By looking into American eyes without accepting any external dictation over the nuclear issue, Iran proves to be a nation-state, which internally and externally is strong enough not to make its own decisions for the promotion of national interests.  And the latest CIA declassified documents, which proved Iran nuclear programme is peaceful; a big dismay for Bush Administration, Iran showed its diplomatic triumph and proved that it truly stands as a model of nation-state. It serves as a model nation-state for many of the OIC states.
The Montevideo Convention ratified in 1933, which has been serving as the guide line for UN inter-state behaviour justifies sovereignty as the sole criteria for a country to be called a nation-state, apart from population, area and government. The sovereignty of a nation-state is gauged by two important indicators (internal and external).  The internal one is the gauged by the credibility of the political system and level of good governance with input/output or trust of a nation in its rulers.  The external factor is measured by foreign policy behaviour of the country that how far it is independent in its decisions with or without being dictated by regional or core powers. 
Foundations of modern Iran are based on the 1979 Islamic Revolution, a revolution from below which rocked the foundations of a repressive regime by mass mobilisation.  In many political analysts’ it is a classical revolution like Russian, French or Chinese. Iranian revolution is the only example in the entire Muslim history when a powerful regime was toppled by the sheer strength and will of the masses.
Robin Wright, a leading American social scientist ’s writes in her book The Last Great Revolution: Turmoil and Transformation in Iran claims analysis that Iran took bigger steps in defining a modern Islamic democracy than any other Muslim country.  Her widely read book: serves the hypothesis that Iran in her own sense is a nation based on popular representation and participation.
Iran has a political system with viability and possible popular support. The government in Iran may not be based on Westminster or Capitol Hill Model; it may not even be ranked first on democratic lines as Finland or Switzerland does, nonetheless, it represents a system where ultimate powers are with masses.   The form of governance Iran has is indeed lacked more or less by OIC countries.  Two months after the 1979 Revolution Iran emerged as a republic based on constitution unanimously adopted in December 1979 which having been revised in 1989 is still in practice without being in abeyance for a single day. Elections have been held regularly for presidency and unicameral parliament without any excuse or debacle and political parties/factions with opposite ideologies like Tudeh party was allowed. President Mahmud Ahmadnejad and first vice president Parviz Davudi are the poor sons of the soil whose rise to power is the ultimate result of the continuity of electoral process between fundamentalists and moderates.  The differences between the two have not clogged the process of elections based on universal franchise. So is the case for the Majlis, the Iranian parliament comprising 290 members. Iranian system of government can serve the model of a self-adopted representative system for a large number of OIC nation-states suffering from the crisis of legitimacy and representation.  The rise of poor class of society, like Ahmadnejad who being the son of a cobbler became the mayor of Tehran and later on head of the state.
Since the revolution it has not shown dependence on any major power. Khomeini, the sole architect of Iranian revolution and a leadership role for the incomers, from the very beginning defied the interference of super powers as evil. Neither East nor West was the motto of their foreign policy, which they boldly adopted in the height of cold war on Afghanistan.   America, to the new rulers, was the biggest evil, which for long plundered Iranian wealth of oil by supporting an illegitimate regime.    The policies of Iran in the formative years of revolution were subject to many test trials.   It negated the role of US against its interests, condemned soviet invasion of Afghanistan as aggressive and aberrant, allowed 2 million afghan refugees on humanitarian grounds without letting them engaged in any subversive and clandestine counterrevolutionary or Jihadi actions like we did under the US led western political and eco-military support -- the price for which we are paying.   The invasion of Afghanistan like a border sharing country threatened Iran’s internal and external security but they, unlike Pakistan, did not compromise on their sovereignty for security reasons.
Iran was plunged into a bloody war with Iraq soon after uninformed Iraq attacked its territory for the pursuit of Shatt ul Arab in 1980.  It was the longest war, which engaged Iranian government energies away from any possible economic development till 1980.   During the years Iran remained under US sanctions without very little military and economic support from the West.   Iran is estimated to have suffered around a million causalities.   Going for a war for a nation having newly undergone a bloody revolution and with growing economic problems was not an easy task.   The Iran-Iraq war was the hardest test trial for revolutionaries to achieve their struggle for a governance based on popular support.
Iran’s foreign policy since the 1979 revolution is based on principles serve the purpose of revolution without being comprised.  The recent Iran nuclear crisis with the US reminds us of the independence of Iranian foreign policy under the leading theoretical framework that countries without huge foreign debt and representative system can have an independent foreign policy or vice versa.  The sense of belonging and nationalist aspirations supports the sovereignty of Iranian defiance of American pressure -- a factor on the basis of which many like me are claiming that America would not attack Iran.  The independence of Iran as a nation-state might have become sensitive to America as sole dominant power at cost of international sanctions etc. but did not become vulnerable as happened in case of core-periphery relationship between US and Pakistan in 2001 or before.  There is seldom any U-turn in Iranian foreign policy since 1979.   Iranian nationalism being based on centuries old historical and cultural roots is fanned and reactivated by leaders like Mossadaq and Khomeini and linguistic links.
Iran stands as a nation-state with an independent and nationalist behaviour in international system without either U-turn or compromising on its sovereignty.  It has problems of adjustment and accommodation like many developing countries in international system, but it defied the myth and power of American imperialism. It should serve as mirror for a large number of OIC countries whose policies are under great American influence.