The article chosen for critical review is Nuclear-Weaponed Iran: A Difficult But Not Impossible Political Problem by Barry R. Posen. The author of the article is a political science professor at MIT who serves as director of MIT's Security Studies Program and, in addition to this achievement, has written two previous works, Inadvertent Escalation: Conventional War and Nuclear Risks and The Sources of military doctrine. Barry Posen brings a wealth of knowledge to the topic of nuclear weapons. Posen is well versed in the field of political science, plus he is represented at a highly respected university, and his previous work on nuclear weapons shows that he has knowledge on the topic (MIT Political Science). Over the years there have been constant debates, but there has been a lack of developments and actions on how to proceed against the possible production of nuclear weapons in Iranian hands. This pessimistic view is not without adequate concern because the leader of Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was recorded saying: "death to Israel", so skeptics and ordinary people share much concern about the development of nuclear energy in Iran. The technology would ensure the opportunity to build nuclear weapons. Which some may fear could be used against neighboring states in the Middle East. The state in danger of course is Israel, one of the cooperative states of the Middle East that essentially acts in the interests of the Western world, something that Ahmadinejad accused them of, saying that this is why both the UN and the United States are "pro-Israel". ' (YouTube Israel off the map). In this analysis, there may be a presence of realist bias. Within the text of the article, the examination of Posen...... middle of paper ...... which has been seen in the past as deals that are concluded could turn out to be nothing for Iran anyway. The United States entered Iraq against the UN. Knowing this, Iran would understand that making a deal with the United States may not be in their interest and could simply comply with their demands but secretly continue research and development on nuclear technology. Ultimately, leaving the second option, which is preventive war, as reliable. The other options give the Iranians too much time and leniency against a very large threat, a threat that would be in the hands of a Middle Eastern state in a very unstable surrounding environment known to harbor radical anti-Western and anti-Jewish organizations and people. . This is something that would be almost impossible to contain considering that guerrillas and stateless people are very difficult to track and control..