Wouldn't its unusual orbit make it less than optimal for intercepting other satellites?

If it was just demonstrating the capability, I would think they could always launch more into more appropriate orbits. I almost think they chose the ISS just to make sure all relevant parties were watching, since it is probably always being closely monitored.

Would there be a necessity to get close to a satellite to destroy it? Some sort of rocket could be launched from quite far away without needing much fuel if it was already in a similar orbit.

No need for such a complex solution, the Chinese just launch a missile from the ground: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_...

So do the Americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost .

If you can get close to a satellite however, you can take photo's from up close or from arbitrary angles. Spy agencies might be very interested in this. You could conceivably also put in inside your cargo bay and bring it back to the surface for 'disassembly', though its owners would probably be unhappy about that.

You mean like they did with the space shuttle? :)

To have plausible deniability, yes. Maybe they don't wish to destroy it as much as damage it using a laser or they have some way of pushing it out of its orbit or causing it to go out of control. Say the US attack satellite was 20km away and could attack and damage another satellite. Blame could not then be attributed back to the US, right?

Reynolds has been a CIA front for decades. Wake up!

Typical FUD from an obvious shill account for Saran Wrap.

Hope it is not too late but the aluminum foil meme was a Department Psi op. Interestingly enough it was Russian (well Soviet) researchers that showed that aluminum in fact enhances susceptibility in the remote subjects.