Right, this is like an Orson Scott Card fantasy. Which, don't let me yuck your yums or anything, but no, this isn't really a possible scenario. Israel will be an Article 5 NATO member before it is a military adversary of the United States (neither thing will happen, but if we're betting on impossible scenarios.)
I agree that the scenario is quite unlikely but I brought it up to dispute an argument you made: That, as the US has to negotiate with Israel, they have to go against the ICC.
My point is that the US could "assent to the validity of the ICC charges". The "fantasy" is several unlikely escalations away after that, and even that scenario is something that the US could deal with.
So ruling out that they go against the ICC because they have to, we can conclude that they go against the ICC because they want to.
The US doesn't even assent to the validity of the ICC itself, let alone the recent charges. If the whole argument is an attempt to dispose of the question of whether the US cooperates with, recognizes, or cares about the ICC, that question is disposed of: the US does not. I think the Hague Liberation bill is silly and performative, but let the record show that we have a statute obligating us to invade the Hague if the ICC breathes on us the wrong way.
Something like half the world's population doesn't acknowledge the ICC. And the ICC hasn't covered itself in glory over the last 20 years --- the Darfur fiasco being the most obvious example.
All this just brings me back to: the ICC charges are a political act (fair enough! politics matter!) and should be evaluated on their political effectiveness. The predictable result of the charges: the leader of the only political party in the US that even ostensibly cares about Palestine disavowed the charges. How'd that help?
