Toft and Layne go a step further by asserting that Mearsheimer misjudges the United States as a regional hegemon engaged in offshore balancing. Instead of being a regional hegemon with the strategic aim of dominating the Western hemisphere while preventing the rise of peer competitors in Europe and Northeast Asia, these scholars believe that empirical data points to the fact that the United States has sought and achieved global hegemony, which in turn biases Mearsheimer's predictions regarding future . strategic behavior, mainly in terms of its military involvement overseas.  
Neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism are simply manifestations of the same approach. Discuss. Introduction. The debate between neorealism and ...
Realist and liberal claims and theories for peace remain littered with loopholes and theoretical pitfalls which goes onto show the weak prospects for peace that exist in international relations. Despite strong claims by both sides backed up by empirical and theoretical arguments, both liberalism and realism are found lacking in their prospects for peace. Whilst realism does not make a claim to be a theory of peace, liberalism’s claim towards peace between democratic nations and cooperation through economic interdependence remains largely relevant. Nonetheless, liberal interventions in other parts of the world still pose a threat to peace in both relative and absolute terms, something that is counterproductive for a theory which actually takes an optimistic and reformist outlook on the subject of international relations.
— In a July 2015 appearance on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show , the president assailed the “money” and “lobbyists” arrayed against his deal, “a bunch of talking heads and pundits, and folks who are not going to be making sacrifices”–the same “armchair warriors” he had warned about as a young State Senator back in Chicago. During a conference call with supporters, Obama characterized opponents as “the same columnists and former elected, former administration officials that were responsible for us getting into the Iraq war and were making these exact same claims back in 2002, 2003, with respect to Iraq.” (Presumably he didn’t mean Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who both voted for the Iraq War). At a press conference the following month, Obama urged the American people to support a policy towards Iran “not based on lobbying but based on what’s in the national interest of the United States of America,” a fairly explicit allegation that those who opposed his deal were acting “in the national interest” of another country. Lest there be any confusion as to what country he was speaking of, in a speech at American University, Obama declared that “it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally,” Israel.
In short, had realists been at the helm of . foreign policy over the past 20 years, it is likely that a number of costly debacles would have been avoided and some important achievements would have been realized. One might question some of these claims, but on the whole realists have a much better track record than those who keep insisting the United States has the right, responsibility, and wisdom to manage virtually every important global issue, and who have repeatedly urged Washington to take actions that now look foolish.