Congratulations are in order for President Trump — and Secretary of State Pompeo — in the wake of the latest news from the International Criminal Court. In a surprising, and all the more welcome, move, the Hague-based solons this morning unanimously rejected a bid by the court’s own chief prosecutor to open an investigation into whether our GIs and intelligence operators committed crimes in Afghanistan.

When we say that’s surprising, it’s not to suggest that our forces in Afghanistan deserve an investigation by the ICC. They don’t. It is to suggest that a pro-American decision from the ICC is like . . . how to put it? . . . the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the Trump administration on anything. The Afghanistan decision was just off-script for the ICC.

The ICC backed down after the Trump administration took a heretofore un-tried hard line in respect of the court’s gumshoes. Mr. Trump, Mr. Pompeo, and National Security Adviser Bolton made it clear that they see the ICC as a threat to our sovereignty. Mr. Pompeo went so far as to warn that if the court opened an investigation, its personnel would be blocked from entering America.

Such a hard line was met with what we called, in an editorial last month, “howls of outrage by the hard left.” Human Rights Watch called Mr. Pompeo’s position “thuggish.” The ICC itself insisted that the court was “independent” and that it would carry on with its work “undeterred.” Yet just last week, the Trump administration went ahead and revoked the visa for the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda.

Only then came the ICC’s retreat. The court, though, shrank from crediting the Trump-Pompeo doctrine, insisting that the prosecutor had established “a reasonable basis to consider that crimes within the ICC jurisdiction have been committed in Afghanistan and that potential cases would be admissible before the Court.” It carped instead about the time elapsed since a preliminary probe began.

It did also reference “the lack of cooperation that the Prosecutor has received.” Plus it said such cooperation “is likely to go scarcer should an investigation be authorized,” thus “hampering the chances of successful investigation and prosecution.” It also noted “the need for the Court to use its resources prioritizing activities that would have better chances to succeed.”

So it reckoned that the “prospects for a successful investigation and prosecution” are “extremely limited.” It called “unlikely” the prospect that “pursuing an investigation would result in meeting the objectives listed by the victims favoring the investigation.” Which means, it concluded, that an investigation of the Afghan situation “would not serve the interests of justice.”

This is not simply a Trump administration triumph or even a Republican issue. The long record makes clear that both Republican and Democratic presidents have understood that the treaty underlying the International Criminal Court wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in the Sudan of getting ratified by the United States Senate. No American president has submitted the treaty for ratification.

In an extraordinary statement this afternoon, the White House made clear that it will act to protect not only our own GIs. Israeli and allied personnel, will be protected as well. “Any attempt to target American, Israeli, or allied personnel for prosecution,” it said, “will be met with a swift and vigorous response.” The doctrine reflects the fact that our GIs are under the jurisdiction of our own juridical authorities.

Those authorities, like the courts in Israel, have shown themselves to be perfectly capable of dealing with any violations. So the ICC could have ended up in contempt of America’s own courts. The principles that the Trump administration is marking could not be more important. The International Criminal Court is only part of the challenge. Let other multilateral organizations pay heed.