The basic assumptions of Realist account of International Relations give credence to this fundamental idea that state is a unitary actor; say, “the state speaks with one voice”. This means that irrespective of multitude of voices, not necessarily congruent, within the sphere of domestic politics, the ultimate result is a single policy that enacts and legitimates a certain type of approach to a given situation that a state needs to deal with within the sphere of international politics. Obviously, this idea that state is a unitary actor is prerequisite to another realist assumption that states are rational. This is so because rationality in this sense alludes to the identification of goals and preferences and determining their relative significance and this necessitates the ability of the machinery of state to produce foreign policies that converge at one point. A state cannot speak with one voice if such a convergence is not in place. My observation of recent Iran prompted me to reconsider the realist notion that state is a unitary actor. Iran, I would argue, has shown in recent years that the dynamic of domestic forces at work can have a significant impact on the status of the state outside, in terms of the ability to have the posture of a unitary actor. This has happened due to the aggravated tensions within the body of the state elites. The domestic politics of Iran in recent years proved to lack the capacity of accommodating these aggravated tensions and this led to the entry of these disagreements, sometimes fierce in nature, to the venue of foreign policy making of the state. In this paper, I would start with showing how these controversies found their ways to the new venue; then, I would elaborate on the ramifications that this transformation has for the state in terms of security, and I would end with a revisit of the realist idea of state as a unitary actor. This research provides a picture of a state whose entanglements in domestic politics yield consequential results for it in international domain.