Nassrallah should win, as leader of the majority. However, no one really wins in a civil war. If the west provides the Siniora/Hariri faction with weapons, which they are already doing, then a civil war won't end any time soon. Israel benefits from a fragmented and incapacitated Lebanon. It could be argued that the US is deliberately destroying the political infrastructure in the middle east so as to gain access to resources there. Thing look so bad right now, it is hard to see. However, there are hardliners who don't want sovereign governments interfering with business over there. In Nahr Al Bared, both sides are fighting with American made weapons.

I think an interesting analysis is the creation of Fateh al Islam by Hariri to counter Hezbollah. In Mosoaic Intelligence Report you say that the Palestinians are being used to spark a new civil war which is very interesting but the only one who gains is Nassrallah since the Shiates are majority.

From what I have read, there isn't enough hard evidence to convict Syria. In that case, nothing will be resolved and the bickering in Lebanon will continue, but Syria will take the lack of a verdict as exoneration.

If Syria is convicted, I think that Syria will be very rankled. However, if there were a constructive compensation involved, the desired healing might occur.

On the other hand, if a severe penalty or reprimand were involved, it could be counterproductive in so far as Syria, which is really trying to come in from the cold would be further isolated, and the Siniora/Hariri crowd in power in Lebanon, supported by their western allies, would get an undeserved win. Why undeserved, because regardless of who assassinated Rafiq Hariri, his successors have not consistently acted in the best interest of the country, and currently, their actions are arguably counterproductive to an extreme degree.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah and Aoun's party have been more aligned with the best interests of the people since last summer. Yet, they would surely be asked to share the blame in the case of a Syrian conviction, and their current initiatives to share in the power structure of the country would be undermined.

Just to play the Devil's advocate: In keeping with the following history (which I could document, but I won't take the space here, though there's more where this came from).
--Hariri and Nasrallah were allies early on. He was the one that invited Hezbollah into the government.
--Siniora is implicated in the Winograd Report for conspiring with Israel during last summer's bombing of Southern Lebanon.
--The US is arming the Lebanese army which, with Saad Hariri and Siniora's approval to fight Fatah al Islam, in Nahr al Bared refugee camp with is very near a location where they are negotiating with the US to put a Military Base.
Many think that if they use these arms, it will be the start of another civil war.
--The US tried to get permission to build a large base very near to Nahr Al Bared and Tripoli at Kaleiaat, from Rafiq Hariri, but he rejected the idea. He was thinking about building a fancy International port there.
--Though Syria didn't like Hariri's plan, I would assume that they liked the US base idea less.

Rafiq Hariri seems to have been truly independent in a way that none of his heirs in Lebanon is. This stabilized Lebanon under his governance, but most likely made some enemies on the outside, enemies who might not have been very open about their enmity to one so popular and positively influential in his own country.
So, what if Bashar Al Assad's threats directed toward Hariri shortly before his assassination were really a warning? Not about what his country was going to do, but about what Hariri's other friends might do if crossed.
Syria was the big loser after Hariri's assassination. But if they didn't do it, those who did would never be safe until Syria was publicly convicted of the crime.

That's just a story line (composed of valid data points) I haven't heard, so I thought I would throw it out there. It seems clear that there are elements in Syria's government who are capable of arranging a crime like Hariri's assassination. But there are elements in our government and the Israeli government that engage in this kind behavior on a regular basis as well.

This leads to another question. If a tribunal is forced on Lebanon (who could not agree on having one independently), where will the next tribunal be held? Which assassination or international crime will be the next to be worthy of a UN tribunal? Will they hold court in Palestine to investigate Israeli atrocities against the Palestinian people? or their ongoing practice of assassinating Palestinian political leaders as terrorists? Or will the tribunal investigate the US for invading and destroying various supposedly sovereign nations in the name of 'regime change'? Will they hold a tribunal for Chechnya or Tibet, to try the countries that destroyed their inherent leadership in order to take their resources? Or is this just something to add weight to assertions of legitimacy by certain factions in the Lebanese Government.

The UN Security Council has voted to set up an international court to try suspects in the murder of Lebanese ex-premier Rafiq Hariri in a move at once applauded and condemned in the deeply-divided country. The legally binding resolution, which was narrowly approved late Wednesday, sets June 10 as the date for a 2006 agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese government to establish the court enters into force.How will this affect Lebanon? and will Syria react?