Studying Iranian and American political relations at the International System level of analysis is interesting because each of the four contending International Relations theories emphasize different aspects of the relationship the two nations have. The main problem between Iran and the United States is Iran’s nuclear program and the question of whether or not Iran is actually utilizing it for peaceful purposes; this falls right in line with that aspect of the international system as a process not as a structure in terms of the economic, social, and security interests. The International System is anarchic, of course, thus interaction between states is key; the sense of “we-ness” found in international society is tweaked because problems between Iran and the United States have been occurring for decades. The “we-ness” exists separately for the two nations: the U.S. is concerned with militarily protecting itself and the world in relation to nuclear weapons and defending democracy and freedom, while Iran is concerned with being a strong theocratic republic and building up nuclear weapons for “peaceful purposes.” In a uni-polar world, where the United States is the one true super-power, stratification according to the radical viewpoint is interesting to look at for a few reasons. Militarily and economically, the United States is by far better off than Iran; in terms of natural resources, the United States might have more, but Iran is in possession and control of oil, an entity our lives revolve around. Iran has a certain amount of influence over the American way of living because Iranian oil revenues have skyrocketed since the implementation of the theocratic Shiite regime and the dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While it is clear that there is a truly uneven division of resources amongst these two states, seeing as the United States is considered a developing country and Iran a partly developed country, the oil possession is key. Systematic change is also very clear, seeing as Ahmadinejad became president in 2005; before he was president, the United States and Iran were working towards stronger relations. Again, from the radical viewpoint, we see a perfect example of stratification: the United States is a capitalist state while Iran is a developing state. The United Nations plays a key role in the relations between these two nations, especially when viewing the situation from a realist or liberal viewpoint; the United Nations was created out of self-interest to moderate state behavior. Largely in part due to the United States, economic and diplomatic sanctions were taken against Iran when they refused to suspend their nuclear weapons program and when they were pushed to suspend their uranium enrichment in 2006.It is interesting internationally to look at Iraq’s situation from the standpoint of the European Union, since the EU represents a huge global force commanding power in our world today. Ex-E.U. external relations officer, Chris Patten, stated that Iran’s backwardness towards human rights and unwillingness to cooperate with UN nuclear demands a grave problem facing our world. According to Patten, the EU has an “umbilical relationship” with Iran, (with trade concessions on the EU side, and social and political reforms, and guarantees that nuclear power will be limited to civil purposes on the Iranian side). He then notes that Iran has failed to uphold its side of the deal. While the EU sees hope in Iran, as a developing country with massive sway especially because of their oil reserves, they are fearful of their nuclear potential as well. Internationally, while the EU seems to view Iran just as the United States does, Patten noted that he believed the United States is unnecessarily too stringent with Iran at the present moment.  Here are some websites we thought might be useful:http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/09/1fe3acec-1399-4222-8229-2e63d31df7c3.html http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htmhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.htmlhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/13503/#9http://www.cfr.org/publication/15028/