Yes, but reading it and understanding it are two different things.
I can only surmise as a comparison to my question to you,
that the appeals court says that the state of Arizona cannot enact laws making counterfeiting; selling illegal liquor; or manufacturing illegal firearms illegal;
because those things have federal jurisdiction?
To a degree, especially with respect to counterfeiting. With some of the other things you mentioned, there may be concurrent state/federal interest and jurisdiction. For instance, there might be OSHA or EPA regulations that apply to all of those things, in addition to other limitations or regulations that the states mandate, right?
Where the supremacy clause would be germane in all of your examples, is if the states tried to enact a regulation that countervailed a federal law. That's not allowable. But, with respect to this particular case at bar, the establishment of foreign policy falls exclusively to the federal government, or so the court (and several before it) has held.