, possibly irreparable, blows to Hezbollah’s infrastructure, which may take months or years to rebuild.

He added that Israel’s deterrence strategy effectively collapsed with the outbreak of war between it and Hezbollah, saying that "Hezbollah adhered to rules of engagement, this was never officially recognized by Israel, which engaged in unilateral assassinations beyond the Lebanese border using airstrikes, missiles, and other means."

The Kataeb Lawmaker explained that deterrence is a pre-military concept designed to prevent war by intimidating the other side with the threat of overwhelming retaliation.

"However, once hostilities commence, the concept of deterrence becomes irrelevant. This prompted the Kataeb Party to assert that the deterrence theory between Hezbollah and Israel had effectively collapsed, as demonstrated by the eruption of conflict on October 8," he pointed out.

He further noted that deterrence as a concept emerged during the Cold War, when nuclear powers used it to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, saying that this approach then extended to conventional warfare but collapsed in Lebanon.

Regarding Israel's potential ground operation, Sayegh questioned who should defend Lebanese territory in the event of an Israeli attack.

"We unequivocally reject any violation of Lebanese sovereignty," he said. "However, the urgent question that must be answered swiftly is: Who should be entrusted with the defense of Lebanese land? We want only the Lebanese army—yesterday, today, and tomorrow."

Sayegh also touched on Iran’s consistent policy, dating back to the era of U.S. President Barack Obama, which seeks recognition of its role as a regional power with interests in the region. Iran is willing to commit to the nuclear agreement under the oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency, but it insists on cooperation rather than competition.

"While a nuclear deal was reached, the issue of recognizing Iran’s influence over major capitals like Baghdad, Damascus, Sanaa, and Beirut remains unresolved. The U.S. position on this matter has been ambiguous, with conflicting statements on whether they recognize Iran's influence. Following the events of October 7, Iran viewed this as an opportunity to solidify its role as a U.S. partner in the region. This was evident in the frequent visits of the late Foreign Minister Abdullahian to Beirut, where he acted as an intermediary with Hezbollah, urging Hezbollah to adhere to certain limits in the conflict while simultaneously advocating for the Palestinian cause. At the same time, he sought cooperation with the U.S., though American recognition of Iran’s role remains elusive," he noted.

Sayegh stated that the real obstacle to Iran’s partnership is Israel, which perceives Hamas and Hezbollah as heavily aligned with Iran.

"Despite indirect understandings between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel views Iran as a destabilizing force, unwilling to forge a partnership due to Iran’s backing of groups that threaten Israel's security," he concluded.