Nation and state are not in fact quite the same thing, and the difference has dramatic consequences. State is the preferred word in formal discussion of international relations, because it is a formal, legal concept: a sovereign territorial entity. It may be true in practice that sovereignty is never absolute, but provides a conceptual bright line.
Iraq is a state, even though it currently exercises no sovereignty, but is governed by an occupation authority of other states. This condition is presumed to be temporary. Iraqi Kurdistan is not a state, even though it enjoys very considerable autonomy within its territory. Its autonomy is presumed to be, if not temporary, at least contingent, and in the long term an internal Iraq matter. That is, Iraq might emerge as a federal state, within which Kurdistan continues to enjoy some autonomy, but "invisible" and irrelevant to the international system in the same way that Texas is invisible to the international system.
Nation, however, has a more ambiguous meaning. In everyday usage we do use to mean a sovereign territorial entity, i.e., a state. But it carries an overtone of a society, a community of people who identify themselves with the nation. Since the rise of nationalism as an ideology, the belief has been strongly and widely held that nations should also be states. This has become the expected norm. Sweden and Thailand are states; we also understand them to be nations, whose people speak Swedish and Thai, and participate in Swedish and Thai culture.
However, a nation is not necessarily a state. To take a familiar and (relatively) non-contentious example, Scotland is readily understood to be a nation, a self-identified community whose people share a common heritage and culture, and if not a language at least a distinct national form of English. For that matter, England is also an identifiable nation, and not a state (though Americans often used "England" as s...