Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of the Representatives, last week said he was considering introducing legislation to sanction International Criminal Court officials. He added that the US does not consider any legal system to be above American sovereignty. However, this attitude greatly harms the US. Before anything else, it compromises its credibility and compromises an international system that favors the US. After the Second World War, the victorious states put together a world order that favored themselves. The losers in the war, such as Germany and Japan, were dismissed. The postwar world order legitimized US supremacy. Hence, it has a vested interest in asking states to respect it. By saying that Israel and the US do not have to abide by any system above their own sovereignty, Washington is hugely undermining its credibility. It wants to create a system that it can impose on others but with which itself and its allies do not need to comply. The irony is that the current Gaza war broke out after the Ukraine war. If the US does not respect the ICC, how can it expect Vladimir Putin to respect it? Karim Khan said in a media interview that he received a call from a senior leader, who told him that the ICC was “built for Africa and thugs like Putin.” This should be extremely embarrassing for the West. Though Khan did not name the official, the official position of the US has not been far from such a statement. Hence, the US expects the world to abide by the decisions of the institution it set up to ensure its supremacy in the post-Second World War era. At the same time, it is not ready to abide by the court’s decisions itself. This might have worked if we were still in a unipolar moment. However, the US’ competitors will today take advantage of this arrogance. This offers a golden opportunity for countries like Russia and China to engage with the Global South. The Western world’s attitude to the Gaza war has been a flagrant demonstration of its double standards. While Russia was crippled with sanctions for attacking Ukraine, Israel faces nothing but some occasional light criticism from the Biden administration. Countries like China and Russia have already begun trying to create a parallel system to the US-led structure. The BRICS grouping, which was founded in Russia in 2009, was able to attract countries with huge populations and gross domestic products like China and India. And the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which gathers Eurasian countries, has been described as a rival to NATO. These organizations, which have been emerging over the last 20 years, have been challenging the postwar order, in which global politics is US and Europe-centric. EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borell was very wise when he alluded to the fact that European countries will have to either stand with Israel or with international law. He said the bloc would have to state its position on last week’s International Court of Justice ruling that ordered Israel to halt its Rafah offensive. In fact, the international law he refers to is one that favors Europe and the West. He understands that, if European countries do not stand up and respect international law, no one will. This will definitely strengthen Putin’s case against the international community and the international justice system. Nevertheless, the US is still sticking with its unwavering support of Israel. One might ask why. Johnson’s excuse is that the international system cannot be above American sovereignty. However, this is exactly the definition of international law. It is an international body above national sovereignty However, American lawmakers are blinded by campaign funding and their desire to get reelected. This means the national interest is being subjugated by special interest groups. There is no clearer example than the statement made by Johnson. Here, the interests of Israel, which are being pursued by a small segment of affluent pro-Israel Americans, come before the interests of the nation. The interest of the US is to maintain the international order that guarantees its supremacy. Israel is the most flagrant example of the US national interest being hijacked by special interest groups. In a way, lawmakers have been able to make this compromise because, after the Cold War, the national interest became a vague concept. During the Cold War, it was clear. It was about containing communism. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a unipolar world, the national interest became a vague concept that could be influenced by special interests. Even the so-called war on terror instigated by the Bush administration was not a well-defined concept. That is unlike communism, which was spearheaded by a superpower competing with the US for global dominance. This gave a margin for politicians to interpret the national interest for the general public. They offer the explanation that best suits their donors and guarantees their reelection. Basically, this self-defeating attitude of the US boils down to the average politician and their reelection ambitions. This narrow political perspective is governing US policy and damaging its credibility and prestige. It is tragic but, in a nutshell, the current system of campaign financing allows special interest groups to dictate a policy that contradicts with the US’ national interest. It is in the US’ interest to be credible and to win the hearts and minds of the world’s population, especially in the Global South. However, short-term pragmatism and opportunism seem to overshadow true patriotism. Politicians should understand that the decisions they take today will extend beyond the war in Gaza, beyond the Middle East and beyond the next election cycle. They will affect the US’ standing in world affairs for years, if not decades, to come.