In the article “Human Rights: Activists Discuss Post-Assad Syria”, several scholars discuss “The Day After” plan concerning the state of post-assad Syria. One scholar Steve Haydemann – of the USIP – states that the plan focuses on developments that assist “already autonomous regions”. Professor Afra Jalabi then talks about the importance of equality and justice for Syrians, specifically under rule of law. In another article “Syria After Assad: Heading Towards a Hard Fall?” writer Michael Eisenstadt, takes a more radical view on post-assad Syria. For example, he suggests the idea of an Alawite statelet; the unlikelihood of one resultant state with a strong central government; and Iran taking advantage of this broken state to strengthen its involvement and alliances. Concerning the first article discussed, it is important to realize the extent to which this civil war is effecting the rest of the world. Yes this “The Day After” plan definitely involves Syrian diplomats, scholars and the like, but the involvement of countries such as the US, and Germany has been crucial in its development and success thus far. Another thing this article brings to light is the human rights aspect of post-assad Syria. Yes it may be obvious to outsiders that human rights should be one of the focuses in considering the future Syria, but when it comes to foreign policy and government development, justice is not always top priority. The second article discussed was chosen precisely because it gave a completely different persepective on the future of Syria – a prediction that could be seen as logical or extreme.  Nonetheless this author arguably has a quite radical view on the future of Syria and how outside interaction was negatively impact the nation. However, towards teh end of the article Eisenstadt suggests that Washington should continue humanitarian acts by helping Syrian refugees across the Middle East and that the US is one of Syria’s only helpful allies in the end. This gives an interesting dilemma in foreign players with Syria.