From “Data Republican”:

Every act that reasserts American sovereignty—on Iran, on trade, on immigration, on energy—is an act of regime change against the supranational order that has governed American life, foreign and domestic, for at least 70 years. The strikes on Khamenei’s compound are a demonstration that a sovereign nation, acting in its own interest, does not need institutional permission. The Trump Administration just showed that the veto that the multilateral order spent decades embedding into American foreign policy—through think tanks, through NGOs, through carefully managed BRICS adversaries—can simply be ignored.

I assume she has a reason for saying that this viewpoint “has governed American life … for at least 70 years,” but I think that time frame isn’t correct. I think “governing” American life came considerably later, although the idea or the effort to do it probably predates 70 years.

I agree, however, that Trump’s policies are absolutely the antithesis of those goals and that this is one very good reason why the Western European elites oppose nearly everything he does and everything he says. He is the epitome of American bluster and power and is much less afraid than previous American presidents in recent years to use both, if necessary, to advance the interests of this nation. Sometimes those interests actually benefit other nations, as well – as presently is true for the Iranian people and even for the safety of Europe. But Western Europe’s leftist leaders don’t want to admit it.

In law school long ago, I studied international law. I was a Democrat back then, but I quickly decided that international law was a very limited instrument, good for deciding certain relatively minor disputes between nations that had already decided to submit to its rulings, and good for little else.

In 2006 I wrote on the topic and reposted it in 2024. Here are some excerpts:

Furthermore, there’s a general principle involved, one that should be readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of sense:

To be “bound” by a certain law, one (or both) of two things need to be true: (1) the “bound” entity has to agree to the authority of those administering the law; (2) the authority has to have the power of enforcement over that entity.

The International Red Cross has neither over Hezbollah at this point. The only way it would get that power–and it could never obtain #1, only #2–is by a military defeat of Hezbollah, a capture of its leaders, and the act of subsequently bringing them before an international tribunal.

And, of course, to defeat Hezbollah would require a response the International Red Cross already has already condemned as violating the principles of proportionality, since Hezbollah is well aware of the value of hiding behind civilians, and does so purposely and frequently. So, how in heaven’s name would any international court ever get authority over Hezbollah, except to try them in absentia? And a fat lot of good that would do, except as meaningless theater.

It’s all empty posturing, although many people accept it as valid because they want it to be valid. I also would like for nations to beat their swords into ploughshares, as in Isaiah. But meanwhile, there is “A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.”