Will America pivot back to President Obama’s “pivot to Asia”? A battle royale is brewing around President Trump’s nominee to serve as policy chief in the Department of Defense, Elbridge Colby. A grandson of the CIA director in the 1970s, William Colby, the 45-year-old widely known as Bridge pursues policy tenets that  might be summed up, to paraphrase the Godfather’s Peter Clemenza, as “leave the Middle East, take China.”

Although much more nuanced than that, Mr. Colby’s national security recommendations are based on the premise that since America’s resources are limited, and as Communist China’s power rises, America will need to prioritize: Our European and Mideast allies will increasingly handle their own affairs, as America grows its military to deter Beijing from dragging America into possible Asian wars, such as defense of Free China. 

“Israel is one of our very closest allies in the world. And I think it’s very important for us to stand by them,” Mr. Colby told the New York Times’ Ross Douthat in October. “Ukraine, I sympathize and support their self-defense, but an attack on one of our key allies in the Middle East is a different situation. But first and foremost must come the U.S. ability to defeat Chinese aggression.” Does any of this sound like Secretary Clinton’s “Pivot to the Pacific”? 

That policy was a bust. America indeed reduced military presence in the Atlantic, but did not beef it up in the Pacific. Instead, Mr. Obama used the slogan to appease Mideast foes, like Tehran. Rather than Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Colby’s supporters highlight his alignment with President Trump. “There is no daylight between the president, the vice president, and Bridge Colby on their Middle East views,” a source close to Vice President Vance tells us.

Indeed, Mr. Colby supports some Mideast hawks in Mr. Trump’s foreign policy team, including national security adviser Mike Waltz, soon-to-be ambassador Elise Stefanik, and his likely future boss, Pete Hegseth. Yet some Israel supporters in America are leery of his nomination. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, for one, is urging Senators to pose tough questions to Mr. Colby at his upcoming hearings. 

“You have previously advocated for a drawdown of U.S. military forces in the Middle East, leaving only a significantly smaller counterterrorism-focused force. What would be the consequences of such a withdrawal for U.S. interests and those of our key allies and partners?” the group’s chief executive, William Daroff, writes to senators, as first published by Semafor. Other Jewish organizations are less concerned. 

“Mr. Colby understands that a strong and secure Israel is in America’s interests,” the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Matt Brooks and Norm Coleman write. Indeed, we like Mr. Colby’s July, 2023 observation: “Instead of a bear hug of Israel, Washington should defer more to Israel’s judgment about how best to manage its security challenges.” Yet, some in Mr. Trump’s circles urge to distance America from the Mideast, and Israel, altogether.

Is Mr. Colby one of them? The jury is out. “If Iran’s provocations need to be answered, Washington must do so in a way that limits military involvement in the Middle East,” he wrote in a much-cited 2019 article, adding, “if this means doing less than we might like against Iran, so be it.” Similarly, Mr. Colby opposes military action against the Houthis, a group that is violating one of America’s oldest tenets, the defense of freedom of navigation in the high seas. 

Sun alumnus Ben Smith writes in Semafor that Mr. Colby is part of a group that includes the president’s son, Don Jr., former TV host Tucker Carlson, and others who are more isolationist than past Republican administrations. Which brings us back to the “pivot” ruse: A strongheaded approach to Beijing is much needed, but the idea that America can turn its back on the Mideast has been tested before. The region always ends up commanding our attention.