For realists, each state acts out a drive for power. The Iranian government says that its goal in developing a nuclear program is, as the New York Times writes, “the ability to generate electricity without dipping into the oil supply it prefers to sell abroad.” From the state perspective, the Iranian government is acting out its best interest in creating nuclear weapons. It is looking to increase its profits by preserving its oil supply for sales, and not using it for energy. As Mingst says, “once the state (with power and ideas) acts, according to the realists, it does so as an autonomous, unitary actor.” (104) The Iranian government, again, is acting against the wishes of the United States. It is acting out the interest of its own state, as oppose to abiding by other state’s wishes.  A current article in the New York Times discussed Iran’s 29th celebration of its Islamic Revolution this month. The story focused on Ebrahim Yazdi, who helped generate the revolution that led the shah to flee Iran years ago, and how he feels the government to not be upholding more democratic ideals which he and others had originally intended for Iran. Mr. Yazdi comments that Iran “ is not a monarchy, it’s a republican state… however, the political system, basically, is a despotic one.” (NY Times, Slackman). It is possible to say that, 29 years ago, Mr. Yazdi would have had a instrumental radical view of state, believing that the state can and will change under social pressure, that of which can come during a revolution (like the one he participated in).   However, it is safe to say that Mr. Yazdi view of state today is one which is constructivist. The Times notes that he, “is a staunch democrat who defines democracy not by the mechanics of governance, not by elections and institutions, but by ideas.” To constructivists, the governance of a state is liable to change as the norms, or the identity, of that state change. Mr. Yazdi works to promote his ideas in Iran, in hopes that if enough people join with him, he can change the character of the state, and as a result, more democratic ideals will start showing themselves in the Iranian government.   While it may not currently appear that Iran is working towards achieving a democracy, it is important to note that part of the point of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 was to stop the tyrannic rule in Iran and begin a democracy. However, the problem is that democracy has never been incorporated into politics in the Middle East so they are learning through trial and error.  Liberals believe that the state is a process, which involves contending interests; the interests and need of both society and government must be dealt with, and that is what Iran is trying to do.  States must also deal with other states, which is a current issue in Iran concerning nuclear power. According to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solanato, as quoted in the New York Times, major powers are “discussing possible new moves to draw Iran into negotiations over its nuclear program while still pushing for more U.N. sanctions.” Even though oil and nuclear power seems to be the chief goal of Iran, they are by no means the only goal; on the state level, liberalists believe that there is still the potential for democracy in Iran.    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/world/asia/16yazdi.html