Kataeb Party MP Salim Sayegh said the U.S.-Iran agreement should be viewed with optimism, arguing that the Middle East is entering a new phase marked by shifting regional balances and political realignment.

Speaking in an interview on the Beirut Politics platform, Sayegh said the United States had emerged as a central player in regional affairs after projecting its influence across the Middle East.

"The United States fought on territory far from its own and managed to gain control of most of the region's key sources of leverage," he said. "Today, it has become the main point of reference in conflicts stretching from the Gulf to the West Bank and the Eastern Mediterranean."

Sayegh said the success of the American diplomatic track is in the interest of all parties, including European countries, Lebanon, and the United States itself, adding that there is no reason to fear the current agreement between Washington and Tehran.

He argued that developments inside Iran are just as important as external agreements, pointing to internal disagreements and criticism surrounding the deal. According to Sayegh, such divisions could serve as indicators of broader change within the Iranian system.

He also stressed that regional developments should not be analyzed solely through a geopolitical lens but also through a social one.

"Real transformations begin within societies themselves," he said, adding that shifts in decision-making centers and public support often drive long-term political change.

Sayegh said any financial incentives Iran may receive under the agreement would not be sufficient to offset the scale of its losses, describing the sums being discussed as only a fraction of the country's actual needs.

Sayegh said the conflict had reached the limits of what military action could achieve and warned that further escalation would have led to a prolonged and costly ground war.

"The negotiations succeeded because they reached a stage of maturity," he said. "That is the moment when a settlement becomes more beneficial than continuing the conflict."

He added that the United States had achieved significant gains in the regional balance of power but understood that any agreement requires a viable counterpart capable of governing rather than a completely defeated adversary.

According to Sayegh, the agreement was reached with the Iranian actors deemed most capable of managing the next phase, while its effects are likely to extend beyond Iran itself to include allied groups and networks in countries such as Iraq and Lebanon.

Turning to Lebanon, Sayegh expressed confidence that the country would not remain caught between Israel and Hezbollah.

He said the American diplomatic track would ultimately contribute to extending Lebanese state authority across all national territory, while noting that Washington is aware that Lebanon can no longer be managed through past approaches.

Sayegh rejected comparisons with earlier periods of Lebanese history, saying the circumstances surrounding the May 17, 1983, Agreement and the Taif Agreement differ fundamentally from current realities.

He also argued that Iran does not exercise influence over Lebanon in the same manner as other powers did during previous eras and predicted that Hezbollah would become increasingly tied to Lebanese national identity over time.

At the same time, he said a majority of Lebanese now believe that Iran's regional project has brought hardship to Lebanon and that the country has paid a heavy price for its association with it.

Sayegh stressed that he was not advocating dependence on the United States.

"The Americans work for their own interests, not for anyone else's," he said. "Our responsibility is to understand those interests and identify where they intersect with Lebanon's interests."

He warned that Washington could eventually leave the Lebanese to deal with their own challenges if they fail to address the country's crises themselves.

Commenting on reports of direct communication between U.S. President Donald Trump and Hezbollah, Sayegh said contacts between intelligence agencies and adversaries are a normal part of international affairs.

He described reports that Trump had sought the phone number of a Hezbollah official as "more folklore than anything exceptional."

Sayegh reiterated his rejection of any form of foreign tutelage over Lebanon and insisted that decisions affecting the country must remain in the hands of its legitimate institutions.

Recalling an incident from 1958, he noted that Kataeb founder Pierre Gemayel rejected American pressure related to the formation of a Lebanese government, saying that approach remains part of the party's political culture.

He emphasized that President Joseph Aoun is the country's highest constitutional authority and that no foreign power should bypass Lebanese institutions or deal with other parties at the expense of the state.

Sayegh also described the Lebanese Army as the country's principal national institution and the foundation upon which Lebanon's stability and security can be built.

However, he argued that the international community expects much from the Lebanese state while failing to provide it with adequate resources.

"The Lebanese Army needs substantial support if it is to carry out the responsibilities expected of it," he said.

Sayegh said Lebanon should not become a bargaining chip in negotiations between regional and international powers.

"If Lebanon's supreme interest requires pursuing peace that safeguards its rights and sovereignty, I have no objection to discussing that option," he said. "But it must be a free Lebanese decision, not the result of pressure or external dictates."

He stressed that Lebanese citizens would never accept giving up any part of their territory, regardless of the pressure they face.

According to Sayegh, Lebanon's challenge goes beyond rebuilding the damage caused by wars. It must also build a state capable of preventing future conflicts and ensuring that the country is no longer used as a battlefield for regional struggles or a platform for missiles.

He said Lebanon needs to move from managing crises to pursuing lasting peace and stability and called for a clear vision for the future rather than continued focus on analyzing existing problems.

Sayegh said there are differences in positions between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement and expressed hope that Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri would maintain his current stance in the coming months as the consequences of the U.S.-Iran agreement become clearer.

He also argued that even if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu loses future elections, his successor could prove more hardline, warning that hidden conflicts may ultimately be more dangerous than visible ones.

Sayegh predicted that Hezbollah would attempt to compensate for what he described as its major losses in southern Lebanon and the decline of its historic resistance narrative by intensifying its political efforts domestically, including attempts to bring down the government.

"Hezbollah will try to make up for its devastating loss in southern Lebanon and the loss of its historic resistance narrative by turning inward politically," he said.

However, he argued that the domestic conditions that enabled the party to achieve its objectives following the 2006 war no longer exist.

"Hezbollah must understand that the old days are gone," Sayegh said. "We will never leave Lebanon, and we will no longer bear the cost of Hezbollah's failed strategic wagers after extending our hand and inviting it to return to the Lebanese state."

He added that Hezbollah and its allies must recognize that the era of exporting the Islamic Revolution has come to an end and that the Iranian system built around that project and the pursuit of nuclear weapons is also reaching its limits.

"The practical translation of this reality is unfolding before our eyes through the dismantling of Iran's regional arms and through an agreement in which Iran acknowledges that it can no longer possess nuclear weapons," he said.

Sayegh concluded by saying that Lebanon is repositioning itself and making clear that it will not accept conditions imposed by Israel.

He argued that the country must ultimately adopt a policy of positive neutrality and distance itself from regional conflicts and rivalries.