These places were all considered "rogue states" at some point, i.e. places that openly neglected the very same rule of law which protects others. Being a 'rogue' state may leave you open to being bullied, but that's hardly inconsistent with rule of law being very important.
International politics is rule by power rather than rule of law. The person you're replying to got it right.
it seems, then, the only thing stopping these rogue states are powers or coalitions of powers with the potential to dominate them (or i guess survive) via conflict, either via subterfuge or military means, and the will to do so. put more simply, reigning in Iraq or Nicaragua is a hell of a lot easier than Israel. why is that, if not for power differentials?
That still doesn't change the reality that the US broke international laws [0] under the pretext of supposedly enforcing them.
And it did so in a very calculated and premeditated way [1] that justified everything on a domestic legal basis, while completely disregarding international law and institutions like they do not matter at all.
Imagine if China would pass a law declaring how their soldiers and government officials can't be held accountable by any international body, how would that be framed by US media?
Yet in the US, this has been established legal reality for close to two decades and plenty of US Americans defend it like it's the most normal thing in the world due to their internalized "exceptionalism".
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...