I have my doubts that any nation is going to accept the precedent that other nations can have authority over their use of military force.
That also sets a difficult precedent, both for soldiers and the court. If following an order to participate in an invasion of another country, while only engaging with valid military targets according to the rules of war, is a war crime if the international community later decides it wasn’t justified then soldiers will become war criminals not because of their actions being brutal or unethical, but because they were insufficiently aware of the global opinion of a war.
Second, it potentially puts the court in a position where they suddenly need to imprison literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers, to say nothing of arresting and trying them. This could easily make the court appear toothless when they fail to have the power to arrest the US army, nor to actually have a place to put them.
I don’t think they’re that clever. Seriously. I think that all the “distractions” are crazy things their major supporters want (less regulation on putting raw sewage in drinking water), crazy things their policy architects want for stupid or awful reasons (ending birthright citizenship because you think America should be a white Christian nation), naked adoration for dictators because they’re what running a country like a business looks like, or just the most transparent “negotiation” that burns good will because you don’t understand that getting an agreement is good, and getting an agreement where the other side is happy too is better.
Threaten tariffs and wait a while to let the other side offer something to get you to not do it. Threaten to annex Greenland, and then compromise on guaranteed transit rights in their territorial waters and maybe some resource extraction agreements. Same for the Panama canal.