Kataeb Bloc MP Salim Sayegh has described Israel's recent strike on Iran as a “highly calculated move” that could set the stage for either an escalation or a strategic settlement in the region. In an interview with LBCI, Sayegh explained that Israel targeted critical components of Iran’s defense system, including ballistic missiles, in a maneuver that appears aimed at preemptively weakening Iranian capabilities.

“By strategically diminishing Iran's missile defenses, Israel is possibly preparing for broader operations down the line,” he stated.

The precision and scope of the strike, Sayegh suggested, reflect an Israeli approach aimed at more than just confrontation. He pointed to the measured scale of the strike as a potential indication of a move toward a resolution.

"The limited scale of destruction might signal the start of a possible settlement," Sayegh noted, adding that Israel’s recent actions seem to be exploring pathways toward a resolution, unlike the full-scale military response seen in Gaza following the October 7 attack.

“Israel’s responses in Iran are not existential battles but ones of prestige meant to reinforce its deterrence.”

Sayegh elaborated on Israel’s calibrated approach, suggesting that the latest Israeli operation against Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel, which may explain the relatively moderated nature of the response. He emphasized that a full-scale conflict involving Iran would likely necessitate NATO’s involvement due to the alliance’s extensive reach and capability in the region, extending as far as Afghanistan.

In assessing Israel's focus on targeting high-level Hezbollah figures, Sayegh indicated that such actions extend beyond Israel’s decisions alone and often entail coordination with allies.

“The assassination of Hezbollah leaders involves broader calculations, often reflecting the retraction of specific support,” he said, noting that the implications of these actions have a ripple effect on Israel’s alliances.

Sayegh also provided insight into Iran's potential response strategy, emphasizing that Tehran may rely increasingly on asymmetric tactics, such as deploying martyr operations, rather than conventional warfare, which would present insurmountable challenges against Israel or NATO.

“Iran and its allies recognize the limitations of a direct confrontation and may adopt more unconventional means,” he stated.

Sayegh critiqued the U.S. strategy in the region as “flawed,” arguing that it overlooks the complex sociological and ideological undercurrents shaping Middle Eastern societies, focusing instead on short-term military dominance.

When asked about the potential for a wider war involving other powers, Sayegh highlighted Russia’s nuanced position. He noted that, given Russia’s economic interests in Israel and historical ties dating back to the Soviet Union, Moscow is unlikely to become directly involved.

“While Russia supports Israel,” Sayegh explained, “it also backs opposing forces to maintain a delicate balance of power.”

Sayegh also touched on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s encouragement of actions against Iran’s nuclear capabilities, which he sees as part of a long-standing agenda. While acknowledging Iran’s technical ability to develop a nuclear weapon, Sayegh contended that such a move would be strategically counterproductive for Tehran given current global dynamics. He pointed to the example of the Soviet Union, noting that even a powerful nuclear state can be destabilized from within.

“Possessing nuclear weapons does not guarantee strength or immunity,” he said.

Turning to Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon, Sayegh questioned its dual role as both a defender of Lebanon’s sovereignty and a separate military entity, independent from State oversight.

“Hezbollah cannot claim to defend Lebanon while operating outside the national framework,” Sayegh argued, calling for Hezbollah’s weapons to be integrated into a unified national defense structure to ensure Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence.

In concluding his remarks, Sayegh reiterated the necessity of internal balance in Lebanon, stressing that all Lebanese communities must be safeguarded equally. A future dialogue on Hezbollah’s role, he suggested, must address the disarmament of non-state actors to foster a unified and sovereign Lebanon.

“Lebanon’s unity depends on a shared commitment to State sovereignty, where no separate armed entity has the unilateral power to determine the nation’s fate,” he affirmed.