1. Realism
Oliver-Daddow compares the neo-liberalism and neo-realism. There is three assumptions in both sides that state is central actor, states are sovereign and international system is anarchical.
This is also security dilemma at international level.

2. Liberals vs Realists
Liberals believe in goodness of human nature and find peace through democracy
Realists believe it that human and states actions centered their interests, so war and conflicts are natural and can be faced through power.
Through international organizations (UN, EU) liberals try to eliminate the anarchy whereas realist keep it through balance of power.

3. Realists Thinkers
Hobbes emphasis on self-help and gain more and more power (security dilemma).
Thucydides says might is right. He says inequality among states for power is natural. So all states must be realistic.
E.H Carr says liberal’s thoughts as Utopian and emphasis on power relations.
Morgenthou studies IR as scientifically and says human nature is wicked and lust for power.

4. Neo-Realism Kenneth Waltz made significant in defensive neorealism
John Mearsheimer in his version of offensive neorealism.
Kenneth Waltz conclude that a bipolar system is more stable than a multipolar system. (Oliver-Daddow)

5. Folker
Classical realism: tended to assume that a human lust for power was the motivation for conflict.
Neorealism: associated with work of Waltz rejects human nature as a source of conflict & creates a purely structural version of realism in scientific way.
Offensive realism: Powerful countries always tends to attack other countries. Due to the absence of any world government, stronger country always have upper hand on weaker.
Defensive realism assumes that states instead want to maximize security.
Neoclassical realism focuses on external and internal variables between the pressures of the international system & nation state’s policymaking response.

6. Structural Realism
Karen Rauth Adams proved that there is great anarchical condition at international level and this is the main cause of wars.
she proved the realist structural four principles at international scenario and apply these principles on wars from 1800 to 1997 and particularly in the context of US as sole super power of the world from 1989 to Case study of Iraq is very important for the application of these principles.

7. Kenneth Waltz’s four Hypothesis
H1: Powerful states intended to attack on weak countries rather than powerful countries: US attacked already weaken Iraq and other countries like Panama, Libya and Afghanistan.
H2: Normally war is initiated by powerful state: US as a powerful state attacked on Iraq, which was only in first five in one out of nine categories.
H3: Great powers attacked for the motive of ambition or security: For Bill Clinton, attack on Iraq was to spread democracy. For George W. Bush, it was to protect the US in the aftermath of 9/11.
H4: This type of attack is normally criticized by other powers: France, Russia and China criticized the attack of US on Iraq. (Karen Rauth Adams)

8. Neoclassical realism Taliaferro and Wishart
Neoclassical realism is a theory of international relations. Initially coined by Gideon Rose. It is a combination of classical realist and neorealist particularly defensive realist theories. It holds that the actions of a state in the international system can be explained by systemic variables and domestic variables such as the distribution of power capabilities among states, state institutions, elites, and social actors within society.

9. Bush Doctrine The pearl harbor of 21st century took place today (Bush)
This brings Bush doctrine contains three major principles. US can invade any country, Military expansion and free market.

10. Bush says Iraq as axis of evil
US attacked Iraq because of resources (Oil reserves 5th world largest), Biological weapons, human violations against Kurds and Shias. They toppled down Saddam regime.
US repeatedly attack on Iraq and consistently ignoring Iran and North Korea.

11. Neoconservatives
Neoconservative’s emphasis on free market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy. They have greater faith in efficiency of military forces. (Taliaferro and Wishart)

12. Conclusion Realism is widely accepted because:
It gives a more realistic and practical approach as compared to liberalism to understand IR. As described by Karen Rauth Adams
It give us a true picture of events and make clear the ground realities as US attack and policies about Iraq.
It gives complete description and explanation of international events
It helps in predicting human nature and behavior which helps in predicting possible outcomes of cooperation among states. Normally, it is near to the reality.
Hypothetical approach is very applicable.
It can describes the Great game on International level among super powers and can predict war and peace.