Incorrect.

"Japan lies beyond the effective reach of China’s A2/AD capabilities and could thus be supplied from its eastern ports." https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/2021-04-28/washington-avoiding-tough-questions-taiwan-and-china?utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=lo_flows&utm_campaign=registered_user_welcome&utm_term=email_1&utm_content=20210501

The Rhineland and Sudetenland are not core U.S. interests, this appears to be arguing.

Oooffff

"All that said, even if Chinese conventional capabilities did grow as a result of control over Taiwan, it wouldn’t matter as much; because the United States would no longer be committed to protecting Taiwan, the odds of a major war with China would drop precipitously."

I'd like several historical examples of times where major powers conceded a security commitment and the risk of war dropped precipitously. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I'm saying I can't think of one.

This would not work:

"What would this policy look like in practice? The United States would make its revised position public, thereby laying the foundation to minimize pressure from foreign policy elites and the public to intervene if China attacked Taiwan."

This is a counterfactual. The problem is that we are the global super power and remain so. That's what makes the whole situation tricky.

"Retrenchment may not be getting the hearing it deserves because it clashes with the United States’ self-perception as the global superpower."

If we weren't the global superpower we could just shuffle the deck and reorder our commitments and continue to sell our wares and protect our shipping under the new Chinese regime. But we can't do that. We have this wolf by the ears.

This is an argument for Carthaginian security. Alas and alack, we are Rome.