All of the justification in this moment reads to me like: Trump is giving different segments of his coalition reasons to get off the fence and on his side. It’s something different for Rubio than for DoD than for the oil cronies. It’s not really about persuading anyone outside of Trump’s coalition.

I don’t think anyone in int’l law is mistaken about the constraint that enforcement is so thoroughly contingent. The argument is just that the stability elicited from int’l law amongst players trying to (mostly) cooperate can have utility.

One can look at the shadow of drug boat strikes and reasonably conjecture that there are some undisclosed collaborative relationships.

Pretty much. It’s a counting semaphore underneath.

Sort of in the middle, id games always felt tight. The engines were immersive not only because of graphics, but basic i/o was excellent.