Step 3 particularly lacks the depth of analysis required by the LAMP method. It requires an in-depth study of the views of each actor regarding the issue. While Mr. Gadd does discuss each issue at some length, he does not do this from the viewpoint of the countries he mentions. In fact, his study reads like a history from the viewpoint of an American author. Mr. Gadd only briefly addresses the issues as seen by the countries themselves. In this, he also focuses only on the similarities in the views of these countries, with the main point being that Iraq, Iran and Israel see themselves as isolated from their neighboring countries, and as being surrounded by enemies.
A better approach to this might have been demonstrating in greater depth the complexity of each country's views. I would for example have focused on both the similarities and differences of the countries involved. I would also have provided a shorter description of the historical account of each country, while providing more...
This point is the biggest flaw in the paper.
Another, lesser flaw is Step 4, which requires all the possible actions for each actor. Once again, Mr. Gadd discusses only three options for each country, which appears to be somewhat limited. Indeed, he continues to discuss each possible action in greater depth.
Instead of this strategy, I would have discussed more possible actions for each country, and chosen the three most likely ones. Another possibility would have been to discuss three or four possible actions, and then choose the most likely one or two for each country. I therefore believe that Mr. Gadd could gone to greater lengths to discuss the elements of Step 3 and 4 in more depth. These are however minor flaws in the light of the rest of the document.
Apart from these two steps, the rest of the paper includes all the steps of the LAMP method, and discusses them in a well-organized…
