Originally, realist was founded on the assumption that interest determined and shaped the relationship that U.S would build with other countries. Thus interests shaped its foreign policy with regard to selection of its allies. This interest would be specifically target foreign allies that can cooperate in issues such as economic and military coalitions. Interestingly, this perspective is no longer applicable since the priority areas that require cooperation such as terrorism have emerged pushing even the U.S to team up with others and combat terrorism.
The realist paradigm has misinformed foreign policy makers that nations cannot build foreign networks with permanent allies and that there are permanent enemies and allies in international relations. However, there are nations that have formed real friendships and built strong relationships and networks founded on around the need for a common stance concerning certain issues such as terrorism. In principle, such cooperation is guided further by shared political ideologies such democracy and belief in the rule of law. For example, the U.S found allies such as Britain and France in the fight against terrorism following the bombing of the World Trade Center. On the same note, there are countries that cannot form foreign networks due to differences in ideologies and policies. The realist paradigm is thus misleading in its claim that U.S foreign policy is founded purely on partisan interest such as oils and other precious property that its allies could be endowed with.
The realist paradigm has misguided the U.S foreign policy makers to coin policies that keep the U.S away from the rest. This explains, for example, why the U.S refused to join the League of Nations and become a member and signatory to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court. This kept its allies at a distance while reserving its sovereignty and diplomatic sense superiority. However, the rise in terrorist insurgency has forcefully pushed U.S to adopt a flexible foreign relations stance evident in its membership to the United Nations Security Council and support of the operations of the United Nations. This shows how the separatist perspective guided by the realist perspective failed.