Charles Glaser's Rationalist Theory of International Politics nicely extends his work on contingent realism begun in the mid-1990s. The rationalist theory he puts forward focuses on three main causal variables: material factors such as the offense-defense balance and power; informational variables, primarily leader uncertainty about the motives of key adversaries; and a state's motives per se, namely, whether it is a security-seeking actor of has "greedy" non-security reasons for acting. This article focuses on two groups of arguments the author found powerful; arguments that start from a rationalist foundation but which potentially undermine the generalizability and empirical value of Glaser's theory. Adapted from the source document.